er food processing has not always existed as prominently as it does today. Traditionally, America has had the safest food supply in the world. It has been acutely recognized for its quantity, quality, and cleanliness. Most food was initially grown locally by individuals and small producers on family-owned farms (Gavzer 1997). However, this method of production and marketing can only be imaginable for a society that existed 60, maybe 50 years ago.
             Instead, we now live in a "culture of plenty," where the demand for consumption is growing day after day. But, as Amanda Spake notes in her article printed by Newsweek, "plenty has its price" (72). Production has grown tremendously; and as a result, so have the outbreaks of foodborne illness. The numbers have become more common, more large, and more international then ever before. As these numbers have increased, so has the demand for a more safe and efficient way to provide consumers with food.
             In deciding who should have the authority to regulate the safety of food processing plants, the overall performance of those who deal with the issue has to be evaluated. For one, consumerists feel that if such responsibilities as, creating a set of protocols, and furthermore, enforcing its regulations, is left up to private industries, the conflicts that foodborne bacteria pose will progress no further towards being resolved. Dr. Theodore Bek, a retired Federal veterinarian, believes that allowing each plant to designate its own control measures to prevent bacterial hazards "is a disaster waiting to happen". Giving management a free hand to choose set up for its protocols is a "case of the fox guarding the henhouse"-something is bound to get out of hand (Janofsky 1997). If the government is given the authority to regulate food processing plants, a universal set of standard procedures can be contrived, and furthermore, enforced by gov...