CNN) -- Turkey breasts, eggs, cilantro, and deli meat are just some of the foods that you may have avoided this year because of recalls associated with foodborne illness. Now, after many groups in Washington pressured the government for rules that keep food safer on the way to our tables, the Senate approved a food safety bill Tuesday that attempts to strengthen food safety in the United States. Advocates said it's a good step forward, but lacking in several important areas regarding inspections on U.S. facilities and imported foods.nike max" First, here's what experts generally like: If the bill were signed into law, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would have the authority to mandate the recall of foods that it suspects are contaminated. Under current law, the agency can request a recall, but it must be issued by the individual producer. Food safety law 'not perfect' but historic The bill would also implement measures that make it easier to find the source of a food contamination outbreak. It would also require food producers to have written food safety plans that the government can access in case of emergency. cheap ugg Classic boots "Food safety is one area where the public clearly wants the government to act to protect them," said Sandra Eskin, director of food safety campaign at the Pew Charitable Trusts, who called the vote "historic" and strongly supported the bill. "We can't tell if food is contaminated unless of course we have laboratories in our own kitchen." Some food experts have said the FDA needs to take more initiative in spotting outbreaks before they escalate. "The FDA's approach is: We assume food is safe unless there is a problem," said Michael Doyle, director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia. This bill "clearly gives the FDA authority to prevent foodborne illnesses and not just react to them," Eskin said. But the FDA cannot file criminal charges against producers who knowingly put contaminated food into the market. That's something Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety in Washington, sees as a failing of this bill: that the FDA doesn't get the "teeth" to regulate strongly enough. A food producer who deliberately allows food to make people sick and even die is "as criminal as it gets," he said. It's also hard to know exactly what kind of funding will end up going to toward these efforts. Greater appropriations are needed to accomplish the food safety goals outlined in the bill, but it's unclear what dollar amount would support it, Kimbrell said. ugg Classic boots on sale In an ideal world, the FDA would be integrated with the United States Department of Agriculture, which currently has more inspectors but operates in different domains, Doyle said. "To combine them right now would be chaos," said Patty LaVera, assistant director for Food & Water Watch. The FDA regulates, among other things, the safety of all food products except meat and poultry, which falls under the USDA. In practice, that means the FDA lags far behind in terms of its ability to catch problems before they occur, experts said. Full coverage A year later, 'heroic' E. coli survivor still battling Recalls out of reach for the FDA? Time to unscramble the food safety system Currently, by law, the USDA needs to have inspectors in a processing facility while the food is being processed, meaning they are checking meat daily for flaws at meat plants. On the other hand, the FDA inspects facilities only periodically, sometimes only once every 10 years, Doyle said. Ideally, the FDA would do more inspections than it presently does, food experts said. The bill approved in the Senate requires inspections of high-risk facilities every three years at most. As for the rest, a facility can go five years without its recurring inspection, which is too long, critics said. Technology could also assist in the role of the USDA inspectors, Doyle said. For example, instead of inspectors handling meat, robotics could be employed to further prevent cross-contamination in the inspection process, which could happen when handling an infected piece of meat. Also, this means an inspector wouldn't have to be present all the time. Regulatory agencies need to focus on farms in order to have a major impact on food safety, Doyle said. That's what happened with recent regulations on eggs, he said, because of the salmonella outbreak that occurred over the summer that resulted in the recall of more than 500 million eggs. uk uggs on sale That outbreak was associated with 1,850 reported illnesses, according to a report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The FDA is doing a major inspection of egg-laying operations as a result. Another area of future improvement is the inspection of food that comes into the United States at its border, Doyle said. The bill would make importers verify that foods from abroad conform with U.S. safety guidelines. Some advocates wanted more responsibility to fall to the FDA. "The Senate puts a lot of burden on the importer to say 'we have certification,' and not as much burden on the FDA," LaVera said. Washington (CNN) -- Despite the upbeat tone of Pentagon leaders and authors of the report backing a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," the data released in conjunction with Tuesday's report shows that a substantial fraction of military personnel have concerns about the change. The full 256-page report from the Pentagon working group found that most military personnel would not change their career plans if the don't-ask-don't-tell policy changed. But almost one in four said that repeal would mean they would "definitely" leave sooner than planned or think about leaving sooner if the rules were changed. The authors of the report, Army Gen. Carter Ham and Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson, emphasized that predictions won't always translate into concrete plans, and that some people's attitudes were based on stereotypes or misinformation that could be changed through education and training. The Pentagon carefully controlled the release of the report, allowing journalists to see only a short executive summary prior to an afternoon news conference by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen. Journalists were allowed into a Pentagon conference room and handed a numbered copy of the summary which had to be returned when they left. The actual report -- two volumes with 87 and 256 pages -- wasn't released until after Gates and Mullen had spoken and the report's authors had answered questions. The report shows in detail how much higher the opposition to the policy change is in predominantly male combat units, including the Marines and Special Forces. "While only 30 percent of the U.S. military as a whole predict negative or very negative effects on their unit's ability to 'work together to get the job done,' the percentage is 43 percent for Marine Corps, 48 percent within Army combat arms units and 58 percent within Marine combat units," the report found. The authors say those higher numbers can be traced back to attitudes, with substantially fewer people in war-fighting units having served with someone they believe to be gay. "More are left to only imagine what service with an openly gay person would be like -- the circumstances in which misperceptions and stereotypes fill the void, for lack of actual experience," they say in the report.ugg boots for women More than 44 percent of military personnel with combat experience since 9/11 say if they are working with an openly homosexual service member, it would have a negative or very negative impact on the unit's effectiveness at completing its mission, according to the report. That falls to 29 percent when a crisis or negative event happens and is about 30 percent in a hypothetical "intense combat situation." And while 43 percent say working with an openly gay or lesbian person in "your immediate unit" would have no effect on morale, almost 28 percent say it would affect morale negatively or very negatively. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made the point repeatedly that the Pentagon will take steps to train and prepare the U.S. military to cope with the changes. "I am determined to see that if the law is repealed, the changes are implemented in such a way as to minimize any negative impact on the morale, cohesion and effectiveness of combat units that are deployed, about to deploy to the front lines," Gates said. But the report's quotes from military personnel opposed to and in favor of repeal and show deep divisions about the issue. "I cannot rely on someone who I don't feel comfortable with, nor can they trust me. A lack of trust turns into a lack of cohesion which eventually leads to mission failure," says a quote from one service member who made the comment online.. "I cannot tolerate homosexuality," says another anonymous comment in the report. "I will not work side by side with someone that is an adulterer, a drug addict or a homosexual." "I strongly disagree with the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy," says another online comment included in the report. "I believe it will cause more conflict and more hazing among the military. It seems to be working perfectly as is." Another online comment came from a person identifying himself as a Battalion Commander for a unit just back from a 12-month combat deployment in Iraq. "I can say unequivocally that gay/lesbian soldiers are integrated across our force, at the lowest tactical levels, with no negative operational impacts." And gays and lesbians serving already told how they would welcome the change. "I doubt I would run down the street yelling 'I'm out;' but it would take a knife out of my back I have had for a long time. You have no idea what it is like to have to serve in silence." The report said some of the most "intense and sharpest divergence of views" about "don't ask, don't tell" came from the chaplain corps. "A large number of military chaplains (and their followers) believe that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and that they are required by God to condemn it as such," according to the report. Gates said no one would be asked to teach something he or she didn't believe in. "The chaplains already serve in a force, many of whose members do not share their values, who do not share their beliefs, and there is an obligation to care for all," Gates said.