Recently, government programs are being expected to pay for themselves. Ferries should be supported by users, buses by riders, parks by visitors. “Self-supporting” programs don’t cost taxpayers money, and that’s good, right?

The Environmental Health Services, in their Food Protection Program, is such a “cost recovery program.” Their fees must cover their expenses. Therefore, they are making their food sales permits more and more expensive (“Proposed county fee hikes raise concern at the farmers market,” Nov. 19).

Certainly protecting food safety is for the public good. We expect the government to guarantee that safety. The more new hazards turn up and are understood, the more education and oversight food providers need. Naturally, increasing education and inspections take a larger staff. Under theories of “cost recovery,” those benefitting are expected to pay for the larger staff.

Are the market vendors the ones benefitting? I suppose they are being saved from potential lawsuits due to food poisoning. We haven’t had any large illnesses so far. Is that due to the county rules and education, the vendors’ earnest good will or county inspections?  Hard to say, but I’m not convinced that increased oversight and fees are the reasons.

In any case, the people really benefitting from the food safety program are the public, not the vendors. The county is working with food vendors to protect the public from food-borne illnesses.  Since the public is benefitting, shouldn’t the public pay? That is, shouldn’t the taxpayers pay? The vendors are already paying for increasing expenses to upgrade their food preparation areas. Why should they also pay for the inspections of those improvements and then pay again for the right to sell food from their facilities?

I fear that if these proposed fees get implemented, the result will be less prepared food available from local, small vendors. It won’t be better food, just less local food.

— Lotus