How would free markets solve this issue in food regulation?

[nodeal]

I understand (for the most part) how free markets can regulate food industries as opposed to government agencies such as the FDA and the Dept of Health. You have consumer watchdogs, private certification industry, and competition all regulating food safety in a free market.

However, what regulatory factor comes into play in a scenario where there is MINOR "poisoning" occurring. That is to say, what if food companies put SOME nasty ingredients in their food, cheapening the quality but increasing profits because of the lower costs of manufacturing said food. The key here is SOME, meaning not enough to get people sick or show signs of low quality, but still a misrepresentation of what is being sold. If a company did this and was not certified, and there was no sign of illness though the food's ingredients were still being misrepresented, what free markets come into play to regulate this?

I hope im making some sense here. Lol.

It seems the premptive strike of government agencies that regulate the food industry would take care of this problem, as they do routine inspections. However, free market regulation seems more reactive if a business were not to have a private certification.

I need to make something clear: in case some of you haven't noticed, many of my posts are in this devil's advocate style, where i pose scenarios which may challenge libertarian beliefs. I want to assure anybody who may have suspicions that im not a troll finding clever ways to challenge the libertarian philosophy. These are arguments i come across from those opposed to a libertarian society, and i simply relay these oppositions to you guys so i may gain a stronger understanding of the philosophy, as well as provide myself with ammunition to counter te claims of big-government statists.

So, responses? Ideas? And sorry for any typos, im posting this from my phone.

 

[Acala]

If the adulteration is detectable, the company's competitors will be highly motivated to point it out to the public and the public can choose to buy or not buy in response. If the adulteration is not detectable, then a government agency wouldn't detect it either. If people care enough, private inspection companies that certify products will inspect and certify companies that don't adulterate. If your company doesn't agree to be inspected, it doesn't get the seal of approval. Buyer beware.

There are examples of "preemptive" inspection in the free market. Underwriters Labs, for one.

Easy one.

 

[WilliamC]

No one should be allowed to lie about what is in their processed food.

A free-market means truth in labeling laws would be enforced.

Independent companies could make a profit providing third-party testing/labeling services for food producers.

 

[jackers]

My local CSA (community sponsored activity) is a perfect example you are looking for.

In order the get the FDA's blessed "organic" title, they must follow certain rules such as using petroleum based liners in their fields even though they have completely bio-degradable corn based ones now. Seeing how this is bad for the land and potentially bad for their members, they organized with private inspectors and now decided to give up their "organic" title while still providing a safe product to better serve their customers. Guess what, the CSA membership increased around 20% after doing that.

Moral of the story is, they exposed the crappy FDA and trusted their customers would spread the word and make better decisions. And it paid off. Same thing would happen in situation you posed.

 

[Wesker1982]

If a company did this and was not certified...

What Acala said was a great reply. I would add that most food companies would probably be verified, this would cause people to be very suspicious of the few who were not.

And competitors would be even more likely to investigate non verified food companies than verified ones.

 

[Fletch8]

Hi Nodeal,

As Ron Paul likes to point out with the environment, it is an unholy alliance between government and industry that did often lead to the worst pollution problems, likewise that very same unholy alliance gives us Monsanto(think GMO), under both political parties, running food safety at the FDA and drug companies being exempt from any damage caused by vaccines.

Tom knew:


"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."
- Thomas Jefferson,

Fletch

 

[Created4]

"It seems the premptive strike of government agencies that regulate the food industry would take care of this problem, as they do routine inspections."

That's a false premise. They do very few inspections, and inspectors can be bought off. The government agencies are controlled by crony corporations.

The huge dairy industry is a great example. The raw milk coming from CAFO (Confined Animal Food Operations) farms with tens of thousands of dairy animals are not routinely inspected, because of the belief that pasteurization kills all pathogens. The problem in such large operations is that a lot of things can go wrong. More people die from outbreaks of food borne illnesses from pasteurized milk than from drinking certified raw milk from small-scale family farms. But which one is more regulated? The one that is a threat to the industry. The current raw milk movement is consumer driven, and farmers are allowed to bypass the milk pools and sell directly to the consumers. The government requires much stricter standards for raw milk sales, and spends literally millions of dollars prosecuting small farmers like the Amish who dare to transport their products across state lines, violating the inter-state commerce FDA prohibition. And no inspections or testing is done on CAFO farm products for things other than pathogens, such as growth hormones, antibiotics, etc. There's a great Youtube video somewhere about a couple of news reporters for Fox News wanting to run a story on the dangers of growth hormones in dairy, that was canned by the producers because of the sponsorship of the manufacturer of the hormones (Monsanto).

In general, the large industrial food system is just way too large to have "routine inspections" and find the dangers you talk about. That's why tens of thousands of people die or get sick every year from food borne illnesses, like the most recent cantaloupe case. However, on the local level in the States, safety standards can be set through legislation if the people want it. But then let the free market compete for the testing and keep it private.

 

[donnay]

The people would be the regulators. If a company is putting out a product that is bad, eventually the word would get out and people would boycott it.

 

[danbeaulieu]

think about some of those premium dog food companies. If one of those companies screws up quality or puts a dog in the hospital. There's a recall and the company suffers greatly. People stop buying to protect their animal and the company may go under.

If a human grade food company gets people sick, there is a recall and their competitors will take advantage and warn the public as a business maneuver. People will stop buying to protect themselves and the company may go under.

 

[danbeaulieu]

Also each company would be put in a position that if they "mess up", they COULD go out of business. They would be forced to rely on a private company for quality control and inspections rather than relying on the taxpayer to fund the inspections. I think a private company could do it better anyway.

 

[dillo]

uhh people would test the food and sue the company

 

[Created4]

Also each company would be put in a position that if they "mess up", they COULD go out of business. They would be forced to rely on a private company for quality control and inspections rather than relying on the taxpayer to fund the inspections. I think a private company could do it better anyway.

Yes, and if they wanted to they could even pass legislation for standards that they want. But the testing should be done at the expense of the companies. Private labs and inspectors would compete for the business, keeping prices much lower than what the USDA and FDA probably currently spends. Companies would also take part in the legislative process and explain to the consumers how much the price of their food will increase to bear the cost of the testing, which the company would pay for, not the government. That way only those who purchase the food bear the cost, whereas in today's system we all pay for cheap junk food, whether we eat it or not (I don't!!). It would also promote more local food distribution as communities would know more about the standard of their food from the companies producing it locally, rather than companies from other states that might or might not have the same standards. Those states/communities with the highest reputations for quality would soon gain a national market as companies and states compete with each other.

 

[pcosmar]

nodeal

NO DEAL

Why are all your threads, Troll Threads?

There is much information available both here and elsewhere on Liberty issues.
Why don't you educate yourself before posting threads attempting to stir shit.

 

[Sam I am]

Coming from a person who's not going to sling dogma at you all day, the answer is yes, FDA regulations do help keep food quality up to a certain standard, and that is a good thing.

The FDA really doesn't make the food market not a free market. It's fairly easy to get into the market of selling foods.

The FDA's regulation of the drug market, on the other hand, is incredibly unfair to smaller operations.

 

[Created4]

The FDA really doesn't make the food market not a free market. It's fairly easy to get into the market of selling foods.

\

You're not living in reality. See the milk industry example above.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

You already answered your question

If a company did this and was not certified

If they are not certified by one of the many private groups that would emerge in a free economy then most consumers would not buy the product.

 

[gerryb]

If people care, they will stop consuming those products.

For example, Taco Bell puts 10% sawdust in its beef as "spice" - this is a well known fact. People still choose decide to consume this product, even though they know what it is.

Same with cigarettes, soda, rare beef, mechanically separated chicken, factory farmed livestock, etc. etc. etc. etc.