Public Health

  • December 10, 2012
    Guest Post

    by Rena Steinzor, Professor of Law, University of Maryland, Francis King Carey School of Law; Steinzor is also president of the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR).

    After the last of the applause lines has been delivered, and while the crowd that gathered for his historic second inauguration is still filing out of town, President Obama will once again sit at his desk in the Oval Office and begin the tough policy work that will define his second term in office and shape the legacy he will leave behind.

    Among the many challenges he'll face over the next four years will be an urgent agenda of addressing critical threats to public health, safety, and the environment that the Administration let languish during the first term. But good luck to him if he decides to attack the problems with legislation. The election made the numbers in both chambers of Congress somewhat more favorable to the President's cause. But it'd take an earth-shattering event or at least another election to get protective legislation out of the House of Representatives, which vacillates between being sullen and defiant and will undoubtedly return to its anti-regulatory drum-beating as soon as the fiscal “crisis” is over.

    So what's a President to do? Use every bit of executive power he can marshal, in this case, by directing the regulatory agencies to move with dispatch to regulate and enforce in a number of vital areas. In Protecting People and the Environment by the Stroke of a Presidential Pen: Seven New Executive Orders for President Obama’s Second Term, released today, my colleagues and I at the Center for Progressive Reform explain how the President can take the first vital step by making full use of his authority to manage executive agencies -- including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- by issuing a series of Executive Orders.

  • February 23, 2012
    BookTalk
    Poisoned
    The True Story of the Deadly E. Coli Outbreak That Changed the Way Americans Eat
    By: 
    Jeff Benedict

    By Jeff Benedict, a best-selling author and journalist


    Before I wrote Poisoned, my wife Lydia spent two years trying to convince me to do a book on the food industry. I resisted, saying guys like Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser did that. I write nonfiction stories, usually ones built around legal disputes. I couldn’t see how to do a compelling legal story around food. 

    Then something happened. Lydia revolutionized the way our family eats. This did not happen gradually. One week she cleaned out our cupboards and refrigerator, getting rid of everything from brand-name cereal to frozen meat to staple products like butter, flour, and sugar. Even the salt and pepper went. Then she restocked our kitchen with organic foods. We also started growing directly to small local farms to purchase our meat, poultry, and dairy products. 

    We didn’t stop here, though. We converted our 20-acre property into an organic fruit and vegetable farm. For a guy who grew up in a beach community in Connecticut, this was culture shock. But our four children loved it because we added horses, guinea fowl and chickens. We now collect close to twenty farm fresh eggs per day. On top of that we plant, water, weed, harvest and can. Now when we say grace, we mean it. 

    Besides improving the way I look and feel, this lifestyle change dramatically altered the way I look at food. The transformation got me searching earnestly for a food-related book topic.  That’s when I came across Bill Marler, a personal injury lawyer who has emerged as the country’s most influential advocate for food safety. Today, food safety is a serious public-health problem. The CDC estimates that food-borne disease causes about 48 million illnesses per year. Roughly one in six Americans get sick from bad food. Many of these cases are mild gastroenteritis, commonly referred to as the stomach bug. But too many food poisoning cases are more serious, resulting in approximately 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths annually. The fatalities are often children and the elderly. 

  • September 15, 2011
    Guest Post

    This post is part of an ACSblog Constitution Week Symposium. By Martha F. Davis, Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law.


    The national Constitution is a singular document, but it is not unique. All fifty states of the U.S. and Puerto Rico have their own constitutions, some of which -- through text or interpretation -- stake out approaches that are very different from the federal document. It is worth thinking about the alternative paths that these state documents take, and the possibilities that they raise, as we celebrate and critique the national Constitution on this Constitution Day.

    This entry focuses on one area of significant difference between state and federal constitutions: their treatment of economic and social rights.

    The national Constitution addresses economic and social rights prominently but with little specificity. The Preamble states that an overriding purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to “promote the general welfare,” indicating that issues such as poverty, housing, food and other economic and social welfare issues facing the citizenry were of central concern to the framers. However, the Bill of Rights has been largely construed to provide procedural mechanisms for fair adjudication of those rights rather than carving out claims on the government to ensure that individuals actually have any social and economic assets to protect. Efforts to convince courts of alternate constitutional interpretations have generally failed. The Supreme Court has ruled, for example, that while the due process clause of the 14th amendment ensures fair processes for welfare recipients, there is no underlying constitutional right to a minimum standard of living. Similarly, the Supreme Court has not found a general right to education derived from the more explicit constitutional guarantees of political participation and equal protection that might be deemed to presuppose an educational baseline.

  • July 2, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Fazal R. Khan, author of "Ensuring Government Accountability During Public Health Emergencies" which appeared in the latest issue of the Harvard Law and Policy Review.
    Change, accountability, and transparency—that was the promise of the Obama Administration as the newly inaugurated President announced that he would promote the rule of law and normalcy within the executive branch. This signaled that the public should expect a stark reversal from the “imperial presidency” and exceptionalism that characterized the Bush-Cheney Administrations. However, reviewing the last eighteen months it appears that instead of significantly changing course, the Obama Administration is solidifying the legal justifications for many controversial Bush-era policies. In the particular context of accountability and transparency for federal government actions during a public health emergency (PHE), the evidence demonstrates that very little separates the Obama Administration from the previous one.