It would seem that having producers pay for inspection creates monopolies as well as conflict of interest.

Shouldn't reform include a shift to taxpayer funded food safety inspection?  Virtually no inspection exists of imported food products.

Inspection that aims to eliminate defects in the food supply system must operate with random inspections acroos the whole spectrum of imported and local food, no matter what the source is.  That is the mathematical/statistical nature of quality control.

Random testing.  If it is biased in any way, repeated defects will sneak through the inspection process continually.

If every 20th part coming off an assembley line (for instance) is tested, then a periodic error in manufacturing can get through.  Every 12th to 15th widget, with a crucial defect.  The 20th part perfect.

Modern quality control methods, standardized by american lesdership around the world, have never been applied to government regulation and inspection.  

This would free small producers and large alike from costs due to corruption of the inspection process.  And costs to consumers and local producers due to monopolization of markets.

Real quality control, using random testing, is also a lot less expensive than the present system.  Fewer samples result in a much higher degree of quality and a lot less litigation related costs overall.  Problems are corrected, intead of repeated over and over.  Resulting in lower and lower percentahes of costly recalls.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Special interest in government muddy the water and often destroy the most obviious solutions to problems just to protect their turf. Brazil for instance used sugar cane to become energy independent, alcohol from sugar cane  has 7 times the BTU efficiency. This crop is not a food staple and did not raise the cost of eating in Brazil. Corn is an inefficient alcohol fuel, it is also a food staple. It helped the farmers get top dollar for corn but raised the price of many food products at the grocery store. Meat, poultry feed stock and a host of food additives made from corn. It is not cost efficient because of the low btu, cost as much to make it as it saves in oil. Sugar cane will grow up to the 42 latitude in this country and some strains will even grow in the northern part of the country. The Brazil model was obvious, why did we go with corn?

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

The local slaughterhouse I am most familiar with has a Federal-level inspector provided and paid for by the State.  The owner only pays for any overtime.  The taxpayer pays the rest.  There is no need for random inspection, as the inspector is always there, and reviews every single animal, no exception.  Can't get a downer cow through here.  This is a local business with about 20 employees.  These businesses have been disappearing for years due to consolidation around large CAFO operations, but are essential for local farmers who want to sell their own animals directly to restaurants and consumers at farmers markets, where as was noted, they retain a much higher portion of the proceeds.  These dollars then stay in circulation in the community, instead of going to the pockets of big agribusiness, or wired home to Jalisco.  There are several Latinos that do work in this plant, all legal workers or citizens.  They work very very hard on a tough job.

Bacon, the gateway meat.