GOP: The FDA is for Suckers

So adding to the List of Things the GOP Hates: food safety regulation. Which makes sense since it's supposed to enhance public welfare and contains the word "regulation". On Tuesday, the House approved budget cuts to the FDA. These cuts affect legislation that was passed back in December (the first food safety overhaul since 1938).

...[T]he agency will not be able to meet many requirements of the new law, including increased inspections of food manufacturing plants, better coordination with state health departments, and developing the capacity to more quickly respond to food-borne illnesses and minimize their impact.

[...]

States have had to reduce food safety inspections and enforcement because of budget pressures and have been counting on new funding at the FDA, Saunders said. The FDA routinely contracts with states to perform inspections on its behalf. Virginia conducts about 400 a year under contract to the FDA, in addition to its own inspections, Saunders said.

The proposed budget cuts [will] also hinder the FDA’s ability to increase scrutiny of imported foods, according to food safety advocates. The new law requires the FDA to create a system of third-party certifiers to ensure that food coming into the United States meets the same safety standards as food produced domestically. Without additional funding, the FDA cannot create that system, said Erik Olson, director of food and consumer product safety programs at the Pew Health Group, part of a coalition of public health advocates and food makers.

“These cuts could seriously harm our ability to protect the food supply,” said Olson, who is hoping the money will be restored by the Senate, which has not proposed its spending plan.

The House subcommittee also proposed a $35 million cut to the Food Safety Inspection Service at the Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry and some egg products.

That's not all, though! It also will:

...[C]ut about $650 million — or 10 percent — from the Women, Infants and Children program that feeds and educates mothers and their children.

And you know what? That's not all. You see, the GOP have decided that the the Obama admin's push for healthier school lunches is not okay.

Under the guidelines, schools would have to cut sodium in subsidized meals by more than half, use more whole grains and serve low-fat milk. They also would limit kids to only one cup of starchy vegetables a week, so schools couldn't offer french fries every day.

The starchy vegetable proposal has been criticized by conservatives who think it goes too far and members of Congress who represent potato-growers. They say potatoes are a low-cost food that provides fiber and other nutrients.

Oh but they didn't cut everything, no. They fully funded a program, the Market Access Program. What is that? Well, it is designed to allow farmers to compete in the global marketplace:

The program, managed by the Agriculture Department, awards grants to nonprofit organizations, small businesses and large grower cooperatives, such as Sunkist, Welch’s and Blue Diamond, to promote their agricultural goods in foreign markets.

Last year, for example, the Cotton Council International, which represents the U.S. cotton industry, received $20.3 million through the program to help fund a popular reality television show in India featuring aspiring fashion designers.

Priorities!

Back the the hatred for regulations for a moment, an amendment was put forth regarding the FDA. Did you know that the Food and Drug Administration uses "soft science"? Who knew! Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT). He knew and decided to enlighten us all:

The most intense reaction was generated by a provision offered by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) that would block the FDA from issuing rules or guidance unless its decisions are based on “hard science” rather than “cost and consumer behavior.” The amendment would prevent the FDA from restricting a substance unless it caused greater harm to health than a product not containing the substance.

“The FDA is starting to use soft sciences in some considerations in the promulgation of its rules,” said Rehberg, who defined “hard science”, as “perceived as being more scientific, rigorous and accurate” than behavioral and social sciences.

“I hate to try and define the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist, between a sociologist and a geologist, but there is clearly a difference,” he told the committee.

His rider amendment has to do with the proposed menthol ban in cigarettes and also the widespread use of antibiotics in commercial farming. Where, of course, both industries say "Oh ho, there's no problem here!".

“This subcommittee has begun making some of the tough choices necessary to right the ship,” said Chairman [House Appropriations subcommittee] Jack Kingston.