E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe two-plus years of the Obama presidency have featured an ideological war over the role of government -- in managing the economy, providing health care coverage, and regulating Wall Street.
But when it comes to the U.S. government ensuring food safety, there's little disagreement.
A new poll for the Pew Charitable Trusts -- conducted by Hart Research Associates (the Democratic half of the NBC/WSJ poll) and American Viewpoint (a GOP polling firm) -- finds that 85% of Americans believe the federal government should have the responsibility to make sure food is safe to eat.
In addition, 66% favor increasing funding for the federal Food and Drug Administration so it can carry out its new responsibilities under the new Food and Safety Modernization Act. And 67% agree with the statement that any price increase related to food safety likely will be less than 1% and that this small increase is worth it. That's compared with 29% who say the new requirements will drive up food costs for consumers.
The poll also finds this result: A majority of the public (53%) thinks the government should do more to solve problems and meet the needs of people, versus 42% who believe the government is doing too much.
The poll was taken of 1,015 likely voters (including 202 reached by cell phone) from April 28 to May 4. It has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.
Leave a Comment:
Uh Oh 85% of Americans believe the federal government should have the responsibility to make sure food is safe to eat. Ron Paul is not going to like this government intrusion; dunno about the Koch brothers though.
Any how Ron Paul can always grow and eat his food at home since he thinks the government should not tell a business anything about their business.
You mean 85% of Americans aren't in favor of eating E-Coli tainted eggs, lettuce, tomatoes and so on?
Who would of GUESSED?
The small government Tea Partiers will not like these results. Guess they are willing to ride on gravel roads and eat E-Coli tainted food.
From a post in another thread:
I might turn this around and say...
...and apparently you can't disagree with President Obama without being accused of being a racist!
WELCOME TO THE CLUB!
I don't know, guys- to steal a phrase from one of our more brilliant posters: "I loves me some of that animal fat and sodium".
in the republicants world, 85% = minority. that's how you see things when you're in bed with the money bags.
Actually peek a boo, that is how you see things when your a blind lemming, Obama worshiping nutjob. I see the Obama knee pads sold out at the DNC website that is selling Obama tee shirts. Seems a LARGE order was shipped to Roselle, Il and Chicago. Too bad, I would have bought you a pair. You need them
Has anyone else been stupid enough to try Denny's Bacon Sundae, or do I stand alone on the boulevard of broken dreams? :o
I, for one, am thankful for the fed's role in food safety. I'm particuarly fond of all the little stickers on fruit and veggies stating what country they're from. :D
This will be crazy to the government must do everything lovers. With the FDA budget cut and there being a lack of food inspectors, wouldn't the States do a better job inspecting food produced in their states?
Beverly in Chicago..
Any how Ron Paul can always grow and eat his food at home since he thinks the government should not tell a business anything about their business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The government should not tell business how to run their business if they are obeying the law.
How very true.
Who cares, after Tomorrow, the World will cease to exist!
I'll finally be able to watch these So-Called Christain Conservatives come crashing back to ground with a hardy Thump after being "Rejected" from the Pearly Gates!
To all of ya which I read Daily, you've done a good job!
See some of ya wherever we end up!
You Betcha!
Well, duh. Government only HAS a role in food safety because private business doesn't do it unless they know they'll be made to do it. The people who promote leaving it to private business are the same ones who oppose the ability of people to collect damages when they are injured for these kinds of things.
Greedy trial lawyers, they claim. Greedy business, more like it.
Every school kid should be forced to read Upton Sinclair's THE JUNGLE.
Heck, every adult should be forced to read THE JUNGLE. And then I'd like to hear those numbers.
You think they're high now? They would no doubt go UP.
Are we better off if we go or if we stay? I say it all depends on who goes and who stays.
Wherever that is, though, I sure hope the food is safe.
I couldn't eat meat for a year after I read that in High School!
BLECH!
Whether it's the FDA or EPA or consumer protection agencies (most recently finance practices), the GOP/TP will be against it. Sure, these agencies aren't always perfect, but when it comes down to it, Americans don't want to go back to the days of Buyer Beware and snake oil salesmen.
Now, if only we could get the GOP/TP to keep government out of our lives in regard to legislating morality (requiring ultrasounds, doctors to read government issued statements, and a waiting period during which women would be forced to be berated by pro-life activists prior to abortion), or to keep insurance companies from coming between us and our doctors, or to stop making it harder to vote--heck, how about Republicans just keep their pants on?!
It's absolutely Government's responsibility we have food shipped in from many countries we have no control over the quality and safety of what's being sold to us. Europe has been doing this for years even Canada has better standards.
No one should have to die because of the Deregulation of food. Why is this even a question. Simply because Republicans insist that Government has no role in protecting its citizens, even in what's being sold to us. As long as the sellers are making a buck the Republicans are all for it!
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Makes you wonder why republicans insist on cutting the FDA's budget. Clearly they do not listen to polls or voters. We wanted Wall Street re-regulated, we wanted a consumer protection agency, we like medicare and social security, want safe food and drugs, want clean air and water, want the subsidies to Big Oil eliminated and yet--the republicans filibuster, cut budgets and have plans to deregulate anything they can. The GOPTP, not on the side of people.
The proposal was for a $243 million dollar cut to the growth of the funding of the FDA, back to 2010 levels. That's was about 10%. The FDA can make that up by using the old tried and true Obama Policy that has worked to perfection in so many other areas by getting rid of redundancy, waste, fraud, and abuse.
Jody:
They only wanted to cut 10% back to previous levels. If you guys would take the time to read and UNDERSTAND without the ideological bend; you would know this.
ALL govermental agencies are full of waste and abuse.
The GOP not on the side of people is getting old. I guess 50% of the country is just a number to you.
BTW: I didn't send my representative to D.C. to react and vote according to polls.
JAS and ITM, you are both begging the question.
It sounds realistic to say cut back "only" 10 percent to last year's levels. But that doesn't account for increased population, increased food imports, natural disasters around the world that may have compromised our food supply.
Jody's point was that the call is often to just cut the budget without considering all of the ramifications. Something both of you seem to echo when you call for more streamlining and better oversight.
" the call is often to just cut the budget without considering all of the ramifications"
Bull. To leftists there is zero concern of the ramifications to their unlimited call to expand government budgets endlessly , without a care as to the effectiveness of their wasteful bloated corrupt programs, and the drain on the private sector.
fielden - Thank you for the reasoned reply, and your points are valid.
Certainly we would all love to have our government services increased year over year, but with the current economic condition of the federal government, that doesn't look to be in the cards. The FDA, just like Defense, just like Homeland Security, just like HHS, will all have to do more with less as we move forward. Are there ramifications for doing so to each? Certainly. But it's at the point now where each federal department has to stay true to their priorities and realize they can't do it all.
JoAnnaSmith1
ut it's at the point now where each federal department has to stay true to their priorities and realize they can't do it all.
................................................................................................
Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government is responsible for every activity of Americsan life? It says that powers not specifically reserved to the federal branch are reserved to the states. The feds can't do everything and they don't have the money to pay for everything.
Well I live in Florida and do not want my state government involved with food inspection. They are busy pushing people off Medicaid, defunding education and cutting business taxes.
Maybe, but would you mind telling me EXACTLY how making a 10 percent reduction in funding will result in the reduction of waste and abuse? And unless you identify exactly where the waste and abuse exists, then how can you say whether 10 percent is the right number? Especially where the risk is that people might be injured or worse because of the cuts.
If you're honest with yourself, then you know that 10 percent is nothing more than an arbitrary number that makes unthinking people feel better in the short term but in reality yields no practical results.
And in this case, the results could potentially cost people lives. I'm sure you're comfortable with that because you think it will save you money. Let's just hope it's not YOU or one of your loved ones who is injured as a result of those cuts.
Because we already know that, when given a chance not to self-regulate, business inevitably chooses not to self-regulate.
This is nothing more than a ridiculous red herring. No one is saying that government should do everything. But there are some things, and this is one of them, that only government can do effectively. YOU need to read THE JUNGLE and see what happens when government DOESN'T do it.
As for where it says it in the Constitution, there are two places, at least. One is the general welfare clause, cited by Salt Grass, and the other is the Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government the specific authority to regulate commerce. I'm relatively sure that if I thought about it, I could find some more.
Anna Molly.
So you're saying the government is an effective tool?
The Jungle...that's a book right?
General welfare is kind of vague, don't you think?
So you want to expand the definition of interstae commerce to include food inspections? I don't think that was the intent of the law.
It's also interesting how conservatives think going back in time is a solution. They don't take into account the growing population, the new problems from mass production, mass distribution, etc.
To JoAnnaSmith & Co., just move to some place like China, and you can have all the lead in your paint, antifreeze in your toothpaste, and gypsum in place of your full dose of medication to your hearts desire.
Let's move forward, not backward.Vote for Dems - Obama/Biden 2012!
Don't worry...I'm sure "no joe" has a poll that contradicts these results.
Or just make one up.
I remember well, how the blog exploded with RWNJ's - most seemed to come from Texas and Georgia - complaining about how the new regs would hurt small farmers, local "organic" producers, and so forth. They spead nothing but falshoods andmisrepresentations of the law then. And of course after that, the regulation of food supply saftey joined the long list of Tea Party complaints about 'big government" trampling on "freedom."
This poll is wonderful.
NOW we have yet another angle in the insane ideological policy of the Ryan budget with which to slap the GOP/TP in the face.
It is an absolute that the protection/quality of food, water, and air should be a role of government.
I want to know where the Congress gets their groceries, etc. I'd like to live awhile long, thank you.
Oh! Don you just piss off the Tea-baggers! Here it comes in 3..2..1..
My poll shows 99.9% of the moonbats here are in favor of drinking the governemnt regulated and subsidized , MSNBC Obama-lover Kool Aid....
Why don't you go and have yourself a nice big heaping helping of uninspected spinach salad?
And have a hot cup of tea.
Bob+numbers==The Obama kool aid is more desirable than the kool aid that you are peddling. BTW Say Hi to Boss Hog for me. Have a nice day. A. Moonbat
x
Wow that was faster than I thought! I told you Don (San Antonio)! Now they are calling you a moonbat!
This Pew Poll was a moonbat softball pitch down the middle..
"Do you like your food to be safe?? "
A nice lefty spin, to ask innocous questions about 'food safety" , then spun to mean we all worship Government as much as the leftie loons in here...
Bob, so how do you think they should have asked the question? How about, would you be willing to pay higher prices for your food because the government is interfering with profits by making sure food companies follow safety rules and regulations.
Did you actually read the poll or are you pulling a Jon Kyl and making up "facts?" If the article would just put a link to the poll questions then it would be real easy. Oh wait, they did!!
Loons are beautiful birds - thank you, Bob.
Bob: perhaps not all of us got your memo about needing to hide under our beds until the big bad government was replaced by....(what exactly...Bob the Builder)?
Oh well, let us remember, these Republicans-Tea People just make up their own facts, to present to the low information voters, that are stuck on stupid.
Job1..
Fact. The outbreaks of salmonella in lettuce and spinach crops as well as the meat industry were a direct result of lack of inspection by the FDA. Nice job guys.
That's why we need more government regulations on business.
Job1..
That's why we need more government regulations on business.
................................................................................
It was the government regulators, the food inspectors, that blew it. We need more of that.
So a good majority of the American people are for food safety, OK, who wouldn't be for food safety. The question is, why would 20% not be for food safety.
I guess these 20% are kind of stupid.
Job1===You are not playing nice about Bob+numbers.
FRL
Well, that just goes to show you how soft Americans of the non-ultraconservative persuasion are getting with their dependence on the nanny state. Real Americans don't need no stinking food safety laws. A little dose of salmonella or E. Coli every now and then builds character!
Likely, because they're the same ones who are tainting our food in the name of a fast buck! ;o)
But they have to eat the stuff, too, don't they? Or do you think they're wealthy enough to afford food tasters?
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Likely, because they're the same ones who are tainting our food in the name of a fast buck! ;o)
.......................................................................
Yeah, the GOP has a special squad of people on farms to taint our food. hahahaha!
You NEVER know Houston - from the looks of they don't miss too many meals! ;o)
I'm going to go out on a limb, here, and ask:
What is it, EXACTLY, that makes folks want to see inspections of our food and water cut back to ANY levels?
(I already know the answer, I just want to see if any of them are honest enough to say...)
DBO
my reason........the koch brothers and cronies alike will stop giving me MONEY.
Well, Groucho, how will it be known if business complies with the law unless there are government inspectors?
That's the whole point: if a business passes the government inspection, THEN they are allowed to go about their business!
annika from s.f.
Well, Groucho, how will it be known if business complies with the law unless there are government inspectors?
...............................................................................
Use State inspectors. State inspectors are used to inspect construction sites, cars and a whole lot more. Why not food?
Food travels across state lines and some comes in from other countries. I trust the Federal government inspectors over the state inspectors to track the shipments from state to state.
Groucho,
You have a great idea. I’m sure it would be more
efficient and cost less to create food and drug inspectors in every State than
to have centrally located operations that distributes to all the States. So instead
of inspecting grapes in CA prior to shipment how about we inspect them as they arrive in each state.
Of course, unlike the Feds, the States have plenty of funds to hire food and drug inspectors at no additional costs to the residents.
Job1..
I trust the Federal government inspectors over the state inspectors to track the shipments from state to state.
........................................................................
Yeah them State inspectors are just redneck idiots. They can't be trusted except to do stuff like inspect construction sites, your car, gas lines, water lines, electric lines and about everything else in their States. Food would be to hard. You think the colors would confuse them.
OK, let Idaho inspect their potatos and then let Ohio inspect the same potato when it arrives there doubling the costs of inspections. And I'm sure you're gonna say that two states could do it cheaper than the government but not have any proof.
I never sad that. You said that.
Job1
I never sad that. You said that.
It was a copy and paste quote.
Did i take it wrong?
Aren't the states broke, too? So why would they be better to handle it, with 50 different sets of rules, than the Federal - to insure that the food is safe. The reason some of these things were tainted and poisoned and got past the FDA is that there are not enough inspectors as it is. Not because they weren't doing their jobs.
If the states can do so much better job, and can afford their own inspectors, then why haven't they dont that themselves in the past? It was because they didn't that the Fed has to come through so we're not all poisoned.
Dennis:
Plus, most states have a balanced-budget requirement, so they would have to cut back on food inspections when things got tight. That would really be a benefit. Whenever the food inspections were cut back, states would end up having fewer seniors and children whose health care they'd have to pay into, since those two groups succumb to food poisoning and die off more readily than other groups. Ayn Rand objectivism at its finest: Eliminate the weak so that they aren't a burden on the strong (and the rich).
We need a large Federal Government over a small Government. For these Republican-Tea Party people in office, or running for office preaching for small Government, well they are just flat out lying.
They love big Government and it's a talking point that they have been throwing out there sense the Reagan days.
Facts show that Big Government grew under President Reagan.
They like a big government that can tell you and me what movies should be shown, what clothes are allowed on the city street, what music that can be played.... you get the picture. A tea baggers dream world.
FrankH, Louisville,Ky
They like a big government that can tell you and me what movies should be shown, what clothes are allowed on the city street, what music that can be played..
You forgot what insurance you need to carry, the doctor you see, and how to plan for retirement. Ooops...wrong guys.
No, that would be the company I work for. The government doesn't care what doctor I see. Please don't get them confused.
Any grown adult who doesn't want to carry health insurance is a fool. If they get sick and can't pay the bill, well the tax payers pay. Moving forward, if you are citizen in the United States you should and will be insured.
Job1 Reagan was a hippocrate saying government wasn't the solution, but the problem, well as President he had no right to fire Air controllers because he was government. Besides that America was on it's way down economically since he became president & it snowballed with G W Bush. As soon as Reagan deregulated banks, out came all the fraud kings of Junk Bonds. All I'm saying is this country needs consumer protection more the ever in our history because of all the rotten apples in it trying to make a buck over a dead body they were responsible for. The FACTORY FARMS, they are disgusting if you ever get near one you'll never buy food from them. They won't let let you near one, you might get shot for exposing something they are doing illegally.
Dennis, Columbus, Ohio
Of course, unlike the Feds, the States have plenty of funds to hire food and drug inspectors at no additional costs to the residents.
...........................................
You're paying for it now with your tax dollars.
There are a limited number of farm states.
It creates real jobs and generates revenues which means more tax dollars to the state.
Yeah, limited number, like 49. I can't think of anything that's grown in Alaska but they do ship out plenty of seafood.
FrankH, Louisville,Ky
Yeah, limited number, like 49. I can't think of anything that's grown in Alaska but they do ship out plenty of seafood.
.....................................................
Actually Frank, only 10 states in the US t produce 70% of our crops, not 49.
You may saying that 10 states produce all the corn, wheat or rice, but every state produces some kind of food crop, be it berries, nuts, honey or specialty products.
FrankH, Louisville,Ky
You may saying that 10 states produce all the corn, wheat or rice, but every state produces some kind of food crop, be it berries, nuts, honey or specialty products.
Yep...small farms that don't get inspected by the FDA and don't export. May sell at a local farmers market. We3're not talking about toal farms in the US. We're talking about large corporate owned farms that grow and produce most of the crops sold in the US.
Oh, so now you are going to quantify your statement. Figures. You were on track to be proven wrong, so change the parameters.
Do yourself a favor, just google what food each state produce and then come back and tell me that only 10 states are subject to food inspections.
So that leaves 30% we're not supposed to check?
I just had to see if there was anyone out there who would argue for getting rid of the FDA. It looks like Houston & Bob over & kiss my ass have gone so far to the right that they actually share the same views as far left anarcists.
The Tea Party and GOP demand a smaller government until they get sick by food poisoning, a hurricane hits, their house floods, or if their Medicare or Social Security checks are either delayed or threatened to cease. Smaller government they demand until government is needed.
If the G W Bush Yrs didn't show you enough of who's not minding the store, then I suggest you find out where your food comes from the time it is grown, where at, under what conditions & how it is packaged. There is more need then ever with global trading for government inspectors looking out for our own well being in what we eat, how we work,live & what we breath. Industries won't care as long as they can save a buck. Republicans & Tea Baggers could care less also. Better leave the door wide open for consumer lawsuits when it comes down to food poisoning even in your pets food as it all did during the reckless Bush yrs. Just like Wall Street, without regulations you'll get screwed blue faster. With out regulations we become a dangerous country to live & breed in. You don't see the headlines in China of how many people are dying from poisons in their environment living right next to toxic factories & why they now are having a high incidence of cancer in young people. They don't want you to know. They should of learned a lesson from America's Industrial era.
I've always found it ironic that those who complain about us bankrupting our childrens future seem to be trying their level best to make sure there ISN"T a future for them to survive in...
Personally i am a firm believer that government has different efficiencies at different levels. Pushing every single cotton picking responsibility for protection of citizens and regulation of commerce to the state level does not inherently reduce the level of government interaction with our lives.
Furthermore, state governments have a history of doing whatever it takes to encourage business to move to their state even when it means cutting their throats economically in the long run.
What i personally see is that states are often far more interested in cutting deals at the expense of their citizens or even entirely without their knowledge or participation then the federal government is.
In the end government is still government and i see no inherent godliness and cleanliness at the state level that makes them better then the federal government at running everything.