Food shouldn't be big

Here's an article my cousin sent me today from the New York Times. It's about bribery in the food industry, in this case involving Kraft Foods in my home state. For me the point isn't the handful of baddies that were involved in this particular scandal, but rather the fact that having the food of hundreds of millions of people controlled in large part by a few mammoth companies just doesn't make sense. Of course with oligopolies you open the door to corruption and other immoral practices, and the size of huge food conglomerates means that any such practices will affect millions of people. But beyond illegal hijinks, which can be said to be anomalies, the system is inherently flawed. Any decision, even presumably honest, responsible decisions, will affect the same millions of people. Any contamination or disease outbreak will affect these millions. Industrial sabotage, terrorism, logistical problems, decisions as to product lineup--if inordinate power and market control is in a few hands, all of these normal events in the day-to-day existence of a business will affect an abnormally large amount of people. It's arguable that big isn't good in any business--the lethargy and clumsiness of bloated organizations get in the way of effective operations. But for food, this clumsiness of size is not only more acute (because the option for smaller, more nimble, more diverse producers and providers is much more real and natural), but it becomes a moral issue that affects us all. If my Hanes briefs or my new television aren't made as cheaply or as efficiently as they might be, it's not a big deal. I don't have to buy new ones every day, and I've got some room for maneuvering as to when I use and replace the product. But food is something essential, necessary every day. If corporate inefficiency affects the food I eat, that is a truly grave moral issue.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/business/25tomatoes.html