Carte Blanche: The PRIME Act is long overdue
Monika Kubala
Few things are more American than the exchanges of good services between neighbors sealed by nothing more than a nod and a handshake. If you have something I want to sell to someone who has a want or need, then why shouldn't I be able to do so? The answer to that question, according to the government, is straightforward: safety. If the government can't oversee the transaction, inspect the goods sold, and decide, based on its own rules and regulations, then there is too great a chance that something terrible will happen. The problem with this system is not only that it violates Americans' freedom but also that it infringes on their access to everything from medicine to food. In the process, it also adds costs and bureaucratic steps to what should be as simple as it is in most parts of the world and what has been done throughout most of human history. The current government shutdown also highlights what happens when they are unable to fund the systems set in place to keep us all "safe." Politicians rarely worry about putting food on their tables or about where the money will come from to pay their bills because shutdowns don't affect their income. But for the average American, the worries are very real, and it is past time that something be done about them.
In July, U.S. Senators Angus King (I-ME) and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the PRIME Act to restore freedom for American consumers and farmers alike. The bill intends to repeal the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) requirement that ranchers have their cows processed at one of its certified facilities. One of the major issues with this federal law is that states such as Maine, represented by Senator King, have limited facilities that cannot handle the amount of produce that many farmers are trying to bring to market. This leads many to travel across the state and even cross state lines to reach facilities that can meet the demand. Which, in turn, increases both the cost and the time it takes to produce beef for the average consumer. To make matters worse, the number of processing plants has sharply declined. About 50 plants now process over 90% of all beef produced in the U.S., increasing wait times significantly for local farmers trying to have their cows processed in an ever-growing queue. The PRIME Act would allow ranchers to take their cattle to "custom" slaughterhouses, which are smaller facilities regulated by state law rather than the USDA. While it stops short of allowing beef sales nationwide, it would allow sales to businesses within the state. There would be no downside for farmers and ranchers who need access to make a living, and for local consumers who want access to cheaper groceries.
Despite the narrative that the Trump Administration is supportive of American farmers and that the President wants to do everything in his power to help them, his policies do not support those claims. President Trump announced that the U.S. would import massive amounts of beef from Argentina. While in the short term this might lower consumer costs, it will have long-term negative impacts on everyone. As inflationary pressures rise and a cheap supply of Argentine beef floods the market, American ranchers will suffer, and many will eventually go out of business. The supplies will dry u,p and Americans will have to pay the price if imported beef is lost, and lose options in the process. The Trump Administration also imposed a 50% tariff on Brazilian beef to eliminate competition with American Cattlemen. However, they are quick to point out that this does nothing to lower the costs of fuel, feed, and meeting government regulations. The PRIME Act was reintroduced by Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) as part of a continued push to alleviate at least some of the problems and costs, but it is not without its detractors. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) and the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) oppose the move and cite concerns about food safety if the act were to pass. The idea of informed consent must, yet again, be overruled by the need to keep Americans safe from their own choices and desires. We would all be consumed by calamity and the utter destruction of our society if the USDA couldn't test the food we want to eat. Or, perhaps Americans would be as safe as we've always been and possibly safer still as we take more notice of what we are eating and where it comes from without the government needing to get involved at all.
On September 3rd, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), during a confirmation hearing, made the following statement: "The notion that rights don't come from laws and don't come from the government, but come from the Creator — that's what the Iranian government believes." In a single statement, he summarized the belief that Americans should be allowed to do only what the government decides. He can restate those words in whatever format he wishes, or even track back to a degree. Still, with those few words, he presents the intent of the government regulations that govern much of what Americans do daily. Passing the PRIME Act would be a very small step toward restoring Americans' autonomy in all matters, both big and small. It would also serve as a reminder that it was never the intent of the founders to cede the idea of rights to government approval. Big things do indeed come in small packages, and small changes over time can lead to monumental reshaping of the world around us. However, nothing good comes from the idea that safety must be the government's primary goal in all matters. In the end, the question must be asked of the government: Who are you trying to keep safe, the citizens or the government? As Americans continue to suffer higher costs and a lack of choice due to government bureaucracy and overreach, there will come a time when they will have to answer for it themselves. For the time being, the PRIME Act is a step in the right direction and will not lead to the collapse of the country or to the wholesale threat to health that its opponents have described. Nothing terrible can come from the right to choose, especially if governments oppose it.