Regulated Without Representation: What Producers Are Actually Experiencing

The Laubscher Institute for Research
15 hours ago
2 min read

How Distant Agricultural Policy Transfers Cost, Risk, and Responsibility to Producers

At TLIR, we recently conducted a structured interview with a highly regulated agricultural producer operating in a controlled-crop environment. The purpose was simple: to understand how regulation is experienced on the ground, not how it is described on paper.

The findings were consistent and revealing.

Regulation Written at a Distance

The producer indicated that none of the individuals or institutions responsible for regulating their operation had direct experience working in a comparable production environment. This distance is most visible where health-sector regulation intersects with agricultural production, resulting in compliance frameworks that are formally robust but operationally misaligned.

Rules designed far from the field often fail to account for biological variability, production timelines, and real-world constraints.

Costs That Extend Beyond Compliance Fees

Direct regulatory expenses, such as licensing and mandatory testing, appear relatively modest when expressed as percentages. However, their real impact lies in secondary effects: delays, inflexible procedures, repeated compliance cycles, and inefficiencies that drive overall production costs significantly higher.

Notably, certain regulatory fees increase annually regardless of yield or market conditions, transferring economic volatility entirely onto producers.

Risk Without Reciprocal Accountability

When regulations change during a production cycle, the producer bears the full operational and financial risk. When uncertainty delays innovation or expansion, the cost is again absorbed by production. And when failures occur, responsibility rests with the producer — not the policy framework.

This creates a system where authority and liability are fundamentally misaligned.

Innovation Exists — Access Does Not

The interview confirmed that several value-added innovations are technically feasible but economically unattainable due to regulatory barriers. Compliance systems reward documentation and capital capacity over efficiency and experience, structurally favouring large enterprises while marginalising smaller, capable producers.

A Moral Framing Problem

Perhaps the most telling insight was how the producer described their perceived role within the system:

“Within the current regulatory framework, producers are primarily perceived as risks to be controlled rather than partners to be supported.”

Producers carry the burden of public reassurance — around safety, legitimacy, and national priorities — without receiving proportional institutional support.

What Producers Would Change

When asked what should change first, the response was unambiguous: plant production should fall under agricultural oversight rather than health-sector regulation. This reflects a call not for deregulation, but for context-aware, production-informed governance.

Why This Matters

Effective regulation is essential. But when policy is designed without representation, it quietly transfers cost, risk, and responsibility onto those least able to absorb it — while maintaining the public illusion of control and affordability.

TLIR will continue documenting producer-level experiences to support evidence-based, ethically grounded policy discussion this academic season.

Find attached the Exact Questions we asked: