Verified by 
In the early 20th century, during what’s known as the Progressive Era, ordinary women were instrumental in fighting for greater government regulation of food and consumer products. After watching kids sicken and die from pus-contaminated “swill milk” and arsenic-laced penny candy, mothers of all social classes pretty much agreed that regulation was crucial. The Pure Food and Drug Act, passed in 1906, required federal inspection of meat-processing plants and mandated that medicines and packaged foods be correctly labeled. This act was followed by other legislation designed to promote public health and education – mandatory schooling for children, federally-funded maternal health clinics, compulsory vaccinations, etc. Infant and child mortality took a nosedive.
But lately, I’ve noticed that many people who self-identify as progressive are aligning themselves with Tea Partiers and other right-wing libertarians to fight against government health regulations. The New Yorker has a great story on the raw milk movement (locked to non-subscribers, unfortunately). The raw milk advocates fall on either side of the political spectrum, from California hippies to ultra-conservative sheriffs. They claim raw milk has all kinds of health benefits, from curing allergies to alleviating ADHD. But government health agencies, which regulate or ban raw milk, say the risk of contamination with e. coli or listeria makes unpasteurized milk a public health threat. The pro-raw milk crew says the government needs to butt out. But, as writer Dana Goodyear points out, food freedom comes at a cost:
“A community that resists labeling and inspection as a government intrusion puts itself at the mercy of its suppliers.”
This question of “public regulation vs. personal freedom” is something we see over and over again with New Domesticity, and not just with food. Many of the people I’ve interviewed for this book have been fierce advocates for the freedom to have unregulated home schools, to choose to not vaccinate their children, etc. It’s all part of the DIY, parents-as-experts, smaller-is-better, home-based school of thought.
I feel really ambivalent about much of this (NOT about vaccines, I should note – I think those are indusputable). On the one hand, I think that, sure, adults should be able to eat whatever they want (and I love me some raw milk cheese!). On the other hand, I think food regulation is critical to keep everyone safe, including children and people who have neither time nor resources to wonder whether their food’s contaminated with e. coli. Ditto for stuff like homeschooling. Most of the homeschooling parents I’ve talked to have been highly educated and clearly motivated to give their kids well-rounded educations. They want unregulated homeschooling so they don’t have to submit to what they see as arbitrary and invasive government standards. Fair enough. But the same lack of government regulation would also allow, for example, fundamentalist parents to raise children who can’t read. And, personally, I think being educated to a certain standard should be a universal right, a right which supersedes the parents’ right to choose whatever type of education or non-education they want for their kids.
Where do you fall on the personal freedom vs. public regulation stuff? Does any of this affect your day-to-day life?
