Nutrition Facts in a free market?

[Romulus]

Why does there need to be a gov't agency to regulate? Simply bring charges against any producer who committs fraud or harm to the consumers that purchased their product

Moral gov agency? lol

I know, sounds like dream huh? So does a 'moral' car salesman.

The Kosher cert by private companies sounds like a good solution, but one thing I would be weary of is that these private cert companies are just an offshoot of their own, effectively policing themselves.

as Jefferson said, man cannot be trusted to govern himself.. and I would certainly favor private over a gov agency, but I'm just not sure a private one is immune for corruption either.

 

[Jandrsn21]

Private companies, fully insured, may the best and most reputable company win! Having the FDA have the final word is destroying food nutrition. Private independent cross analysis is the best way to ensure safety. The FDA approved for us aspartame, corn syrup, and many more synthetic food additives that are unfit for our consumption. Yet if you can somehow prove you were damaged by them, a judge would just refer to FDA findings. Centralized power is never good for anything ever!

If the consumer wants food testing and nutritional labeling then they will get it. I would be weary of one thing though. That is the ability to form monopolies. If a rating agency gave good reviews to buddy and shunned the competition we would be right back were we are today. Centralized private power instead of centralized government power. Which is worse? I say government, you can pull your financial support from a private entity, but if you do from the government they either tighten down or get a bailout.

 

[LibForestPaul]

That answer always plays into the liberal's hands. "Oh great! So we just wait until people start dying, all hail teh free marketz! Invisible hand strikes again!"

I do think that existing fraud laws should be enforced regarding food and drinks information. Most of us believe the government should punish fraud culprits, because it's a purchase made on false terms of agreement. Thus, if someone is selling chicken that a company is advertising as "under 5g of fat per boneless piece" but are actually 60g of fat, of course the company should be punished somehow, and not just by civil suits.

No, such fraud I find far too minor. If it is labeled as fresh chicken, and it was intentionally kept at room temperature for days, said seller should be charged with assault, an existing crime. No regulation needed.
And people will not be dying. Because no seller wants to be charged with assault. This may also need some incorporation statute changes, to more easily prosecute executives, but limited liability laws are for another thread.

 

[Kludge]

This seems very unlikely. Alcoholic beverages almost never have any information listed.

 

[Disconsolate]

I know, sounds like dream huh? So does a 'moral' car salesman.

The Kosher cert by private companies sounds like a good solution, but one thing I would be weary of is that these private cert companies are just an offshoot of their own, effectively policing themselves.

as Jefferson said, man cannot be trusted to govern himself.. and I would certainly favor private over a gov agency, but I'm just not sure a private one is immune for corruption either.

No industry would be immune to fraud and corruption. This is true no matter how much govt you have.

The only difference is that government entities are thrust forcefully upon people. Not only that, but they're immune to competition. And if they fail and eggs become poisoned or peanut butter, they get more funding. If you can't trust man, then you definitely can't trust them under the aforementioned circumstances.

 

[libertybrewcity]

If we eliminated farm subsidies and all regulations on food, people would eat more healthy foods because the farmers growing vegetables would be able to compete with the people selling soda, twinkies, and cheap fattening foods like chips, etc.

If people bought more foods from farmers markets and stopped buying chemically infused foods, there wouldn't really be a need for nutrition facts.

 

[Seraphim]

If we eliminated farm subsidies and all regulations on food, people would eat more healthy foods because the farmers growing vegetables would be able to compete with the people selling soda, twinkies, and cheap fattening foods like chips, etc.

If people bought more foods from farmers markets and stopped buying chemically infused foods, there wouldn't really be a need for nutrition facts.

Very good point.

 

[s35wf]

There are independants who "judge" foods & supplements. For ex: Mike Adams from naturalnews.com He rates/reviews products all the time and natural food & supplement manufactures crave his opinions! If your product gets thru his testing, gets good ratings, your sales will skyrocket.

 

[theoakman]

In a free market, would most food products be labeled for their nutritional content? Would the labels look anything like they do today? What might nutrition information look like on a free-market box of cereal?

Doubtful...but honestly, nutritional labeling is a pretty good regulation to have. It helps people optimize their diet if they want and it also assists in people avoiding allergic reactions to certain products.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Doubtful...but honestly, nutritional labeling is a pretty good regulation to have.

No, it's not.


Why would you leave something as important as the labeling of our food to the government? Why do people have this sick, strange trust in government agencies, even after we know how corrupt they really are?

It's baffling...

 

[theoakman]

No, it's not.


Why would you leave something as important as the labeling of our food to the government? Why do people have this sick, strange trust in government agencies, even after we know how corrupt they really are?

It's baffling...

Newsflash buddy, the government doesn't label the food. The companies themselves list the ingredients, calories, etc...

The government simply requires them to supply that information and they provided a standard box for them to do so.

I find it laughable that you would even mention government corruption on a topic that involves how many calories are in a candy bar. The governments involvement in food labeling is minimal at best.

 

[YumYum]

Newsflash buddy, the government doesn't label the food. The companies themselves list the ingredients, calories, etc...

The government simply requires them to supply that information and they provided a standard box for them to do so.

I find it laughable that you would even mention government corruption on a topic that involves how many calories are in a candy bar. The governments involvement in food labeling is minimal at best.

The FDA was a necessary "evil" in 1906 because the stuff that was being fed to the unsuspecting American Public was horrible. But guess what? It has got worse; not better. I would rather have a slice of bologna made from "mystery meat" and sawdust than the toxic chemicals that are put in our food and approved by our government.

 

[theoakman]

The FDA was a necessary "evil" in 1906 because the stuff that was being fed to the unsuspecting American Public was horrible. But guess what? It has got worse; not better. I would rather have a slice of bologna made from "mystery meat" and sawdust than the toxic chemicals that are put in our food and approved by our government.

You are way off topic. The topic is nutritional labeling and informing the consumer of what they are consuming. This topic has nothing to do with the FDA approving products for consumption. You fail to understand that transparency and the dissemination of information is a key factor in a properly function market economy. That being said, the government imposing regulation to require producers to inform consumers on the side of their product of what they are consuming is advantageous to the benefit of the consumer and producer alike.

The requirement of that label is what allows you to make your ever so precious decision to not eat "sawdust" because you know what products contain it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I find it laughable that you would even mention government corruption on a topic that involves how many calories are in a candy bar. The governments involvement in food labeling is minimal at best.

If the intervention is so minimal, why is it needed?

 

[theoakman]

There would probably be real agencies (unlike the FDA) that would analyze the food and give information to their associates. And yes, I think most products would be labeled with the food information, otherwise people would not buy them.

I'm a chemist. That would never happen. You can do testing to determine how much protein, fat, & carbs are in a given food product. Beyond that, figuring out each and every ingredient and relative composition (percent composition) would be extremely grueling and in most cases, impossible. It would be incredibly time and cost inefficient. The current system works well. Right now, producers list their ingredients and nutritional information and they do it by adhering to consistent guidelines. This is one area of regulation where the government has it right. There is no giant bureaucracy behind those nutritional information labels. It's small government and small (but effective) regulation at its best.

 

[theoakman]

If the intervention is so minimal, why is it needed?

It's not needed. It's beneficial. It promotes transparency, and the dissemination of information. It allows producers to market and improve their products. It allows consumers to make decisions on their own based on by being more informed. It also allows consumers to avoid illness by avoiding consumption of products containing ingredients that they may be allergic to. The benefit of nutritional labeling far outweighs the cost.

I make and sell jarred fruit preserves and other products in the summer. In order to do so, I am required to list the ingredients in those jars when I stick a label on them. This took 10 seconds of my life and the cost was near zero. The benefit? Someone with a walnut allergy won't get sick next by consuming a jar of pesto I sold them.

 

[Romulus]

No industry would be immune to fraud and corruption. This is true no matter how much govt you have.

The only difference is that government entities are thrust forcefully upon people. Not only that, but they're immune to competition. And if they fail and eggs become poisoned or peanut butter, they get more funding. If you can't trust man, then you definitely can't trust them under the aforementioned circumstances.

Good points and I agree.

 

[Sola_Fide]

It's not needed. It's beneficial. It promotes transparency, and the dissemination of information. It allows producers to market and improve their products. It allows consumers to make decisions on their own based on by being more informed. It also allows consumers to avoid illness by avoiding consumption of products containing ingredients that they may be allergic to. The benefit of nutritional labeling far outweighs the cost.

I make and sell jarred fruit preserves and other products in the summer. In order to do so, I am required to list the ingredients in those jars when I stick a label on them. This took 10 seconds of my life and the cost was near zero. The benefit? Someone with a walnut allergy won't get sick next by consuming a jar of pesto I sold them.

But you are transferring responsibility from the producers of the product to the government. Why is that beneficial?


Also, do you think it would be beneficial for a company to refuse to list allergy information? That's crazy!

 

[libertybrewcity]

But you are transferring responsibility from the producers of the product to the government. Why is that beneficial?


Also, do you think it would be beneficial for a company to refuse to list allergy information? That's crazy!

You are not transferring responsibility. The producers are still responsible for putting the label on. Like Oakman said, it takes zero time and hardly costs a thing.

It is beneficial for obvious reasons that you have failed to read in the past few posts. It is so people with allergies don't die. Believe it or not, many many people have allergies, especially nuts. So many in fact that many baseball stadiums have peanut-free days or peanut-free sections.

There is a difference between idiotic regulations and good, simple regulations that don't hurt the consumer or producer. In fact, they probably help both more than anything.

And again, like I said before, if we eliminated food subsidies, better foods like fruits and vegetables would be able to compete with the junk food that so many people eat for dinner. People would generally be able to afford healthier foods, thus eliminating the need for labels on everything.

 

[Sola_Fide]

You are not transferring responsibility. The producers are still responsible for putting the label on. Like Oakman said, it takes zero time and hardly costs a thing.

It is beneficial for obvious reasons that you have failed to read in the past few posts. It is so people with allergies don't die. Believe it or not, many many people have allergies, especially nuts. So many in fact that many baseball stadiums have peanut-free days or peanut-free sections.

There is a difference between idiotic regulations and good, simple regulations that don't hurt the consumer or producer. In fact, they probably help both more than anything.

And again, like I said before, if we eliminated food subsidies, better foods like fruits and vegetables would be able to compete with the junk food that so many people eat for dinner. People would generally be able to afford healthier foods, thus eliminating the need for labels on everything.

You missed my question.

I asked, "why would it be beneficial for a company to intentionally mislead its customers by not putting allergy information on its products?"

How many class action lawsuits would be waiting for a company that did that? I assume food companies would like to remain in business, right?



Besides, in the absence of the FDA, you would have multiple companies that independently tested food and drugs...companies that could employ people and make profits by being accurate.