A couple of weeks ago in my Victual Reality column I wondered why more farm areas don't focus on growing food for local consumption, since the global commodity market had proven such an economic disaster.
I acknowledged one key problem: the collapse of local food infrastructure after 50 years of investments in stuff like grain elevators and train systems designed to haul food far, far away.
I forgot to add a factor I mentioned in an earlier column: federal regulations, designed with mega-producers in mind, are a crushing weight on small-scale artisanal operators.
Together, these two factors can deal a death blow to people's extraordinary efforts to rebuild local food networks.
An email I received yesterday from the Community Food Security Coalition's excellent listserv illustrates these points to maddening effect.
Canadian local-food activist Eric Busch writes that in Ontario, an area called the Rainy River District is ...
... a remote agricultural community with very little infrastructure to rely on for local food production. Locals depend on eating local beef for their livelihood, but there is no inspected abattoir for 300 km (180 mi). They were given an exemption to this rule two years ago, and have produced local, safe meat for that time. Just last week, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food arrived to shut down the processing facility because an inspected abattoir wasn't used, even though the system that was used has a proven, safe record. The same week a syringe casing was found in a large meat processing plant in the same province. The district residents feel that enough is enough, and they're tired of government favouring large industrial food systems over localized production systems. If places like the Rainy River District cannot eat their own products, their communities will not survive.
Eric adds links to two pieces in the local media detailing this appalling situation.
The tar sands blow
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
bhurley Posted 5:14 am
14 Nov 2006
In the case above, I don't think the federal regulations were necessarily designed with "mega-producers in mind." Could it be instead that they were designed with public safety in mind? People have been eating meat from "uninspected abbatoirs" for centuries, often with no ill effects but sometimes with deadly consequences.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:34 am
14 Nov 2006
Permalink
jscorse Posted 6:05 am
14 Nov 2006
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 6:56 am
14 Nov 2006
As for regulations, well, they're designed with public health in mind, yes, but with an eye toward protecting the public from the ravages of giant feedlots, which stuff corn into animals that evolved to eat grass and then confine them in their own shit. I don't know about Canada, but beef packing is extremely concentrated in the US. The USDA reckons that four firms buy 78 percent of the cows and heifers here. I'd bet that if you looked closely, you'd find that these mega-operations are actually under-regulated, given the steady stream in E. coli outbreaks vis. hamburger meat. But applying the same standards to small farms that feed their cows grass is absurd. I'm not calling for no regulation; just regulation appropriate to scale.
And that, JS, is my answer to your question.
The celebrated US animal farmer Joel Salatin reckons that federal regulations that bar him from slaughtering his cows on-farm adds a dollar a pound to his beef price. Given that feedlot beef is monstrously subsidized as it is--through $4 billion or so annual payments to corn farmers that work to keep the corn price down--that dollar-a-pound penalty seems unconscionable.
One doesn't have to be Milton Friedman to find such a rigged market absurd.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 7:01 am
14 Nov 2006
Victual Reality
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:37 am
14 Nov 2006
<<
People have been eating meat from "uninspected abbatoirs" for centuries, often with no ill effects but sometimes with deadly consequences.
>>
Only, I would re-write it, with a comma after "effects," and deleting "often" and "sometimes."
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:12 pm
14 Nov 2006
you want regulation appropriate to scale-hmmmm...
so does that mean different regulations and standards for different size producers? is there any precedent for that? i'm curious- do you have examples?
would that then lead to mandatory labelling of these different standards? of course, the consumers should know about this right?
how do you determine scale? income? acres? numbers of cows? number of workers?
you have to address these basic questions if you want anyone to take this seriously. i look forward to your response
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:40 pm
14 Nov 2006
I wonder if the global food system's triumph's won't in the end prove Pyrrhic. Industrially produced food -- the example par excellence of globalized food -- tends to make people sick, not healthy. Diabetes and obesity rates throughout the developed nations are soaring, as they are in areas of the global south where people have forsaken traditional fare. There's evidence that life expectancy in the US may actually begin to decline in the next generation, for the first time in a 100 years. The reason: so-called diseases of affluence, such as obesity and diabetes. These are really the diseases of an impoverished food culture.
Then there's the stunning loss of biodiversity that has accompanied industrial agriculture, as well as its impressive energy intensiveness, points I made in a recent column. Both of these factors seem to make the system particularly vulnerable as we head into an age of unpredictable climate change and rising prices.
Then there's the fact that despite the Green Revolution and all of the Western investment in industrial ag in the global south, poverty rates are really declining as quickly as we had hoped, right? And as Mike Davis shows so graphically in his newest book Planet of Slums, the cities of the global south don't have nearly the economic capacity to absorb the millions of farmers being evicted--pardon, liberated --from the land by this much-vaunted global food system. In short, no matter how commoditized and cheap food becomes, people have to have enough cash in their pockets to buy it, or they go hungry. And they don't, and they are, by the billions.
I haven't even gone into all the various ravages of feedlot meat production, or artificial-fertilzer and pesticide dependent monocultures, or the collapse in rural economies in the US, or our truly mind-boggling ability to rely on immigrant labor to feed us and also to fantasize about building walls to keep those same laborers out, etc.
This food system--which is really an uncontrolled experiment with only a few generations under its belt--does not seem very sturdy to me. Moreover, it's an open question whether the system can function without regular lashings of federal cash in the form of subsidies. We haven't tried that one yet.
Oh yeah, and the food our global food system produces sucks--and that matters.
As for the question of scaleable regulations, is that really so hard to imagine? I suppose one could crunch up a complex and simultaneously simplistic (assumption: perfectly free markets) econometrics model, but it's hard to see what good that would do. Try this: Send well-trained inspectors out to small-scale operations. Let them use there eyes and noses. Let them perform surprise and random tests of the meat these operations produce for contamination.
How would you differentiate scale? How about small medium and large, by number of animals slaughtered? Does it really say in your economics textbooks that Joel Salatin needs to have the same machines on his farms as IPB/Tyson has in its factories? Suggestion: shut the book and open your eyes.
It could be argued that sending skilled, reliable inspectors to small processing facilities would simply require too many resources. Ever looked at the USDA commodity budget? Ever looked at the budget for corn-based ethanol?
Forgive me for not larding this comment with hyperlinks. It's late.
Victual Reality
Permalink
swozniak Posted 2:40 pm
14 Nov 2006
Sadly, Michigan passed a law recently that took away local governments' power to regulate seeds, which opens them up to the Monsantos and Con-Agras and their corruption. I've moved from there, but the farmers I'm in touch with aren't liking it at all.
We've got farmer's markets and CSAs down here in NC, and we're the better for it. They're thriving, too. Check out Local Harvest to find local good near you.
Buy local this Thanksgiving!
Permalink
Sasha Posted 2:53 pm
14 Nov 2006
In the case of the Rainy River District I would argue that regulation is pretty much pointless. When we have established social relationship with those with whom we conduct economic transactions with, there is much less of a need to have the power of government standing beside us.
At the same time, when we are poisoned, made ill, and otherwise harmed by industrial food, we are fools to think that the government will be able to do an adequate job of protecting us. There is too much distance between us and the production and liability is spread to thinly amongst the middlemen who get us our food. I think that many of us who care about local food understand this at some intuitive level and recognize that the best way to protect ourselves against an industry that has proven almost since its inception to being prone to cause excessive harm in the pursuit of profit, is to simply not patronize the system. So we shop at farmers markets, join CSAs, and buy cow-shares. But when spinich is contaminated and the "general public" calls for more regulation, more testing, etc. I think that the point is being missed. Regulation can only assist in enforcing what the collective will of a society wants and is willing to defend. If consumers aren't willing to stand up for what they supposedly believe in, there isn't much point in tweaking or pouring more money into a regulatory system that cannot keep up with the myrid ecological, economic, human and animal abuse caused by industrial agriculture.
If we think about what regulation can and cannot do and what we as citizens need to do we should think about the USDA Organic Standards. A regulatory system was put in place that essentially instutionalized the seperation of the consumer from the producer (again). So now we have Wal-Mart hosing us for that extra margin on organic carrots, but really feeding us standard del-monte or whatever they substitute. Or we have organic food that is legitimately "organic" but that has none of the spillovers that organic was intended to produce - high income for farmers, less energy consumption, reduced soil errosion, etc. Some people have reacted by turning to "local" food but most Americans (and perhaps Canadians as well) have not.
I think that corporations deserve a lion's share of the blame in perpetuation a food system that is harmful if not deadly. I think that government agencies and ellected officals should be taken to task for their failure to ethically act. But who should blame and who should take to task? People need to. The reality is that most people are not taking action. They are expecting others to take action for them be it their elected officials or the government agencies that operate with their tax dollars and with their interest supposedly at heart. People need to stop spending their money on food that perpetuates systems that they claim to oppose. If that means learning how to love grains and yogurt while you figure out how to get or make foods that you want, so be it. But we need to stop pretending that the right regulatory statutes will get us what we want. I think Tom is spot on point out that the farming system is rigged. However, it works because people are willing to pull through the drive through and pay at the other end.
Assuming that we can't just vaporize the entire commodity based food system overnight, how do we deal with situations like Rainy River? Well for one, we need to recognize that government regulation is not the solution in all cases and work with government to find other solutions. Presumably the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food was created partially to protect people from the risk of contaminated food. We need to inform our government representatives that when we can stand across from a farmer and have a conversation and then buy their meat we really don't need regulation. At the same time we also need to have some mechanism by which we acknowledge that we are taking on a risk. I think of the example of cow shares and how they work for people who want raw milk. The USDA allows for people to drink the milk of a cow that they own and so people have formed cooperatives to "buy" cows. I'm not quite sure what the attitude of the USDA is towards this...I assume that some folks grumble. But to me the leason is clear. We don't need government protection when we can rely on social enforcement of behavior. So perhaps we need to advocate for cow ownership exemptions and perhaps farmers need to get creative about creating risk-sharing partnerships in order to avoid government regulation as it adjusts.
If people want change, they need to take action seriously and not defer it to the marketplace or to distant governmental bodies. Those institutions have a roll, but only as long as we take our roll to be citizens seriously.
ok, sorry for this rant but that's what happens when you are a grad student thinking and writing about these issues constantly...
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:39 pm
14 Nov 2006
and you don't need to lecture me on local food production- i'm a vegan who has been buying 75% of his food at a farmer's market (90% organic) for the past 20 years- my ecological footprint with respect to food consumption is probably in the bottom 5% in the country- i am well aware of the problems of industrial ag but buying local is such a small part of the solution- maybe 5%- that i'm not really so interested in it from a public policy perspective
j.s
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 11:45 pm
14 Nov 2006
Stellar job of quantification there, JS. When someone claims to have sorted out "the solution," they too often end up being part of the problem.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Sasha Posted 12:48 am
15 Nov 2006
The point I was trying to make is that your questions could be answered but they are fundamentally misguided.
I certainly wasn't trying to lecture you but I don't think that regulation is necessarily the answer or at least not the sort of regulation that we've historically seen with respect to food production.
I took a look at your paper about environmentalists and economics and you make some interesting points but I think that you are failing to recognize how limited regulation (in the case of property rights or rights to clean water) can be.
Rights emerge from both social norms as well as regulation. Social norms are necessarily limited by the social relationships that allow those norms to be enforced. Regulation is similarly limited by the ability of right-violators to remain invisible to the police-power. What we see in our industrial food system is that neither mechanism is really proven effective in enforcing rights to safe and healthy food.
I also don't think that purely local food is the "solution" but we need to recognize and understand why it is so effective in providing what it is that we want from food (safe, cheap, less environmental damage) and think differently about how to treat markets. We need to recognize that the brilliance of modern economics is that it is incredibly efficient at discovering the loopholes and blindspots in regulation in order to create wealth.
-scc
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:47 am
15 Nov 2006
Apparently, I am a food "evangelist:"
For food evangelists -- consumers who might shop at a co-op or who can explain terms like eco-gastronomy, food miles and the food shed -- a local label is sometimes more important than an organic one. That group, which market researchers say make up about 10 to 15 percent of food shoppers, are most likely to spend time in the store pondering whether an organic pepper from Chile is better than one grown in a nonorganic field less than 250 miles away.
Who knew?
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:48 am
15 Nov 2006
1. so does that mean different regulations and standards for different size producers? is there any precedent for that? i'm curious- do you have examples?
Yes, precisely or general deregulation of smaller scale producers, tighter controls on medium ones and tightest controls for largest. The precedent is the 200 chicken or less slaughter rule, where small farmers making small slaughters can sell those directly, while more than 200 hundred would have to go to a facility, which would add extra money to the eventual price of the chicken.
2. would that then lead to mandatory labelling of these different standards? of course, the consumers should know about this right?
With small farmers, if the farmers are sketchy enough to not let the consumer (I don't like that word, I would almost prefer the 'food evangelist') see the operation or the slaughter, then the consumers probably won't buy the meat. I know I would question the operation. With large killing factories, they do not let consumers in under any pretenses, so that's not really an issue and thus the labeling is irrelevant. Do we see it right now? So what does it matter?
3. how do you determine scale? income? acres? numbers of cows? number of workers?
Simply: less than 50-100, small, 100-250 medium, 250 plus large. The numbers are not that relevant, since the farmers will adjust one way or another. All regulations are set up arbitrarily and should be left up to the locals anyhow.
And that's the point, to go local right? That 5% you talked about matters a hell of a lot more than your hypothetical dismissive hand gesture, since that is what we are trying to promote.
Anyhow, the following is meant to attack the current basis for economic models. The input-ouput scenario is reduced to: capital and labor go into one side, product and jobs come out the other. Money is the driver, energy is assumed to be something external and axiomatic to the system, pollution is regarded as an externality. It's extremely simplified and there is no systems approach to thinking about economics. Good models that take into account the entire system are nearly non-existent. Maybe I'm not explaining this too well, but the current state within economics is poor in my opinion.
I do not mean to criticize you J.S., I am only saying that the assumptions of the economic model that is inherently taught to all economists from high school on do not account for more than 10-20% of what's happening. And it only looks at the money, and not the whole household of the 'ecos', and definitely faring very poorly at the 'nomos' or the management.
Let me give you an example: the economics that are taught to foresters basically show that uneven-aged silvicultural systems (and trust me, in most cases that's what the environmentalists want) have a lower return than even-aged silvicultural systems, despite consistently bringing in more money. Seems a bit ridiculous. AND maximization of profit is the CORE assumption and seems to be the real driver behind the development explosion.
Anyway, sorry about the rant.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:49 am
15 Nov 2006
someone makes wild strong about the "evils" of industrial agriculture (which there are some)
an economist (myself) asks them to qualify how they would promote regulations and policies that would fit their view of "local is good"
we get lots of info on how economists are naive, misguided, purveyors of the status quo (all of which are wrong) and never answers the questions
So anyone else out there believe that we should have different sets of regulations for different size farms? That is different health and safety regulations for different size farms? And does anyone recognize that determining what a "small" farm is is extremely difficult- it's not obvious at all.
I have been researching the different levels of pesticides by farms of different sizes and I completely gave up the task of trying to define small since it was arbitrary- also, the U.S. government does it by income, which makes no sense at all.
By the way, what did I find- there is no significant difference between the amount of pesticides applied per acre between the smallest and the largest farmers- i.e. on this metric small farms are not better for the environment- not worse, but not better.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:58 am
15 Nov 2006
As to economics in general being a small part of the picture i obviously disagree- removing agricultural production subsidies, water subsidies, a carbon tax, and increasing taxes on the worst pesticides would do much more to help the environment than all of the buying from farmers markets combined (which i do)- these are all standard economic prescriptions.
Also, the problem with the buy local argument is that while that's best for fruit and vegetables it's not for protein- it's very EFFICIENT and SENSIBLE to get my grain from the Midwest and not locally- trade in dried grain is extremely efficient since it is light and doesn't require refrigeration- the point is that "local is good" is a slogan- sometimes it has environmental benefits sometimes it doesn't. People who live in deserts SHOULDN'T grow watermelons and rice- they should buy it from somewhere else- this is the point. Let's focus on outcomes, not ideology.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
pyewacket Posted 3:22 am
15 Nov 2006
At the moment, it is illegal for almost any farmer in the US to grow chickens, buthcer them on premises, and then sell them to a neighbor. That's crazy - food has been grown that way since time began. Sure, there are risks - there are risks with factory-farmed meat as well. I would be more comfortable taking my risks with a small, local farmer.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:38 am
15 Nov 2006
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 3:39 am
15 Nov 2006
Victual Reality
Permalink
Eric Busch Posted 3:53 am
15 Nov 2006
I am "that guy" that made the original post on the Comfood listserv a few days ago.
This is a tough topic, and one that we need to get to the bottom of. I've heard arguments for both sides of the over-regulatory discussion, and arguments of the merits vs. downfalls of industrial based food systems.
I'm going to take a stab at the questions that Jason posed.....
1. so does that mean different regulations and standards for different size producers? is there any precedent for that? i'm curious- do you have examples?
The problem with the assumption that producers should follow regulations based on size is that this is a qualitative issue, and not quantitative. There isn't a size cutoff, where food safety issues stop becoming an issue, or suddenly become more of an issue. It really has to do with who's eating the food, who's handling it, and what tendencies for problems do we have with each food system characteristic. So, my answer is, there isn't one "size" that is safe, but there are food handling "systems" that have more tendencies to be safe.
2. would that then lead to mandatory labelling of these different standards? of course, the consumers should know about this right?
Well, again, this isn't a black and white issue. I would only want regulations lifted, if there was proof of a certain food handling system being safer than another. Food and food facilities are inspected for safety, why can't certain types of food systems be inspected for safety? The assumption would be that when meat is handled by fewer people, who are stakeholders in it's safety, this takes the place of certain levels of inspection and might mean more (informal) inspection. I would call for an analysis of the tendencies for safety compromises be compared between systems (local vs. industrial) which would hopefully prove that locally handled meat (given certain circumstances) is as safe as industrial handled inspected meat. Therefore, there is no possible need for distinction between products of different inspection regulations, if their overall safety is presumed to be equivalent.
3. how do you determine scale? income? acres? numbers of cows? number of workers?
You need a system for evaluating the effect of food production on all levels of health, not just personal. This includes economic, environmental and social. I would suggest that each region be evaluated individualy for it's need for regulations, while encouraging and educating on certain types of food handling systems and their tendencies towards food safety, or non-safety.
My overall concern is that there needs to be a shift of emphasis from quantitative to qualitative evaluations on food systems. Some numbers are needed, but some factors cannot be measured with numbers. I believe it's the governments responsibility to work with it's communities to devise local strategies for food safety, while devising a way to evaluate a food systems tendency to create food safety issues.
Permalink
Eric Busch Posted 3:56 am
15 Nov 2006
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 4:16 am
15 Nov 2006
There's an analogy here between giant death factories and human-scale farms catering to nearby residents.
Victual Reality
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:57 am
15 Nov 2006
I don't understand why inspectors can't visit farms a couple of times a year to check things out, like they do to the deli in the store I work. Facilities are either going to pass or fail inspection. It seems strange to me that so much fuss is being given to small scale producers with little or no record of problems when every day people are sickened by bacteria and other pathogens that are too-often present in factory-raised animals.
A few years ago I did extensive research on the meat packing industry for an organization I worked with and believe me it was very, very ugly. I have no reason to believe it's any better today. The meatpacking industry in this country is extremely monopolized, with, I think only three or four companies supplying virtually the whole country (except for those small producers). The huge scale causes tremendous problems with regard to treatment of animals and contamination of meat with e.coli and other pathogens.
With all due respect to economics, and Jason, who will certainly not agree with me, it is my belief that economics should be transformed to include non-quantifiables like quality of life issues, and externalities like resource depletion and pollution. There are so many serious issues facing us today and economics as it is currently practiced has negatively impacted them all. Business-as-usual, as I've so often said, is killing the Earth. Therefore it must be changed. How it changes, I believe, will depend on where you are. Decentralizing our food system, for example, may seem to be a bit chaotic compared to the relatively "simple", so-called efficient system we have now, but it will be more elegant because it will serve the needs of people and communities rather than corporations and policymakers. As I've said several times in various posts about this and related issues, just because one supports local doesn't mean there can be no trade. It is not an either/or scenario. But it only makes sense to me that the more food our communities produce the more secure we will be.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 10:52 am
15 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Sasha Posted 4:44 pm
15 Nov 2006
I don't think that markets can do either. Markets are amoral. Corporations, as institutions that are defined by their function within a market, are also amoral. Corporations end up doing bad things but I would argue that primarily this is because they are operating within a fairly narrow regulatory framework and it is fairly clear in that framework to whom they are responsible. Markets simply reward those who are able to create new wealth and this for me is the problem. Historically and also currently, the best way to create wealth is to identify a niche and exploit it. However, many of these so called niches are produced by relying on regulation. Regulation actually ends up creating a perception of scarcity that only encourages the depletion of resouces that the regulation was intended to protect in the first place.
A good example is that of fisheries. Fisheries are typically referred to in the context of the "tragedy of the commons." If we don't control access to fisheries we won't have any fish. Well, this seems to not have worked very well and we should ask why. One answer is that regulations concerning fisheries are VERY difficult to enforce. However, the perception is that we have strong fishery regulation. This perception creates a situation in which buyers think that the market supply is narrow and thus they bid up the price that they are willing to pay. Supplyers howeve know otherwise. They realize that they are able to fish fairly freely, despite the strict regulation. They are also connect to networks of other fishers who learn of these opportunties. In economic terms we have some stark information asymmetries. This leads to producers essentially being able to exploit the perception created by regulatory regimes to generate wealth and thus perpetuate the "tragedy of the commons" that the regulation was intended to address.
This is what markets are good at...rewardings those who recognize opportunities to create wealth. I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. There are many many examples of how this leads to an increase in welfare for all. Eric makes some very valuable points when he indicates how fuzzy regulation has to be in order to answer Jason's questions. It's important to recognize that one of the drawbacks to regulation is that they are necessarily static. A law is written, regulations are promulgated and we have a static idea of what can and can't be done. Without getting too literary here, which I know will drive many people crazy, we should recognize that we cannot write laws using our language that are flexible enough to deal with all of the nuances that Jason and Eric point out. For me, I see this as an indication that perhaps we shouldn't rely on regulation and the market to solve these problems. While econmics has done a fantastic job of identifying externalities, it hasn't done a very good job of internalizing them. Use economic analysis for what it is good at.
Tom makes a great analogy to Jane Jacobs - social relationships are far more effective in enforcing rights than is the police power of the state. This isn't to suggest that we don't need the police power / regulation, but we just need to be realistic about where it can be effective. For example, Jason makes a great point about people growing watermelons in deserts...it probaby shouldn't happen. However, my answer would be not to relax food related regulation or relax our social norms, but rather to increase the sorts of regulatory regimes that might actually prevent people from living in deserts in the first place. Limit their ability to usurp water rights, etc. If we can't do that, well then, yes I agree with Jason, let them get there food from somewhere where it is "cheaper."
Also, addrssing Jason's point about what happens when you get sick b/c of the local chicken farmer...well I think that regulation might be helpful in this case in terms of spelling out clear terms for responsibility and liability in this case. I think that the reality is that this case is much less likely to occur than is the case of e. coli contamination of spinich. However, regulation can help define these boundaries.
Jason made a point earlier about how he's purchased locally for 20 years+....what is great about this is that it seems that he has taken responsibility for accounting for where his food comes from. Currently we have regulation that allows people to abdicate responsibility for their personal choices. This to me is a huge mistake. Whether we are participants in traditional markets or not, the ability to make consumption choices is based on an understanding of both benefits and risks. Our currently regulatory systems shift risk away from individuals. In the case of food, I think that this only leads to oppportunities for corporations and other large scale organizations to exploit the gaps between social enforceable behavior and legally enforceable behavior to create wealth and growth opportunities. I don't think that it is possible to understand this without understanding how markets work, but at the same time I don't think that implies that we should rely on markets for the "solution."
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 12:54 am
16 Nov 2006
I also know that the term externalities came from economics. Acknowledging that they exist doesn't change anything, however. As Sasha said, economics hasn't done a great job of internalizing the externalities so that they have the impact they should on how our economy operates. If the true cost of all those externalities was figured into the cost of operation, corporations would long ago have cleaned up their acts. It would be too expensive to do otherwise. Instead what we have are corporations that try to get away with as much as possible, going to great lengths to do so. Many of our regulatory agencies are peopled with ex-CEOs or other major players, the so-called "revolving door", and once their stint with the government is done, they often return to the corporate world. No wonder regulations either have no teeth or regulators seem to look the other way. I know this is not the fault of economics, perse, but it is what happens and it does impact markets and artificially inflate profits.
The problem with externalities is they are hard to quantify. Some costs, cleanup for example, medical expenses, stuff like that, can be figured out. But how can one quantify death, pain and suffering, loss of habitat, species extinction? Or the more subtle impacts of polluted water/air/soil on our emotional and psychological well-being? What about the spiritual dimension, that is so valuable (but not quantifable) to most of us whatever words we use to describe it? Economics is one set of tools, one piece of the whole. But that's it.
And Re: fisheries. if things continue as they are, we won't have them to worry about by mid-century according to recent bad news. Fishers fishing fairly freely despite regulations, is one of the problems, but so is the decreasing over-all health of the oceans, which are becoming dangerously polluted -- all those externalities rearing their ugly head in the real world for us to deal with and by harmed by.
I have no problem with economics, perse. What I have a problem with is using economics as the ultimate litmus test for what "works" and what doesn't in the real world.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:12 am
16 Nov 2006
Permalink