How about we have a Texas cage match of evil lobbyist to settle this. Two sides go in, only one side comes out.

"One side comes out???" YAJ, you're obviously soft on Evil Lobbyists!

Le gouvernement des États-Unis semble vouloir s'embarquer dans un projet qui devrait alarmer plus d'un citoyen consciencieux. Non je ne......

I do remember Alar and that's why I think it is best to have a single, federal entity that determines the safety of drugs and food additives to the best of available science at the time.

Corporations that rely on federal guidelines to assure the safety of their products should never be held culpable because later science changes its view. That includes asbestos, lead, and drugs.

But after years of seeing government agencies throwing away science and gobs of the funding they do get, I remain leery. The FDA is one of the better ones, when problems are noted it is usually the result of underfunding (and occasional political interference), but even it has come up with the occasional lulu.

Not that I love California's excessive influence and idiocies, especially in combination...

...

Oh, Penna. is a red herring: that "reg PA agricultural" tag means registered as a food supplier, not necessarily regulated except as to the content of the sold item. Out-of-state firms must register, but PA does not send inspectors out to Kansas to check the way corn or wheat is grown.

Is the Vioxx situation the fault of Bush appointees or long term civil service employees at the FDA? As for misleading labels, I had given up on manufacturer claims many years ago. Caveat emptor or whatever it is.

The simple answer concerning who should handle food regulation is no one. The relationship should be between the seller and buyer with any disputes falling under tort law. Simply, you hurt me with your product and you'll be responsible. Isn't that going on already even with government regulators?

The federal and state governments have both proven to be poor managers of food quality while the free market has done a fine job. Both governments fall prey to lobbying from both sides of the issue without really getting input from the average consumer. The input from the buyers come when they buy.

Remember Alar? The food police did a great job for the public on that one. They get their money from scaring the public so you can count on another scare coming soon.

The "organic" people want standards that protect market share and give the impression that their food is better without proof. Why should a government give them that sort of special treatment? It's no different than the standard puffery in labeling and advertising.

No, lets' keep government out it as much as possible. Federal, state, and local, just stick to the basics of governance.

CSPI is a hack organization. I met their director, Jacobson, some 30 years ago and he was as officious then as now. They get their knickers--and I assume colons--in a twist at the least provocation. And that least provocation usually turns out to be worthless in the end, anyway. I think single-interest organizations like CSPI are absolutely as corruptable--and often as corrupt--as any big business you'd like to name.