food safety laws, the insulting premise that they rest on, and how they affect the american small farmer and consumer by Rusty Shackleford
(libertarian)
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Lying at the root of countless political controversies in the United States is the question: do citizens have a right to decide for themselves what substances they should be able to consume? From drug prohibition to raw milk prohibition, the rationale is the same people are ignorant, and therefore incapable of choosing for themselves what is appropriate to consume. This rationale is not only insulting to human intelligence, but dangerous to a society that values basic human liberties. Although there are completely legitimate concerns regarding food safety, our nation's best choice of action would be the elimination of mandatory regulating agencies in favor of optional, private ones.
In the United States today, a person can't just grow food and sell it to their neighbor anymore. In fact any food purchased from a grocery store in the US represents a plethora of paperwork and permits; there are countless legal hoops that must be maneuvered through in order to accomplish the fundamental task of getting food into a person's mouth. For example, if a small farmer were to raise a cow on his land, then butcher it outside over the grass in his yard and sell the meat to his neighbors, he would be in violation of federal law. To obey the law, he would have to transport the cow to a federally inspected abattoir and pay for the meat to be packaged before it could be sold at a permitted food outlet. It doesn't matter that the small farmer's operation is inherently cleaner, more humane, less susceptible to contamination, and more accountable to the consumer than a permanent centralized slaughterhouse. And it doesn't matter that his customers are aware of the situation and eager to make the deal. The reason that smaller operations are usually superior when it comes to cleanliness is due to sheer numbers. A small producer may only butcher 200 animals in a year allowing time for waste to be disposed of, on-site, without a problem; on the other hand many USDA inspected slaughterhouses process thousands of animals per day 5 days a week. This typically creates a continuous stream of anaerobic waste that usually ends up in a water treatment facility.
Of course there are a few reasons that the USDA encourages massive slaughterhouses; one of them is the sheer scope of its task. If meat production became de-centralized, how could the nation's meat supply possibly be inspected by any central authority? Funding is limited in any government agency, and frankly it is just more convenient to send a few inspectors into a single building which handles thousands of animals per day than to try and inspect millions of small farms across the country, which may only butcher 10 animals in a given day. Massive centralized plants are definitely more convenient for regulatory agencies, but we must remember that food safety is the goal, not bureaucratic convenience.
In 1906 Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, a novel with somewhat exaggerated descriptions of the unsanitary working conditions; which were present in Chicago meat packing plants around the turn of the century. Meat sales fell dramatically as a result of the book's popularity. Although there was already a federal meat inspection system in place at the time, lobbyists for the meat packing industry mounted pressure on the federal government to pass new legislation that would help alleviate public concern. The legislation, passed in response to the industry lobbyists, was essentially the beginning of the USDA and FDA. It's interesting that these agencies actually mandate the unsanitary industrial production model that Sinclair was so opposed to.
After all the regulations, the food leaving a slaughterhouse or farm will always end up in the truck of a private individual. Therefore, the safety of our nation's food supply will always depend on the morals of the people involved in its processes. If someone really wanted to contaminate the nation's food supply, there is not much that would stop them, but in a centralized food system it is much easier to contaminate large amounts of food. De-centralization would shorten the distance food travels between producer and consumer, encouraging farmers to become more accountable and sustainable.
Billions of people living in cities around the world often have no ability or desire to build a relationship with a local grower who will supply them with clean food. Cities demand a vast amount of imported foods, along with a guarantee of safety. This is a totally legitimate concern, after all, the greater the distance that food must travel between producer and consumer, the less farmer accountability there is, and the need for an inspection service grows. A problem occurs when what's necessary for city life becomes mandatory for all citizens. What about people who want to buy and sell based on mutual trust -- city dwellers included? Is it really acceptable in a Democracy to totally ignore a section of the populace and impose a system of unnecessary regulations upon them? If we want a society of free, educated consumers, the answer is no.
We also should look at the economic implications of using private optional inspection services, over the current mandatory USDA system. In the news recently, there is the continuation of an old debate on the issue of agricultural standards and labeling in the US. One notable example is the growing accusations that USDA Organic standards have become degraded and lost sight of their original intent. One solution to this problem would be to replace the USDA with private inspection companies. If anyone felt that a given companies' inspection standards were lacking, they could financially support another standard. Reputable industries would emerge and inspection methods would be able to change quickly, adapting to different, more sustainable models of production. The most important economic aspect of this would be the elimination of farm subsidies; thus creating an even playing field between honest local producers and agribusinesses. Without taxpayer funds the true cost of industrial agriculture would be realized, and unfortunately, if all subsidies were ended tomorrow, food prices would skyrocket. This is why we need a gradual reduction in subsidies before the USDA can be totally eliminated.
Many people argue that keeping food prices artificially low in the US is needed to feed the world. This may sound harsh but frankly, the American people should take care of our own problems before attempting to take on the world's. In America, our soils are degrading, industrial pollutants contaminate our farmland, and food profits have steadily been concentrated in the hands of a few men. Instead of America being able to feed the world through taxpayer subsidies, our goal should be for the world to gain the ability to feed itself.
In conclusion, people shouldn't rely on the government to mandate what is appropriate to consume instead we should rely on our own rational judgment. Because ultimately, the people handling food from farm to plate are the ones responsible for food safety, their own level of personal merit is the only thing that can guarantee food safety in any system. By seeking and attaining transparency in our food systems and reputable inspection services, where transparency is not currently practiced, we can regain control of our communities and lives. By encouraging the distance between producer and consumer to shrink, the security of our nations food supply will grow, and help to create diverse local economic opportunities throughout the country. Finally, we need political policies that show faith in the ability of free humans to rationally solve our own problems.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Rusty Shackleford only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Rusty Shackleford is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
