Some regulations require expensive
upgrades in infrastructure, land or machinery that small and medium sized farms
simply cannot afford. For example, Berry says in Kentucky recently, local
slaughterhouses were required to make expensive alterations. Most could not
afford them and were forced out of business. According ot the Food Safety
and Modernization Act, however, new plans are being implemented to better cater
to small and midsized farms.
It was hard for me to choose a side in
this dilemma with the information I was provided. On one hand, it seems like
there should most definitely be more regulations in all areas of food
production- even if it drives the cost of food higher as Berry argues (the cost
of food being relatively low anyways). But are these regulations meant to help
the consumer, or to cater to big corporations? Berry’s examples seemed to vague
for me to tell for sure, but what I can tell is that there must definitely
exist some kind of middle ground regulation-wise that keeps small and midsized
farms running in a way that is up to par with government standards, without
driving them out of business. Even if that means that consumers need to start
paying more for their food, I believe it is worth it.
I am often torn with some of these issues, too. I think that if expensive improvements are needed to adhere to stricter regulations that the costs should be split between the farmer/processor/ corporation. I think the big agribusiness companies are all too eager to pass on the extra expenses to the smaller farmers, which really is detrimental to them being financial viable.
ReplyDelete