A Stitch in Haste

Remember the near-universal criticism Paul Krugman got back in May 2007 when he ridiculously suggested that American food was becoming downright dangerous, and had the gall to blame Milton Friedman for it?

The economic case for having the government enforce rules on food safety seems overwhelming. Consumers have no way of knowing whether the food they eat is contaminated, and in this case what you don’t know can hurt or even kill you. But there are some people who refuse to accept that case, because it’s ideologically inconvenient.

In June 2008, Krugman doubled down and invoked fellow lying muckraker Upton Sinclair:

The declining credibility of U.S. food regulation has even led to a foreign-policy crisis: there have been mass demonstrations in South Korea protesting the pro-American prime minister’s decision to allow imports of U.S. beef, banned after mad cow disease was detected in 2003. How did America find itself back in The Jungle?

In reality, America’s food safety bureaucracy is not “ideologically inconvenient” and America is not The Jungle — this is:

As early as last July, He Feng, an investigative journalist with a weekly in southern China, had gathered detailed information on a wave of hospitalisations of babies. But the Chinese government, through the Propaganda Department, imposed a ban on publishing negative information about food scandals before and during the Olympic Games. So He Feng’s editor decided not to publish his information for fear of being punished by the authorities.

Just before the Olympic Games, the Propaganda Department sent a list of 21 banned subjects to the news media. One of them — point 8 — was food safety. “All subjects linked to food safety, such as mineral water causing cancer, are off-limits,” the directive said.

Now, for people who, like Krugman, might be unclear on this: government bans on the free flow of information are not “the free market.” Milton Friedman believed in free markets. So what, exactly, does Paul Krugman believe in?

Those who insist that only the government can ensure the safety of the food supply conveniently ignore a cornucopia of private entities that do just that: ensure safety. Underwriters Laboratories, Good Housekeeping, Consumer Reports, etc. Not to mention less formal opinion aggregators such as Zagats, TripAdvisor and so on.

They also ignore that companies not only pursue higher profits through quality, but they also try to avoid the costs of product liability. The easiest way not to get sued is by not selling dangerous goods. (Think any of the melamine victims in China will get to sue anyone?)

And most importantly, they forget that only the government can censor news that, in a free society with a free press, would otherwise quickly reach the population and thereby mitigate the impact of a mass taint.

As a point of reference: Anyone remember the Diamond dog food catastrophe? Perhaps not, since it was so quickly contained, thanks in large part to the uncensored American Internet. No, it takes Chinese censorship to create a pet food holocaust.

Finally, let’s remember that it’s not just through the food supply that China’s anti-capitalists kill children.

(And, coincidentally, note that the New York Times just today reiterated that it has learned absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, some people are going to sicken themselves even when the food is perfectly fine. How exactly is an expanded FDA supposed to protect morons from themselves?

Previously:
–“Atlas Shrugged” Quote of the Day

Filed under: Activist Legislators & Nanny Statists, Economics & Finance, Foreign Affairs, Freedom of Contract