02051 Invisible structures and local food systems

Regulatory Issues

A fundamental problem with any government regulatory system is that the targets of the regulation will attempt to gain control of the regulatory structures and distort or influence the process to the advantage of industry. While conceding the good faith of many in the food regulatory system, the food production regulation systems of this county have certainly been compromised by the corporations being regulated. Instead of focusing on food safety, the system denies market entry to smaller producers and limits the choices of urban and rural customers. This is why politics and economics rule when it comes to food regulations and science all too often takes a back seat. Even when there is a good faith goal of food safety, regulations can have unintended consequences which can be devastating to small producers.

Our food regulatory system does not recognize a difference between a small producer and a giant transnational food corporation. Someone cooking three chickens a week could be required to build an office, provide a phone, and pay the salary of a USDA inspector, depending on who buys their chicken pies!

Food may be regulated by multiple levels of government — national, state, county, and city! Sometimes the regulations contradict each other or are so complicated that it is difficult to figure out exactly what the rules are in a given situation. Inspectors appear to have a considerable amount of latitude. This can be good or bad, depending on the attitude and mood of the inspector.

Because of the complexity of the system, it can be hard for a producer to find out exactly which regulations apply to him or her. Depending on which government agency you talk to, you may get completely different answers, perhaps even contradictory of each other, as to what law and regulation require. This adds further entry barriers in the form of consulting and lawyers’ fees, application and license fees, and time spent on research and the various application processes.

The regulatory system drives bigness and consolidation in the production and distribution of food. It is easier and more profitable to amortize regulatory expenses over $500 million in gross revenues than it is for someone with $50,000 in gross revenues.

Agricultural Policies

The policy of the USDA toward our farmers has been “get big or get out” since the 1950s. The roots of that consolidation policy actually go back to the Great Depression and the government decision that the U.S. needed to shift workers from farms to cities to ensure a steady supply of cheap labor for industrial production.

Those folks in Washington, D.C. just didn’t think that concept through to the logical and inevitable conclusions. Fewer farmers mean fewer people living in rural towns and that means fewer children in rural schools, fewer parishioners in rural churches, and fewer shoppers at rural stores. Federal highway construction, instead of making it easier to “get to” rural towns, has made it easier to “get out of” rural towns and shop in regional centers instead of home towns. Driving the depopulation of the countryside is a host of regulations and policies.

We pay for these problems when we buy conventional food at chain supermarkets. And we get what we pay for.

Making it easier for people to make good, better, and best food choices.

What goes around comes around though, and invisible structures can be used to strengthen the cause of “beauty, wisdom, and goodness” as well as to support gluttony and greed. Structures such as farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture programs, and local food cooperatives re-weave the connections between urban residents and rural farmers and offer markets for the production of more sustainable, just, and humane systems of agriculture and livestock production.

The more people that join together in such structures, the stronger the local food system becomes in that given area and across the nation. Here the permaculture diversity principle comes into play, as connections are made and strengthened across existing dividing lines of race, class, religion, ideology, and politics.

It is not unusual, for example, in local food circles, to find a conservative Christian fundamentalist Republican happily working right next to and with a socialist-feminist Wiccan lesbian. Usually, such people would not even talk to each other, much less work together toward a common purpose. It’s not that such groups adopt a faux diversity, pretending that religious and political beliefs don’t matter, because that’s not what they do. Instead, they recognize that everyone has a right to eat good and healthy local food. It is in the self-interest of all to have an open table of fellowship without a political or religious litmus test when it comes to developing a local food system. Otherwise, we remain divided and thus easy prey for the political and economic aristocrats who profit from our tendency to focus on issues where we disagree rather than joining forces around issues where we agree.

Any movement that can bring together such apparently diametrically opposed groups of people, around a common table of local food fellowship, shows great potential for growing a future of hope and beauty.

Participation in the process of change to move our invisible structures toward supporting more just, sustainable, and humane food systems is more important than growing some of your own food.

If there aren’t any organizations in your area working on food security, start one! Reach out to people in other areas and find the knowledge and information you need.

When I began the process that resulted in the organization of the Oklahoma Food Cooperative, none of us knew anything about how to do what we did. That was fine, because we didn’t need to know everything that we know now at the beginning. All we needed then was a vision of what we wanted (an easy way for people in cities to buy food from rural producers). We took things one step at a time, as the situation developed and progressed. Along the way, we learned much, we invented much, we ate a lot of good food. We developed a workable system that is successful, profitable, and can be scaled up or down. In other words, we did what we could, with what we had, where we were — a good example for all to follow.

We ignore the invisible structure situation to the mortal peril of our local food systems. Food is fundamental and it is grassroots. It is a great place to intervene in the system since implementation of food laws is primarily a local government duty and thus more responsive to local concerns.