People act as if just saying that something must be done well is tantamount to agreeing that the government should do it -- but when I look at the Fed's record, I have to argue that if something is really important to you, you should do everything in your power to keep the government as far away as possible.
The ironic thing is that Sinclair was hoping to spark a socialist revolution and improve the lives of the slaughterhouse workers. What happened was that the inspection agencies added to cost to the production process and actually lowered the standard of living for the workers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fda#Early_history
An especially fascinating one was Elixir Sulfanilamide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_Sulfanilamide
For medicine, the incentives are all wrong for laissez-faire to prevent disaster. If you create a compound that you think will be useful in some way, it only takes a few tests to convince yourself and others that it's worth using. If it works safely in the general population, you're a hero and a millionaire; if you waste time on additional testing, your competition will beat you; and if your testing turns up some ambiguous data, you're stuck with the dilemma of whether to go forward with a product that has risks that the benefits may or may not outweigh. I've worked on medical devices; this last situation comes up constantly. Without detailed specifications that put the burden on the producers to prove safety and efficacy, what the producer thinks is due diligence is generally woefully inadequate.
(No comment on the state of agriculture back then, but these days the line between food and drug is getting blurry.)
There was no truth to the health claims...
From the Wikipedia entry on The Jungle:
After much persuasion from Sinclair as to the seriousness of the situation, Roosevelt agreed to send two men to investigate Sinclair's claims. The men the president chose, Charles P. Neill and James B. Reynolds, had both done investigative work for Roosevelt before, and were thought trustworthy...
Even though the meat packers had forewarning and time to clean up, the conditions Neill and Reynolds observed were described as "revolting;" the only claim left unsubstantiated by the report was the sensational claim that workers who had fallen into the giant lard vats were left and sold as lard.
Obviously, Wikipedia isn't an unimpeachable source. But it's better than one guy's unsourced opinion.
I note for the record that, confronted with a historical example from last year, a contemporary work of nonfiction (Fast Food Nation), and a work of muckraking fiction from 1906, we've now become curiously focused on debunking a single famous legend from the 1906 work. Because, of course, if Sinclair stretched a fact here and there out of revolutionary fervor, adulterated cat food must be perfectly good for cats.
Edit: You are right, it does seem that Wikipedia with some of my claims, but backs up the my points about the real focus and Sinclair's novel and it's real impact.
Either way, I prefer transparency to regulation.
(yes, this is a bit weak, but I have a job :P)