New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | January 13, 2006

Ron Bailey finds moralists on both ends of the political spectrum trying to infiltrate the Food and Drug Administration.

Comments

Rich Ard|1.13.06 @ 3:00PM|#

"However, all sorts of technological advances of which the public was ethically suspicious, like oral contraceptives, organ transplants, and IVF, were later found to be moral."

Pardon?

Rich Ard|1.13.06 @ 3:06PM|#

Anyway, I'm not sure I'm seeing a point here - if you want to point out that there are authoritarians everywhere, and that they don't hang out on either side of the "red/blue" aisle, you couldn't be preaching to a more agreeable choir.

But quoting the rep from one "liberal" group doesn't really suffice to tag "the left" with a similar FDA regulatory wet dream, IMHO.

|1.13.06 @ 3:10PM|#

I think the qualifier "some" was included more than once before referring to "the left".

And none of this is surprising at all. Name one federal bureaucracy that has ever voluntarily shrunk itself or its responsibilities. If the FDA ain't growing, why should it exist (he asked rhetorically)?

|1.13.06 @ 3:12PM|#

"Dr. W. David Hager, a Kentucky gynecologist who advises women to pray for relief from PMS, wrote an opposition minority report that seems to have stymied that approval for now. His concern is that easy availability of this safe and effective medication could lead to consensual out of wedlock sex."

Now, at this point do we still have to be tolerant of their idiotic beliefs? Why is it so hard for some people to accept that, hey, if they don't want to have sex that's fine with the rest of us, but they have no right to tell me what I will or will not do?

Rich Ard|1.13.06 @ 3:14PM|#

It was - but again, where's it going? If the point is that some people who voted for Kerry happen to also be assholes, well no shit! I've yelled at their bumper stickers more than once after getting cut off. :)

Rich Ard|1.13.06 @ 3:15PM|#

Sorry, no context - that was in re jf's comment.

|1.13.06 @ 3:16PM|#

Rich Ard, sorry if I messed up your response.

|1.13.06 @ 3:27PM|#

easy availability of this safe and effective medication could lead to consensual out of wedlock sex.

Yeah, we better ban this now, before folks start having premarital sex. Hello Mcfly!!! Any doctor that does not realize that that is what is happening right now should lose his medical license.

|1.13.06 @ 3:29PM|#

Dr. Hagar's problem is the same as a lot of doctors. He fails to recognize that a) he is not god and/or b) the actual identity of his employer. Granted, the current state of HMO hell tends to obfuscate the recognition of the latter.

|1.13.06 @ 3:33PM|#

Now, I happen to believe that people's fear of irradiated food is silly, but

the FDA requires that irradiated food be labeled even though there is no scientific evidence that irradiation harms human health.

is hardly banning anything, or injecting morality into anything. There is a process which an overwhelming majority (silly, I know) are leary of, and the FDA is then requiring products that use that process to be labeled, thus informing consumers of information that they have requested in making choices in a free market.

|1.13.06 @ 3:39PM|#

Did you pay Cathy Young to write this column for you, Ron?

I couldn't help but notice that you laid out a number of examples of conservatives pressuring the FDA, sometimes successfully, to ban drugs for moral reasons, and then for "balance" mentioned a warning label that was put on irradiated food for public health reasons, and a guy in Baltimore who was musing about what would be the best policy.

Seriously, I know we're all keyed up about the Pats game tomorrow, but that's no excuse for slacking off like that. ;-)

R C Dean|1.13.06 @ 3:41PM|#

thus informing consumers of information that they have requested in making choices in a free market.

Umm, I wouldn't be so quick to equate "the FDA" with "consumers".

If "consumers" really care about this stuff, then they can always buy food that is (voluntarily) certified as meeting certain standards. No one requires that organic food be so labelled, yet you can find food that is labelled as organically produced! Its a bleepin' miracle!

|1.13.06 @ 3:43PM|#

I actually like the irradiated label. If I'm buying something out of season, I know what is going to last longer than a day before it spoils. If others use it for avoidance, well, that lowers the price for me doesn't it. :-)

|1.13.06 @ 3:53PM|#

RC,

We seem to have a situation in which two of libertarians' cherished ideals - the right of corporations to be free from government mandates, and the operation of a market at maximum efficiency (a goal advanced by having a more-informed consumer) - are in conflict.

|1.13.06 @ 3:53PM|#

R C Dean,
"For example, she notes that the FDA requires that irradiated food be labeled even though there is no scientific evidence that irradiation harms human health."

If "consumers" really care about this stuff, then they can always buy food that is (voluntarily) certified as meeting certain standards. No one requires that organic food be so labelled, yet you can find food that is labelled as organically produced! Its a bleepin' miracle!

I agree with the idea that irradation lableing should not be mandatory however the reason that Organic Food producers label thier foods is not to warn normal food consumers of "potential hazards" but rather to advertise thier "wholesomness".
If I were a food producer who opted to irradiate food I would have a great big sticker on the front that read,"Irradiated to elimnate potentially harmful bacteria" or "Now with 75% fewer preservatives!". That would make it seem like irradiation is actually a good thing (which I think it is BTW). I think there should be a requirement to show how the food in question was preserved (chemical, irradiation, hot canning, etc.) but in the bottom along with the freaking allergy warnings and ingredients list and applied equally across the board.

|1.13.06 @ 3:56PM|#

Joe,
We seem to have a situation in which two of libertarians' cherished ideals - the right of corporations to be free from government mandates, and the operation of a market at maximum efficiency (a goal advanced by having a more-informed consumer) - are in conflict.

I don't see this as a conflict. The company who gives the consumer what he wants will grab the lion's share of business. If the consumer wants information to make in informed decision then the company who is more forthcoming with that will appeal to the customer moreso than the company that keeps it's ingredients list a secret.

|1.13.06 @ 4:01PM|#

But Kwix, isn't an educated consumer going to make better choices than one who is ignorant, even if he isn't aware that he is ignorant?

Your point holds for someone who knows about food irradiation and has an opinion, for or against. But what about the consumer who doesn't know anything about the whole issue - isn't the act of requiring a label going to make him a more knowledgeable consumer, and thus promote more efficient pursuit of his perceived self interest and yadda yadda yadda all the way up Milton Friedman's front walk?

|1.13.06 @ 4:02PM|#

WRT labelling irradiated foods...

I wonder how many vegetables sold as "organic" are of varieties created by mutating plants with radiation, decades back. Or is that verboten?

|1.13.06 @ 4:08PM|#

Now, at this point do we still have to be tolerant of their idiotic beliefs?

I can easily imagine the conservative's reply: "AHA! See? For all your talk of 'tolerance,' you liberals are the real bigots for attacking our deeply-held religious and moral beliefs!"

Believe me folks, since I was once one of these people, I know how they think (or rather, not think).

|1.13.06 @ 4:09PM|#

What about those who aren't ignorant, but just don't care? And why should others have to subsidise someone's ignorance?

I'll agree that sometimes people just need to be shown the light (I know I do every now and then), but why is it the government's responsiblity to do these things?

If there are enough consumers out there that learn of a process and are concerned enough about it to want a warning of some sort, then the market should dictate that, not the government.

As we've seen with the FCC, only a small number of complaints (like one) can bring gov't intervention. The market can be harder to influence, which is a feature of the market.

|1.13.06 @ 4:11PM|#

Kwix raises an interesting point. Forget about ideology and policy for a minute and look at the marketing aspect. Why don't they say "Irradiated to remove harmful bacteria and use fewer preservatives!"?

|1.13.06 @ 4:21PM|#

Only a physicist would ask why a company wouldn't trumpet the use of radiation on food it was selling. ;)

Lazlo|1.13.06 @ 4:24PM|#

Well duh, because lots of people would see the word "irradiated" and imagine H-bombs going off in their mouth.

That might have sold breakfast cereal back in the '50s but it wouldn't fly very far nowadays.

|1.13.06 @ 4:26PM|#

Yeah, I guess that was pretty dumb of me. I had this naive idea that fear of bacteria and preservatives would win people over. Stupid me.

|1.13.06 @ 4:33PM|#

I got it!

All products must be adequately labelled to cover any issue anyone cares about. Product labelling must cover the presence of any particular ingredients and the absence of any considered "notable" by the FDA or any interest group, a breakdown of the entire chain of production (including all processes, locations, and companies involved, including their sources of funding), and an appendix giving the sociopolitical ramifications of the purchase or non-purchase of the product.

This all must be displayed prominently. (If there's any room left on the wrapper, throw in a brand name.)

Admittedly, fresh produce must necessarily be sold individually sealed and wrapped, but one hopes the paper will be thin enough to squeeze and thump through.

|1.13.06 @ 4:35PM|#

"Bacteria", maybe. "Preservatives" don't seem to stop most people from buying foods. "Irradiated"...Heh.

|1.13.06 @ 4:35PM|#

thoreau,
I had this naive idea that fear of bacteria and preservatives would win people over.

It works for the whole "anti-bacterial" soap crowd and that is a sure fire way to make sure that TriClosan will be rendered ineffective for medical use within a few years (IMHO, YMMV). In that vein, have you tried locating a "non anti-bacterial soap" recently? It gets harder and harder to do so. To my knowledge there is no FDA regulation that soap manufacturers have to provide anti-bacterial agents, it is strictly market driven.

Timothy|1.13.06 @ 4:36PM|#

Fear of irradiated foods is like fear of cellphone (microwave) towers or depleted uranium. For shit sake, you get more radiation from the goddam sun or from sleeping next to a beautiful woman...as Steven Den Beste once said, I'll take the woman over the depleted uranium, even with the increased radiation exposure.

|1.13.06 @ 4:43PM|#

Eric & Thoreau: First I believe that food companies would be happy to market their food as free of bacteria and icky preservatives if they could avoid the scare word "irradiated." In fact, the industry suggested using the term "cold pasteurization" instead, but activists who know what they are doing strenuously opposed this because they know "radiation" is very scary.

In general consumers tend to treat labels as warning labels (skulls & crossbones)if they are mandated by the government. "If it's safe, why does it need a label," they ask? In other words, the labels can be actually misleading to consumers, suggesting to them that their food may not be safe.

However, markets are excellent at labeling products when they believe that label will differentiate their product and earn them a higher premium, e.g. organics, kosher, cruelty free, and so forth.

I have attended activist meetings where participants were quite clear that requiring labels was just the first step toward banning genetically enhanced crops. "Let's get labels first, then we'll ban it later," was pretty much the direct quote.

|1.13.06 @ 4:45PM|#

I thought I was being fairly clearly sarcastic...I guess I sounded too much like the real thing.

|1.13.06 @ 4:45PM|#

It's all marketing gimmikery. Do you think many people would get an MRI if the N were kept in the name? Perhaps if we called it "Gamma pasteurized" or "10MeV sterilized" people would get warm and fuzzy about it. Likewise they would freak if they found out their heaters put out thermal radiation...OMG!

|1.13.06 @ 4:52PM|#

Eric:

>and an appendix giving the sociopolitical ramifications of the purchase or non-purchase of the product.

I was gonna get really pissed if you didn't include those vitally important sociopolitical ramifications.

|1.13.06 @ 4:53PM|#

I never set out to piss someone off.

|1.13.06 @ 4:57PM|#

"Gamma pasteurized" or "10MeV sterilized"

"Cobalted for your protection". Has a ring to it.

|1.13.06 @ 5:01PM|#

(Though, the international symbol used in the article Ron links a few comments back is remarkably cheery, aside from giving the impression that it's of a radioactive plant.)

|1.13.06 @ 5:59PM|#

I'm not exactly sure how working the radition plant into the package's design counts as "subsidizing" anyone, Lowdog. You want to go on about General Mills or whomever being robbed of their liberty, fine, but I don't see who is paying extra, and who is getting any extra, from this arrangement.

And doesn't Coors brag about being "Cold Pasteurized?"

|1.13.06 @ 6:06PM|#

Subsidising in the sense that the company has to pay to put the labels on their food to educate the ignorant. So either the company will be the one spending money they shouldn't necessarily have to, or more likely, the company passing on the cost to it's consumers, whether they wanted the labeling or not, hence making some consumers pay more than they otherwise would have to.

Why is this so difficult to understand? And I'm not singling out you, joe, because I have some friends that don't get it, either. I'm not exactly the most intelligent man in the world and haven't even taked a lot of econ, but it sure seems rather obvious.

|1.13.06 @ 6:11PM|#

Joe,
I think you are thinking of "cold-filtered".

|1.13.06 @ 6:19PM|#

I think you are thinking of "cold-filtered".

Cold-filtered is Miller Genuine Draft's ad tag.

MGD also claims that the beer is "Never Heat Pasteurized" as well

|1.13.06 @ 6:22PM|#

Rich Ard,
"However, all sorts of technological advances of which the public was ethically suspicious, like oral contraceptives, organ transplants, and IVF, were later found to be moral."

Pardon?

It could have been worded better, but I believe he mean roughly: The ethical suspicions of the public turned out to be moral suspicions.

|1.13.06 @ 6:24PM|#

Why is this so difficult to understand?

If most products didn't already have to have a label of some type or another maybe it would be easier to understand, but when a company already has to put labels on their foods, its easy to not see adding certain types of claims as "subsidies".

|1.13.06 @ 6:35PM|#

It could have been worded better, but I believe he mean roughly: The ethical suspicions of the public turned out to be moral suspicions

That part made me take notice as well.
I read it as Bailey saying :
People were ethically suspicious of oral contraceptives, organ transplants, and IVF when first introduced as well, but not have been accepted as moral options.

and not:
The ethical concerns surrounding oral contraceptives, organ transplants, and IVF turned out to be merely moral concerns.


If he is stating the former, then I don't think I agree with the statement. There is a rather large segment of people (some of which are rather influential) who believe that IVF and oral contraceptives are in fact ethically and morally deplorable despite the passage of time and general acceptance of the public.

|1.13.06 @ 6:38PM|#

ChiTom - I'm talking about the abstract principle, not 'that since they already have to put labels on their stuff, then why should having to make said labels more verbose make a difference?' stuff.

And I will again ask why it's the government's role to make companies do this, anyway.

I'm sorry, but has anyone noticed how inefficient the gov't is? And you still want them calling a bunch of the shots? (Not any specific you, the royal you.)

Curious.

|1.13.06 @ 7:00PM|#

Great article Ron.

There is an unwanted pipe in:
"2003 declaring| that"

|1.13.06 @ 7:15PM|#

Thoreau -

They don't want to put Zapped to kill the bacteria on the label because they don't want you thinking about the bacteria. Blech.

|1.13.06 @ 8:45PM|#

Lowdog, a label with a symbol doesn't cost any more to print than one without. They don't charge by the pixel, you know.

|1.13.06 @ 8:54PM|#

"And I will again ask why it's the government's role to make companies do this, anyway."

Because the government exists to promote the public good, and is authorized to regulate interstate commerce. I'm afraid you're actually going to have to engage the topic on the merits of the question, is it a good idea for companies to be compelled to educate their customers about their product?

|1.14.06 @ 10:22AM|#

Lowdog, a label with a symbol doesn't cost any more to print than one without. They don't charge by the pixel, you know.

You don't work with many printing vendors, do you? It certainly costs more initially, to design and provide artwork for the new label. You don't just place in a piece of clip art. On a per-unit, ongoing basis? Probably not, no, although it might if there's a new difference in the color setup.

|1.14.06 @ 12:46PM|#

And I will again ask why it's the government's role to make companies do this[label ingredients], anyway.

Because not very many people actually cared (or care) about food labelling; if most (or many) people really gave a damn about it, the companies would've done it voluntarily to meet market demands. It's another example of a minority of do-gooders, with too much time on their hands, foisting their will upon everyone else.

|1.14.06 @ 1:11PM|#

Leave the moral judgments of what to do them up to individuals.

At what point do moral judgements deserve to be enshrined in law? For example, I find sex selection to be highly unethical. Imagine what the Chinese will do with it: we can expect the number of angry, frustrated young men who can't find a woman--already a problem--to explode. I can't blithely waive away such concerns as easily as Mr Bailey.

Larry A|1.14.06 @ 2:01PM|#

I just wish Life Was Fair, and government required the "watchdog" groups to put warning labels on their pronouncements.

"This scientific study was pencil-whipped by folks who believe the Earth is flat."

|1.14.06 @ 3:58PM|#

It seems to me that adding a "irradiated" label to food would impart no more useful information than adding a "washed" label. People who are frightened by irradiation can shop at health food stores which routinely carry products that are labled that they have not been irradiated.

Whole Foods (among others) carries a line of spices that carry that label. Frankly, I question whether they're safe.

Larry A|1.14.06 @ 5:04PM|#

My favorite is going down the supermarket aisle where all the jars of preserves are marked "No Preservatives Added."

|1.15.06 @ 11:36AM|#

"As we've seen with the FCC, only a small number of complaints (like one) can bring gov't intervention. The market can be harder to influence, which is a feature of the market."

Wait, I thought the market was supposed to be sensitive to the consumers wants and needs and that was its advantage over central control from the government (ala Stossel). Get your story straight guys. Is the market better than government because it is more sensitive to the collective or because it is less sensitive to the collective? Isn't the nimble nature of the market the feature that allows it to solve problems like food saftey,education, mail delivery, roads, and air traffic control? Or wait, is it the fact that the market hadn't solved those problems that led to the creation of government programs? Maybe government IS more nimble than the market when addressing certain concerns of the community. I am now soooo confused about the libertarian philosophy. Please explain this to me. Or maybe to yourself, cuz I don't think all of the posters on this site understand much about the difference between the needs of the business community and the needs of the customers.

|1.15.06 @ 6:42PM|#

MainstreamMan -- In the market the decision-makers are many and dispersed. In government, decision-making power tends to be more concentrated and centralized.

Thus, if there is significant market demand for something, chances are the consumers for that "something" can find (or persuade) someone in the market to give it to them. In general, people with varied perferences are more likely to find what they want.

With government, however, it's easier for a small interest group to find and influence a decision-maker or small group of decision-makers, in order to make their particular preferences mandatory for everyone.

However,

|1.15.06 @ 6:44PM|#

Strike that last "However."