The Complete Patient

As cynical as I am about all this presidential stuff—the money that’s being spent on these campaigns is astounding—I’ve gotten caught up in the voting and sport of it all. It’s hard not to , given the characters and the drama. I’ll admit that I’m drawn to Barack Obama—he’s kind of a compatriot, having made his home and career in my tough old neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago. I actually have a theory about how the Democratic side will work out…but I’ll save that for the end.

What I was wondering about most immediately, in light of my recent posts about politics, is what the remaining presidential candidates might think about food and ag issues. I harbor no illusions that they think too much about them, but I wondered how they might react if they were asked about the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) or the government’s aggressive enforcement against raw milk producers or the cloning of cattle for meat and milk.

So I decided to look at their web sites—the first time I had looked at any of them—and got a few hints. Not surprisingly, none mention NAIS, raw milk, or cloning.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at least acknowledge agriculture issues and mention the importance of family farms. Obama is the only one who discusses CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) and promises to crack down on their pollution of waterways and land.

Clinton vows to “fight vertical integration, which has crippled American agriculture.” But she makes no mention of CAFOs—maybe because she has a past president of the National Pork Council heading the Rural Americans for Hillary committee.

And then there is John McCain. He says nothing on his web site about farming or food that I could find.

While I don’t harbor any illusions that any of these three would actually care a bit about food and sustainability issues, their appointees to places like the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture could make a difference.

I have a feeling that McCain might actually be most favorably inclined—sort of a watered down Ron Paul. I don’t agree with him on a lot of things, but I have since his 2000 campaign admired his efforts to push campaign finance reform and go up against Big Pharma. That’s why the so-called conservative movement is so afraid of him—he actually does seem to want to make some changes to the big-business gravy train politicians of all stripes have long favored.

By the time he gets through making all the promises he needs to make to “secure the Republican base,” that might all be forgotten. I expect that Obama and Clinton would be more inclined toward fostering the granny state, and accepting the bureaucrats’ argument that we must be “protected” against the ravages of bacteria-infected food coming from small farms. But maybe Obama would take offense at the regulators' tough-guy enforcement actions against small raw-milk producers...

Now, about my predictions. I think Obama is most likely in the process of building up enough momentum to win the Democratic nomination…but if he falters , he and Clinton could make a deal whereby Clinton is the nominee, but commits herself to a single term, after which the next term will be open to Obama. Under this arrangement, Obama will agree to run as her VP this November. If they fail to agree on anything, well, Al Gore waits. Remember, you heard it here first.

***

On the debate over the mothers’ raw milk suits against Organic Pastures Dairy Co., I think there is more agreement than disagreement. Part of the problem is simply articulating what we mean, since the intricacies of food-borne illness are so complicated.

I think what I’ve been trying to say is something like this: Raw milk (produced to be consumed raw) should be treated in one of two ways by consumers, as well as the regulatory and legal establishment. Either it’s just another raw food, subject to very occasional contamination, just like hamburger and spinach. Or it’s a dangerous food, which you consume at your own risk.

If it’s the former, then consumers should be entitled to the same implied safety as any other food, and if a producer has somehow sent it to market contaminated, then he/she bears the responsibility. In that case, though, you have to prove very convincingly that the producer screwed up—not just have a cluster of illnesses and automatically eliminate all the other foods they consumed in common once you hear the words "raw milk."

If it’s the latter, then you accept responsibility when you purchase it that you and your family could get sick. Make it like going to a major league baseball game. The courts have long established that if you get injured by a foul ball, you can’t expect any help from the courts—you assume all the risk by entering the park because errant foul balls are part of the experience. If we as a society consider it dangerous, then put the onus on the purchasers for bad consequences. Don’t go after a producer after you become ill.

I don’t think you can have it both ways. Say it’s just another food and please protect us, public health authorities and courts…and then claim it’s inherently dangerous and the producer should be shot because your kids happened to get sick. Sorry.