From: Max More (max@maxmore.com)
Date: Thu Jun 28 2001 - 10:34:08 MDT
At 07:36 AM 6/28/01, Harvey wrote:
>Brian D Williams wrote,
> > Let's lose the rhetoric and let the market decide.
>
>I agree. I don't understand how any pro-market individual can be against
>labeling. The fact that most people won't be able to use information to
>make a good choice does not justify suppressing information and choice!
I'm just waking up, so I hope this answer makes sense. I am not sure of my
position on labeling, but I have a strong bias against government-enforced
labeling in general (so long as the tort system is operating), and labeling
of GM food in particular.
Why? On enforced labeling -- the market (i.e. each individual company)
should decide what labeling they think is needed (and distributors can
decide to accept or reject carrying products depending on whether they want
certain kinds of labeling). No labeling laws should be needed, just general
application of liability principles. If a company (whether a
megacorporation or small backyard operation) decides not to label a product
that contains unusual ingredients known to cause allergic reactions or
other harm in a significant number of people, they should be liable for not
alerting consumers (and distributors) to this. No special law needed. I
would apply the same principle to many other areas, so that special
government regulations and expensive and powerful regulatory agencies are
unnecessary...
[Side comment: ...And typically harmful, either immediately, or over time
-- I'm surprised not to have seen the great study by Sam Peltzman mentioned
in recent stories on the Precautionary Principle. Peltzman showed the costs
of delaying approval of life-saving drugs. The Precautionary Principle,
which in some form is embodied in many regulations, may sometimes save
lives, but generally takes far more lives overall. Since the apparent
benefit of regulation is clear and concentrated -- think Thalidomide -- but
the many lives saved are widely distributed and not obvious, the bias of
regulators and public perceptions is too far towards the side of
over-regulation. A decently-functioning legal liability system will make
companies balance these two considerations.]
On labeling GM foods only -- I find this highly dubious. If you're going to
compel labeling, at least it should be applied consistently. "Natural"
foods (which have often been selectively bred for many generations) that
might contain chemicals causing allergic reactions should also require
labels. In the absence of evidence showing that GM foods are *unusually*
risky, I oppose labeling GM foods as such, and I oppose a law forcing that
kind of labeling even more.
Max
_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
Futurist, Speaker, Consultant.
max@maxmore.com or more@extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
President, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more@extropy.org>
________________________________________________________________
Senior Content Architect, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com
"The Premier Business Strategy Source"
m.more@manyworlds.com
_______________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:20 MST