Has Politics Contaminated the Food Supply?
A lot of what is said here is true - but some of it is unmitigated bullshit, and the solution is exactly wrong.
The fellow needs to read a book:The Triumph of Conservatism, by Gabriel Kolko. Especially after crediting Upton Sinclair and Theodore Roosevelt with the brilliant idea of industrial regulation of the meatpacking industry. Kolko, using period documents and testimony from Congressional hearings, shows conclusively that the thrust for regulation came not from "reformers" but from the industry itself.
Why? Because the cost of compliance with the new regulations was effectively beyond the means of the smaller competitors in the industry, and literally put them out of business, leading to more industry concentration. Larger producers were losing in the marketplace thanks to Sinclair's rabble-rousing and exposes, and so the corporations called in the government to restore "order" to the trade: that is, to get rid of their smaller, safer competition. It worked.
And if he thinks the regulatory regime is lax today, well, he needs to come out here and take some animals to slaughter with me. The problem isn't the laxity of the regulations, it is their very existence, which in some cases actually prevents inspected operations from doing things safely and correctly. It is a huge and ponderous bureaucracy that regulates food in this country: and it is set up specifically and by design to benefit large producers. More regulation and a new "super-agency" would be the final blow to those of us with small herds and flocks: we'd simply be put out of business entirely.
This is one of those cures that's decidedly worse than the disease.
People are always going to get food poisoning. The idea that every meal can be risk-free, germ-free and sterile is the sort of fantasy Howard Hughes might have entertained. But our food can be much safer than it is right now.
(link) [New York Times]
/Agriculture | 0 writebacks | permanent link
comment...