By John Wund / Chronicle contributor
As I write, the new swine flu epidemic is a breaking story. In Mexico, church services have been canceled and schools closed to slow the spread of the disease. In our country, this new flu has already been confirmed in ten states (including Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana) and by the time you read this, it may be in Tennessee.
As of April 29, there were no confirmed swine flu cases in our county, but if you or a relative are traveling to an area where that flu has been found, remember to wash your hands many, many times. The new disease is thought to be passed from person to person through contact, although it is far from well-understood. So far, no one knows how long the new virus can last on surfaces (such as vegetables) after they are touched by an infected person.
Because the H1N1 virus seems to be coming from afar, this outbreak reminded me of last year’s tomato scare and the recent recalls of dog food and peanut butter. Many of the fruits and vegetables in chain stores (and some roadside stands) come from other states or countries. The same is true of supermarket meat and the ingredients in processed foods. It has become much more difficult to contain illness outbreaks to regions where they first occur because of “globalization.”
After last season’s food scares, it’s no surprise that Congress is considering “food safety” legislation. The stated purpose is to stop “food terrorism” and make it easier to trace food back to its place of origin after an outbreak of illness, which sounds sensible. Because of globalization, however, large corporate distributors can spread contamination across continents before any infections become apparent, so this legislation only offers limited immediate benefits to the consumer.
These “safety” bills are currently supported by big agribusiness lobbies, international shippers and chain-store distributors because the legislation makes no distinction between huge producers who ship worldwide and your next door neighbors who sell from their one-acre garden at a local farmers’ market. Even kids who sell lemonade or radishes at a roadside stand would be considered “food producers” by the bills as now written, and they would need to pay thousands of dollars yearly for registration, record keeping and inspection.
Needless to say, this would put small local vegetable growers and farmers’ markets out of business, eliminating an important source of flavorful, healthy, energy efficient food that is supportive of the local economy. Giant corporations would then gain even greater control of our food supply despite their recently demonstrated role in the international spread of illness.
There is no evidence of any elevated health risk from eating our locally produced food. In fact, if all food were grown and consumed locally, food-borne disease outbreaks would be more easily contained. Yet, the passage of HR-759, HR-814, HR-875 or HR-1332, as now written, would eliminate the sale of most Cumberland County fruits, vegetables and artisan foods.
Legislation should encourage (not eliminate) the production and distribution of fresh, locally-grown food. Small farmers and merchants that only sell home-produced or organic foods in local markets should be specifically exempted from being regulated by these bills. If you agree, please tell our congressman, Lincoln Davis.
