Deregulation by another name
The loss of federal food safety inspectors — coming just after a controversy over a beef producers use of a meat filler known as pink slime — sounds about as palatable as a salmonella sandwich. But USDA officials say theres no reason to get queasy: The inspectors will be shifted to other tasks — microbiological testing and the like — that would reduce food-borne illness.
Its primarily a public health thing, and, by the way, it reduces spending, Brian Ronholm, deputy undersecretary of agriculture for food safety, told me Monday afternoon. There arent many opportunities an administration gets to achieve both goals.
The benefit to food safety is contested, but nobody disputes that the proposal would save the poultry industry more than $500 million over three years — quite a nugget. And thats the more important point. Whatever you think about chicken producers policing themselves, the idea is part of an Obama regulatory policy that has been rather more favorable to business than theUS Chamber of Commerces claims about a regulatory tsunami.
The Office of Management and Budget argues that the cost of new regulations in the Obama administrations first three years was lower than the previous three years, under theGeorge W. Bushadministration. Agencies issued 886 final rules in the Obama administrations first three years, compared with 931 in the final three Bush years. Obama officials, irking many consumer advocates and liberal watchdog groups, have delayed implementation of some new rules (including on food safety) and required federal agencies to reduce the costs of existing regulations.
Thats a small gesture compared with the pile of regulations that came with Obamacare and with the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul, but lately, industry has softened its criticism. Two weeks ago, the Business Roundtable, an organization of chief executives, issued a statement hailing the administrations effort to enact reforms that streamline the regulatory process, engage regulated parties earlier in the process and take account of the cumulative impact of regulations.
In truth, business doesnt have to worry much about its place in the pecking order. Even if the Obama administration were inclined to bring down capitalism with an orgy of overregulation, there isnt enough money in the budget to enforce the rules on the books. Thats what the chicken fight is about: Spending cuts, such as those Congress and President Obama agreed to last summer, are a form of de facto deregulation.
USDA inspector Trent Berhow, one of the demonstrators outside the Agriculture Department on Monday, said that chickens are just the canaries in the coal mine of food-safety deregulation. If it starts in chicken, eventually its going to continue on into red meat, into hogs and cattle, he said. No doubt about that.
John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said at Mondays protest that he spoke with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack about the change in poultry inspections. He said its budget cuts — we have to do it, Gage claimed. And hes hearing the same justification for reduced regulations across the federal government. Were going to see it in the Bureau of Prisons, in Social Security, in the VA — across the board, Gage said.
Thats not just chicken feed.
Fracking-Linked Earthquakes Spurring State Regulations Intrepid Mines Limited: Divestment Regulations, Indonesia