Washington in our pantries

With Thanksgiving leftover still filling our fridges, it’s hard to think of something that brings people together more than food. This is true even in the political arena, where a controversial food safety bill is making strange bedfellows of such disparate groups as free-spirited organic farmers and other localvores and buttoned-down free-market think tanks types.

At the center of debate is senate bill 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which is slated for a full senate vote as early as Monday of this week. While advocates say this act will streamline efforts by the FDA and other agencies to keep the United States’ food supply safe, opponents wonder why a food supply already described as “remarkably safe” by the Center for Disease Control needs federal agencies tinkering around with it. They also worry about the negative effects it will have on food prices in general and small farm, organic and artisan products in particular. These, of course, are the very food producers which power a large segment of Vermont’s local and state agricultural economy.

S. 510 re-emerged this fall after a salmonella outbreak this past summer resulted in the recall of half a billion eggs and at least a thousand ill. Fortunately the incidence of salmonella poisoning and most food-borne illnesses has steadily declined over the past few years; but we will never be able to eliminate all risk in life. This summer’s outbreak occurred despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration already has broad powers of regulation over food safety and production. Funny how government agencies often reward themselves with more power when they screw up, while private companies lose customers and market share and are subjected to congressional hearings when they make mistakes.

Unfortunately, Vermont’s farmers and specialty food makers may feel the brunt of this latest power grab. Though an amendment has been added to this legislation to help relieve small food producers from the over-burdensome nature of the new regulation, it establishes arbitrary limits that make little difference in real terms. For instance, the Tester amendment allows small producers - those earning $500,000 or less in annual sales - to continue under state and local regulations. As soon as they exceed that amount the full force and cost of the legislation comes to bear. With the current economic policies being enacted by the federal reserve and widespread fear of inflation, especially in commodities, that $500,000 number may be reached quickly in the next few years.

Another feature of the Tester amendment - an exemption for those selling most of their food directly to consumers, local restaurants and retailers within a 275-mile radius - makes little sense in practice. Consider this: a cheesemaker from Middlebury could sell her wares to retail outlets in Rochester, New York, which is about 229 miles distant, but has to register with a new federal regulatory agency, submit to federal inspections, fill out a copious amount of paperwork and then keep track of regulation as it changes and becomes more demanding (as it always does) to sell the same cheese to stores in Buffalo, which is 293 miles away. Within large states like California and Texas federal regulations would apply to intrastate commerce.

Large food producers have sophisticated operations able to deal with government requirements. Small producers rarely have the extra financial or or personnel resources to keep up with the onerous burdens increased government regulation necessitates. A few years the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act was passed and the prohibitive costs associated with adhering to this legislation drove hundreds of small toy manufacturers out of business. Meanwhile, companies such as Mattel and Hasbro live on to stock the shelves for yet another Christmas buying season..

There is one important check on businesses both large and small - the free market. Consumers should be able to decide which risks they are willing to take and which they are willing to pay extra to avoid. In the case of eggs, for instance, pasteurized eggs are widely available in grocery stores, though at a higher price. For those who like to eat cookie dough or make Hollandaise sauce, the extra cost might be worth it. For the rest of us, maybe not so much. Are we not capable of assessing the level of risk without Washington imposing on us safety levels above and beyond what we decide we need?

Businesses have nothing to gain by sickening their customers. It is in the best interest of all companies, large and small, to produce high quality products and quickly remove those that do harm. The pressure of competition encourages businesses to provide the best products possible. Our nation’s food supply is the safest in the world not because of government agencies but because producers are held accountable to consumers.