来源：《经济学人》
原文见刊日期：2022年6月4日
In 2011 there was an outbreak of E. coli in Germany. Thousands of people fell ill. The authorities suspected that salad ingredients were to blame, but did not know which ones were contaminated with the bacteria. Their initial guess was Spanish cucumbers—and so European consumers avoided that country’s fresh produce. Only later did the authorities find that salad sprouts grown in Germany were to blame.
2011年，德国爆发了大肠杆菌疫情。数以千计的人病倒了。德国政府怀疑沙拉配料是罪魁祸首，但不知道哪些配料被细菌污染了。他们最初的猜测是西班牙黄瓜，因此欧洲消费者避免购买西班牙的新鲜农产品。后来德国政府才发现，罪魁祸首是德国种植的沙拉甘蓝。
The reason for the confusion, argues Kathryn Judge, a professor at Columbia Law School, was the complex supply chains that have developed in the global economy. It is not easy for regulators, let alone consumers, to know where goods come from. She draws a parallel with the subprime-mortgage crisis of 2007: loans had been repackaged so many times that investors were far from sure which financial products, and which banks, were safe. So they avoided them all, thereby exacerbating the panic.
哥伦比亚大学法学院教授凯瑟琳•贾奇认为，造成这种混乱的原因在于全球经济中发展起来的复杂供应链。对于监管机构来说，要知道商品的来源并不容易，更不用说消费者了。她将其与2007年的次贷危机相提并论：贷款被重新打包了很多次，以至于投资者都无法确定哪些金融产品和哪些银行是安全的。所以消费者对所有产品唯恐避之不及，从而加剧了恐慌。
These supply chains have evolved in the name of economic efficiency. But Ms Judge suggests they are inherently fragile and that their opacity can mask the costs paid by consumers—and the profits made by intermediaries—as well as the environmental damage they cause. In addition, what she calls the “middleman economy” has led to the emergence of powerful intermediaries such as Amazon or Walmart. These companies may offer low prices to consumers, but their relentless focus on costs may have adverse social effects in the form of low wages or poor working conditions at their suppliers.
这些供应链是在经济效率的名义下发展起来的。但贾奇女士认为，它们本质上是脆弱的，而且它们的不透明会掩盖消费者支付的成本——中间商获得的利润以及它们造成的环境破坏。此外，她所称的“中间人经济”导致了亚马逊(Amazon)或沃尔玛(Walmart)等强大中介机构的出现。这些公司可能会向消费者提供低价，但他们对成本的无休止关注可能会产生不利的社会影响，表现为供应商的低工资或恶劣的工作条件。
Ms Judge urges consumers to buy directly from suppliers when they can, noting that only 15% of the money consumers spend on food goes to the farmer who grew it. One initiative she recommends is “community supported agriculture”. At one such site, Genesis Farm in New Jersey, more than 300 families come each week to pick up a basket of vegetables. They have no choice over which items they get: that depends on the weather, the season and the farmer’s planting decisions. In return, however, consumers get fresh produce and the prospect of a healthier diet.
贾奇女士敦促消费者在可能的情况下直接从供应商那里购买，她指出，消费者在食品上花费的钱只有15%流向了种植这些食品的农民。她建议的一项举措是“社区支持的农业”。新泽西州的创世农场就是这样一个地方，每周都有300多户家庭前来采摘一篮子蔬菜。他们无法选择购买哪些产品：这取决于天气、季节和农民的种植决定。然而，作为回报，消费者可以得到新鲜的农产品和更健康的饮食。
All this may be very commendable, but the scale of such projects is inevitably limited. It would hardly be practical, let alone environmentally sound, for everyone who lives in Manhattan to trek out to New Jersey to buy their produce every week. When you contemplate all the items in a typical supermarket trolley, it is clear that most consumers will simply not have the time or the resources to buy more than a handful of items directly from the suppliers.
这一切都是值得称赞的，但此类项目的规模不可避免地受到限制。让住在曼哈顿的每个人每周都长途跋涉到新泽西购买农产品，这是不现实的，更不用说环保了。当你仔细考虑一个典型的超市手推车里的所有商品时，很明显，大多数消费者根本没有时间或资源直接从供应商那里购买多件商品。
And while complex supply chains have their drawbacks, relying on a single supplier can be problematic, too. More consumers bought their food directly from local suppliers in the late 19th century, but that was an era marked by adulterated products and outbreaks of food poisoning.
虽然复杂的供应链有其缺点，但依赖单一供应商也可能是有问题的。在19世纪末，更多的消费者直接从本地供应商那里购买食品，但那是一个充斥着掺假产品和食物中毒事件爆发的时代。