I would never, never, never, drink unpasteurized milk, and I'd never allow my family to do so. It's a completely unnecessary risk.

John Farley

Henderson, NV

If the government actually was actually concerned with the health and safety of our food, their actions would be directed at corporate agribusiness. E. coli contamination provides an excellent example. Small livestock farmers tend to pasture their stock, while agribusiness congregates their stock on feedlots. Feedlot cattle spend most of their life caked in their own feces, some of which is bound to make it into the finished meat. Family farmers generally face no such issue.

The grassroots/consumer movement to slow-food, CSAs and buying local represents a real threat to agribusiness. The regulatory regime represents their best defense to the movement. On a feedlot, only 1 of 100 cattle need to be chipped; on a family farm, every head must be chipped. A family farm that wants to slaughter its own stock must comply with a bewildering measure of regulations, including building an office for USDA inspectors that includes a dedicated phone line. Not to mention handicapped-accessible toilets and drinking fountains.

Our current system of agriculture is unsustainable, yet the decentralized alternative--which has shown its ability to best the current system in the eyes of the market--can hardly take hold due to governmental regulation. Free market economics are, apparently, unassailable until those free markets affect large corporations.

Personally, I'll take my food safety chances with farmers that I know, since I have zero faith that agribusiness is at all concerned with my health or safety.

Alexi Koltowicz

Marquette, MI

To Ralph D'Ambrosio, who wonders about people possibly becoming ill from food bought direct from farmers: The reality is that people rarely become because the farmers have a direct stake in making sure their food is fresh and of high quality. There's no quicker way to lose business than for customers to become sick. The reality is that we take a risk every time we eat any food, but individuals who buy direct have greater protection because they can go back to the producer with a complaint, with the expectation that the situation will be investigated and dealt with. When Wal-Mart ground beef sickened hundreds recently, all Wal-Mart did was provide replacement beef...as if customers wanted that. As for enforcement of regulations, bureaucrats always have choices about how stringently they apply regulations on the books, and all indications are that they are applying their regulations much more stringently to small farmers than to corporate producers.

David E. Gumpert
www.thecompletepatient.com

Needham, MA

I agree with Mr. Gumpert's view of the current state of affairs with small farmers selling direct to consumers. It is unfortunate that the government can't see beyond their industry lobbyists and dollar signs to the impact this local food movement can have on our nation. At a time when small farms are falling by the wayside at an alarming rate and factory farming is the standard--and is corrupting our environment and food supply--we should be doing all we can to support those small farms.

I buy most of my food locally (as much as I can). I love knowing the farmers who produce my food, and I know exactly how it is raised/grown. I forge relationships with these people and I am honored to be able to pay them a fair price for their hard work. The direct-to-consumer model can save small farms. My poultry farmer gets $2.70 per pound for pastured poultry. It is available by pre-order and delivered a couple times a year. This helps the farmer know exactly how many chickens and turkeys to raise and they get a fair price. I get a quality of food that is not found in stores and the cost to me is generally less than what I would pay in a store (for lesser quality). It is a win-win situation.

As for risk of illness, I know how my food is raised and who raises it and where and how it is processed. That to me drastically reduces my risk of food-borne illness. However, any food has an inherent risk of illness, and the government's mandates don't negate the risk, they just take most of the blame off of corporate America. You don't find a beef producer shut down when meat has to be recalled--they recall a portion of the affected meat and usually it is so late in the game that this is an ineffective tool for preventing any outbreak of illness. However, if there is even a hint that a small farmer could, maybe, possibly have an infected herd or any kind of risk in their product, they are shut down and usually quarantined. It makes little sense and it can break a small farm. Our food supply is not protected by these government actions at all. Look at how many beef and poultry recalls have been announced just in the last few months. Our system is failing at the national level, and the best way to help it is to support local producers.

Lisa Imerman

Waterford, MI

Under normal circumstances, I would be quite happy if the government were actually inspecting our food products, and those foods were actually produced in America where they could be inspected. However, they are not protecting the consumer, and the odds are that you are safer with "organic" food. I have read where "good" American beef is actually mixed with imported beef which, of course, is not inspected. Part of another trade deal no doubt.

A recent article put out by the New York Times News Service, by Julia Preston, told about a California "farmer" with a $50 million operation who went to Celaya, Mexico because he couldn't get enough workers in America. However, you will no doubt be pleased to find that he has found a good supply of workers in Mexico, and instead of paying $9 an hour as in California, he pays the same workers in Mexico $11 a day. Because of the cheap wages, he has recovered his startup costs in Mexico. He does wonder why they don't work as hard as they did in the US. The lesson learned here is that if agricultural jobs go South, the jobs and wages for "temporary" workers also go south.

Pervis J. Casey

Riverside, CA

I appreciate that we have a lot of these laws to protect consumers (who appear to get progressively more unable to make rational decisons themselves). But, someone correct me if I am wrong...all the stories in the news lately (about E. coli etc.) occurred on big corporate farms or private farms under contract.

The problems these laws target seem to be symptomatic of large agribusinesses, focused on their bottom line, not of local farmers selling to their neighbors. So it all seems like strong-arming by the government to me.

I personally do not belong to such an arrangement, but sure as hell wouldn't want/need/constitutionally have to tolerate, undue government intervention in my grocery shopping habits. (For that matter, they could stay out of my medicine cabinet, liquor cabinet and smoking room too).

Eric Fabel

Buxton, NC

I don't know the particulars of the Vermont case mentioned in an earlier letter, but the Deva clothing catalog folks were campaigning against Depression-era "piece work" laws because their clothesmakers, while being paid based on the number of pieces made, were local folks working out of their homes rather than "oppressed workers slaving away in a sweatshop." Deva also claimed that the latter situation no longer occurred enough in the United States that laws protecting against such exploitation should stand in the way of their more enlightened practices.

I think Deva was full of New Age Hippie BS on the general issue, even if they paid their local independent contractors--sorry, independent-minded rural folk being given a chance to make some money--a fair piece rate. And as we've seen in too many instances, sweatshops still exist in the US, as do many other wretched and unsafe places to work. If the Vermont ladies were being paid by the piece rather than by the hour -- and people doing piece work can be given back-breaking quotas whether they work in a factory or out of their home--then I have no problem with them being shut down, but I'd love to read some more facts about the story.

Charles Alexander

Albany, NY

I just have one question: What happens when a person is "buying direct" from a farm becomes sick because the farmer is not following the state and federal safety laws? I mean, these laws do exist for a reason, to protect the consumer. Or do you feel that only "big business" should follow safety laws?

Ralph D'Ambrosio

Bethpage, NY

I heartily applaud the spirit of this article! The nation's movement towards local produce and artisanwork is to be commended. Now, one further question: Does this same freedom to produce and sell locally apply when the items are handcrafts?

I remember the case of an independent co-op of ladies in Vermont who were closed down from making specialty knit mittens by a similar police raid. The instigation in that case was from a labor union, who wanted such work done only in factories. I don't see any difference in principle from the farmers' sales, both being independent of big companies and big unions.

John D. Froelich

Upper Darby, PA