This from Tom Paine. Comments or better yet, amplifications.

JakeInHartsel

A Safer Shrimp Platter
July 28, 2004

Summertime is seafood time, and shrimp is the number-one choice for
Americans who eat seafood. But more than 80 percent of the shrimp Americans
eat is imported, and it comes with more than cocktail sauce. Imported
shrimp-raised in coastal farms around the world-is often tainted with the
FDA-banned chemicals chloramphenicol and nitrofurons, which can cause
neurological disorders, intestinal problems and anemia. The FDA is taking
public comments on H.R. 4766, which would require all consumer-bound shrimp
to be tested for harmful chemicals. Take action with Public Citizen and
make sure your next seafood platter is safe. ACT NOW

My guess is that this has a whole lot more to do with the desire of US
producers for a reduction in competition from off shore producers.
There have been claims of "dumping" intended to trigger "penalties"
(that is effective subsidies to the US producers) So long as the FDA
is going to be testing US production in the same fashion, at the same
rate, and with the same criteria, there is probably no reason to
object. I did not notice that they made much of a case for the
cost/benefit, always otherwise a favorite line with US businesses when
they are trying to avoid regulation.

cheers,

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:29:47 -0600, Glenn Jacobs
> wrote:

>This from Tom Paine. Comments or better yet, amplifications.
>
>JakeInHartsel
>
>A Safer Shrimp Platter
>July 28, 2004
>
>Summertime is seafood time, and shrimp is the number-one choice for
>Americans who eat seafood. But more than 80 percent of the shrimp Americans
>eat is imported, and it comes with more than cocktail sauce. Imported
>shrimp-raised in coastal farms around the world-is often tainted with the
>FDA-banned chemicals chloramphenicol and nitrofurons, which can cause
>neurological disorders, intestinal problems and anemia. The FDA is taking
>public comments on H.R. 4766, which would require all consumer-bound shrimp
>to be tested for harmful chemicals. Take action with Public Citizen and
>make sure your next seafood platter is safe. ACT NOW

My guess is that this has a whole lot more to do with the desire of US
producers for a reduction in competition from off shore producers.
There have been claims of "dumping" intended to trigger "penalties"
(that is effective subsidies to the US producers) So long as the FDA
is going to be testing US production in the same fashion, at the same
rate, and with the same criteria, there is probably no reason to
object. I did not notice that they made much of a case for the
cost/benefit, always otherwise a favorite line with US businesses when
they are trying to avoid regulation.

cheers,

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:29:47 -0600, Glenn Jacobs
> wrote:

>This from Tom Paine. Comments or better yet, amplifications.
>
>JakeInHartsel
>
>A Safer Shrimp Platter
>July 28, 2004
>
>Summertime is seafood time, and shrimp is the number-one choice for
>Americans who eat seafood. But more than 80 percent of the shrimp Americans
>eat is imported, and it comes with more than cocktail sauce. Imported
>shrimp-raised in coastal farms around the world-is often tainted with the
>FDA-banned chemicals chloramphenicol and nitrofurons, which can cause
>neurological disorders, intestinal problems and anemia. The FDA is taking
>public comments on H.R. 4766, which would require all consumer-bound shrimp
>to be tested for harmful chemicals. Take action with Public Citizen and
>make sure your next seafood platter is safe. ACT NOW