What is the real cause of the government crackdown on small farms producing good food?
I have written and spoken about the fear of competition by our corporate food producers, as consumers gradually come to realize how they are being sickened by corporate factory food and transition to more healthy options. As the corporations see their market shares erode, they call on the regulators to more aggressively go after small food producers making good food, using “protection” and “safety” as the war cries.
Joel Salatin offered a different, and contrary, view on Tuesday evening at the fund-raising event for Wisconsin farmer Vernon Hershberger in Milwaukee (which, by the way, drew about 200 people and apparently did what it was supposed to do in raising funds for the farmer trying to re-build parts of his farm after a fire in 2013).
Salatin, who was the keynote speaker at the event, took special issue with the view by many in the food rights movement that government and corporate food producers just want to put us farmers out of business. Quite the contrary, he said. I dont think anyone wants to put small farmers out of business.
Why have the regulators pushed enforcement measures so hard against small farms in places like Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and California?
Salatin argued that its the result of pressure from consumer protection organizations like those under the Ralph Nader umbrella, about food safety. These organizations have convinced politicians, who have leaned on regulators, to be super obsessive about safety. They sincerely believe that people will be killed if small sustainable farms are allowed an ever-expanding role in supplying food.
The only approach they (consumer protection organizations) see is government intervention.
Salatin said he has met regulators who have taken the consumer cause to heart. He cited one who seemed to Salatin to be so concerned about people getting sick from bad food that he sometimes slept badly.
Salatin raised this question to back up his argument: Why would big business push for more regulation, like the Food Safety Modernization Act, which adversely affects the corporations as well? The corporations come to accept the uber-regulation because, as he put it, big business knows it will be able to carve out special places and exemptions from the brunt of enforcement.
Pushing the notion that government and Big Ag want to obliterate small producers is counterproductive, Salatin argued. For people to say I want my rights comes across as greedy.
I think Salatin has some important points. The consumer movement has been an important factor in some of this. It pushed for the ban on interstate raw milk sales back in the 1980s, and eventually a Nader group prevailed in a federal court suit. And it certainly pushed for the Food Safety Modernization Act in 2011.
But I think the actual dynamic is more nuanced. I would argue that Big Ag has latched onto the fear components around food safety to help the politicians and regulators justify the bullying of small producers. Thus, Big Dairy frequently argues that it pushes regulators to go after raw milk producers out of a desire to prevent illnesses, to protect people. That becomes a convenient cover for the dairy processor cartels clear desire to rid the market of competitors who are helping sap sales from pasteurized milk.
Similarly the chicken industry in Maine and elsewhere could say it was only concerned about safety in pushing for regulations that require small producers to have the same expensive facilities as large producers, and so force many of the small guys out of business. In Michigan, the pork producers can say they want to protect farmers and the environment from the ravages of wild pigs in promoting genetic requirements that ban all specialty breeds the small guys were producing .when, bottom line, they wanted to rid themselves of competition.
The politicians? They are long-time masters of saying one thing and doing another. It certainly makes their job easier when consumer groups are agitating for legislation that seems to regulate business on protection, but actually gives corporations a competitive leg up.
A number of politicians have come to be supportive of small farms. But the ones that countthe committee chairpeople at the state and federal level who make the decisions about which legislation goes forwardare often taken care of via campaign contributions, cushy jobs when they retire, and other less-than-obvious favors from Big Ag.
Trying to figure out where responsibility lies for the ongoing campaign against small producers is definitely a good discussion to have. One thing we can all agree on is that the corporations, politicians, and regulators have done a masterful job of blurring the underlying motivations. When the discussion on responsibility and motivations expands, so does the overall education process that gradually sways markets away from the factory producers.
In 1997, I met at the home of the then USDA under-secretary of Agriculture, AJ Yates. He lives just 10 miles from me and we used to attend the same church together and his sons went to school with me. He said in 1997…”food safety is the new value added future for agriculture”. At that time, we were all learning and hearing about HACCP and Odwalla was being litigated, Burger King ecoli was fresh on our minds and all sorts of things were changing including the FDA retail prohibition ( and or very strict regulation ) of raw apple juice and orange juice. Food safety was now the great new threat and regulations were behind the powercurve and pressures to change were all over the place! Bill Marler was cutting his teeth on insurance companies and getting settlements for grief stricken parents from ecoli etc….times were changing. Every crisis has a winner and sterile food was a winner! There were even consumer groups formed that embraced sterile foods ie… STOP ( Safe Tables Our Priority ) is a great example. This group was literally fanatical about any bacteria near their kitchens. Any bacteria!!! These groups were the ones that testified and cried before congress. They had a cause and no one could or would stand up against a mom….that is just a losing argument.
Now, literally 17 years later, food safety is the biggest sweetspot for market control. Anyone the speaks about raw any thing must be a baby killer or a fringe foodie freak and it is easy to classify those that propose responsible raw production systems as irresponsible. Regulators simply remember back to 1997 and ignor the technologies that can be used today to assess safety and reduce risk and they conveniently ignor the nutritional losses that the changes to regulations brought to us all.
Nutrition has really never mattered. It has always been a fringe idea. Nutrition does not have an immediate effect on health…nutritional impacts are longer term. It is sudden biologic contamination that can immediately be tracked by experts through the PULSENET data base and then bad guy farmers and producers can be tracked down, raided by SWAT teams and shut down like fugatives. All very nice drama and great for increases in market share for those that can stand back and sterilize better with a great side effect of long shelf life and less spoilage. “Nuke it all” now had new meaning and true value.
It is all very convenient and it is truly a sweet spot for sure. Babies are the best human shield ever created.
But the greatest error we have ever made is the disregard for the long term health of our children. That is where we have all missed the boat. Immunity and prevention through nutrition has failed as we react to the biologic contaminations. “Sterilize it all” is kind of like saying….nuke it all… to fix it all. What we fail to realize is that real food comes from well trained farmers that care on farms that grow good bacteria and use the right kind of conditions to produce whole foods to nourish the next generations.
Remember this…we as as civilization are not a smart people. As a group and nation we have great difficulty doing the right things…we over react and do things that are emotional and protective for status quo. As our media lead the show….how can we be smart? We are denied information and mislead continually! We lack the intellegence to think long term and do the right things for our children. Truly selfish and shortsighted. When corporations do the thinking they are the worst at this. Disconnected and uneffected by their impacts on humanity and life itself.
Right-on Joel….the regulators are reactive robots. They just respond to the sweet spots of regulation that were formed by bought-up short term over reactions that cause great harm in the long term to put a band aide on a political or economic need today.
One thing for sure…there is a niche that gets all of this and it is growing and nutritionally separating from the rest of the flock. The investments made by these conscious few will be rewarded in the teeth, bones, brains, guts and immunity of their children. What a great investment and truly intellegent.
PBS will be airing a fall special called Food Forward featuring food rebels. Episode 5 will feature Charlotte Smith, OPDC, Phd from UC Davis, and other milk innovators. Even though heavily edited with CDC warnings….the underlying message is so compelling, the warnings actually have a reserse effect.
Share the link and watch as we take another step towards raw milk becoming accepted as a normal healing food in America.
The political/corporate objective whether consciously or subconsciously, is to control and monopolize food production visa vie low cost food and regulation. Indeed subsidies, taxes and regulations are geared towards the corporate or conventional model. Small family farms are unable to compete with cheap, highly processed junk foods, as a result, the current scenario ensures that those farms remain unsustainable without off farm income or the ability to acquire a higher return for their product.
The fact that farmers are getting paid and consumers are willing to pay a premium, not to mention a growing demand for unadulterated wholesome food despite regulation and authority, undoubtedly causes them grief, especially those who have been brainwashed to believe that what they are doing is righteous.
It is all about control. If you control the food, you control the people. You can be certain, that as the local, unadulterated food market grows government and corporate cronies will do whatever they can to manipulate and control it.
Their intent may not be to put small producers out of business, however they are certainly making it difficult for them to survive.
Ken
Rather than being greedy, to say that demonstrates an understanding of the vital importance of one’s rights and the willingness to challenge those whose efforts will limit them (whether intentional or not). It’s rational self-interest, nothing more.
Mark, good point about the “crisis” of food safety. Our bureaucracy isn’t good at a lot of things, but creating new jobs to respond to a crisis is something it has mastered. Our big food corporations are masters of mass production, and it turned out that sterile food is easier to mass produce than any other kind.
Sadly, sterile today means depressed immunity tomorrow and autism in the next generation.
Our greatest challenge is this: how do we educate consumers about the NIH human / gut biome discovery and then….how do we educate consumers about the direct relationship between whole food and gut biodiversity and the direct relationship to their immunity and health? Ie….How do we reconnect food and health and disconnect drugs and doctors visits from health ??
Because, when that happens everything falls into line and farmers, sustainability, whole foods, and laws and change and illness is prevented and health improves!!
Education of consumers has been conveniently hijacked by the FDA. When no consumer testimonials can be published and connected to food….when the central media refuses to link food to health or preventative medicine, when editors cut up your story, when the Anahiem Food Expo booth managers refuse to allow raw milk to take its rightful place this coming spring among the other organic booths and venders because of the lack of FDA compliance on various issues. Even though organic raw milk is 100% cdfa compliant!! How is education supposed to take place?
Education is the golden goose and the critical pathway that has been absolutly obstructed, through regulation and media editorial choke holds. It is easy to say teach, teach, teach and so very difficult to execute. Even the research pathway has been obstructed. Perfectly good peer reviewed science that irrefutably and undeniably proves that raw milk dramatically reduces asthma and allergies is ignored by the FDA and the media. Grants for more research $ is denied at every crossroads.
Bottom line is this: America is a market driven reality and that means money and control of market positions reigns absolutely supreme. That means….control of everything by any and all means is the order of the day.
So, my take away lesson is this: We will grow slowly because we control the simple truth. We teach organically….one person and with small groups at a time. This will take time and serious amounts of hard work & plenty of it…it is David verses Goliath in the 21st century with the future health of our selves and children’s lives hanging in the balance.
Mark
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IDN6GC5umKRIYBkHazM5yOxP15iC2w8FhS9we7zD-j0/embed?hl=en&size=m#slide=id.p4
The Internet does not take lightly to lies especially when moms figuer it out and their kids have been the ones to suffer. Totally agree…teach teach teach one at a time.
—–
1. An estimated 17.3% of raw milk consumers in Minnesota may have acquired an illness caused by 1 of these enteric pathogens during the 10-year study period. (That’s 1.7% per year.) or (1 in 59) and (No deaths in the US from fluid raw milk consumption.)
—–
2. About 48 million people (That’s 15% per year or 1 in 6 Americans) get sick and 3,000 die each year from foodborne diseases, according new estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
—–
If raw milk is the most dangerous food NOT on the market how is it possible that only 1 in 59 raw milk consumer get sick each year from foodborne diseases while 1 in 6 average Americans(78.5% of whom drink pasteurized milk and only 3% of whom drink raw milk.) get sick each year from foodborne diseases? Raw milk may be preventing 1.3 million cases of foodborne disease and 90 deaths every year in the US. Or in other words: People who don’t drink raw milk are 9 times more likely to contract a so called foodborne illness than people that do.
I like your math and moreover….our 80,000 CA raw milk consumers report exactly the same thing. They never get sick!!!!! They report consistently that their kids are the healthiest of the neighborhood and when all the rest get colds they do not and come flu season….they stay healthy.
The FDA & CDC are protecting PHARMA!!!! If they were not, they would be very interested in what we are reporting and experiencing.
You are completely right.
Mark
I also agree with Ingvar “but, but, but” . . . =)
Rawmilkmike, don’t you realize that the various data put out by CDC are designed primarily to make the case we have a food safety “crisis”….in other words, to stir up fear. The data aren’t intended for the kind of logical and clear-headed analysis you have done. Once you start making reasonable inferences, you are accused of “comparing apples and oranges” and such. In other words, the data are only considered meaningful if you infer a crisis, but are considered merely estimates requiring much more research if you infer, like you have, that raw milk isn’t nearly as dangerous as CDC and FDA make them out to be.
I did a post about the shameful state of food safety data some months back:
http://thecompletepatient.com/article/2014/may/2/shameful-state-american-food-safety-data
“I dont think anyone wants to put small farmers out of business.”
To the contrary, in the 20th century the USDA and corporations intentionally drove out of business millions of farmers.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7LfMua2kHHIC&lpg=PA128&ots=vARxgWt0wN&dq=1962%20CED%20report%20agriculture&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q&f=false
The current system of agriculture and regulation was specifically created to be this way. Do not think for a minute that they’re happy to see the local food movement with small farms directly reaching consumers outside the regulator system. And especially not the rise of a joint consumer-farmer political movement. They would just as soon it never happened.
Now there is a silver lining for them, replacing the aging farm population, since robotics isn’t quite there yet. But the effort is underway now to co-opt and control the movement. Thats why they’re pushing regulations, registrations, and efforts such as food hubs to bring them back into the commodity fold and to harness their political power through controlled organizations.
“Why would big business push for more regulation, like the Food Safety Modernization Act, which adversely affects the corporations as well?”
From meat inspection to interior designer licensing, most if not all regulation has been put forth at the behest of those to be regulated. It raises barriers to entry to keep out competitors. Corporations can easily handle more regulations; they’re bureaucracies, its what they do by nature and they can bear the costs. This is not true of young upstarts.
And more than just exemptions; regulatory capture means they’ll eventually be able to co-opt and control the regulators and use them as a weapon.
I believe the figure of 17.3% for the Minnesota 10 year study period remains the same when it is converted to an annual average rate (divide both sides by 10, which cancel out). Might be wrong, but that is how I read the findings from Minnesota.
John
He would lose his grant funding that flows from the milk industry. This scientist loves raw milk, drinks raw milk, studies raw milk…but can not speak of raw milk!
Money runs and ruins science!
—
Raw Milk Consumption among Patients with NonOutbreak-related Enteric Infections, Minnesota, USA, 20012010
—
Trisha J. Robinson, Joni M. Scheftel, and Kirk E. Smith
—
Results
During 20012010, a total of 20,034 Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, STEC O157, non-O157 STEC, and Salmonella infections were reported to MDH. Among these cases, 6,695 were excluded for the following reasons:
—
After exclusions, a total of 14,339 cases remained for analysis, including 6,747 Campylobacter spp., 1,742 Cryptosporidium spp., 1,069 STEC O157, 354 non-O157 STEC, and 4,427 Salmonella spp. cases.
—
Among the 14,339 patients, 530 (3.7%) reported consumption of fluid raw milk during their exposure period (Table 1). The median annual number of case-patients reporting raw milk consumption was 53.5 …
—
Pathogen-specific underdiagnosis multipliers (18) were applied to data regarding the 530 cases associated with reported domestic raw milk consumption and resulted in an estimate that 20,502 Minnesotans became ill with sporadic Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, STEC O157, non-O157 STEC, or Salmonella infection during 20012010 after drinking raw milk (Table 2). We applied the percentage of Minnesotans in the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network population survey who reported consuming raw milk (2.3%) (13) to the 2006 state population (5,167,101) and determined that an estimated 118,843 Minnesotans consume raw milk during a given week. If these projected illness data are applied to the projected number of raw milk consumers and the percentage of Minnesotans who consume raw milk was consistently 2.3% during the study period, then an estimated 17.3% of raw milk consumers in Minnesota may have acquired an illness caused by 1 of these enteric pathogens during the 10-year study period.
—
Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States-Major Pathogens – Table 2
Pathogen-specific underdiagnosis multipliers