On Regulations & Safeguards

I was in Chicago this weekend to do some networking for Moments in the Park (notably meeting with Connie Johnston of the Coordinates Society). I brought some sidewalk chalk and was planning to do some “guerrilla marketing,” chalking a sampling of moments and my web address around Millennium Park. The first chalking was a lovely experience, as curious passerby stopped to see what I was writing. I even had a nice chat with one woman and gave her a bookmark for future reference. The second one was going well too, until a couple of park maintenance guys came by in their cart and informed me that what I was doing was “defacement,” a term he repeated no fewer than three times. Since the definition of defacement is damage to property and the chalk would wash away in the next rainstorm, I disagree on the terminology. I had also looked up the park rules on their website beforehand, and had seen no mention of such a rule. But they were dead set on splashing my work with a bucket and scrubbing it away (probably without even reading it). 

I’m not one to flout the rules, so I dutifully packed up my box and scrapped my plan for the morning. But it did make me angry. The old anger toward bureaucracy and one-size-fits-all rules that get applied blindly without consideration for their utility or necessity in any particular situation. I’m also in the midst of reading Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which includes a long section about Polyface Farms, a truly remarkable farm that incorporates intensively managed closed-loop natural systems to cycle between grass, chicken, pigs, and cattle. The farmer is in a constant battle with USDA regulations because they are tailored to the harmful and dangerous industrial food system and confined animal feeding operations and make no sense when applied to his farm. One such regulation stipulates that each livestock facility must have a restroom set aside for the exclusive use of the USDA inspector.

The USDA regulations are, theoretically, intended to protect against foodborne illness and environmental damage. Polyface’s farming practices are clearly far safer and actually beneficial to the environment than industrial feeding operations. But because the regulations are structured for the latter, and bureaucracy has an inherent distrust of anything that doesn’t fit in its neat little boxes, the regulations have the effect of making it extremely difficult for Polyface to stay in business.

Now, I think of myself as being in favor of federal regulations and safeguards. I just called my senators last week to urge them to oppose the “Regulatory Accountability Act,” which is designed to throw roadblocks in the way of incorporating sound, independent science into the rule-making process. And it certainly seems that the lion’s share of the push to remove regulations in the current political climate is from large corporations hoping to profit off being freed from having to care about the consequences of their actions. But I can also understand the argument that poorly structured and overzealously applied regulations can easily hinder beneficial actions and creative solutions.

The truly sad thing is that the current state of affairs is so polarized that everyone has to choose sides between the pro-corporate/anti-regulation side and the pro-science/pro-safeguard side. There is no room left for reasonable discussion about how we might reimagine safeguards to ensure they protect the public from the greedy and unscrupulous while allowing for grass-fed beef and poetry on the sidewalk.