I had to laugh as I read a front-page article in yesterday’s New York Times about cage-free eggs—one of today’s hot food products. So many food and restaurant businesses, including fast-food places, are stumbling over themselves to promote their use cage-free eggs that they are in short supply.
It’s only near the end of the article that you learn, “But most cage-free chickens never peck in a barnyard during their lives, which last from 12 to 18 months. The term ‘cage free’ is lightly regulated. Companies get approval to use it on their labels through the Food Safety Inspection Service of the Agriculture Department, which does not actually inspect laying operations.”
So the reality is that instead of living in lots of little cages, the cage-free chickens are simply crammed into one big cage. Moreover, pretty much anyone can call their eggs cage-free, since no one is actually checking.
Is America great, or what? This really is the land of opportunity, where the government allows you to put a label on your products that makes concerned buyers think you treat your animals humanely, and also that the product is more healthy than those of competitors, when none of those things is necessarily true. Plus, you can charge more for that product than you could otherwise.
The part I don’t get is why demand is so far out of whack with supply. Can’t the problem be solved by just printing up a few more labels?
***
Now, let’s go to the other end of the food/agriculture spectrum, the land of raw milk. In the land of raw milk, the inspections really do happen, and the inspectors make sure to find problems, even where none exist.
The Weston A. Price Foundation issued an email alert yesterday, saying, “A consistent pattern of harassment against raw milk farmers is emerging in Pennsylvania and New York.” It warned that “these tactics could be used in other states as well. It is vital for raw milk farmers to know how to protect themselves from unfair treatment by inspection agents, and for consumers to protest to the proper officials that their access to raw milk is being unfairly threatened.”
The alert provided details on several of what it says are nine cases since April of “farmers (who) have been told that their milk tested positive for listeria monocytogenes…There are NO reports of anyone getting sick from drinking the milk of any of these nine farms.”
The foundation advises farmers that, “Any time the state takes a test sample, the farmer should send his own sample to an independent laboratory. It is probably not a bad idea to videotape any sample taking and inspections. If the farmer is accused of having l-mono in his milk, he should immediately contact the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund at (703-208-FARM).”
One of the nine farmers cited for the presence of listeria monocytogenes, Lori McGrath, whom I wrote about a few weeks ago, is continuing to fight back. She is requesting “a full report” on the test procedures and analysis that showed listeria m. in her farm’s milk.
She says that a subsequent test this month by both the state and an outside lab showed no listeria m.
She also says she will reverse course and pay the expected $300 fine, on the advice of her lawyers, but will add a letter seeking to “dispute the findings.” There is no clear appeal process.
Finally, she says, “All of our customers have returned, plus more.” It turns out that there is one clear benefit to having the state accuse you of having a pathogen in your milk: It’s a great marketing tool.
Recent Comments