...FSIS recently announced a sustained increase in chicken-broiler carcasses testing positive for Salmonella during 2002--2005...Now, this is an old entry. A more recent one in the same vein can be found at their new scienceblogs home (yes, also home of pharyngula.)
The CDC's surveillance is by far the most comprehensive, and arguably the least flawed. Yet their studies are far too narrowly conceived to be of much use for this post. (Their most comprehensive reports showed now real increases between 1993-1997, and more recently. And this one deals precisely with self-reported instances of diarrheal illenss.) Furthermore, I find their interpretations overly cautious and suspect, especially as they automatically assume that it was the switch to more active rather than passive surveillance that accounts for the apparent trend of an increase in foodborne disease outbreaks. Wild speculation, I know, but I'm convinced that there's more going on here.
Right now I am inclined to believe that incidences of food poisoning and recalls increase under Republican administrations -- inclined, but in the interest of fair-mindedness, I could be convinced otherwise if some independent staticians could review as many studies as possible and find me wrong. Nevertheless, I am deeply curious: precisely what is the causal relationship between Republican aversion to regulation and the higher percentage of injuries and fatalities, and how can we tie this all together with undisputable numbers? And what is the moral calculus that makes this okay?