Food Regulation or: You'd Think We Could All Agree On This

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Well apparently I thought wrong. There is great division in these here lands over the proper handling of food regulation (or lack thereof) by our glorious Big Brother government, who exist only to extract our hard-earned tax money from us at gunpoint. Who put these clowns in power, anyway? I certainly didn't. That would require having me come out of my bunker to go to the polls, and there are Black Panthers there ready to pounce on me! But I digress.

Now, we can't have a discussion without some baselines and clarifications, the first of which is the fallacy that libertarians want anarchy. They don't- they are perfectly accepting of a nice democratic republic with a nice Constitution. They simply don't like being told what they can and can't do, and would like these restrictions kept to an absolute minimum. Fraud, perjury, forgery, violence, or really any process that relies on force or lying should be illegal, and we all agree on that.

I have a personal issue with libertarians in that some (to not cast a generalized glance) advocate a society driven by a profit-motive, but a lot of things that act toward the benefit of society go against the profit motive. Testing your food, stickers with expiration dates, very rigorous safety measures, all of these cost money and yet in a society without safety laws, these people are expected to still follow these procedures that cost them a lot of money? This didn't happen in history, and I don't know why it would happen if all regulations were removed. That's my one gripe, and I'd like to not focus on it as much to just address the issues I'm about to bring up.



To that degree, we discuss under the premise that it should be illegal to lie to your consumers. How do you keep an industry from lying to its clients? That is one of my first questions. One way is through government regulation. Here is an anecdote about how Heinz became the market leader in ketchup:

By the start of the Twentieth Century, Heinz was a major ketchup producer, but so were several companies who padded their bottom line by mixing rancid tomatoes into their product.

Seeing an opportunity, Heinz joined the chorus of scientists, consumer advocates and government officials who were clamoring for federal oversight of the processed food industry, even sending future Heinz CEO Howard Heinz to lobby President Theodore Roosevelt in favor of a the Pure Food and Drug Act, which prohibited some of the processed food industry’s most revolting practices and gave enforcement authority to the agency which would later become the FDA. In 1906 the Act passed, and most of Heinz competitors were pushed out of business.

Because Heinz was one of only a handful of major ketchup producers who were already in the business of mass producing ketchup solely from fresh tomatoes, they quickly capitalized on the vacuum that formed as the rancid ketchup industry collapsed. Heinz became the market leader, and it remains so today.

Others would advocate merely that you provide government funding to test, and require safety labels on products that may contain harmful substances. Let the people decide after reading the labels whether or not they want the product, right?

My point is simply to indicate that, despite Heinz’ belief that “pure food . . . is good business,” the truth is that thousands of American consumers bought rancid ketchup for decades, even though they had the option to choose Heinz’ safer product. Market forces left thousands of Americans sick from tomato mold. It wasn’t until the federal government got involved that rotten tomato ketchup left the shelves of local groceries.

My argument is thus: History shows that people aren't quite the rational thinkers we'd like them to be. Even today, people make poor choices all the time and it costs them dearly. We have warning labels on cigarettes, but smoking is still very popular. We have warning labels on alcohol, but that hasn't stopped alcohol-related diseases or DUIs. My argument is that warning labels are not enough. To truly remove a harmful product from the shelf is to regulate against it. To set a limit of harmful content in a product that makes it illegal to sell above that amount.

Why should we allow this to be a risk? What benefit does tainted food serve being on a shelf? Even if you allow compensation to the person who ate the tainted food, if it's deadly then they're likely going to die before they get a dime. Liability is a non-factor to the consumer when dealing with deadly substances.

In the Heinz example, they started out by advertising the product as being pure while the others used rotten tomatoes, but people still continued buying rancid ketchup. Despite having all the information, market forces continued to favor the cheaper, tainted food. Using this historical evidence, my conclusion is that people can't make rational decisions even under the best circumstances. To really understand this topic you really have to look at the pure food movement in the 1900s and how hard it was to get people to not eat rancid food. To get them not to eat contaminated meat from butchers which was food colored to not look bad. To have food produced in the same place that rats defecated in. To have no laws against expiration dates. It was very difficult in that day, despite vast amounts of information available to the people, to get them to stop poisoning themselves without laws. It sounds crazy to just believe people will eat something that can kill them, knowing it can kill them, but I believe that it's a well-educated, white, wealthy viewpoint. They don't know what it's like to be poor, hungry, and uneducated. It's just a fact of life that abject poverty causes a lot of bad decision-making, and there's no way to stop the cycle without regulation that keeps poison off the shelves.

Secondly, I believe that it makes no sense to allow a company to produce something that can kill somebody. There is no reason for it to be on the shelf in the first place. How big is the label? Is it big enough or is it hidden with small text? How is it marketed? You run the risk of people being deceived. If there is merely a law to test the product, but none that makes it illegal to actually do it, then what can you do? If the warning label sufficiently covers the risk (assuming it hasn't been hampered in any way), what can someone do for compensation?

The Pure Food and Drug Act was initially concerned with ensuring products were labeled correctly. Later efforts were made to outlaw certain products that were not safe, followed by efforts to outlaw products which were safe but not effective.

Let's not confuse my analogy with alcohol and cigarettes as some sort of bizarre argument to outlaw those things. Both of them are okay in moderation, but it only takes one bad piece of food to get poisoned. That is the essential difference.

A regulatory system prevents tainted food from making it to stores. It prevents people from even having the option to consume. The whole point of market regulation is to mitigate externality, not allow a broader range of (very poor) choice to the consumer. This is the key point here of a regulatory system.

When you mitigate externality, you keep from incurring extra costs. You have to remember: Salmonella spreads, e.coli spreads. Just allowing them to produce tainted food runs the risk of it spreading to the rest of their products. For example, under current regulation if a farm is found to have tainted spinach then it is forced to get rid of all their spinach, and their entire process of making spinach has to be reevaluated. That's what regulation does.

A final note is that I am aware and acknowledge the imperfections in our system. There is corruption, there are regulatory agencies that promote bad food, there are inefficiencies and many other problems. I wish to improve this system, and I believe that it doesn't come from doing away with it entirely and returning to the age of robber barons and the most unsanitary food conditions our country has ever had.

Source: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/libertarians-are-dumb-or-why-we-eat-heinz-ketchup/blog-298247/?page=2

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Comments

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I knew I was forgetting something, gimme a minute.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

There, although now people can make snarky replies to everything before the 'read more' section while ignoring the meat of the post. Well, I guess I can just ignore those.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Why should we allow this to be a risk? What benefit does tainted food serve being on a shelf?

It doesn't actually impact you, so you shouldn't care.

Using this historical evidence, my conclusion is that people can't make rational decisions even under the best circumstances.

Your assumption is that the choice you would make is the rational one.

Secondly, I believe that it makes no sense to allow a company to produce something that can kill somebody.

Ban cars and kitchen knives!

You have to remember: Salmonella spreads, e.coli spreads. Just allowing them to produce tainted food runs the risk of it spreading to the rest of their products. For example, under current regulation if a farm is found to have tainted spinach then it is forced to get rid of all their spinach, and their entire process of making spinach has to be reevaluated. That's what regulation does.

And the result is overwrought panic situations with little guarantee of safety.

You make a good case, albeit nothing new, for the safety aspect of it. The problem is that you don't think beyond that - you aren't the least bit bothered that Heinz, for instance, was not looking for greater safety, but rather less competition. You don't seem to note how these rules distort costs, and how the regulatory system in place has less to do with safety than power - I urge you to read Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal, about an independent farmer in the south. The first few chapters will give you the idea, but much of what you're calling for is not about the safety of the consumer.

The best way to improve this system is to nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It doesn't actually impact you, so you shouldn't care.

Woops! Just dropped this container and it spilled all over the place, contaminating all the exposed produce in the store. I dunno, having deadly food in the store + mishaps = store of death. Just one example.

Your assumption is that the choice you would make is the rational one.

If the choice is to purchase a food that won't kill you is the rational one, then yes I sure hope so.

Ban cars and kitchen knives!

Talkin' about food here holmes.

I already admitted that there are shortcomings in the system, but a system that works pretty well for 95% of the people is one that can be improved, not one in line for the scrap heap. Perfection is impossible, and we can't base everything on ideal circumstances. We can only do what we can to make sure to limit the damage as much as we can.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Honestly, libertarians have been opposed to that since before The Jungle was written.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

It was pretty convincing until you put the blame whitey part in.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

To be fair, there was no blame involved in that statement, it was just a reflection that those who had never known true hunger would not understand why the poor would make such horrible decisions. I suppose the same point could have been made with just the words well-educated and wealthy but in context of the 1900s it probably was immigrant families who were buying the tainted food.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Let's not nit-pick. It's actually extremely convincing if I'm talking about the 1900s, maybe not so much now but wealthy and well-educated still apply.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I thought the Panthers were only ready to pounce in Philly.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Your satire is pretty bad, for starters.

In the Heinz example, they started out by advertising the product as being pure while the others used rotten tomatoes, but people still continued buying rancid ketchup. Despite having all the information, market forces continued to favor the cheaper, tainted food. Using this historical evidence, my conclusion is that people can't make rational decisions even under the best circumstances.

As opposed to coming to the rational conclusion that buying the cheaper food was rational and it wasn't as bad as you think it was. Since people eat crap like lutefisk and balut, I don't think your conclusion is valid.

Also, you're conflating a gross product (bad ketchup) with food that's a health risk because of germs (tainted spinach). The ketchup was made deliberately that way to be cheaper and while it would have tasted different (that's what the vinegar is for) it wasn't a health risk. The spinach is not tainted deliberately and isn't sold cheaper because it's dangerous. You're using the response to the second as justification for a response to the first, and that's bad logic.

When you mitigate externality, you keep from incurring extra costs.

By increasing the cost, generally more than you would have otherwise, plus you've reduced freedom and given preference to one company over another which leads eventually to the corporatism we have now.

A final note is that I am aware and acknowledge the imperfections in our system. There is corruption, there are regulatory agencies that promote bad food, there are inefficiencies and many other problems.

All of which stem from what you're advocating.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

As opposed to coming to the rational conclusion that buying the cheaper food was rational and it wasn't as bad as you think it was. Since people eat crap like lutefisk and balut, I don't think your conclusion is valid.

Honestly, I don't know why people put things in their mouth that will kill them. I've never been in poverty, so I can't understand that mindset. I made my guesses as to why, but the fact of the matter is that people can and will do it. Once that's accepted, I then move on to how to stop them from doing that.

Also, you're conflating a gross product (bad ketchup) with food that's a health risk because of germs (tainted spinach).

Rancid ketchup made from moldy, rotten tomatoes is certainly a health risk unless you just don't believe in bacteria. You're at risk for e.coli, salmonella, and other maladies. Ketchup is actually much more susceptible to these than mustard or relish, oddly enough.

By increasing the cost, generally more than you would have otherwise, plus you've reduced freedom and given preference to one company over another which leads eventually to the corporatism we have now.

The cost of regulation does not outweigh the negative externality of a country without food regulation. You have people in bad health, going to the hospital or dying and leaving widows/orphans, honest producers of non-contaminated food being driven out of the market because they can't compete with the low prices of people offering poison. There are mountains of costs associated with not regulating food, and they are not comparable to the higher overhead that a business must incur in order to insure their product's safety.

Also, if I'm giving preference to someone who won't kill you with their food product rather than someone who will, then good. I have no sympathy for people who market death with a smile.

All of which stem from what you're advocating.

They are not inherent, and the amount of good that's come from the regulation easily dwarfs the bad in every conceivable way. If you don't believe me, read anything on the sanitary conditions of food in the 1900s.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You can fire people in the government, no such accountability exists within corporate bureaucracy.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

The flip side of that is, how would people know their food is safe (even assuming they had an ingredient list)? There's no guarantee the market would provide for that, and google didn't exist until pretty recently. And many people would probably fall for misinformation campaigns.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"I have a personal issue with libertarians in that some (to not cast a generalized glance) advocate a society driven by a profit-motive, but a lot of things that act toward the benefit of society go against the profit motive. Testing your food, stickers with expiration dates, very rigorous safety measures, all of these cost money and yet in a society without safety laws, these people are expected to still follow these procedures that cost them a lot of money? This didn't happen in history, and I don't know why it would happen if all regulations were removed. That's my one gripe, and I'd like to not focus on it as much to just address the issues I'm about to bring up."

While I am certain you can find someone who calls themselves a libertarian and believes just about anything short of state socialism, this is not an accurate characterization of general libertarian thought.

First off, to a libertarian profit is measured in more than dollars and cents, it is far too individualist of a theory to consider such a narrow definition of benefits. So yes, we do advocate a focus on the profit motive, however we recognize and encourage each individual to make their own definition of what profit means. The idea is as long as you aren't hurting anyone else go do what makes you happiest, if that is earning boatloads of money then do that, if it is earning the love of a beautiful woman/man go do that, if it is raising a large family go do that, whatever it is that makes you happiest is where your profit is so go maximize it. Just leave everyone else alone to do the same.

"To that degree, we discuss under the premise that it should be illegal to lie to your consumers."

Yes, absolutely, this is called fraud.

"How do you keep an industry from lying to its clients? That is one of my first questions. One way is through government regulation."

How do you keep someone from lying? You can't. One might as well ask how do you keep someone from thinking about sex. Humanity is not perfect and never will be and there will always be those willing to hurt others to advance their own position.

So already your premise is flawed because government regulation cannot prevent an industry from lying to it's customers, at best it can do is to punish them when they get caught doing it.

Further as you indicate, this is just 1 mechanism for ensuring that people have accurate information about the products they buy, there are other possible mechanisms as well. Anything from investigative journalists, to Consumer watchdog groups, to private certification agencies such as Consumer reports, the CSA and Underwriters Laboratories can be used in place of government regulation and when combined with a strict liability legal system achieve at least the same if not better results than the government solution, all without introducing the evils of regulatory capture or creating a class of unaccountable power hungry regulators.

You have as of yet not shown any evidence why the government solution might be superior.

"
In the Heinz example, they started out by advertising the product as being pure while the others used rotten tomatoes, but people still continued buying rancid ketchup. Despite having all the information, market forces continued to favor the cheaper, tainted food. Using this historical evidence, my conclusion is that people can't make rational decisions even under the best circumstances. "

Um, wait who says their decisions were not rational. How many people were killed by eating this "tainted" ketchup? How many even made sick? Then what was the price difference between the "pure" Heinz and the tainted competitors? Their decisions may have been entirely rational. You have not presented any evidence that it was an irrational decision, you just asserted that it was based on your own prejudices.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"My argument is thus: History shows that people aren't quite the rational thinkers we'd like them to be. Even today, people make poor choices all the time and it costs them dearly. We have warning labels on cigarettes, but smoking is still very popular. We have warning labels on alcohol, but that hasn't stopped alcohol-related diseases or DUIs."

So now you are the final arbiter of what rationality is? You are suffering from 3 delusions here...

1) You know what is best for other people. Smoking is bad and kills people so choosing to smoke is an irrational decision, but that presumes your goal in life is to live as long as possible. Not everyone has the same goals, motivations or desires in life, this is exactly why libertarians allow for an infinite number of definitions of profit. I happen to agree with your that smoking is idiotic and starting it is a poor choice, however I would never be so vain as to tell someone else that they were not rational for doing it because I cannot possibly know the totality of their life experiences or desires and what is irrational for me may make perfect sense for them.

2) All choices which have undesirable results were irrational. Just because something bad happens does not mean that the choices leading up to it were irrational. Sometimes bad stuff just happens

3) That even to the extent that people do behave irrationally the belief that you can force them to change that behavior through government fiat is hubris at it's finest. You cannot turn men into angels by outlawing bad behavior nor can you turn them into Vulcans by outlawing irrationality and any attempt to do so infantileizes them and makes them more dependent on others making their decisions for them, not less.

Finally...

"A regulatory system prevents tainted food from making it to stores."

No, a regulatory system that prevents tainted food from making it to the stores does not exist, has never existed and will never exist. To assume otherwise is to assume perfection in a human system.

The best you can argue is that some particular form of regulatory system is a marginal improvement in food safety over all other possibly systems of increasing food safety but you have not even attempted to make that argument, you simply asserted it.


"It prevents people from even having the option to consume. The whole point of market regulation is to mitigate externality, not allow a broader range of (very poor) choice to the consumer. This is the key point here of a regulatory system."

And that is the whole point of libertarian thought, we do not put our trust in technocrats to tell us how to live. The idea that you can design a system that meets the needs of 350 million people better than them making their own decisions for themselves is ridiculous.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

1, 2, 3 4 for 5, everybody in the car let's go for a ride~

Yes I get it, it's hard to determine why people do stupid things. I made my guesses, you can make yours. The thing is, people can want to live a long life and still have an early grave from a tainted product. Their choices aren't matching up with their desires here, aka bad stuff happens. I'd like to prevent bad stuff from happening with regulation. The fact that this regulation WORKED and made salmonella/e.coli rates PLUMMET means that it accomplished what it set out to do.

It's not hubris,; it's history.

No, a regulatory system that prevents tainted food from making it to the stores does not exist, has never existed and will never exist.

Alright, you just don't believe regulations actually do what they set out to do. I'm not sure how you would support this argument. Been inside a meat factory that was safety tested? You think it didn't need to be before that? I don't know, I don't really see how you can support your claims here. Read up on the 1900s sanitary conditions for food pre-regulation and post-regulation and see what you come up with. Note: I'm being facetious because I already know the answer.

And that is the whole point of libertarian thought, we do not put our trust in technocrats to tell us how to live. The idea that you can design a system that meets the needs of 350 million people better than them making their own decisions for themselves is ridiculous.

So, you would be opposed to the government requiring testing of food products period? You think it should be every man for himself? Remember, before the Pure Food and Drug Act, there were no warning labels. You had no idea what you were getting, or what you were being told was the truth. They were not liable, not accountable, and had no reason to tell you the truth. You can't make an informed decision if you're being denied all the information.

Also, technocrats? I would love if our corporations were run by engineers, at least, instead of people with MBAs who have no idea how their products are actually made and the costs involved. Politicians who were lawyers is not technocracy, though. And, you clearly accept them telling you how to live in some respects. They tell you not to hurt/kill, not to lie financially, and a host of other things that are codified into law. I personally think it's reasonable to have a law against murder, but that's just me. Food regulation is just an extension of that law, because people who produce tainted food are well aware of what they're doing for a quick buck.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

The idea that you can design a system that meets the needs of 350 million people better than them making their own decisions for themselves is ridiculous.

Why?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

So now you are the final arbiter of what rationality is?

Well, in market economics there is a fairly strict criteria of what is rational behaviour, so let's start with that, shall we?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

This topic has been a great success! Thanks for participating, everyone. It's always nice to do a healthy round of educating around here.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Yes, good thread.