There are lots of reasons to be upset by S510, the so-called food safety bill. But none of those reasons justifies my lashing out and impugning the intellect or motives of those fighting for the Tester-Hagan amendment to exempt some smaller producers and farms from the worst effects of S510.

In the heat of the battle, and there’s been lots of heat around this debate, it’s tempting to blame those who are on your side, and lose sight of the real problem–our legislators and regulators who would push for authoritarian control of our food producers.

Part of the reason I called out particular people and organizations was that I was taken aback by the complexity and multiple interpretations of the Tester-Hagan amendment provisions last week. I thought a good discussion, while on the surface possibly divisive, would be healthy, and might even somehow inform members of the House of Representatives, which still needs to decide what to do about S510…that maybe in its infinite wisdom, it would decide to do what’s right, which is to let the whole package go away. There definitely was some good discussion following my previous post.

But as I said, I didn’t handle my side of the strategy very well. People like Judith McGeary of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, who works tirelessly in support of small farms and food producers, didn’t deserve that kind of criticism, and I apologize.

The good news in all this–yes, there is some good news regardless of whether the legislation is approved–is that a food rights movement has taken shape. Sure, it may have become divided over how to handle S510; even the closely knit Weston A.Price Foundation (in favor of Tester-Hagan) and  Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (opposed) divided on S510.

But in the process, many more people–including high-ranking legislators–have become informed about the high stakes in this legislation, and in the entire direction this country has taken in using food safety as an excuse for further high-handed political control of our food supply and choices. Hopefully those pols who have become engaged on behalf of the good guys won’t be turned off by the internal bickering they’ve been witness to.

When I feel especially badly about my role in fostering divisions, I like to think about the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s, which was notorious for sharp divisions that often spilled over into personal accusations–mostly because so many people cared so much.

The food rights movement’s progress can be measured not just in the Washington debate, but in terms of what is happening on the local level. In Maine, the farmers pushing for regulatory exemptions within particular locales for private food transactions, are moving forward in at least four towns with their ordinances. In Wyoming, a food rights bill that last year failed in the state legislature, is once again pushing forward. I’m sure other efforts are ongoing as well.

The cause is just. The path is never smooth. ?