Michael, I read the entire piece you url'ed here that was underwritten by the Cato Institute, and I have to agree with Andrew a little about its slant. First of all, almost everything that it written anywhere is written to prove or disprove something, so that in and of itself is not always a criticism, but I think it is important to understand where a writer is coming from.
The writers of this piece obviously believe in free-market approaches to agriculture. I was surprised, though, to also notice that they are advocating limiting any further development of American farmland. This would seem to be a contradiction, since it would require government regulation to stop the suburbanization of agricultural land. So they seem to be advocating free markets, but ONLY for agriculture. This is a contradiction if they are writing from a libertarian perspective. This makes me suspicious, since we all know that if no more farmland is available for encroachment, we will all mostly be stacked up in highrises next to public transit stations, without backyards or very much room to fly the American flag on holidays.
I think almost everyone here would call themselves libertarian. I believe in free-market solutions whenever possible, just like you do. However, the slant of this article in favor of bovine growth stimulation hormones makes it clear that the meat industry is behind it. The American meat industry is certainly one of the biggest lobbies in Washington, one of the biggest pollutors of American land and rivers and streams, and is not at all altruistic about saving the planet. Did you know that in most of Europe, drugs like this are not even allowed to be used? There is not enough data available to prove that these are safe things for people to eat, and in an elegant free-market solution, there are more people in America choosing not to eat red meat at all, and the additives are one of the primary reasons for that.
Pesticides, heavily advocated by this article, are not proven to be safe, either. That is why the consumption of organic produce is rising, as more Americans prefer to eat food grown without pesticides. This is a free-market approach I hope works well, since demand will hopefully create a larger supply. I think this is behind the fact that more American farmers are interested in trying organic farming methods. Did you know that even though the Food and Drug Administration maintains that pesticides are safe, the pesticide that is used to treat cantaloupes is so toxic that eating just one cantaloupe a year puts you at the limit for this chemical? And that even though the government asserts that most pesticides are safe for human consumption, one by one, very little research has been done on them in combination, which is the way we eat them?
This is certainly an area where I would prefer to use common sense--that eating a bunch of poisons and growth hormones probably isn't the best health choice--and avoid them when I can, regardless of what my government is telling me because it is interested in promoting American agriculture.
Do you think about issues like this when you feed your children? I think the fact that a lot of people do is really good for American agriculture, because it makes at least some food producers interested in supplying products that are not poisonous, or damaging to the environment. Again, free markets, meeting a perceived need. |
