From Simple to Scaled
For centuries the life we lived was simple, we were defined by the land we lived on and the people who lived around us. We supported ourselves the best we could, by combining the strength of our bodies with our mind’s savvy in order to survive. We planted what months later would feed us. We saw it mature day after day. We were keenly aware of the slow process of growth and death that sustained us. Now, things are very different. Everything happens on such a large scale and in such quick succession that we are sustained by products whose mode of growth and distribution are unknown to us. Our lives now are defined by an excessive reliance on people and processes we do not know.
While this seemingly bleak description of what we have lost could easily lead us to find solace in a short-sighted and sentimental nostalgia, for this essay I would like to accept the reality of how things have changed and see how— despite the detriments and losses that those changes have caused— we can find meaning within this new world in which we now find ourselves.
If we are honest with ourselves for a moment, while we may like the idea of farming our own crops and tending our own animals in order to feed ourselves and our families, while we may like this idea of living holistically and independently, the reality of the situation is that most of us do not have the background to do the complex work of the farmer, nor the farmer’s bodily strength and mental fortitude. In short, we like the idea but not the reality. Life before refrigerators, grocery stores, Google, and Amazon was not easy. Hard work ruled the day, and if you couldn’t handle its relentless, unforgiving nature, well, too bad for you, that was your only option, so you better get used to it.
However, now, in our world of endless convenience and instant gratification, while it may seem that food just magically appears in grocery store aisles and then in our refrigerators, this is not the case. I find it interesting that most of the people who complain about the industrialization of agriculture and the loss of family farms, are not only suffering from a misguided nostalgia, they are also unaware of the complexity of current farming practices, as well as the time, care, and effort that the big agricultural companies put into their animal husbandry, farming, production, distribution, sustainability, and quality control practices.
The Fallacy of Scale: A Slight Detour
This nostalgia for older, simpler times seems to be tied to a contempt for big business. Right now, many Americans have a strange and pervasive skepticism regarding large companies— especially large food companies— that has been circulating around America for the better part of the last two decades. While big businesses have made some bone-headed mishaps over the years—i.e. Enron’s tax skullduggery, Monsanto’s questionable patent litigation practices, and Goldman Sachs’ manipulation of derivative markets— much of this skepticism is founded on a widely held fallacy, which we will call the ‘fallacy of scale.’ The ‘fallacy of scale’ goes something like this: If it’s big it’s bad; and if it’s small it’s good.
Many people are suffering from this belief that just because an organization is big means that it is bad, and that just because an organization is small means that it is good. According to probability— not to mention history— an organization that is big is just as likely to be good as an organization that is small. In short, just because it is big does not mean it is bad, and just because it is small does not mean it is good. The difference is that when something underhanded happens at a big company it is a scandal plastered all over the media outlets, but when it happens in a small company no one knows about it. It seems that the American contempt for big business has more to do with perception than reality, as well as the American public’s curious and insatiable appetite to watch the mighty fall.
Robert D. Atkinson and Michael Lind comment on this American propensity to admire small businesses and be skeptical of big businesses in an article they co-wrote in the April 2018 issue of the Atlantic Monthly titled “Is Big Business Really That Bad?” writing,
American admiration for small business is rooted in anachronistic ideals passed down from the nation’s pre-industrial founding. Our reflexive disdain for large businesses exaggerates their malfeasance while misapprehending their vital role in continued American success. Feeding off the popular esteem for small business, policy makers are handicapping Big Business—in the process lowering productivity, dampening innovation, and hurting U.S. global competitiveness.
This disdain for big businesses is not new. It has been around for decades if not centuries, and is rooted not so much in economic reality as in the ancient human vice of envy. Does big business have problems? Sure it does, just like any institution. Should it be the scapegoat for all of our economic failings, and the screen onto which all our personal frustrations and inadequacies are projected? No, but that doesn’t stop people from using it that way. The ‘fallacy of scale’ that many people suffer from, and which is the root of their disdain for big business, can cloud even the sharpest of minds and cause them to speak erroneously. G.K. Chesterton— a famous English man of letters of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century— can be seen falling prey to the ‘fallacy of scale’ in an essay he wrote in 1926 entitled “The Bluff of the Big Shops.” In that essay he shows an innate and unfounded disdain for big business, writing,
I think the big shop is a bad shop. I think it bad not only in a moral but a mercantile sense; that is, I think shopping there is not only a bad action but a bad bargain. I think the monster emporium is not only vulgar and insolent, but incompetent and uncomfortable; and I deny that its large organization is efficient. Large organization is loose organization. Nay, it would be almost as true to say that organization is always disorganization. The only thing perfectly organic is an organism; like that grotesque and obscure organism called a man. He alone can be quite certain of doing what he wants; beyond him, every extra man may be an extra mistake. As applied to things like shops, the whole thing is an utter fallacy.
While Chesterton makes his point with aplomb and his trademark rhetoric— and sounds so good doing it you almost want to believe him— in the end, his list of assertions make no argument and are therefore unsubstantiated and inconsequential. Now that we understand the ‘fallacy of scale,’ let’s discuss how some of the big food companies that Bridge Analyzers proudly calls customers are dealing with some of the hardest problems in the food industry head-on.
Big Business: Great Power, Great Responsibility
At Bridge Analyzers we have some big customers. While these customers have many of the same issues that small companies in their industry have, they are bigger, more complex, and have wider economic, environmental and cultural repercussions. Large companies are both blessed and cursed. They are blessed with power and influence, but cursed with an often overbearing amount of responsibility for the community, their workers, and the environment. As Stan Lee had Uncle Ben tell Peter Parker in Spider-Man, “With great power, comes great responsibility.”
One of our biggest customers, Tyson Foods, is taking their responsibility very seriously. The Sustainability section of their website reads like this:
We’re taking a holistic approach to sustainability focused on social, environmental and economic stewardship. Only through a comprehensive approach can we make transformational and enduring change.
As one of the world’s largest food companies, we have a responsibility to help build a more sustainable food system. Directed by our new sustainability strategy, we have set bold goals and commitments that aspire to sustainably feed our growing world.
We are committed to reducing our environmental impact to feed the world sustainably at scale. Fundamental to our core values is protecting and respecting our natural resources.
Another one of our large customers, Cargill, writes in their Sustainability statement that:
We help people thrive. Cargill is working to nourish the world. We’re bringing together people, ideas, and resources to deliver products, technology and ways of operating that build successful businesses and communities.
Every day, we all wake up wanting to eat better. As people become more prosperous around the world, they are adding animal protein products to their diet as a healthy source of essential nutrients. We work with partners across the food system – from farmers to the world’s leading brands – to bring consumers the delicious, convenient, and sustainable protein products they’re seeking.
At Bridge Analyzers we know that a dynamic economy requires the interaction of companies of all sizes. We are proud to work with companies both big and small, and believe that both big and small companies can make meaningful contributions to their industries, their customers, and the world.
Contact us to learn more about how we can help your company bolster its quality control best practices with our series of Modified Atmosphere Packaging Gas Analyzers.
We would love to hear from you.
Art: Thomas Hart Benton, “Cradling Wheat”