This is the third in a series of guest posts from author and farmer Ben Hewitt of Cabot, Vermont. Ben’s newest book, Making Supper Safe, is due out in June 2011. One more post to come … thanks, Ben for this sneak peak at your upcoming book.
Of all the issues relating to the 21st century debate around food safety, none has been so contentious as the recent passing of S510: FDA Food Safety and Modernization Act.
As you may know, S510 gives the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sweeping new powers to increase frequency of inspections, as well demand recalls of contaminated product (believe it or not, prior to S510, all recalls were voluntary). It also requires non-exempt producers to register their facilities with the FDA and develop a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HAACP) system, although many already have already implemented such a plan. These are only a few examples of the changes S510 will potentially effect (I say “potentially” because precisely where the money comes from is still something of a mystery).
Probably the biggest debate over S510 is what it might mean for small-scale, regional producers. The bill ended up passing with an amendment exempting producers that gross less than $500,000 annually, and sell more than half their products directly to consumers, retailers and restaurants. This is the Tester-Hagen Amendment.
The problem with S510, as I see it, isn’t that it will make gardening illegal, as Internet rhetoric would have you believe. Nor is the problem that it will unfairly burden small producers (although it will almost certainly unfairly burden medium scale producers; $500,000 sounds like a lot of scratch, but remember, that’s gross, not net).
I believe the real danger of S510 is as aspect that’s hardly been touched on: It requires the FDA to establish “science-based” protocols for such things as risk analysis and production techniques, to include the growing of fruits and vegetables. It sounds innocent enough: Who wouldn’t want good science informing the way our food is grown and produced?
Well, me, for starters. If this sounds rash, please consider the “miracles” of modern agricultural and food science. GMOs come to mind, as do herbicides, preservatives and so-called “natural” flavorings. Antibiotics as growth promoter. The list goes on. Indeed, much of what is wrong and dangerous about our multi-national, industrial food system was propagated on the back of “science-based” knowledge. The “science” that the FDA will rely on will be the “science” of big ag, the same old human-prevails-against nature “science” that has brought our food system to such a sickly and vulnerable place.
The truth is, S510 might, in the short term, save a few lives. But it does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental flaws in our food system responsible for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of deaths annually. And even if it doesn’t implicitly and acutely stamp out small-scale agriculture, at the very least it perpetuates a system in which power is rapidly consolidating in the boardrooms of a very few multinational conglomerates. Indeed, the very debate over S510 perpetuates the fear most Americans feel when they consider their food.
Of course, the challenge is striking a balance between regulation and freedom, between corporate greed and needlessly burdening the industry. The sorry fact is food is a $1,000,000,000,000 (that’s one trillion, right?) industry. That sort of money provides enormous political clout, and it is exactly why we should not expect, nor wait for, meaningful food safety legislation. It is exactly why we need to support regional producers, even if their production techniques are based on the ecosystem, rather than the FDA’s science-based protocols. It is exactly why we need to realize that every act, including eating, carries a degree of risk. To truly eliminate that risk, as Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has said we must, means a steady erosion of our choices and freedoms as consumers. In and of itself, the passing S510 doesn’t mean we’ve lost these things. But neither is it a step in the direction of truly safe, healthy, regionalized food systems.
If we can’t bring ourselves to assume this responsibility and accept the risk, then perhaps we deserve exactly what our government, under persuasion of its corporate benefactors, provides.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Visit Ben Hewitt’s website for more information on him, his writing and where to hear him speak. If you haven’t yet read The Town That Food Saved, released in early 2010, read about it on Nourishing Words and get your hands on a copy soon!
Our food system is long overdue for a complete overhaul. We need to phase out the factory farms, divest the large conglomerates, and return to smaller, regional food producers so that we know what’s in our food and know that it is actually nourishing us.
Thinking about where we are now, especially with the way animals are treated, makes me sad.
It makes me sad too. I was wondering last night, after putting up Ben’s post, if working on this book was a depressing experience for him. I think I manage to stay hopeful most of the time by not focusing on those huge challenges and only on what I, personally, can influence. The big picture right now is very scary!
Eleanor
As a ” gardening newbie…”, generally ignorant of the topic in general, I have to ask the question; what are the “….fundamental flaws in our food system, responsible for tens of thousands of deaths annually…?”, or was the writer referring to things like herbicides mentioned in the preceding paragraphs?
I am a big fan of science although science without ethics is indeed one of the proximate causes in the continuing erosion of our civilization. More detail about the junk science Ben refers to would be great…his comments do not sound like the usual anti-science rants that are so prevalent today….looking forward to more columns from him! When does the book come out?
Hi Ray,
I agree; there are many layers to this issue. That’s why I wanted Ben to write about it, because I knew I couldn’t do it justice. His research gives him the context that’s needed to make rational conclusions. His book comes out in June. I’m hoping he’ll respond here to address your questions.
Eleanor
Hi Ray,
Thanks for your comment.
I don’t mean to disparage science in its entirety; clearly, there’s much to say for the knowledge and benefits it can confer.
The problem as I see it is that science is too often conducted in a vacuum, while its findings are held up as irrefutable fact in the real world, which emphatically does not exist in a vacuum.
Agriculturally speaking, this leads to things like GMO’s. Taken at face value, genetically modified organisms look like a great thing. Let’s consider seeds first. For instance, GM seeds can allow farmers to grow the same crop on the same piece of land year, after year, after year (monocropping), because the technology allows plant breeders to insert traits that enable the crop to survive in the depleted soils such practices engender. Or they can create varieties that can withstand repeated applications of certain herbicides and pesticides, which means less crop loss to weeds and pests.
Here’s the problem: Farming, of course, does not exist in a vacuum. These practices deplete and destabilize the soil’s mineral balance and organic matter, leading to massive erosion. We’ve already lost about half the top soil from our nation’s bread basket, largely due to industrial ag practices, many of which are based on scientific findings.
Here’s another problem: Science costs money. Often, that money comes from private industry. You can see where this is going. Let’s use GMO’s again: Recently, the International Journal of Biological Sciences showed a correlation between GMO’s and organ failure in rats. Strikingly, the data they used was from a Monsanto-funded research project from 2005, obtained through a court order. In other words, Monsanto had funded the research, found the scientific data not to their liking, and suppressed them. Ouch.
The FDA has shown, time and again, that it’s more than willing to rule based on data that’s been spoon fed from industry. In my upcoming book, I follow the case of AquAdvantage’s GMO salmon, potentially the first GMO animal intended for human consumption. The vast majority of the science the FDA is reliant on is being supplied by the company itself and is, in the words of one of my sources, a senior staff scientist at Consumer’s Union, “horrendous, laughable, and piss-poor.”
Equally disturbing: The FDA has no specific approval protocol for GMO animals intending for consumption. Instead, the product is being routed through its New Animal Drug process. In the words of the FDA official I interviewed: “You don’t necessarily need new regulations to adapt product to process.” Think about that for a second: Rather than take the time to carefully consider the implications (of which there are many), the FDA is trying to adapt the product (GMO salmon) to an existing process (New Animal Drug?!?!) in order to… what? Expedite? Probably. Save money? Maybe. Because they’re lazy? Perhaps. Or because they have a fundamental bias that such products AND the people who will consume them, do not deserve better? Could be.
Whatever the case, I hope these handful of examples help illustrate why I’m leery of “science-based” agricultural protocols.
Thanks for reading.
By the way,
Ray, the book comes out in June. The 12th?? Can’t quite remember.
Eleanor, yes, it was rather depressing to research this book. The deeper I got, the more discouraged I got. The saving grace is learning how many people are starting to really care about this stuff. And living on a little farm. That helped, too.
Once again, I like Ben’s post but I’m left not knowing what the best “policy” decisions are. I agree that I am afraid of science-based protocols and what effect it might have on small and medium sized producers. What is a better position that leaves us with our choices and doesn’t centralize “food power”?
Hi Tammy,
That’s a really tough question. I have a clear and unapologetic bias toward small-scale ag and food production, so keep that in mind as I try to articulate my feelings re:policy.
Many of the challenges surrounding local food production and accessibility are, at their core, issues of rules and regulations. When it comes to food production, there is no true free market, because the existing regulatory structure (even prior to S510) is tilted steeply in favor of commodity ag and food production. Consider the issue of farm animals raised for retail sale, which must be slaughtered and packed in a federally-inspected facility, of which there are very, very few, in large part because meeting those standards is extremely expensive. This necessitates a heavy debt burden, which in turn demands a certain scale of operation that often precludes serving a small, localized market. Or consider the small-scale cheesemaker who want to sell her wares at the local farmer’s market and food co-op. Well, it ain’t gonna happen (at least not legally) if she doesn’t jump through the regulatory hoops and install a cheese room that meets specifications. This is likely to cost tens of thousands of dollars, for someone who wants to sell a few dozen pounds of cheese per week. The result? Either she give us, goes underground, or has to price her cheese beyond the reach of her working class neighbors in order to pay for the mandated infrastructure. There are numerous such examples across the spectrum of food.
I’m not suggesting we just eliminate all regulations and let the corporatized food industry have their way with us. However, I’m also cynical enough to believe that a truly equitable regulatory environment, one that acknowledges the inherent advantages of localized food production in regards to the scale and scope of potential outbreaks, as well as the relative ease of tracing any outbreak to its source (did you know that it took the FDA and CDC a full four months to determine the source point for the salmonella outbreak linked to eggs?), as well as the fact that locally produced food is almost ubiquitously healthier – and thus foments less long-term disease – than commoditized food, is simply not going to happen in a political environment that’s ruled by corporate interests.
That might sound rather discouraging, but in another sense, I think it’s empowering to realize that the agent of change must be, well, us. I think we need to recognize that it is our individual responsibility to become engaged with our food. What do I mean by this? Let’s use our hypothetical cheesemaker as an example. Many of the regulations that exist are there, ultimately, because individuals have no way of knowing how their food is produced. It all happens behind a curtain, and because it happens out of sight, and because the economics always incentivize cost-cutting, the practices are so egregious that without these regulations, we’d be even worse off than we are now.
But what if it didn’t happen behind a curtain? What if you could visit your town’s cheesemaker, and see that, despite the lack of a “science-based” production protocol, she is producing cheese in a sensible and safe manner? What if you accepted that there will always be some risk from eating, and called upon your own common sense to determine whether or not her cheese is a risk worth taking? What if she didn’t have to spend those tens of thousands of dollars, and could instead produce cheese at a reasonable cost that could be afforded by her blue collar neighbors?
I realize this might all sound a little pie-in-the-sky and naive. Maybe so, but if so, I think it’s because over a very short period of time (less than a century), our culture has become acclimated to the idea that food and the risk associated with it is really someone else’s problem. If we’re going to really build robust localized food systems, we’re going to have to assume a degree of responsibility that most of us have never known.
Let’s be less scared, more curious, and if need be, willing to circumnavigate the written law to ensure that small-scale, person-to-person food exchange thrives in the shadow of an industry that would very much prefer it didn’t.
Whew. That was long and sort of rant-ish. Sorry ’bout that.
This affirms my core belief that the power to change this mess rests with us as individuals. The food buying and sourcing choices that we make give us more power than most of us believe.
Ben, your comments on this post are worthy of posts of their own! Thanks for the extra thoughts (not a rant at all).
Eleanor
I love these thoughts and your thoughtful cheesemaker example. You’re right about this creating an underground economy! I wonder how much of what I do buy here and there is going through the “regulatory maze”. Eleanor, thanks for bringing Ben to us. It’s really a treat.
Tammy – Keep Ben in mind if you’re involved in any food conferences or events in your area. He’s an engaging speaker and the story he tells of the resurgence of agriculture and food businesses in his neck of the woods in Vermont is inspiring. I hope you also consider doing a Menu for the Future series in your community…I can picture it!
Pingback: What Is ‘Safe Food,’ Anyway? « Nourishing Words
Pingback: Ben Hewitt on Regionalized Food Systems | Nourishing Words