A popular veggie snack food is being recalled by its manufacturer due to concerns over salmonella contaminations. The company reacted after the FDA had contacted them about 51 cases of salmonella poisoning. However,
none of the products has tested positive for salmonella, but the company acted as a precaution after the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that many of the infected people had eaten the product.
On the surface it surely seems reasonable for a company to be cautious. However, pressure from the FDA classifies as government force obstructing the right of the company to act in its own best interest and conduct its business in the manner it pleases.
The moral argument for the existence of the FDA is that the self-interest of business is opposed to the interest of the consumer. Therefore the consumer needs to be protected from the potentially damaging effects of business’ self-interest. After all, businesses have more power than the consumer and they will do harmful things in order to make a profit. Such is the nature of greed.
But how do businesses make profits? They make profits only through voluntary trade with consumers. The existence of government agencies to protect consumer interests is not only obstructive to the right of businesses to produce and sell in the way they deem fit, but also to the right of the consumer to make the choice whether to buy these products himself. Arguments for government controls of the free market also grossly underestimate the intelligence of the consumer to make his own choices. If the FDA did not exist, an independent market driven consumer group would have become aware of the salmonella cases, investigated them and presented its findings to the company. Why? Because consumers want and are able to ensure that they are not being harmed by the negligent or deceitful behavior of some businesses. Free market advocates do not claim that dishonest businesses do not exist. The simply say that a free market will punish them. If I do not like a product, I won’t buy it. If a business rips me off, I go some place else and I will let others know not deal with that business. If the veggie snack company thought to act on the findings of a consumer driven group would be in their self interest, they would have done so. After all, would publicity over neglecting to act on evidence for possible salmonella contamination not hurt them?
The interest of businesses and consumers are not opposed to each other. It is not against my self-interest to pay for a product a business is offering to me. It is not against my self-interest to buy a product I want from a business that is willing to sell it to me. The profit is the business’ rightful reward for producing the product I want. But it is against my self-interest and the self-interest of the business if the government prevents us from engaging in that trade.
Further, government controls over the free market do not just infringe on the right of business and consumer to act in their self-interest. Worse, such intervention stifles progress and innovation. Businesses will think twice before putting a product on the market that may receive intense scrutiny and regulation from the government, which is not only time-consuming but also often involves a high cost (think of the time and money spent on drug testing to pass FDA approval).
Maybe the veggie snack really was contaminated, but the company has been so intimidated by the FDA, that it acted before any conclusive evidence was found. Such action is costly, not only to the company but also to the consumer since he is deprived of his right to act on his own best judgment when deciding to purchase the product in question.
Recent Comments