President’s Budget Sells Out Safety

Statement of Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

Washington, DC – “The Bush Administration’s proposed 2008 budget falls far short of what is needed to protect the food we eat and water we drink. In addition to underfunding food safety and water infrastructure, the President’s budget proposal outlines the administration’s continued efforts to shift government responsibility to the private sector.

Last year, Food & Water Watch revealed that some of the nation’s largest chicken processors failed to meet federal Salmonella standards and E. coli outbreaks from produce drew America’s attention to food safety problems. At the same time, communities around the country struggled to repair and upgrade aging water systems.  Instead of providing needed funding for food safety inspectors and water treatment and infrastructure upgrades, the president’s budget hides stagnant government funding behind proposals for which he doesn’t have legislative authority – increased user fees for food safety inspections and subsidies for corporations to invest in water utilities.

Congress should reject the president’s food safety and water infrastructure proposals and develop a budget that ensures food and water are safe for America’s families.”   

Background: Privatizing Food Safety

The president’s proposal to increase the Food and Drug Administration’s food safety budget by only $10.6 million in the wake of last year’s massive recalls of spinach and lettuce from California is shocking.  The FDA is widely acknowledged to be severely underfunded for food safety – to the point that FDA inspectors visit food processing facilities once every ten years on average.

Additionally, the proposed budget for the FDA includes so-called user fees, which would be charged to companies that need to be visited a second time by FDA inspectors because of violations found on a previous visit.  The establishment of $23 million worth of user fees improperly shifts the funding of government safety inspection to private industry, potentially compromising the independence of government inspectors by making agencies dependent on inspected corporations for their budgets.

The trend of privatizing safety inspections continued in the Administration’s proposed budget for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, which is responsible for inspecting meat and poultry.  The proposed FY 2008 budget for FSIS calls on the agency to collect $96 million in user fees from meat and poultry companies, and explains that this money will then be used to replace almost 10 percent of the agency’s budget in FY 2009.  The fees are supposed to come primarily in the form of a “licensing fee” paid by every plant receiving FSIS inspection.  This fee amounts to a tax on companies that need to receive government inspection in order to sell their product, and could put small meat and poultry producers at an even further disadvantage to the large corporations that already dominate the industry.

Neither the FDA nor FSIS currently have the legal authority to charge user fees. Congress should keep the agencies independent of the private companies they inspect and not grant them this authority.  The enforcement of federal regulations is the responsibility of the federal government, not the companies that are supposed to be following the rules.  Congress must not allow the next budget to privatize such basic consumer protections.

For more information, contact Tony Corbo (202) 797-6548

Background:  Communities Face Water Funding Shortfall

The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that $388 billion will be needed between 2000 and 2019 to maintain and rebuild our nation’s clean water infrastructure. And yet, funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the primary source of federal funds for wastewater projects, has actually decreased from $1.35 billion in 2004 to less than $700 million proposed for 2008. The president’s FY 2008 budget proposes cuts both the clean water fund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.

Instead of needed funding for water, the president would encourage privatization of public utilities by exempting private water utilities from the cap on private activity bonds, tax-exempt bonds issued by a state or local government. There is no evidence that private investment in the water sector will result in needed infrastructure investment. Communities around the country that have experimented with privatization have found that the private sector has not solved their infrastructure needs. Congress should support public water and reject this misguided proposal.

Water is a public responsibility and Congress must approve a dramatic increase in this critical funding for public utilities. Congress must also recognize that an annual political battle over funding for something as basic as water makes no sense. National priorities that transcend state and local boundaries should receive perpetual funding streams, immune from shifting political currents. It’s time for a trust fund that protects our water and keeps it clean and safe.

See more at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/americaswater/about-private-financing-for-water-infrastructure

For more information, contact Jessica Roach (202) 797-6565