First reaction: Are you kidding me?
According to this ABC News article legislation was passed with the Bioterrorism Act (in 2002) to thoroughly inspect all food that entered the U.S. Apparently, this isn't going exactly as planned. Rejected packages were to be marked with a label of some sort reading "UNITED STATES REFUSED ENTRY. " The problems encountered so far include that some of the exports are just sent to a less thorough port and then passed, as well as "lack of funds, lack of political will, competing priorities and industry opposition" (as the Food and Drug Administration puts it). Another problem: "The FDA has yet to set specifications on such details as how big the mark should be and where it should go."
Wait, what? Because the FDA cannot decide which pretty colors and which size to make this mark or where it should go (how about on the front, yeah? Or maybe in more than one place, imagine!), U.S. citizens could possible be at danger from tainted exports, poor production systems, and what was the act preventing again? Oh yeah, bioterrorism. Maybe they could step up. It's only been five years.
Supposedly they're calling for renewed interest in these proposals because Congress obviously lost some of its concern. These include higher standards for imports. I understand that they cannot analyze every little import, but at the same time, the article cites that only one percent is actually inspection. They even use computers to do it. I'm not so sure this is the best idea though...the systems are so outdated, the inspectors "'cannot even distinguish imports of road salt from table salt,' former FDA official Hubbard told a congressional committee last month."
The only reasonable argument I found in the whole article dealt with the freedom of speech (and I bet you could guess how important that is to me). It reads, "In a 2003 citizens petition to the FDA, food associations argued that the marks could infringe on free speech rights because importers would be forced to make a 'derogatory statement' about their products. They also said the 'bold and blanket' mark might reduce the importers' ability to sell goods 'even in countries where the product may be lawfully marketed.'"
Just some food for thought.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
That's a really interesting post...
I wonder how many packages a year are inspected, fail, are rerouted, and enter the country anyway. Kinda depressing if you think about it. Just another reason to buy local if you can...