http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/health...ss&emc=rss

The NYT has disgusted me lately with their obvious biases, and this piece is no exception. Almost no mention of the legitimate concerns of small and organic farms which will be killed by the time and cost of extra paperwork. I have NO desire to see the FDA given more power when they already use what they have poorly (just look at the recent "sting" operations on raw cheese producers which wasted tons of resources and time over nothing whilst big corporations get away with actual infractions). Never thought I would agree with Coburn on something, even if it is for the wrong reasons.

Most of the problems with disease spreading is a result of greater and greater centralization, and this will compound the problem.

Ugh.

(11-30-2010 12:40 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  Most of the problems with disease spreading is a result of greater and greater centralization, and this will compound the problem.

Ugh.

So true. The FDA, like all other government regulatory agencies, does nothing except ensure that small businesses have a harder time competing against larger, established firms. This bill will do nothing to help food safety. All that we the peasants will get is higher food prices and fewer dietary choices.

I'd like to see more small and/or organic farms. Then maybe the prices of foods produced organically (or at least more naturally) will fall enough that a family doesn't have to settle for, say, McDonalds, because they can't afford something healthier yet equally filling.

Remember this, those of you who think increased regulation is the cure for all the greedy capitalist ills.

I'm for regulation that has a basis in facts or study or some kind of measure of performance, and preferably based on a small number of well-crafted rules, not giving carte blanche to a regulatory agency to enforce what they will (not their dear friends in big agribiz, clearly). More paperwork is not the answer to sloppy practices causing disease. The answer is holding those companies responsible - to a degree that makes being careful the economically prudent choice.

(12-02-2010 03:16 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  I'm for regulation that has a basis in facts or study or some kind of measure of performance, and preferably based on a small number of well-crafted rules, not giving carte blanche to a regulatory agency to enforce what they will (not their dear friends in big agribiz, clearly). More paperwork is not the answer to sloppy practices causing disease. The answer is holding those companies responsible - to a degree that makes being careful the economically prudent choice.

Agree, but the desirable result is not the one you're going to achieve from our regulatory system, which is controlled by lobbyists.

I'm not sure how you DO get there. Do you blow up our regulatory system and rebuild it? Do you try to reform it? Do you blow up our regulatory system and let the free market hand out rewards and penalties?

If there is a way to focus on fewer but better regulations, there may still be a way to save the regulatory system. But that's not where we're headed now.

(12-02-2010 03:16 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  I'm for regulation that has a basis in facts or study or some kind of measure of performance, and preferably based on a small number of well-crafted rules, not giving carte blanche to a regulatory agency to enforce what they will

I too am in favor of government being reliably virtuous.

If anyone has suggestions on how to achieve that, please let the world know.

Organic farmers love paperwork. I suspect the proposed paperwork is minor compared to what it takes to achieve "Organic" status.

A family member is heavily involved in agronomy. At one of his meetings, he sat in on an Organic producers meeting. A great deal of the time was spent discussing how they could further regulate themselves and others that wanted the "Organic" distinction.

(12-06-2010 03:29 PM)v-eight Wrote:  Organic farmers love paperwork. I suspect the proposed paperwork is minor compared to what it takes to achieve "Organic" status.

A family member is heavily involved in agronomy. At one of his meetings, he sat in on an Organic producers meeting. A great deal of the time was spent discussing how they could further regulate themselves and others that wanted the "Organic" distinction.

Proof again that the statement "Special interest uses regulation to protect special interest" is the economic equivalent of "Dog bites man."

(12-06-2010 11:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-06-2010 03:29 PM)v-eight Wrote:  Organic farmers love paperwork. I suspect the proposed paperwork is minor compared to what it takes to achieve "Organic" status.

A family member is heavily involved in agronomy. At one of his meetings, he sat in on an Organic producers meeting. A great deal of the time was spent discussing how they could further regulate themselves and others that wanted the "Organic" distinction.

Proof again that the statement "Special interest uses regulation to protect special interest" is the economic equivalent of "Dog bites man."

Isn't that the only actual purpose of regulation?

(12-06-2010 11:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-06-2010 03:29 PM)v-eight Wrote:  Organic farmers love paperwork. I suspect the proposed paperwork is minor compared to what it takes to achieve "Organic" status.

A family member is heavily involved in agronomy. At one of his meetings, he sat in on an Organic producers meeting. A great deal of the time was spent discussing how they could further regulate themselves and others that wanted the "Organic" distinction.

Proof again that the statement "Special interest uses regulation to protect special interest" is the economic equivalent of "Dog bites man."

Unfortunately it's not that simple. I know actual farmers in the Southeast Texas area because I spend a lot of time trying to find local, organic produce and frequent markets and messageboards in search of it. Most of them are not making a lot of money, and farm because it's a commitment to a way of life (you'd be surprised how many were not born into it but quit their day jobs to head back to the land). Pretty much all of the ones I know are in it for the 'right reasons' - sustainable use of the land, keeping toxins out of the environment and out of their food.

So you can imagine it burns them up pretty bad when they have to compete against (often larger, corporate) interests that are getting labeled "organic" while violating either the letter or the intent of the designation. This is apparently a huge problem with produce from other countries, particularly. The inspection process is pretty minimal, so it comes down to 'trusting' the supplier. Labeling yourself organic allows for a much higher price on the produce, so there is incentive to cheat if you think you can get away with it.

My solution so far has been to develop relationships with the farmers and buy straight from some locals. But they are not exactly raking in the cash - a lot of them are in a pretty precarious position financially. I don't blame some of them for wanting regulation (which, if I asked, probably doesn't equate to more paperwork, but more inspections... I digress).