Maggie's Farm

Actually, Krugman didn't come close to saying Bush destroyed our food. He did criticize Bush administration policies for making the food supply less safe during the six years previous to the column, but he spread the blame around, making a few good points along the way. He notes, for example, that American food suppliers want more regulation of food safety, but as long as regulation isn't extended to foreign suppliers they face a problem with competitive foreign undercutting. Frankly, I couldn't find anything crazy in his analysis. A more accurate criticism of Krugman is he proceeds from a completely unproven assumption that the food supply IS less safe. That is a valid criticism.

But Miller's gotcha assertion--that either Martin and Harris are wrong or Krugman is wrong--represents a misreading of the Martin and Harris piece. M&H haven't offered any hard evidence or proof regarding the assumption about food safety either.

On the question of food safety, Martin and Harris say that reliable figures are difficult, if not impossible, to come by. Health experts think the food supply is "probably safer," but that's a far cry from a definitive answer.

Martin and Harris:

"Public health experts cannot give a definitive answer, largely because the historical figures on food-borne illness are spotty. But most of them believe the nation’s food supply is markedly safer now than it was 100 years ago, and probably safer than a decade ago."

Clearly, this leaves room for the possibility that Krugman is right. So, why is the Times required to correct the piece written by Krugman 3 years ago, as Miler insists?

Herein lies my real objection to Miller's argument: Miller suggests that this paragraph requires the NY Times to go through every article ever written by any of their columnists and every article ever written by their reporters to "correct" anyone who suggested that there is or might be a problem with food safety. Talk about insane. If this is what's wrong with the NY Times, then I'd suggest that the NY Times is in pretty good shape. The only problem is, apparently, that the Times ownership refuses to cede editorial control of the newspaper to Miller.