Photo by gardngrlDoes local oversight of goods (locally-produced or otherwise) result in greater consumer safety? I don't know the answer to this question, but I think it's one that is well worth asking. If you've listened to the news or read a newspaper in the last month you're probably aware of the U.S.'s mounting concerns over the safety of food (mostly as animal feed) and health products imported from China. Full disclosure: I have no particular quarrel with China. I do, however, see the folly of a U.S. import system so sprawling as to be overextended, and so underfunded and understaffed as to be dangerous. Does anyone even know who's driving this train anymore? Perhaps more importantly, can the system as it currently exists be mended? Is it possible that the system as-conceived is incapable of assuring consumer safety?
In the U.S., one of our favorite silver linings in the clouds of collapse is the promise of new technology. I suspect, however, that the safety of globally-traded commodities is something that improved technology cannot fix. Perhaps my readers will disagree. I certainly invite and encourage feedback. But in the absence of a technological fix, does it seem advisable to search for local solutions? What would they look like? What might the unintended consequences be?
Feeling very optimistic this last weekend I decided to take on a particular aspect of the health product safety issue to try and find out if it would make sense for a locality to produce their own, safe products. Since one of the recent New York Times articles features the problem of producers replacing glycerin in products with a toxic industrial solvent (diethylene glycol), I decided to try and figure out if a locality could produce its own glycerin for food, medicines and toothpaste. It didn't take long for me to become somewhat discouraged. While glycerin can apparently be manufactured from any number of plant and animal substances and is therefore not particularly problematic in terms of resource availability, it's manufacture is apparently labor intensive. Profitability seemed more and more questionable, the further I read. I can clearly see the benefit of economies of scale when it comes to the manufacture of glycerin. What I don't know is just how necessary glycerin is. Could we do without it? Given enough incentive, couldn't a suitable (and safe) substitution be made? Maybe? I haven't a clue. The point I want to get at here is that, the more I looked at this problem, the more complicated it became. Perhaps that was just reality dawning. What is certain is that a whole lot of people (and not just those people on the inside of the problem) need to be discussing the safety of the products we consume and the sourcing and inspection of those products. It seems obvious that, if it were possible to locally source and produce more of these goods, we could also more reasonably assure their relative safety. Alas, things are not that simple.
I'm very interested in what others think about this issue. I think it will take a lot of new thinking and the ideas of a good many people to being to turn things around. Is there a local solution to food and drug safety?
3 comments:
Great post!
You identified the key problem. The system is sprawling, overextended, underfunded, and understaffed. Given that, how can they ever enter the data needed into an advanced tracking system that would help make it safe? They can’t. Getting the data entry done is always the biggest problem when implementing a new database system. So better computers, softer software, and broader broadband won’t solve this.
Increasingly rapid advances will deliver what they always have: a mixed bag. Things will dramatically improve in some ways, while becoming worse (or at least more complex) in others. On balance, things will improve. A total cure will remain elusive. But there is hope on the distant horizon, even if it’s not too realistic for the next decade.
Striving for decentralization of production is extremely sensible and logical. And here is where future tech could actually come to the rescue. There are new technologies being developed that will make decentralized small-scale (even micro-scale) manufacturing vastly cheaper than it is now. Baby steps in this area can be seen by looking at newer 3D printing devices and the logical next advancement of that idea: molecular manufacturing.
Economies of scale. That’s what stops us from achieving the kind of localization we’d like to have. But these impending technologies really are going to reverse that aspect of reality. When we can manufacture a single widget by using a suitcase-sized molecular factory just as cheaply as a giant factory tooled-up to make millions of them can do it – well, that’s a different ball game. Such manufacturing devices should be ubiquitous within 30 years.
When that’s the case, the system as it exists will cease to exist. It will be obsolete and its inherent problems will vanish along with it. The new system of decentralized (local) micro-manufacturing will replace it. I believe this is inevitable. Now, once you accept that idea (even for argument’s sake), it begs the question: what will the new system’s inherent problems be?
I'm too lazy to post a proper response, so here's a link instead.
Steven,
I'm so grateful for your insight into what's ahead--technologically speaking--and I'm interested in learning more about what you see coming in terms of de-centralized, economical small-scale production of goods. Specifically, how do you think these technologies will "work" within local economies? And do you think that maintenance and upkeep of these systems is something that can be reasonably managed on a local level? What do you think the unintended consequences of the introduction of these technologies might be?
I had no idea of the existence of such possibilities. I'd love to learn more.
Thank you for your comment.
Post a Comment