The politics of food safety are just plain weird in the United States.
There is a new Produce Safety rule out for public comment, and it seems to me that it's more about business and politics than food safety.
How do they justify exempting small businesses from the new rules? Surely not on the basis of food safety. In fact, some of the small operations are likely to be ignorant about even elementary food safety practices and risks.
How do they justify exempting some food processors on the basis of employing fewer than 500 people. Is it safer with 499 than with 501?
Why do they offer various degrees of exemptions from the rules based on annual sales of $250,000, $500,000 and $1 million?
Why are peanuts and tree nuts considered low risk?
Why are chopping, shelling, salting, drying, grinding, mixing, and packing food considered low-risk activities, but not bacteria-destroying activities such as baking, boiling, cooking, concentration, evaporation, and roasting?
I'd like to hear or see the politics behind those distinctions.
Ah, but if the U.S. goes ahead with this proposed set of rules, watch the Canadian produce industry fall in line if for no other reason than to preserve export sales to the U.S.
But, then again, the Harper government might simply say "me, too."
