As a basic human necessity, food is often the target of government intervention. Regulation pervades every level of the food industry. The whole process is heavily monitored by agencies like the FDA and USDA, ostensibly to ensure the quality and safety of consumables. Regulation expands horizontally too; though specific rules differ for a slaughterhouse and a soybean processing plant, for example, similar amounts of bureaucratic legwork are required to bring a product to market. However, these regulations often fail to achieve their goals, and—even worse—create serious problems. If our goal is safer and more affordable food, the answer lies with less government meddling.
Like most government initiatives, food regulation is pursued with the best of intentions. Who guarantees the safety of food? How does the consumer know what is in his food? If the government does not interfere how can we avoid getting suckered by greedy agricultural corporations? These concerns are not trivial, but the government solution, too often the first and final, is ineffective and inefficient. When a government agency is granted regulatory powers, it displaces any existing authority and essentially prevents independent product testing agencies from operating. These agencies, in the absence of government ones, would be the mechanism to deliver detailed and relevant information to consumers about the food products they buy. Similar to Good Housekeeping or Consumer Reports, such organizations would be trusted names with incentives to preserve their objectivity. Given the levels of corruption in government agencies regulating multi-billion dollar industries, the quality of information and oversight would likely be higher.
The power of government agencies to withhold products from market gives bouts of paranoia serious repercussions. During the sporadic mad cow scares beef from “infected” countries was banned, even when there was little to no risk it carried the disease. This overreaction impacted businesses geared toward the meat industry, an unfortunate and unnecessary side-effect. Government regulations are not foolproof, as the 2007 Peter Pan Peanut Butter fiasco demonstrated. Despite being tested by the agency, batches of salmonella-infected peanut butter slipped through. Mistakes would still be made without the government directly overseeing food safety testing, but such a system would probably be no worse than our current one, and the advantages of a freer food industry make deregulation very attractive.
Perhaps the most significant advantage would be the reduction of food prices concomitant with deregulation. As it is now, thousands of dollars are funneled into jumping through regulatory hoops set up by the FDA. Ultimately, this cost is passed onto the consumer, who must spend more for food than free-market price. Government regulations artificially inflate the price of food, both by mandating compliance to manufacturers and by pricing out cheaper, riskier food alternatives. The government’s place is not to make dietary decisions for its citizens, and it is inexcusable that the government makes buying food harder for its citizens. If we care about the quality, safety, or availability of food we must deregulate.
Popularity: 21% [?]
Ya, I’m happy that lack of regulation had nothing to do with e.coli poisoning. It’s good that capitalism and it’s incessant need for growth hasn’t brought about antibiotic resistant germs due to routine prophylactic antibiotic use. Or that factory farms have become a breeding ground for novel pig/poultry to human pathogens.
Regulation is the cause for over priced food? Really? The 2007-2008 food crisis was caused by a lack of regulation in the finical industry. Come on man, you’re a libertarian and you didn’t mention agriculture subsidizes.