Food safety bill: the Big Business/Big Nanny alliance

by Walter Olson on October 4, 2010

Surprisingly or otherwise, some big business groups like the Grocery Manufacturers of America have allied with consistent Big Government advocacy groups like the Consumer Federation of America and Center for Science in the Public Interest to push S. 510, the food safety bill pending before the Senate (which might win consideration in the lame-duck session). In a post at Cato at Liberty recently, I cited writer Barry Estabrook, an ardent critic of the food industry (“Politics of the Plate“), writing at The Atlantic, who says the bill could “make things worse”:

You needn’t go along completely with Estabrook’s dim view of industrialized agriculture to realize he’s right in one of his central contentions: “the proposed rules would disproportionately impose costs upon” small producers, including traditional, low-tech and organic farmers and foodmakers selling to neighbors and local markets. Even those with flawless safety records or selling low-risk types of foodstuff could be capsized by new paperwork and regulatory burdens that larger operations will be able to absorb as a cost of doing business.

It’s true that S. 510 includes language not in earlier drafts that nods toward the idea of tiering regulatory burdens. But as the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance notes (background), most of the small-producer-friendly changes are left to FDA discretion, so it really depends on how much you trust that process. Note also these comments (background) by Peter Kennedy for the Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which focuses primarily on defending raw milk, and in particular Kennedy’s discussion (as things that may be particularly burdensome to small entities) of HARPC (“hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls”), traceability, penalties, expansion of federal jurisdiction, and produce standards, as well as the terms of S. 3767, the “Food Safety Accountability Act of 2010,” a new measure introduced by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. On the “pro” side, here is an advocacy sheet (anonymous on its face, but attributed in some quarters to Senate staffers) defending the measure as fair to small farmers (& welcome Professor Bainbridge readers).

{ 1 trackback }

Counting our blessings dept.: bills Congress didn’t pass
10.08.10 at 11:01 am

{ 3 comments }

1 Aaron Worthing 10.04.10 at 3:09 pm

well, on the subject of trusting the FDA, let’s remember this golden oldie from the EPA. a while back the EPA noticed that milk contains fatty oils. So, they reasoned, milk could be reclassified as an oil.

So then they said to dairy farmers all across the nation, that they must take steps to prevent spills.

So they aren’t crying over spilled milk but instead putting on onerous regulations to prevent the spill in the first place.

And yes, that harms small farmers more than others. http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/06/milk-is-oil.html

So we certainly cannot trust the government as long as obama is in office, that is for sure.

2 gitarcarver 10.04.10 at 6:06 pm

After reading this post on Overlawyered:

http://overlawyered.com/2010/09/timothy-sandefur-the-right-to-earn-a-living/

I ordered the book “The Right to Earn a Living.” It is, as one would expect, rather dry, but at the same time well written, educational, and a great read.

If things like the milk = oil scandals astound and bother you, “The Right to Earn a Living” will leave your jaw on the floor.

3 Aaron Worthing 10.05.10 at 8:51 am

gitar

mmm, sounds like an important book. i will read it in my spare time. if i have any. ;-)

Comments on this entry are closed.