in an ideal world regulations, where we are not specifying what regulations nor how they were arrived at nor how they are enforced and what recourse is available to those who disagree with the enforcement, would do as you say. Too often they serve as a means to keep out of business those who can't afford to play the game but who could run a perfectly safe farm and provide perfectly safe food with no more, and likely far less, problems of dying from one's food than food produced by those who can afford to play the game. Most often small businesses are the ones attacked by regulatory enforcement because they can not afford the costs to successfully defend the attack and can not afford to bribe administrations or be part of the revolving door of job-hopping between regulators and business.

They can't find a middle ground because it is not about the regulations but about punishing those who would fight. This is true in criminal cases as well where prosecutors are very open about demanding tougher punishments for those who refuse plea deals and judges are very open about punishing tougher those who refuse plea deals.