Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Outlawing Dangerous Goat Cheese
For years, my wife and I have been buying goat cheese from a couple of local farmers who never recovered from the-back-to-the-land movement of 1960s at our town's Saturday City Market. It's delicious and if they want to work that hard, it's OK by me. However, zealous legislators eager to protect consumers from eating dangerous goat cheese have been trying to put Satyrfield Farm out of business. How? By requiring these two small farmers to buy expensive equipment and maintain extensive records, just as though they were Kraft Foods.
Now the savvy entrepreneurs have found a way to foil temporarily our solons in Richmond--they no longer sell their cheese, they give it away and accept donations. As the local paper reports they "give away nearly 80 pounds of chevre at the market, and bring home somewhere between $500 and $600, about $200 more than when they sold it."
It's heartening to see residents of the People's Republic of Charlottesville rallying around these two small scale farmers. Perhaps the Institute for Justice which is already battling Virginia's idiotic wine distribution laws could offer them a helping hand?
|5.9.05 @ 11:41AM|#
The insane laws against raw-milk products really get my goat. I don't know why producers can't just slap a warning label on it and let consumers make the decision for themselves.
|5.9.05 @ 11:44AM|#
"I don't know why producers can't just slap a warning label on
it and let consumers make the decision for themselves."
Because you might not choose to buy the brand from the large,
politically-conected diary producers. So much for free market
competition.
|5.9.05 @ 11:47AM|#
Akira gets it. As the DP article notes, this is a case where the legislation caved to our large agri-business lobby, and made it so that even small farms had to go through the same exact procedures they do.
|5.9.05 @ 12:07PM|#
Wait, you mean regulations serve the interests of large,
politically-connected enterprises?
I'm shocked!
Now do people see why I call myself a "left" libertarian? Because
my strongest sympathies are with the little guys who don't want to
be messed with, and my strongest skepticism is reserved for the big
guys who talk the talk about markets but want the state to keep the
little guy down.
And I hope IJ takes up their case. IJ rocks.
|5.9.05 @ 12:16PM|#
Actually, the top guys at the IJ are starting to get sucked into the Jack Abramoff story.
digamma|5.9.05 @ 12:17PM|#
I'm sick of the free market's eliminating old-fashioned small businesses. Government intervention is called for.
dude|5.9.05 @ 12:18PM|#
I love it - now a black market in raw cheese and milk. There are some farmers in Wis that have done similar things to the "free and donations" concept. I had a swig of raw milk in their kitchen while stopping to buy some turkeys. Delicious. Next up, black market raw eggs.
Ranger|5.9.05 @ 12:22PM|#
Now do people see why I call myself a "left"
libertarian?
I don't see that particular P.O.V. as being "left" or "right". It's
basically the typical common sense libertarian thought. A truly
free market means everyone competes equally. Any outside
intervention for personal gain (i.e. government subsidies,
regulations, general "mucking up the works") is counter to those
ends.
Being "for the little guy" doesn't have to mean "being against the
big guy". If our ruling parties didn't allow themselves be bought
off..errr...persuaded by lobbyists and kept their hands in their
own pockets (instead of our's), the market would survive very well
on it's own accord.
Probably more fairly too.
fyodor|5.9.05 @ 12:28PM|#
Sung to the tune of The Shaggs' "Philosophy Of The World":
And the right-wingers ape what that left-wingers do
And the left-winger ape what the right-wingers do..
|5.9.05 @ 12:40PM|#
Is this just part of a campaign to eliminate the category of
"small farmer"?
Anon
|5.9.05 @ 12:49PM|#
"Is this just part of a campaign to eliminate the category of
"small farmer"?"
I have to wonder where the John Couger Melloncamps, Willie Nelsons,
and other defenders of the "family farm" against evil
"agribusiness" stands on these sort of regulations. Will the next
FarmAid concert donate it's proceeds to fight this sort of
regulation, or will they side with the diary-giants n the name of
"public health?"
|5.9.05 @ 12:51PM|#
Whoops, edit time:
"Is this just part of a campaign to eliminate the category of
"small farmer"?"
I have to wonder where the John Couger Melloncamps, Willie Nelsons,
and other defenders of the "family farm" against evil
"agri-business" stands on these sort of regulations. Will the next
FarmAid concert donate its proceeds to fight this sort of nonsense,
or will they side with the diary-giants in the name of "public
health?" It's always fun to watch ideologes (left and right) try to
serve two masters.
|5.9.05 @ 12:53PM|#
i am confused...just because a large corporation sells more
product they are tasked with more regulations? shouldnt the goat
farmers be held to the same regulations as any other dairy
operation?
mike
|5.9.05 @ 1:00PM|#
There is a point to avoiding fresh milk cheeses like this.
Listeria can sicken/kill/cause women to miscarry if pregnant. Some
of these problems can be helped by
In a different but related matter, I've been working on a TB
outbreak believed to be due to fresh cheese from Mexico:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr/pr022-05.shtml
NYC HEALTH DEPT. WARNS AGAINST CONSUMPTION OF SOME IMPORTED MEXICAN
CHEESES
It's killed one kid so far and sickened a number of others. But
hey, who wants government regulations, right?
|5.9.05 @ 1:02PM|#
er...forgot the rest of my sentance.
"...helped by aging cheeses, or using pasteurization (there are 2
kinds of pastuerization...the slower/lower temp one seems to be
better for the taste of the cheese)."
|5.9.05 @ 1:05PM|#
This whole thing reminds me of the stories from out of Italy where the European Union was trying to tell small farmers in Italy that they couldn't sell the rotten moldy cheese (of excellent quality, no doubt) that they had been making for centuries. Come to think of it, I have no idea what happened with all that.
|5.9.05 @ 1:12PM|#
Doc, they sell fresh cheese all over Europe, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps the problems in Mexico are the result of generally low standards of hygiene?
|5.9.05 @ 1:13PM|#
Doc-
I'm not pregnant and don't plan to be. If I promise to assume full
risk and responsibility, can I pretty-please spend my own money on
Mexican cheese for my own comsumption? I promise not to share it
with any children.
fyodor|5.9.05 @ 1:23PM|#
mike makes a good point. This is one of those perrennial cases where the question arises of whether it's fair to remove the shackles from some when others are still shackled. I can't tell from the article on what basis "small farmers" would be exempted (by the bill that failed), but in general I'm somewhat okay with differential treatment of corporations since they already get favored legal treatment in the form of limited liability.
|5.9.05 @ 1:24PM|#
While I am against regulation, I can say from experience that
food poisoning from soft cheese is a mighty unpleasant
experience.
Doc, they sell fresh cheese all over Europe, if I'm not
mistaken. Perhaps the problems in Mexico are the result of
generally low standards of hygiene?
That, and they grow their vegetables in raw, untreated sewage.
Onions from Mexico were what caused that gigantic Chi-Chi's food
poisoning in Pennsylvania, which if I remember correctly caused
numerous hospitalizations (and deaths? can't remember now if deaths
resulted....)
Yeah, I would say it's safe to avoid all food and other consumables
from Mexico. IMHO. Not a big fan of eating poop. No sir.
|5.9.05 @ 1:30PM|#
Note that this is not a health issue, at least as framed by the
linked article. The issue simply seems to be paperwork and
record-keeping. Now record-keeping is usually tied to health
concerns, but that's why I was curious about the small farmer/large
farmer distinction. Are the large producers just edging out the
small producers by imposing legislative burdens on them? I just
don't see why this is worth the effort otherwise. I mean, the whole
point is that small producers generally know their customers.
Anon
|5.9.05 @ 1:32PM|#
I`ve been eating fresh Mexican cheese ( Panela )for 20 years,I
bring it (legally ) across the border from Cd. Acuna.Last time I
got sick was from eating Swiss bought from a local
supermarket
in a fresh dated package.
|5.9.05 @ 1:33PM|#
Smacky and others-
Yeah, it's probably best to avoid Mexican food, but should it be
illegal? I'm sick and tired of power-tripping do-gooders
threatening to fine me or put me in jail FOR MY OWN GOOD. If I come
down with Montezuma's revenge that is its own punishment, thank
you, and I don't need the government throwing on more.
|5.9.05 @ 1:34PM|#
mike, fyodor:
It's not a question of "fair." For the most part big corps like
regulation because it gets rid of pesky small business competition.
Basically, just reread what Akira Mackenzie said upthread.
|5.9.05 @ 1:35PM|#
How did humans survive before
pasturization/refrigeration/soap?
I think we've been wimpified.
|5.9.05 @ 1:38PM|#
Jennifer,
I totally agree with you. I am against government opportunism to
take yet another dollar or precious minute from me. I was just
relating a personal experience...now about that scheisse
video....
kidding!
|5.9.05 @ 1:41PM|#
Damn, smacky, and here I am trying to make us some money with a few paltry photographs.
|5.9.05 @ 1:47PM|#
smacky, if you starred in a German scheisse movie, you'd
tell us, right?
Sure, joe. sure. No need to fret.
fyodor|5.9.05 @ 1:53PM|#
a new state law from selling fresh goat cheese...They hit a
roadblock this year when a bill that would exempt small farmers
from onerous regulations buckled under the weight of the state�s
powerful agribusiness lobby.
I'm a little confused now about what exactly is going (and has
gone) on here. The first time I read the article, I focused more on
the second part of what I just quoted, ie the failure of a bill
that would "exempt small farmers from onerous regulations." But
reading it again, I noticed the first part, that there's a new
restricting the sale of fresh goat cheese? I guess digamma had it
right, and I thought he was just joking! (Well, he was, but maybe
in a more direct way than I thought.) Anyway, I'm against
regulations but cautious about lifting them selectively. How that
applies to this specific situation I'll leave to others who know
more about the specifics of the situation...
Windypundit|5.9.05 @ 1:54PM|#
How did humans survive before
pasturization/refrigeration/soap?
Um. Many of them didn't survive. Malnutrition still kills thousands
every day in poor places in Africa.
|5.9.05 @ 1:59PM|#
The most sicking cheese that I ever had was when I rented the movie "PUTTY TANG" from Blockbuster.
|5.9.05 @ 2:10PM|#
I am seeing a number of simplistic evaluations of
corporations/regulation.
It is hard to describe in such a way that accurately reflects a
variety of situations, but I will try anyway.
In most cases, industry resists outside forces trying to regulate
it. However, once it has happened, of course they do want other
businesses coming into that market without having to go to the same
trouble they had to go through.
|5.9.05 @ 2:16PM|#
It's killed one kid so far and sickened a number of others.
But hey, who wants government regulations, right?
Hey Doc-
Can these regulations be weakening the body's immune system by
purifying everything? Now that I live in the city drinking the
purified, chlorinated, and flouridated water, I get the shits
everytime I go home to the farm and drink straight from the well. I
used to drink it all day, everyday and always had solid poo! What
gives?
|5.9.05 @ 2:19PM|#
In most cases, industry resists outside forces trying to
regulate it. However, once it has happened, of course they do want
other businesses coming into that market without having to go to
the same trouble they had to go through.
Yes, the classic "since I got sodomized, you have to get sodomized
too" approach. Is private industry just as fucked up as government
anymore?
|5.9.05 @ 2:26PM|#
I welcome these sort of regulations.
If it wasn't for the FDA, we might end up like that cesspool of
botulism up north.
Any Chinatown I've been to in Canada has those disgusting ducks
hanging in shop windows without refridgeration. Nosireee. Can't
have that.
I'd much prefer something vacuum packed or canned (with allowable
amounts of rodent parts) from a conglomerate.
|5.9.05 @ 2:43PM|#
Now do people see why I call myself a "left" libertarian?
Because my strongest sympathies are with the little guys who don't
want to be messed with, and my strongest skepticism is reserved for
the big guys who talk the talk about markets but want the state to
keep the little guy down.
Actually, I never have, Thoreau. To me, "left-libertarian" has
always meant Chomsky and the rest of the squealing idjits who
vehemently deny that any of us individual-rights/free-market folks
should be allowed to call ourselves "libertarians" without going to
the gula-, er, being called evil corporatist bastards. These are
the folks who naturally couldn't give a damn about just leaving the
"little people" alone.
(Personally, I came to libertarianism a little while after a stint
as a Democrat. I stopped being a Democrat when I realized they
didn't care any more about civil liberties and individual rights
than Republicans did - ie, not much at all. My specific interests
in limited government and free markets came a bit later, but I
think of them as all aspects of the same thing. This supposedly
makes me a "right-libertarian" - though, so does calling myself a
libertarian while not screaming "Property is theft!!!" - or just a
plain "libertarian".)
|5.9.05 @ 2:56PM|#
The goat farmers were pressing the Virgina General Assembly to
pass a proposal that would have stripped virtually all state
regulation of goat cheese produced on a farm and sold from the farm
premises or farmers markets. This includes the restriction on
selling raw milk cheese. The proposal failed, and the farmers also
lost a court decision on the regulations enforced by the state
department of agriculture on reporting and equipment.
Yes, raw milk and raw milk cheese can be dangerous for some people,
but for millions upon millions it's not. It's almost as silly as
banning peanuts and other foods altogether because some people are
allergic.
|5.9.05 @ 3:16PM|#
Eric-
The use of the term "left libertarian" by the people that you
describe truly pisses me off. To me, the difference between a
left-libertarian and a right-libertarian is merely one of emphasis,
not one of philosophy. My stances on issues are pretty standard
libertarian fare, it's just that my priorities are different. I
still vote against tax increases and bond measures, I still oppose
(most) economic regulations and gun control. I just prioritize
other issues.
|5.9.05 @ 3:18PM|#
Maybe I need to coin a different term than
"left-libertarian".
How about left-leaning but still orthodox libertarian? Just doesn't
have the same ring to it.
fyodor|5.9.05 @ 4:16PM|#
I'll cop to being a left-leaning libertarian. But there's few
who aren't idiots who can adequately summarize their beliefs in
bumpersticker format.
DITTO, RUSH!
|5.9.05 @ 4:25PM|#
joe,
wouldn't that require at least a moderate belief in the big liberal
tenets, like wealth redistribution and economic protectionism, but
all on a smaller scale?
anyone who's read more than 2 or 3 or thoreau's posts knows he's
not a liberal, small government or not. caring about "the little
guy" doesn't make someone a liberal.
|5.9.05 @ 4:50PM|#
Evan,
"wouldn't that require at least a moderate belief in the big
liberal tenets, like wealth redistribution and economic
protectionism, but all on a smaller scale?" No, it would require a
belief in the VALUES behind such programs - greater equality of
opportunity, good jobs for working people, concern about the
concentration of wealth, etc.
"caring about "the little guy" doesn't make someone a liberal."
Siding with the little guy against the powers that be does indeed
make one a creature of the left, though adopting populist language
or creating phantom oppressors to SOUND like you're fighting for
the little guy doesn't count.
|5.9.05 @ 4:58PM|#
If dangerous goat cheese is outlawed, only outlaws will have dangerous goat cheese.
|5.9.05 @ 5:10PM|#
joe-
Well, in matters of politics I side against the government in most
cases, and I prioritize those cases where the government is working
against the little guy rather than the government working against
the big guy.
But I don't automatically support any policy that allegedly helps
the little guy against the big guy, because many such policies
don't actually work as advertised. Indeed, it's often the case that
such policies actually help the big guys. Or they help a few little
guys (e.g. tarriffs protecting some small farmers from cheaper
foreign produce) while hurting lots of other little guys (poor
families trying to buy food) and helping some big guys
(agribusiness companies that collect subsidies while enjoying
protection from foreign competition).
|5.9.05 @ 6:05PM|#
Yes, the classic "since I got sodomized, you have to get
sodomized too" approach. Is private industry just as fucked up as
government anymore?
Well, since removing the regulations entirely is not on the table,
we have to decide what is most fair.
When the government enters the picture, it is not actually "I got
sodomized" (i.e. once), it is being repeatedly and continually
being sodomized (just to keep the metaphor consistent). It seems
just as fair to say, "I am in business and need to do these onerous
things. Why can that person do the same thing and not have to do
the same?".
Businesses will decide whether there is profit potential given the
level of regulation and what the market will bear regarding prices.
The government is distorting the market, and whatever business that
springs from this will necessarily be affected. To this degree, I
don't think it necessarily reflects on the business itself.
|5.9.05 @ 6:11PM|#
How did humans survive before
pasturization/refrigeration/soap?
Um. Many of them didn't survive. Malnutrition still kills thousands
every day in poor places in Africa.
Um. If pasteurization/refrigeration/soap had anything whatsoever to
do with malnutrition, you'd have a point.
|5.9.05 @ 6:55PM|#
Siding with the little guy against the powers that be does
indeed make one a creature of the left, though adopting
populist language or creating phantom oppressors to SOUND like
you're fighting for the little guy doesn't count.
(emph mine)
So what you're saying is that every leftist govt in history hasn't
really been "a creature of the left"?
That's awful convenient for you, isn't it?
|5.9.05 @ 9:37PM|#
"But I don't automatically support any policy that allegedly
helps the little guy against the big guy"
That's where the "small government" part comes in. If you basically
share the values, and have some strong opinions about the best
tactics...well, welcome to the circular firing squad this is
contemporary liberalism.
|5.9.05 @ 9:40PM|#
"But I don't automatically support any policy that allegedly
helps the little guy against the big guy"
That's where the "small government" part comes in. If you basically
share the values, and have some strong opinions about the best
tactics...well, welcome to the circular firing squad this is
contemporary liberalism.
crimethink, I wouldn't accuse most leftist governments in history
of siding against the little guy, so much as failing to side with
the little guy effectively. Or, too often, morally.
|5.9.05 @ 10:56PM|#
The big guys are sometimes in the right, the little guys are
sometimes in the wrong, and the "powers that be" often are the
left.
Other than these exceptions: joe is perfectly right!
fyodor|5.10.05 @ 1:24PM|#
I think it's one thing to be more sympathetic to the "little
guy," but another to base one's political principles on helping the
little guy whatever that means, or even up to a certain point or
whatever. And I'm not just talking about effectiveness. Efforts to
redistribute the wealth are ultimately Robin Hood schemes.
Libertarianism is based on certain principles about what
is right or wrong behavior (and makes no special exception for
government, except that it is charged with meting out justice when
meting out justice is justified). If one believes in these
principles, it automatically follows that following these
principles results in those most deserving of legal
support are the ones who get it, regardless of whether they're big
or small. If I'm not being clear, ask yourself who's in the right
when a poor/little person robs a rich/big person. Following
libertarian principles invetiably yields the most just
society, as long as one believes said principles are indeed the
most just. I think an underlying facet to libertarianism is the
belief that libertarian principles are more or less universally
held, it's only because people are afraid of what the
think will be the results that libertarianism itself is so
unpopular. I think it's also part of the libertarian POV that
because the underlying principles are good ones, they will
generally yield the best results overall in a consequentialist
sense, ie, more wealth and fullfillment for more people. But it's
often tough to show that favorable consequentialist effect in any
given situation. It's nice to think that we're protecting the small
farmer by getting rid of this regulation, but if I read what's
going on correctly, the small farmers may be looking for a special
privelege by asking to be exempted from this regulation.
Libertarianism does not address this issue directly, but I think
most of us would say that in lieu of being able to dump the
regulation altogether, it should be applied universally. It's too
bad that it's not obvious that we're helping the little guy in this
case, but if special privelege is what they're looking for, I don't
think that would be fair.
I wonder if anyone will read this?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245