Regulated Out of Existence: When Food Safety Rules Shield Corporations — Not Communities

June 30, 2025

By Chef Chris Galipeau

As a professional chef with over 25 years of experience and a homesteader, I’ve seen firsthand how the American food system betrays those who grow, make, and share food outside corporate control. In the public’s mind, “food safety” evokes diligent government inspectors shielding us from dangerous pathogens, rogue producers, and filthy conditions. Food safety matters—no one disputes that. Standards should ensure our food doesn’t sicken us. But let’s cut through the rhetoric: who are these regulations really protecting?

Over the past century, food regulation has morphed from a shield for public health into a weaponized barrier, crushing small farms, homesteaders, artisan producers, and anyone daring to feed their community outside the corporate system. While mega-corporations breeze through compliance with armies of lawyers and deep pockets, small producers face a gauntlet of paperwork, costly inspections, and outright bans—not because their food is unsafe, but because they can’t afford the price of admission to a rigged game.

These policies are market-control tools draped in the guise of safety. Whether it’s a family selling raw milk, a rancher processing meat on-site, or a home cook offering jars of jam, the message is clear: you need permission to feed your neighbors—and that permission comes at a cost most can’t pay.

Meanwhile, the same agencies enforcing these rules turn a blind eye when multinational meatpacking plants exploit workers, when foodborne outbreaks trace back to factory farms, or when dubious imports slip through with minimal scrutiny. When a local egg seller is treated like a criminal while corporate recalls affecting millions get a shrug, it’s not about safety—it’s about control.

This is where food sovereignty cuts through the noise. It’s not just the right to grow your own food—it’s the right to produce, share, and sell it without being regulated into oblivion. It’s the radical idea that informed adults can make decisions about their own bodies and tables, and that communities can build trust-based food economies without corporate gatekeepers or bureaucratic overlords.

A Chef’s Perspective: Denied Access to Local Food

As a chef, this issue cuts deep. In most states, we are legally prohibited from purchasing directly from local farms, even when those farms are registered businesses operating transparently. Why? Because under the FDA Food Code, those farms are classified as “unapproved sources.” That means the food they’ve lovingly grown, harvested, and prepared on their land can’t legally be brought into our restaurant kitchens.

This restriction doesn’t just limit our ingredients. It severs the direct connection between chef and farmer—a relationship that should be the foundation of a regional food system. We’re forced to buy from large-scale distributors that may ship the same produce across the country, while the kale grown 10 miles down the road is off-limits. It is not only absurd, it undermines the very craft of cooking with seasonal, local, and ethically raised food. It punishes transparency and personal accountability, and instead prioritizes bureaucratic compliance over common sense.

This isn’t about risk mitigation—it’s about who gets to participate in the food system. And once again, small farmers, independent chefs, and engaged consumers are the ones locked out.

Raw Milk: Between Risk and Rights

The raw milk debate is one of the most revealing case studies in how food regulation intersects with power. At the heart of the issue is a simple question: Should you be allowed to buy milk straight from a farmer, unpasteurized, if that’s what you want? For much of American history, the answer was yes. But in the 20th century, as the dairy industry consolidated and public health infrastructure grew, the sale of raw milk was banned in many states — and remains illegal in interstate commerce to this day.

Pasteurization was a breakthrough in the early 1900s, drastically reducing outbreaks of tuberculosis, brucellosis, and other milk-borne diseases at a time when sanitation standards were poor and refrigeration was rare. But we’re no longer living in that world. Today, many small farms operate with hygienic milking systems, stainless steel equipment, immediate chilling, and regular testing. Yet raw milk is still treated by federal law as contraband — even when a farmer and customer both understand the risks and agree to the sale.

Thomas Massie’s Push for Legalization

Enter Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY), a vocal supporter of food freedom and small farms. In 2014, Massie introduced the Milk Freedom Act and Interstate Milk Freedom Act, aimed at overturning the FDA’s prohibition on transporting raw milk across state lines and returning the decision to the states and consumers.

“It’s time to rein in the FDA’s overreach,” Massie said. “Americans have the right to drink milk straight from the cow.”
— Thomas Massie, on the floor of the House

Massie’s bills didn’t pass — in large part due to fierce opposition from the dairy lobby, which benefits from regulations that consolidate milk processing in the hands of a few large companies. Raw milk disrupts that system. If local farms could sell directly to consumers — unprocessed and unpasteurized — the big players would face real competition.

The Power of the Milk Lobby

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and other industry groups have spent millions lobbying to maintain strict control over milk marketing, processing, and labeling. In public, they frame their opposition to raw milk around safety. Behind the scenes, it’s about market share. The same groups that push to keep raw milk illegal have also fought to block plant-based dairy alternatives from using terms like “milk” or “cheese” — revealing their real concern: consumer choice.

Dairy corporations are deeply intertwined with government policy. Many states operate under federal milk marketing orders, which fix prices and require most milk to pass through centralized processors. This makes it nearly impossible for small dairies to remain financially viable without compliance — unless they sell directly, which is exactly what the raw milk bans prevent.

A System That Punishes Transparency

Ironically, raw milk sold directly by local farms is often more traceable than store-bought milk. When there’s an outbreak tied to a major processor, the recall may affect dozens of brands across multiple states. But if a local farm causes a problem (rare, but not impossible), the source is immediately known and contained.

More importantly, small farmers have no incentive to cut corners. Their customers often come directly to the farm. They know each other’s names. Trust is everything — and one illness could destroy a reputation overnight.

What the Data Actually Says

From 1998 to 2018, the CDC tracked 202 outbreaks linked to raw milk. That’s roughly 10 per year, compared to ~48 million foodborne illnesses annually in the U.S. overall (CDC).
In states where raw milk is legal, consumption has increased — often with lower incident rates due to improved sanitation and consumer education.
According to a 2023 report by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, raw milk-related illness rates are lower than illnesses linked to leafy greens, poultry, or processed foods.

The raw milk fight isn’t just about safety — it’s about sovereignty. When lawmakers criminalize a voluntary transaction between informed adults, it’s not public health they’re protecting. It’s the interests of powerful corporations. People like Rep. Massie are trying to restore food choice to the hands of citizens, not lobbyists. And whether you drink raw milk or not, that principle should matter to everyone.

Meat Processing: USDA Regulations, the Cost of Compliance, and the War on Small Farms

If you raise livestock and want to legally sell cuts of meat to the public, your animals must be slaughtered and processed in a USDA-inspected facility under constant oversight by a federal meat inspector. It doesn’t matter if you’re selling one hog to your neighbor or a thousand cows to a grocery chain — the requirement is the same. That might sound like a fair, level playing field. But it’s not.

This single regulation — mandatory USDA inspection — has arguably done more to consolidate meatpacking into the hands of a few multinational corporations than any market force.

A System Designed for Scale

The USDA’s meat inspection system was created in the early 20th century, after public outcry from exposés like Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle shocked Americans into demanding reform. The goal was to ensure that animals were slaughtered and processed in sanitary conditions, and that meat sold to the public was free from contamination and disease.

But over the decades, what began as consumer protection slowly transformed into a system that assumes small producers are dangerous — and that only large, federally regulated facilities are capable of producing “safe” meat. The cost of compliance is astronomical for small operations.

Building a USDA-approved processing plant costs $500,000–$1.5 million, depending on scale and location.
Operating one includes:
- $100k–$250k/year for USDA inspector salaries (paid by the plant).
- Frequent record-keeping, compliance inspections, microbial testing, and data reporting.
- Capital-intensive infrastructure — separate rooms for slaughter and processing, specialized waste handling systems, etc.

Meanwhile, Cargill, Tyson, JBS, and National Beef—which control over 80% of the U.S. beef supply—can absorb these costs with ease. Their scale makes compliance cheap per pound. A small farmer raising 10 head of beef per year, by contrast, may be forced to drive hundreds of miles, pay $1.50+/lb in processing fees, and wait months for a slaughter slot—or worse, be turned away entirely.

On-Farm Slaughter: Illegal for Sale

You might assume that if a farmer raises the animal, knows it’s healthy, and slaughters it with care and sanitation, they should be able to sell that meat. But in most cases, they can’t. Custom-exempt slaughter is only legal if the meat is returned to the owner of the live animal (not sold by the cut). Even state-inspected facilities can’t ship meat across state lines, even if their standards are higher than the USDA’s.

That means:

A small regenerative rancher in Montana can’t sell a steak to a customer in Idaho.
A Florida pig farmer can’t sell pork chops at a Georgia farmers market.
Even if a farmer uses spotless sanitation practices, refrigeration, and vacuum packaging — it doesn’t matter unless a USDA inspector was physically present.

The Financial Reality for Small Producers

Let’s say a small farmer raises a steer that yields 500 pounds of finished beef.

USDA facility charges: $100–150 slaughter fee + $1.20–1.60/lb for cut and wrap = ~$700–900.
Add fuel, travel, lodging (some farmers drive 3–4 hours to the closest USDA plant).
Now add labeling compliance, packaging materials, marketing, and freezer storage.

You’re looking at $1,000–1,200 in costs before the meat is even sold. To break even, the farmer must charge $6–8/lb minimum, just to cover the bare essentials. Meanwhile, industrial meat can hit shelves at $2.99/lb, because volume and vertical integration drive costs down.

And let’s not forget: those prices are often propped up by massive federal subsidies in feed, fuel, and transport — subsidies that rarely reach the small farmer.

The Hidden Dangers of the “Safe” System

Ironically, the USDA-regulated plants that are supposedly the gold standard for safety are often the source of massive national recalls:

2023: Over 58,000 lbs of ground beef recalled due to E. coli O157:H7 from a major processor.
2021: Tyson recalled over 8.5 million pounds of chicken for potential listeria contamination.
Ongoing: Dozens of Class I USDA recalls are issued annually for undeclared allergens, contamination, mislabeling, and foreign materials — from industrial plants.

Meanwhile, small processors serving local communities almost never make headlines — not because they’re immune to error, but because their scale allows for traceability and accountability. If something goes wrong, they know the customer. There’s no anonymous supply chain to trace. There’s no cover-up.

The Cost of USDA Inspectors and Graders

One of the most significant hidden costs for small meat processors is the requirement to have USDA inspectors on-site during all hours of slaughter and processing. These inspectors are not funded by the government; the cost is passed directly to the facility. Depending on the plant’s size and operating hours, this can range from $100,000 to $250,000 per year—just to have an inspector present.

This staffing requirement isn’t limited to a daily walk-through or spot-check. It mandates full-time presence during every stage of processing, even if the plant is only operating part-time or serving a small regional customer base. For large industrial plants processing thousands of pounds of meat per day, this cost is negligible. For small-scale processors serving a handful of local farms, it’s often unsustainable.

In contrast, third-party inspection services—used in industries ranging from construction to aviation—often provide more flexible, scalable, and cost-effective oversight. A decentralized system that includes qualified private inspectors could maintain or even improve food safety outcomes while reducing the regulatory burden on independent processors. But under current USDA rules, only federal or state-employed inspectors are allowed, creating a bottleneck that raises costs and restricts supply.

The Bigger Picture: Regulation as a Corporate Tool

Let’s be clear: food safety is important. But we have to distinguish between laws that promote safety and laws that preserve monopoly.

In theory, USDA oversight ensures meat safety. In practice, it strangles small-scale meat economies, especially in rural areas where processors have closed or consolidated. The corporate meatpacking lobby spends millions each year to fight small-farm exemptions, delay mobile processing initiatives, and protect their share of the market.

Farmers don’t want to cut corners. They want to feed their neighbors. But when the law tells them the only legal path is to go broke—or to quit—they’re left with nothing.

Solutions That Could Work (If Allowed)

Expand interstate reciprocity for state-inspected facilities — if a state approves it, allow the meat to cross state lines.
Legalize on-farm slaughter for small producers with documented training, sanitation, and inspection protocols.
Authorize private third-party mobile inspection and butchering services, modeled after programs like ServSafe, where certified professionals ensure safety without government bottlenecks.
Decentralize the system — put control back into the hands of trained producers and informed consumers.

The USDA meat inspection regime may have been created for public good — but today, it functions as a gatekeeping mechanism that benefits industrial meatpackers, burdens small farms, and denies consumers the right to support local, ethical, and transparent food systems.

You don’t have to raise your own animals to be affected. Every dollar spent on meat is a vote — for the system we have, or the one we could create.

Cottage Foods: Criminalizing the Home Cook

Imagine this: you bake a loaf of sourdough in your home kitchen, using organic flour, filtered water, and wild-caught yeast. Your friends love it. Your neighbors want to buy it. You package it, label it with ingredients and allergens, and prepare to sell a few loaves a week at your local farmers market. Simple, honest work — until you find out you’re breaking the law.

Depending on your state, selling that loaf of bread might be illegal. Or it might require permits, inspections, fees, labeling requirements, a certified kitchen, a revenue cap, registration with the Department of Agriculture, and a warning that says, essentially, “this food may kill you.”

Welcome to the world of cottage food regulation — where selling a muffin can trigger more red tape than importing 10,000 pounds of corn syrup from a multinational supplier.

What Are Cottage Food Laws?

Cottage food laws are state-level rules that allow individuals to sell certain types of homemade foods without a commercial kitchen license. These laws were originally designed to make space for micro-entrepreneurs—stay-at-home parents, farmers, homesteaders, and chefs looking to start small.

But the reality is patchwork and often absurd:

New Jersey was the last state to legalize cottage foods in 2021, after a 10-year legal battle.
Texas allows up to $50,000/year in sales, but restricts many foods like pickles or fermented items.
California requires two different tiers of permits — one for direct sales and another for indirect (wholesale or online).
Florida, where my own business operates, has fairly open laws — but still prohibits anything “potentially hazardous,” including items made with dairy, meat, hot sauce or even shelf-stable pressure-canned foods.

What counts as “hazardous” varies wildly from state to state. In some places, granola is illegal. In others, vinegar-pickled beets are banned. In many, fermented foods — which have centuries of history as safe, shelf-stable staples — are simply off the table unless processed in a certified industrial kitchen.

The Cost of Compliance

If your product doesn’t fit within your state’s narrow cottage food categories, your options are limited — and expensive:

Renting a certified commercial kitchen: $25–$75/hour depending on location.
Commercial licensing: Anywhere from $200 to $5,000+ in permits, inspections, and registration fees.
Insurance, product testing, labeling, packaging, and certification all add up — long before your first sale.

For someone starting out by selling bread, jams, or family-recipe sauces, this creates an obvious problem: you have to go into debt to follow the law.

Large food companies, of course, have no issue with this. They have in-house compliance teams and multi-million dollar processing facilities. But when a single mother wants to sell cupcakes or a retired couple wants to sell hand-labeled pickles, they face burdens designed for factories, not families.

Whose Safety Is It, Really?

Advocates of strict regulation argue that these laws protect public health. But where’s the data?

Between 2013–2022, fewer than 5 reported cases of foodborne illness were linked to legal cottage food operations in the U.S. (and none were fatal), according to the Institute for Justice.
In contrast, major outbreaks involving prepackaged lettuce, processed meats, and fast food chains routinely hospitalize and kill people — all from fully licensed, regulated sources.

This isn’t about safety. It’s about control. And once again, the beneficiaries are clear: large corporations who don’t want competition.

If local food producers can sell shelf-stable jams, hot sauces, or baked goods directly to customers, without going through centralized food distribution systems, they take a small slice of the market away from conglomerates that sell nearly identical products at inflated prices.

The grocery industry is a trillion-dollar ecosystem. The fewer options consumers have outside of it, the more the system profits.

Doors Closed on Food Sovereignty

The restriction of home-based food sales is more than a nuisance — it’s a direct attack on food independence. It discourages self-reliance, disempowers local economies, and says loud and clear: “If you’re not part of the industrial food chain, you don’t belong here.”

This disproportionately affects:

Women (especially caregivers) who often turn to cottage food as a side income or first step toward a business.
Immigrants, whose family recipes are often excluded by regulations targeting “non-standard” or “ethnic” food types.
Low-income communities, where access to commercial kitchens is nonexistent and entry costs are prohibitive.
Homesteaders and farmers, who grow, cook, and preserve food but can’t legally share it without permission from the state.

Ironically, some of the safest food you’ll ever eat comes from a neighbor’s kitchen — not a shrink-wrapped package from a national brand.

The Criminalization of Feeding Your Community

Violating cottage food laws isn’t just a slap on the wrist. In many states, making and selling food outside of approved channels is treated as a criminal offense, with penalties ranging from steep fines to jail time, depending on the circumstances.

Here are just a few examples:

Minnesota: A woman was fined and threatened with legal action for selling home-baked goods without proper registration, even though the products were non-potentially hazardous.
Texas: Before reform laws passed in 2013, selling a single pie from your home kitchen could land you with a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine.
California: Violating cottage food laws can result in fines of up to $5,000 per violation, depending on the health department’s discretion.
New York: While the state has a cottage food program, it is heavily regulated — and those who sell unauthorized items can be fined or banned from further operations without appeal.

In many jurisdictions, selling food without a license is categorized as operating a business without a permit — and that offense can escalate into broader violations, especially if health departments get involved. In some states, multiple offenses can lead to permanent bans from food production, even if your food was never associated with any illness.

What’s most alarming is that many of these enforcement actions are carried out without any consumer complaints or actual harm caused. It’s not about the food—it’s about the violation of control.

Meanwhile, large corporations repeatedly engage in recalls for contaminated or mislabeled food that sickens hundreds — and face no comparable criminal consequences. In fact, the average result is a press release and a temporary dip in public trust, not personal liability or jail time.

Enforcement Priorities That Punish the Poor

Let’s be blunt: wealthy people aren’t the ones getting raided for selling cookies. These laws disproportionately affect low-income entrepreneurs, immigrants, and rural families trying to make a living through traditional foodways. The message is chilling:

“You can’t legally feed your neighbors without our permission — and if you try, we’ll fine you, shame you, or even lock you up.”

This is not a public health system — it’s a gatekeeping system. And the gates are built to keep you out unless you can afford to pay.

What a Better System Could Look Like

Expand legal cottage food lists to include fermented, canned, dehydrated, and low-water-activity foods, allowing producers to operate freely with proper education and voluntary safety practices rather than rigid mandates.
Allow unrestricted cross-county and interstate sales for shelf-stable items with clear, honest labeling — trusting consumers to make informed choices in an open market.
Encourage private, market-driven training and certification programs that empower producers to voluntarily improve food safety, rather than relying on costly government permits or subsidies.

Food safety doesn’t mean shutting people out. It means bringing them in, with education, access, and accountability.

Cottage food restrictions don’t protect the public — they protect market share. When you can’t legally sell a loaf of bread, a jar of jam, or a fermented kraut you made from your own garden, something is deeply wrong with the food system. These are the skills that sustained our ancestors, that build food security, and that should be the birthright of every community.

And yet, they’re illegal — not because they’re unsafe, but because they’re unprofitable to someone in power.

Who Wins — and Who Loses

By now, the pattern should be clear. Whether we’re talking about raw milk, meat processing, or a mason jar of homemade jam, the people most burdened by modern food regulation are not giant agribusinesses or international food conglomerates — they’re individuals, families, and local farms.

The system is not broken. It’s working exactly as it was designed to — not to ensure safety, but to manage the flow of profit and control who is allowed to participate in the food economy.

The Winners: Big Ag, Corporate Retail, and Government Bureaucracy

Let’s start with the obvious: corporate food giants benefit enormously from regulation.

Dairy cartels and industry lobbies like the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and International Dairy Foods Association work to suppress raw milk sales, ban “milk” terminology for non-dairy alternatives, and maintain the federal milk marketing system that guarantees high prices for processors — not farmers.
The Big Four meatpackers — Tyson, JBS, Cargill, and National Beef — control over 80% of beef processing in the U.S. Through vertical integration, they control everything from feedlots to slaughterhouses to packaging and distribution. The USDA inspection mandate serves as a regulatory moat, keeping smaller, local competitors from legally accessing the market.
Massive food processors and retailers rely on centralized, standardized systems that can only exist because of expensive compliance infrastructure — barcode labeling software, compliance departments, full-time food safety officers. Every additional regulation widens the gap between them and the family trying to sell at a farmers market.
Regulatory agencies themselves also benefit. The USDA, FDA, and local health departments rely on fees, fines, and program budgets that grow with enforcement. More rules mean more staff, more authority, and bigger budgets. Agencies are rarely incentivized to simplify or reduce their regulatory footprint — even when doing so would empower the public.

This convergence of government power and corporate profit is often referred to as regulatory capture — when a regulatory agency designed to act in the public’s interest instead serves the interests of the industry it regulates. In the food world, this is not the exception. It’s the norm.

The Losers: Small Producers, Independent Entrepreneurs, and Informed Consumers

Small farmers and ranchers: Instead of being supported for producing local, transparent, clean food, they’re buried in paperwork and strangled by laws that make basic services — like meat processing or raw milk sales — inaccessible or illegal. Even farmers with impeccable cleanliness and ethical standards often can’t legally feed their own community.
Cottage food producers and homesteaders: Whether they’re baking bread, fermenting kraut, or canning jam, local food makers are subject to arbitrary product restrictions, revenue caps, and even criminal penalties. The effect is chilling — people are afraid to turn their passion or tradition into a business, even when the demand is there.
Marginalized communities: Immigrants, rural families, single parents, and working-class folks are hit hardest. The barriers to legal participation — certified kitchens, permits, transportation, licensing fees — are often financially insurmountable. Those who try to operate “under the table” face fines, shutdowns, and even jail.
Consumers: Ultimately, the public pays the price — in limited choice, higher prices, and reduced trust in the food system. When you’re forced to buy pasteurized, plastic-wrapped food from faraway facilities, you lose the ability to support local farms, ask questions about your food, or build relationships with your producer.

A System Engineered for Consolidation

The net effect of this system is that every step of the food chain is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. From seed to slaughter, from dairy to deli, from harvest to home, the laws are structured to push small operations to the margins and reward centralized production.

Let’s take a look:

Food System Sector	Corporate Share	Example
Beef Processing	~80%	Tyson, JBS, Cargill, National Beef
Pork Processing	~66%	Smithfield, Tyson, Hormel
Dairy	~70% of retail	Dean Foods, DFA, Saputo
Grocery Retail	~50%	Walmart, Kroger, Costco, Amazon

When four or five corporations control the food on your plate, regulation doesn’t protect you — it limits your options.

Control vs. Consent

Perhaps the most telling aspect of all this is that the system does not treat consumers as competent adults capable of making informed choices. It treats us like liabilities — people who must be protected from themselves, rather than empowered with information and access.

Want to buy a steak from a rancher you trust? Illegal.
Want to drink raw milk from your neighbor’s cow? Illegal.
Want to buy a loaf of sourdough from the woman down the street? Probably illegal.
Want to buy 99-cent bread made with 27 ingredients you can’t pronounce from a factory 1,000 miles away? Perfectly legal.

This is not about protecting the public. It’s about preserving a tightly controlled economic system in which food flows from top to bottom — never peer to peer.

Who Should Be Winning — and Why It Matters

A truly free and secure food system should reward:

Farmers who steward the land and feed their neighbors.
Makers who preserve traditional skills and earn an honest living.
Consumers who want transparency, nutrition, and connection.

When we prioritize centralized safety protocols over localized trust and responsibility, we lose something vital: our ability to feed ourselves, together.

Risks Exist—And So Do Responsibilities

Foodborne illness is real. No one is denying that consuming raw milk, home-canned foods, or meat from small-scale producers carries some level of risk. But the conversation about risk is often framed in a way that criminalizes choice and punishes small producers, while giving a pass to industrial systems that cause far greater harm.

The Risk Spectrum: From Backyard to Factory Floor

The CDC estimates that 48 million Americans suffer from foodborne illness annually, resulting in 3,000 deaths. However, most outbreaks are linked to large-scale industrial food production — mass-processed leafy greens, deli meats, poultry, and processed foods.

In contrast:

Outbreaks linked to raw milk or cottage foods number in the dozens per year, with zero deaths confirmed over decades of data.
Small farms and local producers typically operate under close community scrutiny — their reputations are on the line, making them deeply invested in food safety.
In large industrial systems, profit-driven motives, complex supply chains, and lack of transparency often lead to widespread recalls, massive contamination events, and worker safety issues.

The system we trust with the majority of our food causes far more illness — but we regulate it with a light touch.

Over-Policing Risk, Under-Policing Harm

The government’s heavy hand on small producers is often justified by citing public safety. But enforcement tends to be:

Disproportionate: Targeting small producers with criminal penalties, while allowing repeat offenders among industrial processors to operate with minimal consequence.
Inconsistent: Cottage food laws and raw milk bans vary widely by state, creating confusion and arbitrary barriers rather than coherent safety protocols.
Paternalistic: Assuming consumers cannot make informed decisions about risk, stripping them of agency and choice.

This approach undermines personal responsibility and community trust — both critical components of food safety in decentralized systems.

What Would Sensible Risk Management Look Like?

Instead of blanket bans and heavy regulation, a balanced approach would emphasize:

Education: Training producers and consumers about safe food handling, fermentation, canning techniques, and responsible raw milk consumption.
Transparency: Clear labeling and communication so buyers understand what they’re getting and the risks involved.
Accountability: Community-based trust networks and reputation systems that encourage safe practices without criminalizing traditional foodways.
Contextual regulation: Recognizing that not all foods carry the same risk, and adjusting oversight accordingly.

Why We Must Accept Some Risk

Every day, people make decisions that involve risk — driving cars, eating at restaurants, taking medications. The fact that some risk exists does not mean we surrender our freedom.

Food is not a hazard to be eliminated — it’s a vital, living connection between people, land, and culture. Risk is part of that relationship. Accepting it, while working to minimize harm through education and community, is a far better path than stifling local food economies under mountains of red tape.

Reclaiming the Right to Feed Ourselves

If food freedom is a fundamental right, the question becomes: how do we restore it without creating new layers of bureaucracy or dependence on government programs?

Legislative and Structural Reforms: Empowering Local Producers

The PRIME Act and Similar Legislation
Expanding exemptions for small-scale meat processors to sell products across state lines, reducing regulatory choke points and unlocking market access for local farmers.
Raw Milk Legalization Efforts
Removing federal bans on interstate shipment of raw milk, allowing consumers to make informed choices and support trusted producers.
Expanding and Simplifying Cottage Food Laws
Enabling a wider variety of foods to be legally sold from home kitchens, removing arbitrary product bans, and increasing revenue limits.

Decentralized, Private Certification: A Better Inspection Model

Instead of relying on costly, centralized government inspectors—whether stationary or mobile—a more effective path is to allow qualified, privately certified individuals to perform inspections and certifications. This approach would:

Reduce barriers and delays by bringing inspection to the producer quickly and flexibly.
Promote accountability and trust through transparent private certification programs.
Limit government overreach and prevent regulatory capture by giving communities control over who certifies their food.

This model has precedent in other industries where private auditors and certifiers maintain standards without monopolistic state control.

Education and Community Accountability

True food safety arises from knowledge, transparency, and community trust—not from heavy-handed mandates. Instead of subsidies or government programs, the focus should be on:

Supporting accessible education and training led by experienced practitioners.
Building community-based trust networks where producers and consumers communicate openly about practices and risks.
Encouraging third party certifications and reputational accountability, empowering consumers to make informed decisions without coercion.

Shifting the Paradigm: From Control to Autonomy

The ultimate goal is a food system where:

Individuals and communities regain control over their food choices.
Regulations protect public health without stifling innovation or local traditions.
Producers are trusted as partners in safety, not treated as liabilities.
Consumers have access to diverse, locally produced foods without unnecessary gatekeeping.

Food sovereignty is not about creating more government oversight—it’s about dismantling excessive control and restoring the freedom to feed ourselves with dignity, transparency, and respect.

The Fight for Food Freedom in an Overregulated World

As a chef and food safety professional, I deeply understand the absolute necessity of food safety. Protecting people from illness is critical, and sensible standards are essential. However, regulatory agencies sometimes make decisions that aren’t truly about safety — instead, they’re driven by political campaigns, funding priorities, and protecting powerful corporate interests.

In today’s food system, the phrase “food safety” often masks a more complicated reality: regulations designed less to protect consumers and more to protect corporate monopolies and government control. From raw milk bans to meat processing laws and restrictive cottage food regulations, small farmers, home producers, and local communities are being squeezed out—priced and legislated out of the market while multinational corporations flourish.

This isn’t just about rules or red tape. It’s about who gets to feed whom, and whether ordinary people have the right to produce, share, and sell food without needing permission from powerful industry lobbies or overbearing regulators. While large-scale industrial food production causes millions of illnesses every year, it faces surprisingly light oversight. Meanwhile, local producers—who often operate transparently and responsibly—are treated like criminals for selling simple homemade goods or meat they raised themselves.

Food sovereignty is a movement to reclaim this basic right: the right to feed ourselves, our families, and our communities on our own terms. It calls for ending unnecessary bans on raw milk, expanding exemptions for small meat processors, and reforming cottage food laws to reflect tradition and common sense.

At its core, this fight is about trust, transparency, and autonomy. It’s about moving away from top-down, one-size-fits-all mandates toward education, private certification, and community accountability. It’s about empowering people to make informed choices and rebuild resilient, local food systems that honor the connection between land, producer, and consumer.

The current system may present food safety as an excuse for exclusion, but food freedom is a matter of dignity, economic freedom, and fundamental liberty. If we can’t feed ourselves without permission, then we’re not truly free.

share this recipe: