Baylen Linnekin: Stricter Food Safety Regulations Mean Fewer Local Food Options
It's time for key local-food advocates to admit-loudly-that strict food-safety regulations are not the answer.

The ongoing debate over increasing food-safety regulations and expanding local food options pits heavyweight food-policy experts against their peers on the left. Victory for the former would mean fewer small producers and fewer choices for consumers, writes Baylen Linnekin.
It's incumbent on local food supporters like Michael Pollan to argue that point.
Back in 2010, Pollan lauded the Food Safety Modernization Act, saying "it promises to achieve several important food safety objectives, greatly benefiting consumers without harming small farmers or local food producers."
Clearly, that's not the case. But, according to his website, that was the last Pollan had to say on food safety and local food.
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?