Food Safety Scares
So, from time to time we have 'scares' about food. Germs, bugs, whatever are found after people get sick, and the authorities charged with the preventative maintenance of the food safety systems all express surprise, and deny that they should ever have been aware that the possibility existed for contamination or bacteria ingress or whatever the cause was found to be - after the event - after the people got sick - after the food that made them sick was sold to them by a retailer - after the food that made them sick was sold to the retailer by the wholesaler - after the food that made the people sick was sold to the wholesaler by the importer.

Get the message, you purchasers of food - yes, you - the general public. GET THE MESSAGE.

Regulators and Enforcers
The food and water in so-called first-world countries is not safe. There is a good reason it is not safe, and that is because the rules and laws that would ensure food safety are being ignored. The regulators are making regulations that make sense. The same regulations give a false sense of security. The public incorrectly assumes that because there are regulations, and those regulations are well thought out and firmly in place, and that there are governmental departments that are tasked with the enforcement of those regulations, then the public, as I say, assumes that the food supplies are safe.

Here Is Why Food Is Not Safe
Food is not safe because the enforcers are not enforcing the regulations. They are choosing not to. If challenged regarding this, they try to give some diversionary reasoning, and if pressed to answer yes or no, they will choose to threaten the complainer with hints of legal action.
Presumably the tax payers would pay for their lawyer, and the complaining tax payer as an individual would pay for his or her own lawyer.
Even after a 'scare' (The definition of 'scare' in this case is a total failure of the civil servants to do their job of protecting the public, and being lucky that the poisoning was not intense enough for too many illnesses or even deaths to occur) yes, even after a scare, the status quo appears to remain. If the media slam the system hard enough, then there will be some changes, but such changes will generally only be local to the place where the sickness occurred. Any other jurisdictions merely breathe a sigh of relief, and carry on not doing their jobs.

The Proof
Here is the proof that my judgment of this situation is correct. Look up the regulations for food handling in your own jurisdiction, and then visit the retail outlets that are supposed to be following them.In most jurisdictions you will find that the regulations require that food be covered. In Nova Scotia where I live, it reads something like 'All food must be stored in a manner to prevent access by insects or vermin. Yet, I can walk into any local coffee shop or retail food outlet and see uncovered food. Often, there is no capability to cover or enclose the food, the cabinets are open. They have failed to meet the regulations from the day the business opened. And the excuse given by those that as a taxpayer I am paying the salaries of, is that the major franchise company head office has a safety program.
There are flies crawling on the uncovered donuts in coffee shops, and even in supermarkets where the food is indeed stored in enclosures, there are flies even trapped inside those  enclosures, and crawling over the bread products in there.

But we will not catch anything untoward from this situation, as these premises all have a safety program. And this situation is not unique to a single jurisdiction. The recent scare with Mexican peppers was caused not by the peppers being contaminated, but by a system of inspection that has been circumvented, presumably in favour of corporate profitability.

I think one major issue that has plauged the food and health industry, (bad pun) is a total lack of accountability. In both, the distributors and those who are paid to enforce the regulations.


A brave C.E.O. has said he would take full responsibility for the actions of his company. While I feel that is very 'Harry Truman' of him, I think if the accountability could so easily be passed over all the total failures of both sides of the issue and the accountibility to the law put onto one individual. Then I would say not just 'throw the book at him' but I would go so far as to say this gentlemen should be facing 17 accounts of negligent homicide.


But sadly it isn't so simple as for one person to take the blame in a case of total debauchery of enforcing regulations, practicing cleanliness and saftey for ones consumable product.

Victims familiys and those who were effected by this will want to see heads roll. Almost literally. So now Health-Canada is faced with the problem of: "With a rising death count, what do we do? Who is held accountable? Surely not us!" Will Maple Leaf foods still hold a license to distribute food? Will the inspectors who failed to inspect, the plant workers who failed to follow regulations, the managers of the inspectors and plant workers who failed to check and oversee the operation and the distributors for failing to handle the product correctly all be held for Negligent Homicide up to 17 accounts each?

How many dead grandmothers, young children and others with weaker immunties does it take to effect a change in how people are held accountable?

Much like a driver who steps into a car. There should be an agreement to uphold certain laws when others health and livelihood are at risk.

Much like the driver who fails to see the pedestrian crossing the road. There needs to be a strict accountability to those who fail follow regulations and in cost of that, where others get sick and/or die.


While the consumer should always b