XML Feeds
"In a Libertarian World..." Food Safety and Handling
So nowadays we have armies of bureaucrats supposedly looking out for us by examining our food before it gets to us; as it's grown, processed, and even prepared, cooked, and served. This is supposed to make us safer, but like all large bureaucracies, it's terribly inefficient, and imposes large costs on everyone, and likely isn't even as effective as is claimed.
As I've considered living overseas, in second world countries without the bureaucracy at all levels that we're used to in the United States, I've wondered how proper food handling in restaurants might be addressed without government interference. While demanding that you be allowed to inspect the kitchen before sitting down is probably wise in such cases, not everyone has the knowledge of what to look for, nor perhaps the wherewithal to make such demands. Further, examining the kitchen of every restaurant you wish to patronize is quite an inconvenience. Is it possible to make this easier?
I think that this is an excellent opportunity for the internet. While customer review sites abound for customers to rate their experiences at restaurants, I think there might be a market for private organizations to hire inspectors and act as a trusted intermediary for both customers and restaurant owners. Restaurant owners, as private property owners, are free to allow the private inspectors to inspect their kitchens and food handling areas, or not. And the restaurant patrons, as individuals capable of choice, can make their own decisions of where they wish to eat based on the amount of risk that they are willing to accept, being that eating at a restaurant that submits to regular inspections and scores highly is of lower risk than eating at Joe's Hole-In-The-Wall that doesn't allow inspectors. It's a free market-based solution that should ensure that restaurants that adhere to the food handling standards and have the extra work and cost of training employees, equipment are rewarded with more customers, while those who don't will get fewer customers. Caveat Emptor.
I think a similar system, using private certifying organizations, could be workable for food all along the production line as well. It seemed to work well enough for organic foods, before the government tentacles started squeezing in, muddying the waters with exceptions, misleading terms, and regulation that cuts out the small producers.
These private certifying organizations could oversee and certify the proper growing of food, the slaughter or harvest of food, and the packaging and processing of food. They could also certify product labels, and ingredient lists. I expect there would be several large regional, or even national, competing organizations, with many many local regions and city organizations. Perhaps the larger ones will be subscription-based, rather like Consumer Reports. Or perhaps, the initial cost would be borne by the companies reviewed, the be added as part of their costs of doing business. I'm sure there would be "open-source", freeware, and community-driven organizations as well, also providing the certifying services. Consumers can choose which one(s) to trust, and buy products bearing those labels or certifying marks. This seems like it would be very similar to how Kosher food is handled, or marked, or chosen.
I would hope that in a Libertarian world, food production would be more local, and done by more, and smaller, companies as there would be far less regulation to hinder them and drive them out of business, so the problems that huge food processing corporations and giant agricultural farms bring with them could be largely eliminated.
Now, what about tort claims for damages caused by tainted food? Well, it's my observation that, for food, it seems that somewhere, sometime, there is going to be contaminated food and someone is going to get sick from it, and maybe even die. Huge Government can't even prevent it... or maybe I should say, 'especially can't prevent it'. It seems impossible to 100 percent prevent food poisoning or contamination, as contamination can be extremely difficult or even impossible to detect, and the chances of accidental contamination are high. That said, there should probably be a further financial incentive for cleanliness and safety, other than just increased sales. So I think I would agree with damages provided to an injured party as adjudicated by a court. A defense to such a claim might be the voluntary inspections done by a private labeling organization, and the accompanying history of cleanliness. There is a fine line between the producer's responsibility for a damaged/tainted product, and the responsibility of the "consumer's" decisions. The court would have to consider it carefully, to avoid bankrupting the producer or imposing too high of a cost that would deter other producers from the market. There should be no verdicts that bankrupt the defendant and make the plaintiff wealthy. It's quite likely to be a small amount to pay only a part of the plaintiff's medical bills. (Perhaps private insurers would see an opportunity here for an insurance product aimed at the producers. Or for the "consumers" too, for that matter.)
My questions... do you think this is a workable plan that could be put into effect today*? Does it need more? Do you have a better idea that would replace everything?
* Meaning the current era, not the literal date of 'today'.
05/18/08, 06:03:42 pm, by CYNICAL 
, 196 views, Rants, Government & Politics, "In a Libertarian World..." Series Send feedback Pingbacks:
No Pingbacks for this post yet...
Previous post: "In a Libertarian World..." Introduction Next post: wow.... I don't think I've ever seen a hailstorm as intense as the one we just had here