Should centralized food production be run by governments ?

Growdict said:

as you know most of our food is not sold like this. there needs to be a regulatory body to perform a swift recall on bagged lettuce that is contaminated with listeria. there needs to be a regulatory body that ensures your fresh local trout is not in fact frozen tilapia grown in a pesticide filled ditch. There needs to be a regulatory body that looks at the long term effects of gmo corn, wheat and soy.. I also agree with petflora and think the government, elected officials, food corps and food associations are way too cozy with each other.

Click to expand...

As Michael Jackson tried to warn us with his song that finally got him killed "They Don't Care About Us" (that may not be the title) but it is repeated throughout. See Georgia Guidestones, Agenda 21, chemtrails, fluoride...

PetFlora said:

As Michael Jackson tried to warn us with his song that finally got him killed "They Don't Care About Us" (that may not be the title) but it is repeated throughout. See Georgia Guidestones, Agenda 21, chemtrails, fluoride...

Click to expand...

Lolz. I love this place.

Tell me about the chemtrails again?

reddan1981 said:

Im going to have to play Devils advocate with this rob, because whilst I can agree with your sentiment, I feel you overlook the actual semantics of your vision.
What if the local farmers garner a monopoly on producing food. How would you advocate dealing with them, when third parties are not part of your solution?

Click to expand...

There are two kinds of monopolies. The kind which require forcible exclusion of competition and the kind which don't.

The first occurs because other possible players in a given market are prohibited or restricted from competing in some way, we see those kinds a lot.

The other kind is more rare, it's one where a service provider or product producer provides such good service that they gain a kind of monopoly wherein their customers find such value in the service or product that they eschew others who could compete but decide not to pursue it at a loss.

I'll assume you mean the first kind of monopoly in your question. I would remove the prohibitions or regulatory obstacles to others entering the food production market. For instance people should always have the option to grow their own or combine resources and grow food in a voluntary group arrangement. I would also love to see "public land" returned to being available to homestead for those willing to improve it.

A young 20 something anarchist friend of mine exemplified those sentiments by holding a sign during the Occupy movement...it said, "grow gardens, not government". Hope that answered your question.

st0wandgrow said:

Rob, in your above example I would agree with you. Unfortunately the vast majority of consumers buy their food at supermarkets, and the vast majority of that food is produced by a couple companies. Any time there is a money motive, I do not trust corporate America to do the right thing. They are driven by greed.

If there were a bunch of different companies competing for our food dollars then I would be ok with "letting the free market decide" as people could boycott companies that cut corners with their food products and spend their money elsewhere, but that's not the case, so some type of oversight is needed.

Click to expand...

Do you as a consumer exercise oversight when you purchase something ? I bet you do. Do you tell your friends and family about your good and bad experiences with suppliers?

Oversight in what little "allowed" free market there is, is all around, if you care to look. It comes from the consumers themselves. For instance this very site RIU, provides a forum for us to give feedback on seed suppliers, different grow products etc.

Amazon, E-bay, Consumer reports and Credit reporting are other free market feedback mechanisms which give valuable info.

The best way to get "a bunch of different companies" competing for something is to remove government barriers to entry, government subsidies and stop dumping private companies cost onto the public etc.

I'm not a fan of corporations either, they are a fictitious government construct.

Personally I don't want the government having centralized control of food production and distribution. If they were in control of the Sahara we'd soon see a sand shortage.
The US has at times accomplished monumental tasks i.e. mustering the WWII effort, the US Interstate system, space travel etc.
This seems to me a solution looking for problem.
An earlier time it was meddled with still chaps my ass. Wickard v Filburn.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Let's have much less centralized authority IMO.

Growdict said:

as you know most of our food is not sold like this. there needs to be a regulatory body to perform a swift recall on bagged lettuce that is contaminated with listeria. there needs to be a regulatory body that ensures your fresh local trout is not in fact frozen tilapia grown in a pesticide filled ditch. There needs to be a regulatory body that looks at the long term effects of gmo corn, wheat and soy.. I also agree with petflora and think the government, elected officials, food corps and food associations are way too cozy with each other.

Click to expand...

The existence of a bureaucracy which purports to do a thing, does not provide evidence that the thing is done. Nor does it provide evidence that you should be forced to pay for it, if you don't use it and don't want it. Also, any regulatory agency which exists as a monopoly (government) will encourage bribes and poor performance, because they have no fear of being replaced and can arbitrarily set the standards they enforce. Ahem...DEA, FDA, and probably some others come to mind.

Would you consider the aggregate of a group of consumers and their feedback a kind of "regulatory body" ? I would.

For instance, if I had a pot seed company and made claims about the weed that consumers found out were wildly off base in a bad way (say my product really sucked) about how successful do you think my company would be ?

Rob Roy said:

Do you as a consumer exercise oversight when you purchase something ? I bet you do. Do you tell your friends and family about your good and bad experiences with suppliers?

Oversight in what little "allowed" free market there is, is all around, if you care to look. It comes from the consumers themselves. For instance this very site RIU, provides a forum for us to give feedback on seed suppliers, different grow products etc.

Amazon, E-bay, Consumer reports and Credit reporting are other free market feedback mechanisms which give valuable info.

The best way to get "a bunch of different companies" competing for something is to remove government barriers to entry, government subsidies and stop dumping private companies cost onto the public etc.

I'm not a fan of corporations either, they are a fictitious government construct.

Click to expand...

My oversight is limited to the information that is provided to me. Yes, I can tell you which product tastes good, or is priced competitively, but without some form of external oversight (which can mandate the listing of ingredients, or the impact of those ingredients on my health) I can't make a fully informed purchase or recommendation. In whatever shape it may take, there has to be an external source of information with no vested interest in the products. I don't trust agri-business to self police, and I can't really trust government oversight given the influence that corporate America has on policy.

Given all of that, I try to grow as much food as I possibly can and/or support small local farms. There's a great market (Eastern Market) in Detroit that operates year round that the wife and I visit damn near every Sunday. There's a ton of products there produced right in Detroit from urban gardens that have sprung up from the wreckage in the city. It's a little more expensive than the supermarkets, but the benefits far outweigh the cost difference for me.

Unclebaldrick said:

Are either party ISIS?

Click to expand...

Not in my example. Think of a loose bloused buxom farmers daughter bending over to grab some potatoes out of a bin and weighing them up for you.

Rob Roy said:

Not in my example. Think of a loose bloused buxom farmers daughter bending over to grab some potatoes out of a bin and weighing them up for you.

Click to expand...

Does she have any non-pasteurized cheese? I like the bad girls.

st0wandgrow said:

My oversight is limited to the information that is provided to me. Yes, I can tell you which product tastes good, or is priced competitively, but without some form of external oversight (which can mandate the listing of ingredients, or the impact of those ingredients on my health) I can't make a fully informed purchase or recommendation. In whatever shape it may take, there has to be an external source of information with no vested interest in the products. I don't trust agri-business to self police, and I can't really trust government oversight given the influence that corporate America has on policy.

Given all of that, I try to grow as much food as I possibly can and/or support small local farms. There's a great market (Eastern Market) in Detroit that operates year round that the wife and I visit damn near every Sunday. There's a ton of products there produced right in Detroit from urban gardens that have sprung up from the wreckage in the city. It's a little more expensive than the supermarkets, but the benefits far outweigh the cost difference for me.

Click to expand...

So would it be possible to "allow" two kinds of markets?

One where the oversight is provided by you and me ( consumer feedback) and the other has some other kind of third party which tests products and provides that information to people who want it ? That way people would have some kind of choice and wouldn't have others making their choices for them.

Unclebaldrick said:

Does she have any non-pasteurized cheese?

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

So would it be possible to "allow" two kinds of markets?

One where the oversight is provided by you and me ( consumer feedback) and the other has some other kind of third party which tests products and provides that information to people who want it ? That way people would have some kind of choice and wouldn't have others making their choices for them.

Click to expand...

I suppose it's possible. Would these markets consist of products produced by giant corporations? If so, I think I could pretty accurately predict which market would succeed.

The plus side for you would be very fast checkout lines in your "no oversight" market.

st0wandgrow said:

I suppose it's possible. Would these markets consist of products produced by giant corporations? If so, I think I could pretty accurately predict which market would succeed.

The plus side for you would be very fast checkout lines in your "no oversight" market.

Click to expand...

if it were up to me, fictitious entities like corporations would not exist. They were created to bestow favoritism via legal shielding and they use government created barriers to entry to stifle competition and protect cronies. Anybody should be able to produce food and trade it to others as long as a willing consumer is in agreement with them.

Food production is relatively easy, it's the regulations which aided the movement away from local food. For instance city and town ordinances which penalize a person for growing food or raising chickens and insist that a golf course type lawn exist in a sterile setting are part of the problem.

Also, what you term "no oversight" would have oversight, from the consumers where it belongs. If you are pleased, you will return, if you are not, you won't AND you will tell your friends.

reddan1981 said:

Im going to have to play Devils advocate with this rob, because whilst I can agree with your sentiment, I feel you overlook the actual semantics of your vision.
What if the local farmers garner a monopoly on producing food. How would you advocate dealing with them, when third parties are not part of your solution?

Click to expand...

How do you garner a monopoly on food production when anyone can plant it in the ground? There could be some collusion but eventually the higher prices will outweigh any transportation cost required to bring cheaper food into the community through competition.

NLXSK1 said:

How do you garner a monopoly on food production when anyone can plant it in the ground? There could be some collusion but eventually the higher prices will outweigh any transportation cost required to bring cheaper food into the community through competition.

Click to expand...

How do you conclude that "anyone" can plant in the ground though?

reddan1981 said:

Im going to have to play Devils advocate with this rob, because whilst I can agree with your sentiment, I feel you overlook the actual semantics of your vision.
What if the local farmers garner a monopoly on producing food. How would you advocate dealing with them, when third parties are not part of your solution?

Click to expand...

Grow my own damn food! Don't need the government or farmers

Tangerine_ said:

How do you conclude that "anyone" can plant in the ground though?

Click to expand...

I can go in my backyard and grow food. The local grocery store and farms do not have a monopoly on food because I can simply grow food. Your example is flawed.

But again, at some point the transportation costs will outweigh any collusion going on.

NLXSK1 said:

I can go in my backyard and grow food. The local grocery store and farms do not have a monopoly on food because I can simply grow food. Your example is flawed.

Click to expand...

Its not flawed at all. Not everyone can go into their backyard and plant food. Even if they own an abundance of land there could still be physical limitations. And then you have those that have nothing but pavement/concrete for a backyard. Why do you assume everyone has the same resources as available as you?

NLXSK1 said:

I can go in my backyard and grow food.

Click to expand...

if you took out another loan from the bank to get yourself set up, you could probably manage a salad once a month.

but even that's not likely, since you are an unremitting failure.

Tangerine_ said:

Its not flawed at all. Not everyone can go into their backyard and plant food. Even if they own an abundance of land there could still be physical limitations. And then you have those that have nothing but pavement/concrete for a backyard. Why do you assume everyone has the same resources as available as you?

Click to expand...

Where there is a will...