It’s a decades old argument: centralization vs. decentralization. The value of operating in a centralized business eco-system is that availability is somewhat guaranteed, consistency can be controlled, and prices held in check. As restaurants grow from single units to multiple operations or as small operators seek to join the club of centralization by purchasing from one big box vendor or connecting with one or a few growers/processors to ensure consistency, availability, and price, they leave themselves vulnerable.

Sometimes, the opposite of what they seek is what they receive. Centralization places control in the hands of the source rather than that of the buyer. Central sources can control how items are packaged and delivered, what schedule works for them, what limiting factors such as drop sizes might be imposed, the quality factors they choose to concentrate on, and how their pricing structure will work including terms of payment. Centralization is convenient, but not always user friendly.

Advocates for buying local will point to not just the community economics of decentralization but also the freshness and quality considerations that are normally associated with being close to the source. However, costs are typically higher, and service convenience can be challenging.

Now, here is a more serious reason to think twice about jumping into centralized relationships: if there is a health-related issue with a single grower, producer, or wholesaler, then the impact can be spread over an enormous geographic area in a short period of time, causing serious damage to the health of consumers and the reputation of the stakeholders. This rears up its ugly head almost every year through outbreaks of salmonella, e Coli, listeria, and most recently cyclospora. There is never a more vivid reason to evaluate the weaknesses in centralized production and distribution than when public health is at risk. Days and sometimes weeks will pass as federal and state agencies investigate, trying to narrow down the source of infection and ultimately closing distribution from the culprit. In the meantime, people suffer illness, hospitalization, and even death; restaurants and grocery outlets scramble to do their part in controlling an outbreak and informing the public, and consumer confidence falters. In some cases, restaurants and other food outlets have not been able to recover from the impact of an outbreak that may or may not have been their fault.

To a restaurateur or chef, there is never a more demoralizing, heart breaking, or reputation crushing experience than knowing that people became sick because of something consumed in their restaurant. It makes no difference whether it was due to improper safety measures in the restaurant or out-of-control purchase from a central producer who did not follow safe handling procedures – the damage is done when and where a customer consumes the product.

Much has been said about the economic and environmental reasons for supporting decentralized farms, ranches, and local producers, but not enough attention is given to the potential consumer health realities. When buying from decentralized sources – if there is an outbreak from any of the parasitic or bacterial demons, it can be quickly identified and controlled before it spreads to a large geographic area. The restaurant or grocery outlet bares greater responsibility in determining the integrity of a producer before they buy, and making sure that proper procedures are followed, but this should be the way to conduct business anyway. In a centralized distribution system, it is much easier to wash your hands of responsibility and point the finger elsewhere.

Of course, there are challenges in a decentralized environment, the restaurant may not be able to offer nearly any product, any time of the year, and specific product characteristics may need to be altered. The chef will need to closely connect menus with seasonality and even those products that are more indigenous to their geographic area. This is certainly more pronounced with restaurant groups that have outlets spread across the country, but is consistency more important than the health of the consuming public and the reputation of a restaurant group?

We live in a marketplace that is robust, in many cases because of its global, centralized distribution system, however, we have also seen this system near collapse when environmental, political, or economic challenges bring it to a halt. Is it time for everyone to re-evaluate how we do business in a world that keeps getting more interdependent? Is it time, at least for restaurants, to take another look at “buying local/regional” beyond the feel-good reasons behind the farm to table movement?

Growth is one way that a restaurant can bring its story to a receptive audience and increase its opportunity for financial success. Does this mean that the operation must succumb to universal sameness and join the centralized model of buying? Can’t a restaurant grow and still retain its connections with the regional marketplace where they reside? Is there, in fact, an attractive, business reason to think large while acting small? I wonder.

PLAN BETTER – TRAIN HARDER – THINK BIG – ACT SMALL

www.harvestamericacues.com – BLOG

https://paulsorgulebooks.com – WEBSITE