Food is being produced at a scale, efficiency, and level of safety unheard of generations ago. One of the recommendations in this article is to buy "through farmers markets, community-supported agriculture programs, farm stands, and direct online sales." That's a fine way to get fresh food, but if you think the people selling lettuce at farmers markets or farm stands have any verified food safety or food handling expertise, they don't. And online sales? Who knows.<p>Food packaged and distributed by these mega-suppliers probably has less human handling through the supply chain than any other food, and they have lot numbers and sources logged for all of it, which allowed them to quickly pinpoint the farm that was the source of the Cyclospora outbreak.<p>There are downsides to the consolidation of food suppliers, to be sure, but food safety is probably better for it.
It's a lot like AWS. Yes, the uptime is likely to be better than your on-prem solution. However, unlike when yours inevitably falls over and has zero impact on anybody else, when AWS falls over it wipes out entire swathes of the internet.<p>Except now it's our food supply that's wiped out by the consolidation. I haven't bought bagged lettuce in months in response to this outbreak.<p>Smaller organizations means redundancies and options. Redundancy is the same thing as saying <i>inefficiency</i>. Redundancy is <i>good</i>.
For the recent cyclospora outbreak, a relatively tiny number of people were affected. Per the CDC[1]: 17,180 cases; 922 Hospitalizations; 2 deaths.<p>Not to diminish this for anyone affected, but the safety of driving cars is far worse than that and most of us do that daily.<p>I never stopped buying or eating lettuce.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/cyclosporiasis/cases/index.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cdc.gov/cyclosporiasis/cases/index.html</a>
I was one of those affected. The official CDC numbers are underestimates, because they're only counting cases confirmed by culture. My doc asked enough questions to make sure it wasn't your typical stomach flu or food poisoning and got me the antibiotics ASAP which I appreciated. I assume I'm not counted as a result. I have to assume others aren't as well.
i have health insurance, i <i>know</i> i got it, and i rode it out without going to the doctor (not saying that was the right choice, it's just what i did).<p>i guarantee you that first number is wildly non-illustrative of the reach of this outbreak.
Comparing it to car safety does put it in perspective, but at the same time the safety of cars has nothing to do with food safety. Considering the necessity of food for life, and the fact our current population size is dependent on industrialized farming, I think it's worth to scrutinize food safety and hold it to a high standard.
> but the safety of driving cars is far worse than that and most of us do that daily.<p>this "whattabout"ism is brought up during every safety discussion. can we please accept that 1/ everyone knows about the car issue, and 2/ the car issue being a problem does not mean we should stop talking about other issues that exist.
I'm not convinced about 1. There are a lot of things we could be doing about a 9/11's worth of dead people every single month that we just don't.<p>In any case, it's a good barometer for judging personal risk. I don't stress about the danger when I get into my car, so I probably shouldn't stress about the danger from something substantially less likely to take me out. It contextualizes a number by comparing it to something most of us do every day.
"not to diminish" as you wave away 2 people that have died and make a false equivalency to traffic accidents.<p>This is not a data exercise, this is real life and 1 person getting sick from this stuff is too much.
> This is not a data exercise, this is real life [...]<p>You may not wish to hear this, but real life is very much a data exercise:<p><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm</a>
> I haven't bought bagged lettuce in months in response to this outbreak.<p>1) Why? The source was quickly identified, and it's trivial to avoid the tainted supplier.<p>2) Why only now? Bagged leafy greens are notorious for outbreaks. The extra processing steps means greater opportunity for introducing contamination (more people handling the produce), and greater opportunity for cross-contamination.<p>This food safety expert/activist/litigator has explained both of those points many times: <a href="https://www.marlerblog.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.marlerblog.com/</a> Though, being middle-aged and perhaps with better-than-average recollection, I connected the dots to bagged leafy greens years ago, across many news cycles, and to the risk of food poisoning from vegetables generally, through hard, personal experience.
> The source was quickly identified, and it's trivial to avoid the tainted supplier.<p>The mixed messaging certainly didn’t help.<p>One day it’s Taylor Farms and the next the FDA was apologizing.<p>And even once it was found to be Taylor Farms, you can’t control every Taco Bell or anything else.<p>Mostly it just killed any consumer confidence in greens
inefficiency often creates redundancy, but they are not synonyms.<p>Redundancy may be inefficient, but you can also build redundant systems that looking at from a micro perspective seem inefficient but what you see is only a local inefficiency; if you distribute their effects far enough in space and time you find that they are actually at a macro scale more efficient than not having them because they prevent breakdowns that destroy all the smaller systems held within the bigger one.
From a strictly utilitarian perspective, more redundancy will result in more deaths, since food handling expertise is concentrated in larger organizations.<p>I say this as someone who gets most of my veg from a local CSA. It's not because I think it's <i>safer</i>. It probably isn't.
> Redundancy is the same thing as saying <i>inefficiency</i>.<p>No; you can't have redundancy without inefficiency, but you can have inefficiency without redundancy.
> Except now it's our food supply that's wiped out by the consolidation. I haven't bought bagged lettuce in months in response to this outbreak.<p>These are two unrelated events though.<p>Other consolidated suppliers have had events in the past, and they did not 'wipe out' our food supply because they identified the root cause and the impacted supplies, initiated a recall, and the rest of their redundant, distributed systems remained intact.<p>The issue going on with Taylor Farms isn't their consolidation, it's their lack of taking responsibility.<p>If we had 20 'local' distributors who were all bought by Taylor farms and one of those locations had a significant health issue, there wouldn't be a large issue if Taylor identified which one had the failing and then distributed their other 19 location's product to the area facing the shortage due to it's location's product being recalled.
> The issue going on with Taylor Farms isn't their consolidation, it's their lack of taking responsibility.<p>Right, and the issue with the King of England wasn't the consolidation of all power in his hands, but rather him not taking responsibility for everyone's welfare.
I’ve seen where a local butcher slaughters the cows for local farmers, and it’s definitely nowhere near as sanitary as the meat packing plant I wrote some software for. It’s not dirty or unsanitary by any means but he just doesn’t have the man power to wash every surface several times a day whereas the plant shuts down one line at a time to do a full daily cleaning with power washers and this foam stuff that gets into every nook and cranny and then gets washed down a central drain. My limited experience with fresh produce isn’t much better (omg the flies).
I would much rather rely on data on this kind of question over vibes. Efficiency means things move quicker and cheaper, and a few people get richer. It does not by any means inherently increase safety. The effects of a fuckup in a hugely efficientized industry often scale directly with just how much efficiency was mined away from caution and human-interaction.<p>Bubba flipping burgers getting his dirty hands on your meal might make you sick, but Bobba inspecting the meatslop production line with constant pressure from upper management to be as efficient as possible according to whatever recent regulations were stripped back might accidentally spray the horse-meat product decontaminizer on the pig-meat product, generating a national pandemic.
Data is incredibly clear that industrial-scale food production is cleaner than small-business food production.
"I would much rather rely on data on this kind of question over vibes."<p>follows with wall of vibes<p>LOL
Given the lack of research into the matter, I present the following pilot study for HN to use:<p>Number of times the lettuce I grew at home this year made me shit a tsunami: 0<p>Number of times lettuce I bought at the store this year made me shit a tsunami: 1
I'm going to give you a really strong counterexample to this. One of the most commonly acquired parasites that comes from gardening is toxoplasmosis.<p>But doesn't toxoplasmosis come from owning cats?<p>Nope. The correlation between cat ownership and toxoplasmosis is basically zero. Because toxoplasmosis comes from stray cats who poop in your garden and you catch them through the gardening. Something like 40% of toxoplasmosis cases come from gardening with people unaware that stray cats poop there. (The majority comes from eating undercooked food, like pork, because the pork grazed in fields where there was stray cat poop.)<p>So essentially doing your own gardening creates a risk vector that is significantly less present in industrial-level gardening of vegetables.
The FDA suggests that the proper preventative measure against this is "thoroughly wash your dishes and produce." which is something I was gonna do anyway, with both the store-bought lettuce and my own. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me.<p><a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/people-risk-foodborne-illness/toxoplasma-food-safety-moms-be" rel="nofollow">https://www.fda.gov/food/people-risk-foodborne-illness/toxop...</a>
And did you grow enough lettuce to supply yourself for a whole year? If not the problem remains.
A couple of things:<p>1) you're taking my comment too seriously.<p>2) assuming I had enough space to subsistence farm for my household (I don't), I wouldn't try growing lettuce year-round. Lettuce in the cooler months, peppers and tomatoes in the warmer months.<p>3) the majority of the lettuce I've prepared in my home this year <i>did</i> come from my patio
Containers. When it's nice out, they live outside. When it's not nice out, they move indoors. yeah yeah, not op, but it's possible. If you're growing food to sustain yourself for a whole year, I'm assuming you're willing to sacrifice some indoor space to accommodate.<p>Also, the GP doesn't read to me the way you're interpreting it. To me the GP has grown produce and purchased produce this year. The purchase hit him while the grown at home did not.
It would be... unusual... for an American home to contain enough space to grow the family's annual supply of lettuce.<p>> If you're growing food to sustain yourself for a whole year, I'm assuming you're willing to sacrifice some indoor space to accommodate.<p>It would be <i>unheard of</i> for it to contain enough space to produce the family's annual supply of <i>food</i>. And pointless. If you're growing that much food, there's no reason to build walls around it.
> It would be... unusual... for an American home to contain enough space to grow the family's annual supply of lettuce<p>I grow leafy greens in containers, and while not totally self sufficient, it provides a decent amount. I have multiple pots that I rotate through offsetting planting so new seedlings are going in as older plants are harvesting. If you're wanting head lettuce types then it's different, but if you just want leafy greens, you can totally do more than I think you're thinking you can.
And you're lucky that a sick bird didn't shit on your home grown lettuce before you picked it.
Yes, the cleanliness can vary based on the outfit and the tech/facilities tends to be lower. However, there are not 100s of animals being ran through the same grinder. It doesn't seem like there are any real tests being done to each animal by the inspectors.<p>So facility risk seems similar or higher for the local shop, depending on specific people running it, but animal-bourne risk seems higher at the packing plant, which seems to be the more likely vector to me anyways.<p>No data on that. But qualitative experience shows the local farmer/butcher has much nicer/fresher looking/smelling meat than the Walmart.
Industrial operations have industrial scale problems that <i>require</i> much higher standards. The local butcher might not scrub the floor and walls with the same industrial anti-bacterial detergent, but he's also not running hundreds of cows a day through the space. The local farmers don't pre-emptively administer antibiotics to their herd; the CAFO operation that feeds the industrial slaughterhouse <i>has to</i> cram antibiotics into the cows to keep them healthy enough to slaughter. Comparing the two directly is very misleading.
> ... nowhere near as sanitary as the meat packing plant I wrote some software for.<p>It's good that <i>that</i> plant is so well-run. But America doesn't lack for less well-run large meatpacking plants. Remember Boar's Head? - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41403919">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41403919</a>
There's a common pattern with other safety improvements that as safety controls improve, people simply push the envelope further. Cars get safer but then the drivers also get more confident doing things that nobody would get close to doing on an old car because it would spin out before then.<p>With the elevated standards of megascale agriculture you have the issue now where diseases from a lettuce farm in Mexico could affect somebody's health in NYC a month later in a way that simply wouldn't be possible in a previous era.<p>There's no complete solution but in this particular case it's important to remember that salads are actually pretty serious foodborne—illness vectors and they need to be heavily rinsed and ideally cleaned with a bleach or vinegar solution. It's one of the reasons that salads are traditionally on the no-eat list for pregnant women.
It's the argument of <i>Normal Accidents</i> by Charles Perrow<p><a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691004129/normal-accidents?srsltid=AfmBOopOAeGp1o8hvDMLZ3kbK1xWBScvMJrnPbNIrkUBfryGlhJZwKvs" rel="nofollow">https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691004129/no...</a><p>which is a book that I enjoy less now than the first time I read it. He was worried that shipping and aviation were both going to get more dangerous whereas that perception of a safety crisis in shipping in the 1970s went away and aviation got much much safer.
Megascale agriculture is also the reason you can easily get fresh lettuce at any market in NYC during the winter.
There are maybe 2 months out of the year that you can't grow lettuce in NYC in a greenhouse. It's not that cold.<p>Tomatoes prove your point better, but I still would never eat any of the tomatoes in an NYC supermarket in the winter, as they don't taste much better than soggy cardboard.
Also, I don’t think people have realized how much farmers markets now suffer from “dropshippers taking over Etsy” syndrome. Unless it’s a stand selling one or two specific things from a named farm or local producer, it’s likely you’re getting a lot of the same stuff that goes to the grocery stores, just at a markup.<p>Direct-from-farm delivery boxes are a better bet, at least the mainstay ones, but they’re certainly more expensive and the variety is more obviously seasonal (as you would expect).<p>Neither of these is a solution to nutrition at scale. It’s difficult to balance the economies of scale that consolidated distribution brings against the corruption that comes along with increased supplier leverage. Monopsony is just as pernicious as Monopoly (and they tend to feed each other, with large grocery and restaurant chains preferring large distributors).
Here's a pretty good video about the problem in general. <a href="https://youtu.be/nyG-np0S0ZQ" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/nyG-np0S0ZQ</a><p>The jist is that a lot of this is from consolidation at all levels. There are fewer grocery stores and distributors which has ultimately made hard to know where food ultimately comes from.<p>Couple that with deregulation and the dismantling of the government regulatory agencies under DOGE and we get what we have.
It's harder for casual <i>shopper</i> to know where their food comes from. But having worked in food production facilities that couldn't be further from the truth. You'd be surprised how meticulously tracked every part of the, supply chain is. down to the specific row in a field where something is picked.<p>(That's what makes this recent outbreak so atypical - either there was a massive screw up or someone is hiding something).<p>People also are not aware that the US has (or at least had) one of the most meticulous food inspection regimes in the world. Agency inspectors actually drop in and inspect facilities regularly. The EU might have more stringent food regulations, but as a reminder people were able to slip horse meat into the beef supply for decades before being caught - something like that would be inconceivable in the US.
The point of the video is that intermediary companies like Driscolls or Taylor Farms focus their efforts on building "accountability sinks."<p>They give farmers a 500 page document describing in detail how the produce must be grown, but then they provide little to no actual oversite, while producing <i>enormous</i> pricing pressure on the farmer. Any farmer who actually follows the 500 page document will not be able to make any money, so every farmer is compelled to violate the rules.<p>Then when product is contaminated Driscoll can say "that farmer wasn't following our policy we've cancelled our contract with them" while making no effort to actually clean up all the other farms, who are definitely violating the contract because it's impossible to follow it and make money selling to Driscolls.
There's not really an alternative that also lets farms be independent. If a GSPs really wants that level of control over farms, they might as well start buying them up.<p>The reality is that the documentation is like software T&Cs. You get to run your farm however you want and Driscolls has some CYA for later.<p>The reality cuts both ways. You can still sell produce directly to local grocery distributors that pay higher, but the requirements are going to be even <i>more</i> stringent with less guarantees.
What’s your proposed alternative? If the FDA made the 500 page document instead, they aren’t providing day to day oversight.<p>By logic, a Driscoll or Taylor Farms set of rules needs to sit beyond the regulatory minimum (their lawyers would hate them putting a violation of the regulation in writing).<p>So, even if a farmer violates the contract, the existing regulation is either insufficient or was also violated.
For starters, I think it's reasonable to break these distributors up into multiple distributors.<p>One of the big issues with a company like Taylor Farms is that when something like cyclospora hits, we all discovered that the grocery store and restaurants really only had an illusion of choice. Nearly all the lettuce products were actually just Taylor farms. That means the only option for consumers to pressure the company is to stop eating lettuce all together. Healthy competition means these distributors will care a lot more about an outbreak like this because it'll drive people to their competitors rather than just being a blip in this quarter's budget. Markets only work when there's an actual market and not just a single player.<p>But further, yeah I do think the FDA needs a more active role in doing compliance checks. Ideally this isn't the job of the FDA and instead gets rolled into the USDA or a separate agency dedicated to food products. Having one big agency in charge of both food and drugs isn't great as drugs has ended up with all the actual investment.<p>Big companies are good at reducing cost, but one way they do that is by making liabilities someone else's problem. The bigger they get, the more they do that. It's a key reason why companies like Walmart are constantly being found to employ slave labor through their contractors. Walmart can rehire the very same contractors (but rebranded) after the controversy blows over and rinse/repeat.<p>The same dynamic exists with these mega-distributors.
It seems to be the (modern) American way.
while it may be tracked, it’s often intentionally obfuscated from the actual end customer.
Then food safety should be brought to small and local farms. The whole world does this, it's doable and works.<p>The high efficiency gains and safety disregard the environmental impact caused by pesticides and agrochemicals in general. These are much less of a concern in small farms when they have much less pressure to increase food yield per area.
They also have more incentive and capability to optimize right up to (and past) safety lines. And the impersonal corporate distance from the pride in quality of production matters too.<p>With appropriate regulation and enforcement I agree with you, but in the current regime, I’m not surprised that foodborne illness in America has 10x in 2026.
I guess you're right that food is historically speaking extremely safe. I guess with this specifically, the issue is about how connected one company can be to the whole food supply.<p>A farmers market stand may not have perfect food safety either, but their outbreak would be limited to the few people who bought something on the farmers market (or maybe a cafe/restaurant or two that they supply).<p>Most likely, any harm wouldn't even be traced back to any individual salad because the sample wouldn't be big enough to form a pattern people would notice.<p>But because they supply so many salads to everywhere, it's a major issue that affects the whole food system.<p>I guess it's similar to an AWS outage. Companies constantly have outages, but an AWS one takes down half the internet.
I think competition is still absolutely necessary with heavy restrictions.<p>Much of the consolidation locations of food production is how illnesses spread among farm animals. I could get eggs from a local farmer because their birds don't socialize around birds with the flu.<p>Just my take on the matter. It is important to balance the sources.
> <i>Food is being produced at a scale, efficiency, and level of safety unheard of generations ago</i><p>There are many sensible places between Taylor Farms and backyard agriculture.
> allowed them to quickly pinpoint the farm that was the source of the Cyclospora outbreak.<p>Did they actually do this? All the reporting I saw basically amounted to “we have no friggin’ idea, shrug”. Unless you mean “Taylor Farms”, but that’s not a farm.<p>Edit: here’s the FDA page about it: <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/investigation-multistate-outbreak-cyclospora-illnesses-iceberg-lettuce-july-2026" rel="nofollow">https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/investi...</a><p>They certainly haven’t “pinpointed the farm”. In fact, they have no idea which farm might have been the source. As such, this claim is completely false:<p>> “they have lot numbers and sources logged for all of it, which allowed them to quickly pinpoint the farm that was the source of the Cyclospora outbreak.”
And... once I stopped at a roadside farmer's stand and the fruit still had the grocery store chain label and barcode on it, just smaller stuff and perhaps older than at the original store.
i suspect the concerns are, if your food is killing people or making them sick:<p>1) how big is the fallout,<p>2) how insulated from repercussions are you?<p>if a small local farms food is making people sick, it will only be a few people and word will spread.<p>a small local farm could more easily go out of business from just a few sick people. the market functions correctly at that scale. if a major corporation does it, the market does not function anywhere close to the same efficiency and the fallout is 1000s and 1000s of people sick or worse.<p>i think what many are arguing is that the responsibility should scale along with the possible impacts.
"That's a fine way to get fresh food, but if you think the people selling lettuce at farmers markets or farm stands have any verified food safety or food handling expertise, they don't."<p>They most certainly do at my farmer's market, and every vendor has their certification posted for all to see, along with a health inspector rating underneath it.
"if you think the people selling lettuce at farmers markets or farm stands have any verified food safety or food handling expertise, they don't."<p>Really? At least here (Canada), you absolutely do need food safe certifications to sell any food at farmers markets.
> Really? At least here (Canada), you absolutely do need food safe certifications to sell any food at farmers markets.<p>Sure, but you still have many more human hands on your head of lettuce on a farmers market (plus all the contamination from potential buyers sneezing, grabbing produce to check it out or from the environment in general aka flying birds, mice, rats, ...) than there will be on the mass produced lettuce that maybe saw a human hand at picking and everything since then is automated.<p>IIRC outbreaks in mass-produced green stuff usually end up tied to farmers or their neighbors spraying fecal based fertilizer at the wrong time. Unfortunately... that makes the blast radius of such a thing much, much worse.
Safety regulation isn't necessarily the point — an outbreak at a small farm is localized and might impact hundreds of people, Taylor Farms spanned over a dozen states, and this sort of scale is the sort of thing that can cause a epidemic.
The first step is to ban slavery in prison and strict regulation and fines.
I myself would trust produce from smaller local farms more than larger farms, however I also live near the farms and know what is in season and don't deal with the problems of people reselling food like they often do in "farmers markets" near or in large urban centers.<p>Small farms just don't have the pressure, or the large amount of disinterested or temporary employees that large farms have.<p>Same with smaller slaughter houses. Perhaps they don't have the manpower to deep clean every shift, but they also don't process nearly as much stuff, don't churn through employees as fast, more directly handle and train employees, and don't have some crap corner of the factory where people can be messing around being dumb.<p>Of course none of that is bullet proof, but small farms and slaughter houses know that if they fuck things up they don't just lose a bit of money and have to deal with some legal problems like Tyson or other large suppliers and distributors, they lose literally everything.
Our current government is actively rolling back safety measures so these single points of failure become much more pronounced. I don't know but I would bet that companies like this are actively lobbying to have those safety measure reduced. It seems like deflection what you're saying. Yes, things are better than before, but they could still be better and trying to stop people from talking about that isn't helpful or wise.
Or you can say, that the outbreaks will be much more bigger as a result of centralization of facilities. For example one small batch could contaminate other lettuces in shared facilities.
Consolidation does not improve food safety. Read the ISO's. The standards of the industry are equally effective at a scale of 10 or 1000 different orgs. Everyone watches everyone else, and makes batches traceable, and those who don't are told to shape up by downstream, or they lose downstream consumers.<p>Consolidation's only benefit is shifting the fiscal gain into fewer pockets, which comes with it's own perverse incentives. (See the Boeing/Airbus duopoly and the problems that causes.)
This consolidation argument only works up to 1-3 processing plants. After a company owns more than that, there's no more efficiency from automation, only market dominance and abuse.
the guy selling lettuce at my farmers market grows it, transports it and sells it. if it makes me sick, he will hear about it, and i bet he has a very strong incentive to avoid that situation over a too big to fail megacorp that is basically insulated from consequences in the current climate.<p>do we need both options? probably. but painting small scale organic farming as'the same' as the alternative is...not accurate.
> if it makes me sick, he will hear about it<p>I think one of the problems of our modern food system is it can be difficult for a consumer to pinpoint the source of an infection. Food-borne illnesses can take 24-48 hrs or more to become apparent, by which time you may not know what you ate. Combined with the fact that we can't know where certain ingredients were sourced (one of the topics of TFA), and you can know you're sick, but not why.
It's not difficult at all, food products all have factory + machine origin coding on all packages. If something makes you sick you can easily pin point which region and even which exact factories were used.<p>If there is an outbreak there are multiple pin points, it's also not hard to do this with local market goods either (unless you live in Texas or something where there are no regulations).<p>Why do you think this is the first time we've dealt with such situations? The only reason why it's happening now is because Elon Musk had his DOGE goons gut the programs that monitor our food supply.<p>I hope those DOGE goons have deep pockets because they are about to find out what happens when your supposed benefactors abandon you.
This type of outbreak is challenging because the symptoms take weeks to appear.<p>(I don't disagree that an administration focused on widespread carnage can be blamed for making things worse.)
The problem is typically you ate a bunch of things in the time before becoming ill and don't know which one (or none) is the culprit. So it takes a government investigation to identify the cause by correlating many different victims' food consumption to find the common factor.<p>Even when it's totally obvious the cause can be hard to actually prove. A restaurant near me put several people in the hospital with a certain kind of mushroom a couple years back but investigations never conclusively proved the source.
The argument from the article is when things go wrong (as what happened w/ Taylor), the damage is widespread, whereas damage is contained locally.