It was e coli IIRC (flood waters washed some poop into the spinach fields, I think?), and it was from factory farms.
It was from wild pigs that made their way into the field. That happens whether it's a family running a "factory farm" or if it's a family running a "family farm."
Local farmers don't sell spinach that's been marinating in poop water, because they're going to see those same customers next Saturday, and they're going to have to explain to them why they sold them tainted spinach that made the customers' kids sick.
It wasn't poop water, just plain poop. However, the thing about farmers markets is that there's no traceability. With the e coli lettuce, because the lettuce went into bags and they knew the source, they could determine where the problem lay, which items were affected, and what caused the problem in the first place.
At a farmer's market, people assume the products are better because they're from a local farmer. But as mentioned above, poop is still poop. Bugs are still bugs whether they're in a local field or if they're in a factory banana farm in South America. But consumers, for the most part, assume "organic" and "local" means "healthy." If it gets a bunch of people sick, they're going to assume that stomach flu is going around, or they all simply ate something bad.
Under the larger FDA system, all foods that go through the system can be traced so the FDA can figure out when bad shit happens, and warn people "Hey, bad shit's going down, don't eat this shit."
I don't see this as any different from the regulations around eateries, food carts, or any other thing that deals with people eating food -- if there's no accountability, how do you even figure out that Poopy Hands Farm is selling dangerous food?
This is a far cry from forcing all farmers to irradiate and sterilize their food. It's a procedure to create accountability for what a farmer is selling. Most should happily stand by their products, so I don't see how this is even going to be an issue if it becomes law.
So the status quo is already working fine? Why fix something that isn't broken then?
The status quo of farmers markets and CSAs? It seems to be working fine—I haven't gotten sick yet from food I got from farmer's markets—but then I don't think regulation should only be supported after something bad happens.
There should at least be demonstrable good acheived. But there isn't. Spot inspections of small scale agricultural operations will accomplish almost nil and will cost money, both to enforce the regulatory apparatus and to ensure compliance by the producer. This cost will be passed on to tax payers and consumers respectivelly. And what benefit? To maybe stop some small scale disease outbreaks that we aren't even sure are occuring. That seems like a terrible trade off.
And the negative effects go beyond just the costs to consumers. It will push people out of the market. Either due to the higher incurred costs of compliance or due to dogmatic opposition to government intervention. The end result is the same, less food sold at Farmer's Markets. Which is a bad thing. It is distorting a system heavily reliant on agribusiness, with all of its massive negative externalities, even farther in that direction.
The concern isn't that Monsanto necessarily supports it, it is why they do. A distortion as described above serves to benefit them indirectly.
I mean sure, if all the other manifest problems in our food supply were solved, and it could be shown that the cost of compliance were immaterial and the benefits manifest, I could get behind this. But that isn't the case at all.
Again, how does this measure ensure the supremacy of ConAgra?
Apparently not being able to afford to make sure your food is clean will put small farms out of business.
Keeping your food clean is cheap and easy.
Proving that your food is clean can be a goddamned nightmare, depending on the requirements.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And how, exactly, does requiring a permit equal forcing the same regulations large corporations are held to on to small buisness owners?
I'm hardly an expert, but I think they go through more than getting a permit and being inspected every now and then.
RTFB
(9) CATEGORY 5 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term ‘category 5 food establishment’ means a food establishment that stores, holds, or transports food products prior to delivery for retail sale.
snip
CTFD!
Uh...calm the fuck down. Sorry, I caught your acronym-flu.
Anyway, I get what is being said about problems with the FDA. I just don't see why it has to be "fix the FDA" or "introduce some health regulation to local markets."
Safe food is safe food. Thinking that is might not be the end of the world for people who are growing and selling food for public consumption to have some degree of oversight doesn't have to equal not doing it for processed food vendors. Maybe you could....I don't know....try and do both?
By the way, I'm the general manager of a small business. I have to have food permits, I have to have records indicating that the food sold in my establishment is properly taken care of, and I'm subject to city inspection. Because I'm selling something that people eat. Its reasonable, and frankly I'd be scared shitless of the city DIDN'T take an interest in making sure food being sold to citizens is healthy.
I just fail to see why something like a farmer's market just has to be exempt from similar controls, maybe on account of them also selling something people eat. Is it their floppy hats? Maybe I should start wearing floppy hats...
It wasn't poop water, just plain poop. However, the thing about farmers markets is that there's no traceability. With the e coli lettuce, because the lettuce went into bags and they knew the source, they could determine where the problem lay, which items were affected, and what caused the problem in the first place.
At a farmer's market, people assume the products are better because they're from a local farmer. But as mentioned above, poop is still poop. Bugs are still bugs whether they're in a local field or if they're in a factory banana farm in South America. But consumers, for the most part, assume "organic" and "local" means "healthy." If it gets a bunch of people sick, they're going to assume that stomach flu is going around, or they all simply ate something bad.
Under the larger FDA system, all foods that go through the system can be traced so the FDA can figure out when bad shit happens, and warn people "Hey, bad shit's going down, don't eat this shit."
I don't see this as any different from the regulations around eateries, food carts, or any other thing that deals with people eating food -- if there's no accountability, how do you even figure out that Poopy Hands Farm is selling dangerous food?
This is a far cry from forcing all farmers to irradiate and sterilize their food. It's a procedure to create accountability for what a farmer is selling. Most should happily stand by their products, so I don't see how this is even going to be an issue if it becomes law.
Last major food outbreak we thought it was tomatoes for, like, a couple of months (to the point where fast food outlets stopped serving tomatoes in their stuff) until we figured out it was, I think, spinach, or lettuce, or something. That's not "knowing the source" or "determining where the problem lay," that's "not having a goddamn clue." This is because food from a thousand farms is combined into giant food processing plants, and then shipped off to ten thousand grocery stores across the country. We don't have a fucking clue.
And you think we wouldn't be able to trace an outbreak linked to a fucking farmer's market? I could trace that. Not "me with huge, governmental resources at my disposal;" me, personally. A handful of interviews, and you'd have it sussed out that all those people bought something specific at a specific farmers' market, rather than having to figure out "oh, hey, all these people bought this specific brand of peanut crackers that has ten different food products in it from a hundred thousand different farms." It would just be "these people bought tomatoes here." Bam, you're done.
What sort of problems is the government supposed to be looking for that can't be fixed by washing produce in hot water prior to eating? Can things like e. coli and pig-dookie not be washed off?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Anyway, I get what is being said about problems with the FDA. I just don't see why it has to be "fix the FDA" or "introduce some health regulation to local markets."
Creating a law without a means to enforce it is a waste of finite resources (in this case the time of Congress).
Safe food is safe food. Thinking that is might not be the end of the world for people who are growing and selling food for public consumption to have some degree of oversight doesn't have to equal not doing it for processed food vendors. Maybe you could....I don't know....try and do both?
It isn't about it being the end of the world. Its about incentivizing local produce and disincentivizing large scale farms and all their ramifications. This bill would do the opposite for about 0 gain.
By the way, I'm the general manager of a small business. I have to have food permits, I have to have records indicating that the food sold in my establishment is properly taken care of, and I'm subject to city inspection. Because I'm selling something that people eat. Its reasonable, and frankly I'd be scared shitless of the city DIDN'T take an interest in making sure food being sold to citizens is healthy.
I assume by business you mean resteraunt. Other than the association with food, the differences are manifest. The regulatory apparatus for enforcing compliance on resteraunts is likely to be smaller than that of farms (the geographic distribution of resteraunts is pretty favorable for this type of government action) and there are also frequently public health issues associated with them. So the costs of enforcement are likely smaller and the benefits greater.
Also, I hope to god you meant 'disease-free' and not healthy. Since this law is moving things towards processed foods and away from produce. Which is the very definition of unhealthy.
It isn't about it being the end of the world. Its about incentivizing local produce and disincentivizing large scale farms and all their ramifications. This bill would do the opposite for about 0 gain.
Also, I hope to god you meant 'disease-free' and not healthy. Since this law is moving things towards processed foods and away from produce. Which is the very definition of unhealthy.
These last two, however, do not follow. How does this incentivize large scale farms over local produce? How does this move things towards processed foods?
There is nothing in this proposed regulation that says, "fuck you small farmers, we're gonna fuck you in the ass until you convert yourselves into Hormel SPAM factories", and before anyone starts claming otherwise again, I want reasons and not a blind exercise in Limbaughing.
These last two, however, do not follow. How does this incentivize large scale farms over local produce? How does this move things towards processed foods?
There is nothing in this proposed regulation that says, "fuck you small farmers, we're gonna fuck you in the ass until you convert yourselves into Hormel SPAM factories", and before anyone starts claming otherwise again, I want reasons and not a blind exercise in Limbaughing.
You're creating additional costs for small farms. You could make a mandatory $.01 fee for lifetime licensing to sell at a farmer's market, and you'd still be creating a disincentive for people to participate in them. This is considerably more onerous than that, and would be administered by a body which is notorious for being owned by corporate farming interests.
Your question is actually a pretty fucking stupid one. It's like asking "how do $10,000 liquor licenses create incentives for large bars over home brewers?" Econ 101: it creates barriers to entry/continued participation in the market.
There is nothing in this proposed regulation that says, "fuck you small farmers, we're gonna fuck you in the ass until you convert yourselves into Hormel SPAM factories", and before anyone starts claming otherwise again, I want reasons and not a blind exercise in Limbaughing.
This has already been explained. They will incur costs (either direct monetary costs or just labor costs) that can push them out of the market. Or they might just follow their cultural leanings and pull out on idealogical grounds. Either way it is reducing the number of entrants in the market. I don't see how that is controversial or Limbaughing in any way (no one has even made an argument that remotely resembles something Limbaugh would say for one).
A push towards more regulatory apparatus is likely to hurt small producers. They don't have the apparatus in play already like institutional farms, and any fixed cost of compliance will be borne unduly by them since their output levels are so small.
Last major food outbreak we thought it was tomatoes for, like, a couple of months (to the point where fast food outlets stopped serving tomatoes in their stuff) until we figured out it was, I think, spinach, or lettuce, or something. That's not "knowing the source" or "determining where the problem lay," that's "not having a goddamn clue." This is because food from a thousand farms is combined into giant food processing plants, and then shipped off to ten thousand grocery stores across the country. We don't have a fucking clue.
And you think we wouldn't be able to trace an outbreak linked to a fucking farmer's market? I could trace that. Not "me with huge, governmental resources at my disposal;" me, personally. A handful of interviews, and you'd have it sussed out that all those people bought something specific at a specific farmers' market, rather than having to figure out "oh, hey, all these people bought this specific brand of peanut crackers that has ten different food products in it from a hundred thousand different farms." It would just be "these people bought tomatoes here." Bam, you're done.
Well, that's a larger problem -- that's the fact that the FDA can not initiate any investigations. It can only react after an outbreak has already occurred. The fact that, once an outbreak happens, the FDA can go back and trace the food sources to figure out where the problem occurs is a) not a fast thing and b) pretty impressive considering just how much food is produced and consumed.
But you're stating it from the perspective of the FDA preventing outbreaks. The FDA doesn't do that. The FDA tries to contain outbreaks and, if a problem is discovered at a location, address that problem.
This bill, if passed, would simply make sellers register and be prone to inspection. In other words, farmers who sell to farmers markets would be held to the same manner as food service in general. In short, just because you only service a farmers market doesn't mean you get to avoid the food laws that affect every other venue for food sales.
However, I disagree with your statement that this would create a barrier to entry for current participants in farmers markets. Any costs associated with this will simply be passed on to consumers. They're already buying under the pretense that the food is safe -- from a marketing perspective the farmers will just point out that they're certified or have a license or whatever this thing's gonna be.
edit: speaking of costs, isn't there already a fee to get a booth at a farmer's market? That hasn't killed farmers, and it's also allowed the market to sort out big sellers. It's not like we're talking about airlines and the need to own million-dollar enterprises before you can compete -- this is selling stuff you grew with a small overhead. And if you fail to pass the occasional inspection because your farm is a fucking pit, you get fined. I'm cool with that.
However, I disagree with your statement that this would create a barrier to entry for current participants in farmers markets. Any costs associated with this will simply be passed on to consumers. They're already buying under the pretense that the food is safe -- from a marketing perspective the farmers will just point out that they're certified or have a license or whatever this thing's gonna be.
What? That isn't how pricing structures work. You don't just 'pass the cost' on something that isn't perfectly inelastic in demand (insulin is one of the classic examples). Some of the cost will be borne by the producing entity in lost sales as people either substitute (Delicious, Cheap Monsanto Tomatoes) or just don't buy due to cost considerations. I could demonstrate it using econ stuff, but all that would do is serve as review for my upcoming test and bore everyone to tears.
Last major food outbreak we thought it was tomatoes for, like, a couple of months (to the point where fast food outlets stopped serving tomatoes in their stuff) until we figured out it was, I think, spinach, or lettuce, or something. That's not "knowing the source" or "determining where the problem lay," that's "not having a goddamn clue." This is because food from a thousand farms is combined into giant food processing plants, and then shipped off to ten thousand grocery stores across the country. We don't have a fucking clue.
And you think we wouldn't be able to trace an outbreak linked to a fucking farmer's market? I could trace that. Not "me with huge, governmental resources at my disposal;" me, personally. A handful of interviews, and you'd have it sussed out that all those people bought something specific at a specific farmers' market, rather than having to figure out "oh, hey, all these people bought this specific brand of peanut crackers that has ten different food products in it from a hundred thousand different farms." It would just be "these people bought tomatoes here." Bam, you're done.
Well, that's a larger problem -- that's the fact that the FDA can not initiate any investigations. It can only react after an outbreak has already occurred. The fact that, once an outbreak happens, the FDA can go back and trace the food sources to figure out where the problem occurs is a) not a fast thing and b) pretty impressive considering just how much food is produced and consumed.
But you're stating it from the perspective of the FDA preventing outbreaks. The FDA doesn't do that. The FDA tries to contain outbreaks and, if a problem is discovered at a location, address that problem.
This bill, if passed, would simply make sellers register and be prone to inspection. In other words, farmers who sell to farmers markets would be held to the same manner as food service in general. In short, just because you only service a farmers market doesn't mean you get to avoid the food laws that affect every other venue for food sales.
However, I disagree with your statement that this would create a barrier to entry for current participants in farmers markets. Any costs associated with this will simply be passed on to consumers. They're already buying under the pretense that the food is safe -- from a marketing perspective the farmers will just point out that they're certified or have a license or whatever this thing's gonna be.
edit: speaking of costs, isn't there already a fee to get a booth at a farmer's market? That hasn't killed farmers, and it's also allowed the market to sort out big sellers. It's not like we're talking about airlines and the need to own million-dollar enterprises before you can compete -- this is selling stuff you grew with a small overhead. And if you fail to pass the occasional inspection because your farm is a fucking pit, you get fined. I'm cool with that.
We regulate the shit out of large-scale food producers in order to prevent outbreaks like the recent peanut-based one, but then just don't enforce the regulation (the recent peanut outbreak was sourced to a factory with a "superior" rating on their most recent food safety audit; an audit performed by someone paid for by the industry, who has no incentive to actually point out safety problems). Why don't we focus on the places where we're actually having problems with food-borne illnesses, instead of creating new problems out of whole cloth?
And anytime you create licensing requirements, you're creating barriers to entry. Anytime you require recordkeeping that wasn't previously required, you're creating barriers to entry. Anytime you're creating an agency with authority to inspect people's property with no warning where no such power previously existed, you're creating barriers to entry. And when that authority is given to an agency which has a huge bias against the people they're regulating and inspecting, you're creating a fucking huge barrier to entry.
We already have the FDA. Why not give them more money instead of creating a mirror org that does the same freaking thing?
And cities can already enforce random inspections because they're the ones that give out the lease on the stalls.
This is just reactionary to the spinach/peanut issue, makes them look like they're doing something about a 'problem' that has already been stopped. And it'll create too much "well, if I buy it from here, that means it's automatically okay!". People should be washing their food no matter what, doesn't matter if the veggies came from a stall or a bag in a store. The stores have showers over the veggies to keep them nice and water-heavy because they sell them by the pound, not to keep them clean.
Should we require people to get permits to bring food to a bake sale?
Anyway, I get what is being said about problems with the FDA. I just don't see why it has to be "fix the FDA" or "introduce some health regulation to local markets."
Creating a law without a means to enforce it is a waste of finite resources (in this case the time of Congress).
Safe food is safe food. Thinking that is might not be the end of the world for people who are growing and selling food for public consumption to have some degree of oversight doesn't have to equal not doing it for processed food vendors. Maybe you could....I don't know....try and do both?
It isn't about it being the end of the world. Its about incentivizing local produce and disincentivizing large scale farms and all their ramifications. This bill would do the opposite for about 0 gain.
By the way, I'm the general manager of a small business. I have to have food permits, I have to have records indicating that the food sold in my establishment is properly taken care of, and I'm subject to city inspection. Because I'm selling something that people eat. Its reasonable, and frankly I'd be scared shitless of the city DIDN'T take an interest in making sure food being sold to citizens is healthy.
I assume by business you mean resteraunt. Other than the association with food, the differences are manifest. The regulatory apparatus for enforcing compliance on resteraunts is likely to be smaller than that of farms (the geographic distribution of resteraunts is pretty favorable for this type of government action) and there are also frequently public health issues associated with them. So the costs of enforcement are likely smaller and the benefits greater.
Also, I hope to god you meant 'disease-free' and not healthy. Since this law is moving things towards processed foods and away from produce. Which is the very definition of unhealthy.
Small theme park actually. And yes, in this context healthy obviously means disease-free.
I follow the thought process behind it being a disincentive to small farms by way of fees, but its the assumption that there are huge fees is where I hit a wall. It doesn't cost any more money to keep a temp log of your refridgeration equipment, nor does it cost any more to have a guy walk through your farm making sure you aren't growing cabbage inside a dead pig head. And I haven't seen where the cost of the permit would be so outrageous as to cause farms and markets to fold.
While the point that any new cost creates a larger burden is true, its also rather self evident and the fact that a new fee exists is not indicitive of the severity of its effect. It seems pretty kneejerk to jump from "There will be a required permit that must be purchased" to "This is a huge disincentive to small farms." Have I missed where the permit costs so much as to be as destructive as its being made out to be?
This just doesn't affect farmers. If I grow food in my own garden and then try to sell it at a fundraiser, I'd have to get a permit, etc.
The cost would be too much to justify growing my own food, so then I'd just buy food from the store.. grown by the companies that are pushing this bill.
What sort of problems is the government supposed to be looking for that can't be fixed by washing produce in hot water prior to eating? Can things like e. coli and pig-dookie not be washed off?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
This just doesn't affect farmers. If I grow food in my own garden and then try to sell it at a fundraiser, I'd have to get a permit, etc.
The cost would be too much to justify growing my own food, so then I'd just buy food from the store.. grown by the companies that are pushing this bill.
Is there any indication that they would take it to that kind of extreme, to the bake sale level? I haven't seen it if it has.
And Jeffe, I would think it would be more about not wanting someone to get horrendously ill because they forgot to wash off a tomato.
And Jeffe, I would think it would be more about not wanting someone to get horrendously ill because they forgot to wash off a tomato.
How does this bill do that?
Seriously, how? My dad has a small garden in the backyard because he likes to fiddle with it. It yields delicious zucchini bread like you wouldn't believe. Since getting tomatoes and peppers and such to plant are cheap he almost always has extras left over that he takes to work in order to give to a few cubicle mates. If he had to fill out paper work in order to do this he'd just not and let them rot in order to be fertilizer for next year. Hardly a great loss, but I don't see the benefit here either. Particularly since he doesn't do anything to the plants aside from water them, meaning yay more healthy than the supermarket. I also do not see how this bill is going to make the pears and apples I buy for a snack when I'm dicking around downtown more safe. How is it going to do that?
This just doesn't affect farmers. If I grow food in my own garden and then try to sell it at a fundraiser, I'd have to get a permit, etc.
The cost would be too much to justify growing my own food, so then I'd just buy food from the store.. grown by the companies that are pushing this bill.
Is there any indication that they would take it to that kind of extreme, to the bake sale level? I haven't seen it if it has.
And Jeffe, I would think it would be more about not wanting someone to get horrendously ill because they forgot to wash off a tomato.
Once the law is written, there is little wiggle room on how stridently it is enforced. I suppose given time it might fade into the background, like the myriad of bizarrre laws written in the past, but in the interim people will probably err on the side of caution.
The benefits of shirking the law are almost nil and the penalties manifest. There isn't some black market for baked goods where these people can earn massive profits. They will just exit the market rather than deal with possibly incurring a fine or having to comply.
And for what gain? Why are we even legislating edge cases of extremely marginal benefit and likely at least some amount of cost? Certainly the time spent pondering this nonsense could have been spent doing something actually productive at the Congressional level. Which is where the real outrage should be.
And Jeffe, I would think it would be more about not wanting someone to get horrendously ill because they forgot to wash off a tomato.
How does this bill do that?
Seriously, how? My dad has a small garden in the backyard because he likes to fiddle with it. It yields delicious zucchini bread like you wouldn't believe. Since getting tomatoes and peppers and such to plant are cheap he almost always has extras left over that he takes to work in order to give to a few cubicle mates. If he had to fill out paper work in order to do this he'd just not and let them rot in order to be fertilizer for next year. Hardly a great loss, but I don't see the benefit here either. Particularly since he doesn't do anything to the plants aside from water them, meaning yay more healthy than the supermarket. I also do not see how this bill is going to make the pears and apples I buy for a snack when I'm dicking around downtown more safe. How is it going to do that?
Pretty much any place where people gather to sell produce have to sign a form taking responsibility if your customers get sick to get a booth. This'll just be another piece of paper he'd have to sign for them to let him sell. He probably wouldn't even notice, and wouldn't even pay for the paper. If an inspector shows up, which shouldn't be frequent given how hard you guys make it sound to inspect everybody, all he has to do is show him the garden, the bags of fertilizer and soil he has in the garage, and where he washer the produce before bringing it to market, and unless "fiddle with it" means "makes you do everything while he watches TV and drinks beer" I'm pretty sure he has enough energy to do that much.
I guess I'm seeing a different implementation of this thing. I'm seeing this as "You're a farmer (not a guy with a zucchini patch) selling food to the public in a market every week; you need a permit to do this just like everyone else, have documentation to show your due diligence regarding steps taken to ensure your product is safe, and the food you are selling will occasionally be inspected on-site."
The way its been represented in the last few posts are "You move food from point A to point B, ANY food, even one zuchinni you need three forms from the gubbamint."
I dunno about you, but the former sounds way more likely than the latter. I mean come on guys, do you really think this is going to be implemented against a guy with three tomato plants in his backyard? Its ridiculous. Based on what I see on the bill, it looks like the same standards any other person or company providing food to the public would have to go through. Obtaining a permit, documenting safety procedures, and enduring a site inspection that is likely to happen once a year (if that much) just doesn't seem that bad.
Why do we need an organization that mirrors the FDA, and tries to do the local/state governments job?
Why do we need a new organization to prosecute somebody for intentionally selling shit-carrots?
What new powers would this organization grant? (Answer: zero). It's stupid, redundant, protects nobody but the interests of big farm industry, we don't need to regulate motherfucking grown un-processed vegetables. We need to enforce the laws we already have against the big guys who have fucked up 3 times now, not create new ones to regulate the small guys who have yet to fuck up.
If the argument is to give the FDA the resources to do it rather than creating a whole new agency, I'd agree on that point. Its the hyperbole and the attitude that thy sky is falling because of increased regulation of a food source that I think causes some to take issue.
And, again, the same can be said for the processed food guys. The positions aren't mutually exclusive, and you can in fact be for increased scrutiny of them AND local food suppliers.
And Jeffe, I would think it would be more about not wanting someone to get horrendously ill because they forgot to wash off a tomato.
How does this bill do that?
Seriously, how? My dad has a small garden in the backyard because he likes to fiddle with it. It yields delicious zucchini bread like you wouldn't believe. Since getting tomatoes and peppers and such to plant are cheap he almost always has extras left over that he takes to work in order to give to a few cubicle mates. If he had to fill out paper work in order to do this he'd just not and let them rot in order to be fertilizer for next year. Hardly a great loss, but I don't see the benefit here either. Particularly since he doesn't do anything to the plants aside from water them, meaning yay more healthy than the supermarket. I also do not see how this bill is going to make the pears and apples I buy for a snack when I'm dicking around downtown more safe. How is it going to do that?
Pretty much any place where people gather to sell produce have to sign a form taking responsibility if your customers get sick to get a booth. This'll just be another piece of paper he'd have to sign for them to let him sell. He probably wouldn't even notice, and wouldn't even pay for the paper. If an inspector shows up, which shouldn't be frequent given how hard you guys make it sound to inspect everybody, all he has to do is show him the garden, the bags of fertilizer and soil he has in the garage, and where he washer the produce before bringing it to market, and unless "fiddle with it" means "makes you do everything while he watches TV and drinks beer" I'm pretty sure he has enough energy to do that much.
He doesn't take it to market, just gives it away to friends and family as the alternative is just letting it rot in the sun. There's no soil or fertilizer, just a rototiller and a sprinkler from our well that he uses when it hasn't rained in awhile. There's no documentation, because there's nothing to document. What is going to be the result of this?
But let's say that this bill won't come into effect on him since he doesn't take anything to market and so there aren't any sales. How are we going to prevent the horrific outbreak of whatever this bill is supposedly going to prevent, albeit on a smaller scale? What is going to save me from salmonella when I take an ice cream bucket of tomatoes off his hands?
Why do we need an organization that mirrors the FDA, and tries to do the local/state governments job?
Why do we need a new organization to prosecute somebody for intentionally selling shit-carrots?
What new powers would this organization grant? (Answer: zero). It's stupid, redundant, protects nobody but the interests of big farm industry, we don't need to regulate motherfucking grown un-processed vegetables. We need to enforce the laws we already have against the big guys who have fucked up 3 times now, not create new ones to regulate the small guys who have yet to fuck up.
If the new organization can't do anything, then there's no hardship unless you're too lazy or illiterate to sign your name, in which case you shouldn't be trusted to grow produce anyway.
We regulate the shit out of large-scale food producers in order to prevent outbreaks like the recent peanut-based one, but then just don't enforce the regulation (the recent peanut outbreak was sourced to a factory with a "superior" rating on their most recent food safety audit; an audit performed by someone paid for by the industry, who has no incentive to actually point out safety problems). Why don't we focus on the places where we're actually having problems with food-borne illnesses, instead of creating new problems out of whole cloth?
The regulations are there as a disincentive to break the law. As you pointed out, the audits failed, and none of the goods go through any testing process by the FDA prior to it being sold. The FDA has no method to investigate food illness before an outbreak occurs. It was indeed one of the reasons people were so angry about the peanut butter problem -- the FDA relies entirely on audits within the industry, who for all we know could be lying. So they at least require companies to keep these logs so when problems do occur they can track them back.
Still, no agency acts to physically prevent the "first incidence" of food illness, only to control an incident after it's occurred.
And anytime you create licensing requirements, you're creating barriers to entry. Anytime you require recordkeeping that wasn't previously required, you're creating barriers to entry. Anytime you're creating an agency with authority to inspect people's property with no warning where no such power previously existed, you're creating barriers to entry. And when that authority is given to an agency which has a huge bias against the people they're regulating and inspecting, you're creating a fucking huge barrier to entry.
You make it sound like all barriers to entry are equivalent. Every business has a barrier to entry -- it's Econ 101. It also seems like you're extrapolating a lot out of how the bill's written -- the bill doesn't even state that there is a cost to registration, just that you have to register. Sure, you could say "Well I run my business in a way that I pay myself $30 an hour and this registration process takes 1 hour therefore it costs me $30" but that's quite a stretch.
Where's the text stating what this costs? Where does it say that the farmer will have to pay for the new "FSA" to inspect their property/procedures? The ONLY dollar amount in the entire bill is the fine.
Or are you saying that people who sell food to the public shouldn't be required to sign on a form "I sell food to the public"?
What sort of problems is the government supposed to be looking for that can't be fixed by washing produce in hot water prior to eating? Can things like e. coli and pig-dookie not be washed off?
Not a dumb question.
The only two things you can do to guarantee e. coli-O157:H7 free food is 160 degrees F heat or pasteurization. This specific terrible e. coli responsible for the spinach shenanigans can still make you sick even if you've washed contaminated vegetables with some bleach. It is relatively difficult to detect, doesn't harm the animals that typically pass it around (cows, pigs), and only a few of the micro-organisms are necessary to make you sick.
The only thing you can really do about it is to try to prevent it from infecting food you wouldn't cook or pasteurize in the first place. Fortunately, most bacteria aren't like the bad e.coli.
On the other hand, Salmonella die to acidic environments and basic disinfectants.
Unless the pig shit had actually chemically bonded into the plant somehow, or was in the plant's water supply (like plant hormones getting into milk, which you used to hear about constantly) I don't see why it couldn't be washed off.
However, I've also always heard that washing your produce does sweet fuck all unless you actually use soap - which almost nobody does, as opposed to just rinsing it in the sink - but I'm not sure if that's true or not.
And anytime you create licensing requirements, you're creating barriers to entry. Anytime you require recordkeeping that wasn't previously required, you're creating barriers to entry. Anytime you're creating an agency with authority to inspect people's property with no warning where no such power previously existed, you're creating barriers to entry. And when that authority is given to an agency which has a huge bias against the people they're regulating and inspecting, you're creating a fucking huge barrier to entry.
You make it sound like all barriers to entry are equivalent. Every business has a barrier to entry -- it's Econ 101. It also seems like you're extrapolating a lot out of how the bill's written -- the bill doesn't even state that there is a cost to registration, just that you have to register. Sure, you could say "Well I run my business in a way that I pay myself $30 an hour and this registration process takes 1 hour therefore it costs me $30" but that's quite a stretch.
Where's the text stating what this costs? Where does it say that the farmer will have to pay for the new "FSA" to inspect their property/procedures? The ONLY dollar amount in the entire bill is the fine.
Or are you saying that people who sell food to the public shouldn't be required to sign on a form "I sell food to the public"?
You're making it sound like the registration is the most onerous barrier to entry.
If I have a garden in my back yard from which I sometimes take produce to the Farmers' Market, now I have to give a government agency the right to come into my home whenever they want to in order to continue doing that. They then get to nitpick at everything in my house or yard which could possibly be a health threat. An agency which is going to have a primary motivation of shutting down any food production that isn't controlled by ConAgra. You don't think that that's onerous?
And anytime you create licensing requirements, you're creating barriers to entry. Anytime you require recordkeeping that wasn't previously required, you're creating barriers to entry. Anytime you're creating an agency with authority to inspect people's property with no warning where no such power previously existed, you're creating barriers to entry. And when that authority is given to an agency which has a huge bias against the people they're regulating and inspecting, you're creating a fucking huge barrier to entry.
You make it sound like all barriers to entry are equivalent. Every business has a barrier to entry -- it's Econ 101. It also seems like you're extrapolating a lot out of how the bill's written -- the bill doesn't even state that there is a cost to registration, just that you have to register. Sure, you could say "Well I run my business in a way that I pay myself $30 an hour and this registration process takes 1 hour therefore it costs me $30" but that's quite a stretch.
Where's the text stating what this costs? Where does it say that the farmer will have to pay for the new "FSA" to inspect their property/procedures? The ONLY dollar amount in the entire bill is the fine.
Or are you saying that people who sell food to the public shouldn't be required to sign on a form "I sell food to the public"?
You're making it sound like the registration is the most onerous barrier to entry.
If I have a garden in my back yard from which I sometimes take produce to the Farmers' Market, now I have to give a government agency the right to come into my home whenever they want to in order to continue doing that. They then get to nitpick at everything in my house or yard which could possibly be a health threat. An agency which is going to have a primary motivation of shutting down any food production that isn't controlled by ConAgra. You don't think that that's onerous?
If you have such a small garden, you can point to it, give them a printout of the notes you, as a responsible producer, have been keeping, and perhaps show him the bags of store-bought fertilizer you've been using.
But that itself was beside the point, as I was responding to the claim that it would go unenforced, the main reason for which I can see is a lack of personnel able to conduct a search, which means that you wouldn't even have to do the stuff listed above.
How would this play out among people who just grew gardens for their own personal use? My parents grow some pretty big gardens, but they never sell any of it. Would they now be required to prove they weren't selling their vegetables somehow? Would farmers only be able to set up shop at certain areas which they need a license to apply for? And what's stopping people from selling stuff off the back of a truck like half the farmers around here do every summer?
And anytime you create licensing requirements, you're creating barriers to entry. Anytime you require recordkeeping that wasn't previously required, you're creating barriers to entry. Anytime you're creating an agency with authority to inspect people's property with no warning where no such power previously existed, you're creating barriers to entry. And when that authority is given to an agency which has a huge bias against the people they're regulating and inspecting, you're creating a fucking huge barrier to entry.
You make it sound like all barriers to entry are equivalent. Every business has a barrier to entry -- it's Econ 101. It also seems like you're extrapolating a lot out of how the bill's written -- the bill doesn't even state that there is a cost to registration, just that you have to register. Sure, you could say "Well I run my business in a way that I pay myself $30 an hour and this registration process takes 1 hour therefore it costs me $30" but that's quite a stretch.
Where's the text stating what this costs? Where does it say that the farmer will have to pay for the new "FSA" to inspect their property/procedures? The ONLY dollar amount in the entire bill is the fine.
Or are you saying that people who sell food to the public shouldn't be required to sign on a form "I sell food to the public"?
You're making it sound like the registration is the most onerous barrier to entry.
If I have a garden in my back yard from which I sometimes take produce to the Farmers' Market, now I have to give a government agency the right to come into my home whenever they want to in order to continue doing that. They then get to nitpick at everything in my house or yard which could possibly be a health threat. An agency which is going to have a primary motivation of shutting down any food production that isn't controlled by ConAgra. You don't think that that's onerous?
If you have such a small garden, you can point to it, give them a printout of the notes you, as a responsible producer, have been keeping, and perhaps show him the bags of store-bought fertilizer you've been using.
But that itself was beside the point, as I was responding to the claim that it would go unenforced, the main reason for which I can see is a lack of personnel able to conduct a search, which means that you wouldn't even have to do the stuff listed above.
So, if it is enforced, it's onerous, and if it isn't enforced, then you've just created an expensive new government agency which doesn't actually do anything. Though, even if it is enforced, they won't actually be doing anything other than harassing small-time produce growers out of business. So, really, it's lose-lose.
And again, the agency enforcing it has a huge incentive to make it as hard to comply with as possible, so stop talking as if they're going to be as easygoing as, say, the IRS.
And hey, Than - I hear the organization will be run entirely by cops and hippies.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
It was from wild pigs that made their way into the field. That happens whether it's a family running a "factory farm" or if it's a family running a "family farm."
It wasn't poop water, just plain poop. However, the thing about farmers markets is that there's no traceability. With the e coli lettuce, because the lettuce went into bags and they knew the source, they could determine where the problem lay, which items were affected, and what caused the problem in the first place.
At a farmer's market, people assume the products are better because they're from a local farmer. But as mentioned above, poop is still poop. Bugs are still bugs whether they're in a local field or if they're in a factory banana farm in South America. But consumers, for the most part, assume "organic" and "local" means "healthy." If it gets a bunch of people sick, they're going to assume that stomach flu is going around, or they all simply ate something bad.
Under the larger FDA system, all foods that go through the system can be traced so the FDA can figure out when bad shit happens, and warn people "Hey, bad shit's going down, don't eat this shit."
I don't see this as any different from the regulations around eateries, food carts, or any other thing that deals with people eating food -- if there's no accountability, how do you even figure out that Poopy Hands Farm is selling dangerous food?
This is a far cry from forcing all farmers to irradiate and sterilize their food. It's a procedure to create accountability for what a farmer is selling. Most should happily stand by their products, so I don't see how this is even going to be an issue if it becomes law.
Just saying is all.
There should at least be demonstrable good acheived. But there isn't. Spot inspections of small scale agricultural operations will accomplish almost nil and will cost money, both to enforce the regulatory apparatus and to ensure compliance by the producer. This cost will be passed on to tax payers and consumers respectivelly. And what benefit? To maybe stop some small scale disease outbreaks that we aren't even sure are occuring. That seems like a terrible trade off.
And the negative effects go beyond just the costs to consumers. It will push people out of the market. Either due to the higher incurred costs of compliance or due to dogmatic opposition to government intervention. The end result is the same, less food sold at Farmer's Markets. Which is a bad thing. It is distorting a system heavily reliant on agribusiness, with all of its massive negative externalities, even farther in that direction.
The concern isn't that Monsanto necessarily supports it, it is why they do. A distortion as described above serves to benefit them indirectly.
I mean sure, if all the other manifest problems in our food supply were solved, and it could be shown that the cost of compliance were immaterial and the benefits manifest, I could get behind this. But that isn't the case at all.
Keeping your food clean is cheap and easy.
Proving that your food is clean can be a goddamned nightmare, depending on the requirements.
CTFD!
Uh...calm the fuck down. Sorry, I caught your acronym-flu.
Anyway, I get what is being said about problems with the FDA. I just don't see why it has to be "fix the FDA" or "introduce some health regulation to local markets."
Safe food is safe food. Thinking that is might not be the end of the world for people who are growing and selling food for public consumption to have some degree of oversight doesn't have to equal not doing it for processed food vendors. Maybe you could....I don't know....try and do both?
By the way, I'm the general manager of a small business. I have to have food permits, I have to have records indicating that the food sold in my establishment is properly taken care of, and I'm subject to city inspection. Because I'm selling something that people eat. Its reasonable, and frankly I'd be scared shitless of the city DIDN'T take an interest in making sure food being sold to citizens is healthy.
I just fail to see why something like a farmer's market just has to be exempt from similar controls, maybe on account of them also selling something people eat. Is it their floppy hats? Maybe I should start wearing floppy hats...
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
And you think we wouldn't be able to trace an outbreak linked to a fucking farmer's market? I could trace that. Not "me with huge, governmental resources at my disposal;" me, personally. A handful of interviews, and you'd have it sussed out that all those people bought something specific at a specific farmers' market, rather than having to figure out "oh, hey, all these people bought this specific brand of peanut crackers that has ten different food products in it from a hundred thousand different farms." It would just be "these people bought tomatoes here." Bam, you're done.
What sort of problems is the government supposed to be looking for that can't be fixed by washing produce in hot water prior to eating? Can things like e. coli and pig-dookie not be washed off?
Creating a law without a means to enforce it is a waste of finite resources (in this case the time of Congress).
It isn't about it being the end of the world. Its about incentivizing local produce and disincentivizing large scale farms and all their ramifications. This bill would do the opposite for about 0 gain.
I assume by business you mean resteraunt. Other than the association with food, the differences are manifest. The regulatory apparatus for enforcing compliance on resteraunts is likely to be smaller than that of farms (the geographic distribution of resteraunts is pretty favorable for this type of government action) and there are also frequently public health issues associated with them. So the costs of enforcement are likely smaller and the benefits greater.
Also, I hope to god you meant 'disease-free' and not healthy. Since this law is moving things towards processed foods and away from produce. Which is the very definition of unhealthy.
These last two, however, do not follow. How does this incentivize large scale farms over local produce? How does this move things towards processed foods?
There is nothing in this proposed regulation that says, "fuck you small farmers, we're gonna fuck you in the ass until you convert yourselves into Hormel SPAM factories", and before anyone starts claming otherwise again, I want reasons and not a blind exercise in Limbaughing.
Your question is actually a pretty fucking stupid one. It's like asking "how do $10,000 liquor licenses create incentives for large bars over home brewers?" Econ 101: it creates barriers to entry/continued participation in the market.
This has already been explained. They will incur costs (either direct monetary costs or just labor costs) that can push them out of the market. Or they might just follow their cultural leanings and pull out on idealogical grounds. Either way it is reducing the number of entrants in the market. I don't see how that is controversial or Limbaughing in any way (no one has even made an argument that remotely resembles something Limbaugh would say for one).
A push towards more regulatory apparatus is likely to hurt small producers. They don't have the apparatus in play already like institutional farms, and any fixed cost of compliance will be borne unduly by them since their output levels are so small.
Well, that's a larger problem -- that's the fact that the FDA can not initiate any investigations. It can only react after an outbreak has already occurred. The fact that, once an outbreak happens, the FDA can go back and trace the food sources to figure out where the problem occurs is a) not a fast thing and b) pretty impressive considering just how much food is produced and consumed.
But you're stating it from the perspective of the FDA preventing outbreaks. The FDA doesn't do that. The FDA tries to contain outbreaks and, if a problem is discovered at a location, address that problem.
This bill, if passed, would simply make sellers register and be prone to inspection. In other words, farmers who sell to farmers markets would be held to the same manner as food service in general. In short, just because you only service a farmers market doesn't mean you get to avoid the food laws that affect every other venue for food sales.
However, I disagree with your statement that this would create a barrier to entry for current participants in farmers markets. Any costs associated with this will simply be passed on to consumers. They're already buying under the pretense that the food is safe -- from a marketing perspective the farmers will just point out that they're certified or have a license or whatever this thing's gonna be.
edit: speaking of costs, isn't there already a fee to get a booth at a farmer's market? That hasn't killed farmers, and it's also allowed the market to sort out big sellers. It's not like we're talking about airlines and the need to own million-dollar enterprises before you can compete -- this is selling stuff you grew with a small overhead. And if you fail to pass the occasional inspection because your farm is a fucking pit, you get fined. I'm cool with that.
What? That isn't how pricing structures work. You don't just 'pass the cost' on something that isn't perfectly inelastic in demand (insulin is one of the classic examples). Some of the cost will be borne by the producing entity in lost sales as people either substitute (Delicious, Cheap Monsanto Tomatoes) or just don't buy due to cost considerations. I could demonstrate it using econ stuff, but all that would do is serve as review for my upcoming test and bore everyone to tears.
And anytime you create licensing requirements, you're creating barriers to entry. Anytime you require recordkeeping that wasn't previously required, you're creating barriers to entry. Anytime you're creating an agency with authority to inspect people's property with no warning where no such power previously existed, you're creating barriers to entry. And when that authority is given to an agency which has a huge bias against the people they're regulating and inspecting, you're creating a fucking huge barrier to entry.
And cities can already enforce random inspections because they're the ones that give out the lease on the stalls.
This is just reactionary to the spinach/peanut issue, makes them look like they're doing something about a 'problem' that has already been stopped. And it'll create too much "well, if I buy it from here, that means it's automatically okay!". People should be washing their food no matter what, doesn't matter if the veggies came from a stall or a bag in a store. The stores have showers over the veggies to keep them nice and water-heavy because they sell them by the pound, not to keep them clean.
Should we require people to get permits to bring food to a bake sale?
Small theme park actually. And yes, in this context healthy obviously means disease-free.
I follow the thought process behind it being a disincentive to small farms by way of fees, but its the assumption that there are huge fees is where I hit a wall. It doesn't cost any more money to keep a temp log of your refridgeration equipment, nor does it cost any more to have a guy walk through your farm making sure you aren't growing cabbage inside a dead pig head. And I haven't seen where the cost of the permit would be so outrageous as to cause farms and markets to fold.
While the point that any new cost creates a larger burden is true, its also rather self evident and the fact that a new fee exists is not indicitive of the severity of its effect. It seems pretty kneejerk to jump from "There will be a required permit that must be purchased" to "This is a huge disincentive to small farms." Have I missed where the permit costs so much as to be as destructive as its being made out to be?
The cost would be too much to justify growing my own food, so then I'd just buy food from the store.. grown by the companies that are pushing this bill.
Is there any indication that they would take it to that kind of extreme, to the bake sale level? I haven't seen it if it has.
And Jeffe, I would think it would be more about not wanting someone to get horrendously ill because they forgot to wash off a tomato.
How does this bill do that?
Seriously, how? My dad has a small garden in the backyard because he likes to fiddle with it. It yields delicious zucchini bread like you wouldn't believe. Since getting tomatoes and peppers and such to plant are cheap he almost always has extras left over that he takes to work in order to give to a few cubicle mates. If he had to fill out paper work in order to do this he'd just not and let them rot in order to be fertilizer for next year. Hardly a great loss, but I don't see the benefit here either. Particularly since he doesn't do anything to the plants aside from water them, meaning yay more healthy than the supermarket. I also do not see how this bill is going to make the pears and apples I buy for a snack when I'm dicking around downtown more safe. How is it going to do that?
Once the law is written, there is little wiggle room on how stridently it is enforced. I suppose given time it might fade into the background, like the myriad of bizarrre laws written in the past, but in the interim people will probably err on the side of caution.
The benefits of shirking the law are almost nil and the penalties manifest. There isn't some black market for baked goods where these people can earn massive profits. They will just exit the market rather than deal with possibly incurring a fine or having to comply.
And for what gain? Why are we even legislating edge cases of extremely marginal benefit and likely at least some amount of cost? Certainly the time spent pondering this nonsense could have been spent doing something actually productive at the Congressional level. Which is where the real outrage should be.
Pretty much any place where people gather to sell produce have to sign a form taking responsibility if your customers get sick to get a booth. This'll just be another piece of paper he'd have to sign for them to let him sell. He probably wouldn't even notice, and wouldn't even pay for the paper. If an inspector shows up, which shouldn't be frequent given how hard you guys make it sound to inspect everybody, all he has to do is show him the garden, the bags of fertilizer and soil he has in the garage, and where he washer the produce before bringing it to market, and unless "fiddle with it" means "makes you do everything while he watches TV and drinks beer" I'm pretty sure he has enough energy to do that much.
The way its been represented in the last few posts are "You move food from point A to point B, ANY food, even one zuchinni you need three forms from the gubbamint."
I dunno about you, but the former sounds way more likely than the latter. I mean come on guys, do you really think this is going to be implemented against a guy with three tomato plants in his backyard? Its ridiculous. Based on what I see on the bill, it looks like the same standards any other person or company providing food to the public would have to go through. Obtaining a permit, documenting safety procedures, and enduring a site inspection that is likely to happen once a year (if that much) just doesn't seem that bad.
Why do we need an organization that mirrors the FDA, and tries to do the local/state governments job?
Why do we need a new organization to prosecute somebody for intentionally selling shit-carrots?
What new powers would this organization grant? (Answer: zero). It's stupid, redundant, protects nobody but the interests of big farm industry, we don't need to regulate motherfucking grown un-processed vegetables. We need to enforce the laws we already have against the big guys who have fucked up 3 times now, not create new ones to regulate the small guys who have yet to fuck up.
And, again, the same can be said for the processed food guys. The positions aren't mutually exclusive, and you can in fact be for increased scrutiny of them AND local food suppliers.
He doesn't take it to market, just gives it away to friends and family as the alternative is just letting it rot in the sun. There's no soil or fertilizer, just a rototiller and a sprinkler from our well that he uses when it hasn't rained in awhile. There's no documentation, because there's nothing to document. What is going to be the result of this?
But let's say that this bill won't come into effect on him since he doesn't take anything to market and so there aren't any sales. How are we going to prevent the horrific outbreak of whatever this bill is supposedly going to prevent, albeit on a smaller scale? What is going to save me from salmonella when I take an ice cream bucket of tomatoes off his hands?
Then again, Raich v. [strike]Ashcroft[/strike] Gonzales probably says it does. Fuck Raich v. [strike]Ashcroft[/strike] Gonzales.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If the new organization can't do anything, then there's no hardship unless you're too lazy or illiterate to sign your name, in which case you shouldn't be trusted to grow produce anyway.
they probably buy stuff needed for their farm from out of state at some point
alternatively: zing commerce clause magic touch!
The regulations are there as a disincentive to break the law. As you pointed out, the audits failed, and none of the goods go through any testing process by the FDA prior to it being sold. The FDA has no method to investigate food illness before an outbreak occurs. It was indeed one of the reasons people were so angry about the peanut butter problem -- the FDA relies entirely on audits within the industry, who for all we know could be lying. So they at least require companies to keep these logs so when problems do occur they can track them back.
Still, no agency acts to physically prevent the "first incidence" of food illness, only to control an incident after it's occurred.
You make it sound like all barriers to entry are equivalent. Every business has a barrier to entry -- it's Econ 101. It also seems like you're extrapolating a lot out of how the bill's written -- the bill doesn't even state that there is a cost to registration, just that you have to register. Sure, you could say "Well I run my business in a way that I pay myself $30 an hour and this registration process takes 1 hour therefore it costs me $30" but that's quite a stretch.
Where's the text stating what this costs? Where does it say that the farmer will have to pay for the new "FSA" to inspect their property/procedures? The ONLY dollar amount in the entire bill is the fine.
Or are you saying that people who sell food to the public shouldn't be required to sign on a form "I sell food to the public"?
Not a dumb question.
The only two things you can do to guarantee e. coli-O157:H7 free food is 160 degrees F heat or pasteurization. This specific terrible e. coli responsible for the spinach shenanigans can still make you sick even if you've washed contaminated vegetables with some bleach. It is relatively difficult to detect, doesn't harm the animals that typically pass it around (cows, pigs), and only a few of the micro-organisms are necessary to make you sick.
The only thing you can really do about it is to try to prevent it from infecting food you wouldn't cook or pasteurize in the first place. Fortunately, most bacteria aren't like the bad e.coli.
On the other hand, Salmonella die to acidic environments and basic disinfectants.
However, I've also always heard that washing your produce does sweet fuck all unless you actually use soap - which almost nobody does, as opposed to just rinsing it in the sink - but I'm not sure if that's true or not.
EDIT: Beaten, and wrong too
If I have a garden in my back yard from which I sometimes take produce to the Farmers' Market, now I have to give a government agency the right to come into my home whenever they want to in order to continue doing that. They then get to nitpick at everything in my house or yard which could possibly be a health threat. An agency which is going to have a primary motivation of shutting down any food production that isn't controlled by ConAgra. You don't think that that's onerous?
If you have such a small garden, you can point to it, give them a printout of the notes you, as a responsible producer, have been keeping, and perhaps show him the bags of store-bought fertilizer you've been using.
But that itself was beside the point, as I was responding to the claim that it would go unenforced, the main reason for which I can see is a lack of personnel able to conduct a search, which means that you wouldn't even have to do the stuff listed above.
And again, the agency enforcing it has a huge incentive to make it as hard to comply with as possible, so stop talking as if they're going to be as easygoing as, say, the IRS.