That seems awfully expensive, but I'm sure in favor of the testing. Let's have fewer e. coli outbreaks, yeah? I wouldn't have felt strongly about this article, but some of your arguments here are VERY specious.

You suggest that the smaller farms shouldn't have to do the tests because "most small processors are incredibly conscious about food-safety already." That's completely anecdotal; it's your own opinion, based only on your biases against large farms. I'm sure you would rail against the idea of allowing large farms to police themselves without oversight, so why support it for small farms? In the end, they are both run by people, with the same inherent sins and shortcomings .

You say that small farms are more likely to test carefully because one outbreak could put them out of business. I think you have that completely backwards - large farms will be more careful because they have more to lose. Their brand names are worth billions - tainting one of them with an outbreak would cost a lot more than the testing would. A small fly-by-night outfight that got caught selling dirty meet would just change the name of their stall at the farmer's market, and carry right on without many consequences. A billion-dollar farm couldn't rebrand themselves nearly as easily.

Finally, the argument against the cost is a two-edged sword, because it has an implied corollary. To be an effective argument, you are suggesting that ALL small farms are both too poor to afford the testing AND rich enough to afford healthful business practices. Do you see the problem with that statement? Wouldn't a business that can't afford to test their meat be MORE likely to cut corners and scrimp on health and safety than a business for whom the testing cost was a drop in the bucket?

This is the problem with government regulation - the people protesting "corporate" or "industrial" products do not understand the complex mechanisms needed to comply. It's not the big stores and competition forcing little guys out of business - it's the entity (government) that has no competition, no accountability and an iron fist.

Yeah, screw you Government! Trying to keep us consumers healthy! Where do you get off?

@Reymont

The problem is that these are not new, more sophisticated tests. They are testes to validate what small producers are already supposed to be doing. Essentially it's another layer of testing that most small producers see as unnecessary considering the guidelines that they already follow, USDA inspections et. al. If a small producer who is already following federal guidelines tells me that an additional layer of testing is going to cause problems. I don't really doubt them.

Is there a possibility they are using the argument to hold independent farmers, and those who consume their products, hostage just so they can avoid additional cost? Sure.

Small processors operate under the same rules as large processors. However, there is no doubt in my mind that concentrating slaughtering and processing in large industrial plants is more likely to lead to large pathogen outbreaks and meat recalls. This is due in part to the large amount of feces and other disease carrying waste that is obviously present in industrial operations and minimized in small processors who deal with far fewer animals.

Maybe apropos of nothing, the USDA has estimated that Farmers Markets have tripled in number since their last tally in 1994. But instead of hearing (or finding more than a couple examples) of pathogen outbreaks in local farmers market's, you find case after case of e. coli outbreak from concentrated farming and processing practices that affect huge numbers of people.

Are you suggesting that direct-to-consumer sales, where the chain between production, processing, and consumers is very very short, wouldn't prompt a processor to be that much more vigilant?

That being said, I totally understand what you're saying about brands being far more damaged by outbreak than lesser known small processors. But I believe most large brands contract with an industrial processing plant that doesn't necessarily share the brand name. And what about the industrial plant that contributed to the WinCo e. coli outbreak? Will they get fined? Probably. Will they stop processing? Not likely. They have the money to hire legal teams, pay damages, etc. I still contend they will stay in business if an outbreak occurs. That's far less likely for a small processor.

Bottom line is that the current health regulations for processors seems only to be a big issue with industrial meat production. Not as much with small processors.

Big processors generally support these changes because they can afford it. Small processors can't afford it.

The possible end result is more concentrated meat processing = more animals slaughtered and processed in less time = more risk for pathogens to be passed on to the general public.

The day I get sick from buying tainted meat from the farmers market is the day I'll reconsider my argument, specious or not.

historical perspective: this type of regulation, ie that which large producers can easily absorb but which prices small producers out of the market, is what caused the west pennsylvania secession, later slandered by alexander hamilton as the 'whiskey rebellion'.

these small meat producers need to just ignore the law and continue selling their products, a la raw milk. you cannot fight the industrial farming lobby. they will destroy you.

@Trevor - I think that's poor logic. The "vast majority" of meat is sold by large farms, so doesn't it stand to reason that the "vast majority" of outbreaks will come from them? They also provide the "vast majority" of healthy meat.

@PAC - Great response, good points. I think you've got me on a few of them. :) I'll have to come back after these next meetings.

I agree with PAC. "More testing is always good" sounds good, but it's not, in practice. That's why you don't get an MRI every time you go to the hospital, and why some scientists are recommending fewer mammograms. There is a statistical science to testing, and it's not "test the fuck out of everything, all the time".

Stop trying to take the burger off my plate, you damn vegan hippies!

If anyone's interested, an action alert from cornucopia.com: http://bit.ly/8YGGFc

@Trevor - Now I think you're just trolling, because I've never been accused of too much emotion, before. It's always the opposite! I don't buy meat from McDonalds OR from the Farmer's Market - I've got no skin in this game. I had questions about PAC's arguments, and then pointed out that your point was not correctly formed.

You say I 'pick and choose my points.' That's because I don't come into this rooting for either side, like you seem to be doing with your vitriol against the big farms. I only had questions about the logic used - my 'picking and choosing' was just a way to better understand. I'm not sure that you're evaluating the arguments in the same way - it seems like you've already formed an unshakable opinion.

And it's not "retreating" if someone convinces me! The only reason I read this blog is to learn new things. I'm always flattered when one of the authors takes the time to answer my questions, and try to say so.

@Trevor - Gosh, quit painting me as a shill for Big Farma, or whatever you think I am. It seems like you came into these comments looking for a boogeyman.

Yeah, is seems like they DO need to increase controls on big farms. But that's what these regulations do! Exactly that! More testing, hold their nose to the grindstone so that we get less tainted meat. I thought that was a good thing. I just don't see why small farms should be exempt from testing their products for bacteria. That sounds like something everyone should do.

Sure, they have fewer outbreaks than the big farms - but of course they do, because they sell more. I guess I should have asked what the "outbreaks-per-pounds- sold" breakdown was. From PAC's comments, it sounds like small farms win in that category, too. Have they been scoring high enough to exempt them from testing? I don't the answer - I was asking if you did.

@PAC - Your response started by saying that these tests do nothing more than ensure that people are following the existing federal food-handling guidelines, which small farms say they are ALREADY doing anyway. Well, I'd like a little more than their word, please. I'm sure all the farms that have had e.coli breakouts ALSO say they've followed all the federal guidelines, right? Who's going to say they're not complying with existing regulations?

You've got good points that large farms deal with a lot more bacteria because of their massive processing - I know there's good science behind that statement. But I don't know...big farms also have Quality Control departments, and mandatory training for all employees, and inspection logs, and better equipment. A small farm with a booth at the farmer's market is basically just some guy who used to own a cow, right? Can't we worry about both of them?

I like the rest of your points, PAC!

Jesus, would you guys get a room, already?