Would you argue that it is bad that the FDA compels food producers to meet certain quality standards? From an anarchist perspective one would have to conclude that such regulation is immoral, but in reality it seems to be socially beneficial with virtually no downside. You could argue that a similar agency would arise on the free market to perform this service (of inspecting food) if it was desired by consumers. But why had no such agency materialized until this task was decreed to be part of FDA regulation, despite the fact that consumers obviously wanted this service?
From now on, every food producer in the world may only sell 5-star restaurant quality food, and only I and my firm are allowed to test it.
Good or bad?
Think about it.
Every transaction is a balance between price and quality. You can buy a better lapdance but it costs you more; you can save on the lapdance but the girl is going to smell and be overweight.
Enforcing quality standards in food is akin to denying a man the right to a cheap lapdance. I am not talking about rotten and dangerous food here; anyone selling such should be made to pay damages, no regulation needed. But enforcing standards is denying a cheaper option when some may prefer that, which means that your claim of “virtually no downside” is fallacious.
As for why no such agency arose on the market, my first question is, “Are you sure?” And how do you know that consumers “obviously wanted this service”?
However, let us assume that nothing arose on the market and there were no particularly onerous government regulations impeding it. This being the case, I would say that no such agency was needed because food providers were giving customers what they wanted.
I suppose that it wasn’t deemed necessary in the past to have such an agency. There was no demand for it.
Remember – we’ve never had a free market. Government has always existed in America. People were probably relying on government to keep them safe, especially before the FDA was created in 1906. When its possible to create laws and regulations, people are going to look towards that system to protect them. If there was no government, they would have no need to look towards the government for protection, they would see a demand for an FDA-like institution and they would create it and it would probably prosper. Of course, it wouldn’t use threat of force, but it could “regulate” by educating people and they would, if this agency had credible sources, follow its advice.
And of course there are tons of free market solutions to what the FDA does – such as figure out nutritional facts, food/nutrition requirements, etc. This is what people could do individually or in an organization – government does not need to be involved.
And when it comes to food safety, there certainly is a demand for that. IE, I will only buy my meat from a clean butcher who has been approved by X free market meat agency and not from the butcher who was not approved.
This thread should be renamed “Question for Libertarians” since minarchists are also opposed to the FDA.
I don’t see why you’re supposed to be able to check a government agency that doesn’t lose money or go out of business whether it does its job or not, vs a voluntary agency that is accountable to consumers for every single decision it makes
Agreed. The FDA seemingly does more harm than good. They can’t even get the food pyramid right . . . oh wait, that’s because EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. Government fail.
But why had no such agency materialized until this task was decreed to be part of FDA regulation, despite the fact that consumers obviously wanted this service?
If there is one “positive” thing I could say about statists, it would be that they are creative about finding new ways to infringe upon our liberty under constant pressure to “do something”.
The FDA came about in large part due to the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act as the first salvo against “patent medicines” (cocaine, opiates, etc.), before the feds attempted prohibition via taxation. (It was unthinkable at the time to tell people what they could or couldn’t put in their body, and they took this route knowing that it would require a constitutional amendment.)
Anyhow there are probably two factors at work here in regards to food safety (which isn’t all that the FDA is involved in).
-
People had relatively small issues with their food, such that there was not demand for industry-wide regulation and individual tort cases did the job.
-
Corn cartels and manufacturers of (highly unhealthy) processed plant oils hadn’t really come to power yet. Now the industry lobbies cram even worse artificial products down consumer’s throats. Back then though people ate much more natural whole foods which don’t, for the most part, need strict oversight.
Also, you should realize two effects that regulation has on industry. The first is that it drives prices up, not only through the cost of taxation, but also that it serves to insulate corporate interests from competition. The other is that when there is a federal mandate to limit rat turds in your can of Spaghetti-O’s to 100 parts per million (or whatever), that’s right about what you are going to get.
Agreed. The FDA seemingly does more harm than good. They can’t even get the food pyramid right . . . oh wait, that’s because EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. Government fail.
Those are the USDA Guidelines.
I just have a problem with the word “compel” This regulation would be immoral because my money is used to pay for the FDA, not for the good such regulation would provide.
I am happy with groups making suggestions. Like greenpeace’s Green company rankings. AFAIK, it’s just a tool people can use to decide what company they want to support if technological pollutants are high on their value scale.
The same with food. Would I buy food from a company that has allowed 5 independant testers to certify their food, or a company that has no certifications, but may be cheaper? Depends on what you value more. It is the boon of free competition.