Category Archives: Government Regulation

First They Came For The Cupcakes

The latest target of the food police has been identified. We all want to eat better, and do better for us and our children, after all. So, what is the issue? It’s that grave threat to America’s future, the classroom cupcake:

Once a cupcake wasn’t something to think about. It was just what your mom brought to school for your birthday. But this year, as schools across the country begin enforcing new federally mandated “wellness policies,” many are banning the little treats. And parents are fighting back.

When the principal at George Mason Elementary School in Alexandria explained to the PTA earlier this year that cupcakes were out, a furor erupted.

“A lot of people are really angry,” said Karen Epperson, a George Mason parent. “They think this is really stupid.”

Really stupid doesn’t even begin to describe. We can understand fully when people want to bring in health improvements. Some look to yoga teacher training in india rishikesh, bringing this into the school’s sports and fitness programs to help them improve and diversify their options. We all understand that we want our kids eating well. But knowing that they can’t have a treat now and then will likely not do a great deal to combat the issues that lead many to becoming overweight and obese. You can understand the reasoning behind parents being upset.

Well, at least kids are being taught from an early age that Big Brother will protect them from the horrible threat of a tasty, sweet cupcake.

How Government And Business Combine To Hurt The Public

In today’s Washington Post, there is a report that serves of a perfect example of what happens when the state becomes involved in regulating business. It involves the milk industry, which, along with the rest of farming, is one of the most heavily regulated businesses in the country. Those regulations, however, aren’t meant to help the public, they’re meant to “protect” dairy farmers by ensuring that prices remain artificially high regardless of what market conditions might be.

What happens, though, when one producer decides to buck the system and offer his product to consumers below the regulated price ? Well, as the Post report indicates, the heavy hand of government intervenes:

In the summer of 2003, shoppers in Southern California began getting a break on the price of milk.

A maverick dairyman named Hein Hettinga started bottling his own milk and selling it for as much as 20 cents a gallon less than the competition, exercising his right to work outside the rigid system that has controlled U.S. milk production for almost 70 years. Soon the effects were rippling through the state, helping to hold down retail prices at supermarkets and warehouse stores.

That was when a coalition of giant milk companies and dairies, along with their congressional allies, decided to crush Hettinga’s initiative. For three years, the milk lobby spent millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions and made deals with lawmakers, including incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Last March, Congress passed a law reshaping the Western milk market and essentially ending Hettinga’s experiment — all without a single congressional hearing.

“They wanted to make sure there would be no more Heins,” said Mary Keough Ledman, a dairy economist who observed the battle.

Hettinga, who ran a big business and was no political innocent, fought back with his own lobbyists and alliances with lawmakers. But he found he was no match for the dairy lobby.

“I had an awakening,” the 64-year-old Dutch-born dairyman said. “It’s not totally free enterprise in the United States.”

Apparently not. Needless to say, the dairy lobby, and their allies in Congress got what they wanted. The loophole that allowed Hettinga to sell milk as much as 20 cents a gallon cheaper than the regulated price has been closed, and milk prices have gone back up in the West.

The lesson is clear. When the government regulates a marketplace in this manner, it is inevitable that  participants in the market, in this case big dairy farms, will get involved in the political process to ensure that their interests are protected and those of their competitors (and consumers) are harmed. The regulators, and more importantly the politicians who write the laws, are eager to please the men and women who fill their campaign coffers, so this becomes very easy to accomplish. More importantly, though, Hettinga’s experience demonstrates clearly that regulations like this don’t exist to benefit the consumer at all.
Further thoughts at Cafe Hayek

Trans-Fat Hypocrisy

There’s been much discussion about the health benefits of New York City’s decision to ban trans-fat’s in restaurants, but no discussion at all about how the trans-fat’s got there in the first place:

Before other cities decide to regulate diets absent a safety issue, they might also consider that some of the same people now pushing for a trans fat ban once recommended the ingredient as a substitute for another health scare: saturated fats. Twenty years ago, Mr. Jacobson’s CSPI launched a public relations blitz against fast food joints for using palm oil to cook fries. The group claimed victory when restaurants started using partially hydrogenated oil instead. In 1988, a CSPI newsletter declared that “the charges against trans fat just don’t hold up. And by extension, hydrogenated oils seem relatively innocent.” Today, Mr. Jacobson is claiming trans fats kill 30,000 people a year. We wonder if he feels guilty.

Probably not, because public health really isn’t what the food police at CPSI are concerned about:

The ultimate goal of these so-called consumer advocates is to persuade the FDA to turn on trans fats, a move that would serve the food industry up as the next entree on the plaintiff bar’s menu.

In other words, they want to be able to sue McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy’s for committing the unpardonable sin of making burgers people want to eat.

H/T: Lew Rockwell Blog

Previous Post:

The War On Trans-Fat
The Nanny State Comes To Manhattan
Don’t Like Unhealthy Food ? Don’t Eat It

Don’t Like Unhealthy Food ? Don’t Eat It

While cities such as New York pass citywide bans on the use of trans-fat in restaurants, the residents of a small town in England show us that, when it comes to dealing with bad food choices, government regulation isn’t necessary

McDonald’s is closing its outlet in a town known for quality food and healthy, local produce.

The fast food chain in Tavistock, Devon, simply wasn’t being used enough by locals.

So after seven years struggling to make ends meet in a town that has won many accolades for the quality of its food, McDonald’s will finally shut up shop on Saturday.

John Taylor, chairman of Tavistock EatWise campaign, said: “Because of the quality of our local food McDonald’s has not been able to compete.”

In other words, people decided on their own not to go to McDonald’s and to choose healthier alternatives, and McDonald’s got the message. Not only does this show the power of consumer choice, but it also reinforces a point that the food police often miss; the reason these so-called unhealthy foods are so prevalent is that people choose to go there. Change consumer choice, and you’ll change the market.

Previous Post:

The War On Trans-Fat
The Nanny State Comes To Manhattan

Don’t Try To Sell Your Car In Glendale, Ohio

Chris Pagan wanted to sell his 1970 Mercury Cougar. The town of Glendale, Ohio, though, had other ideas:

GLENDALE, Ohio — The town of Glendale didn’t like the “for sale” sign Chris Pagan propped up on the 1970 Mercury Cougar in front of his house three years ago.

Glendale police threatened to cite him under an ordinance forbidding such signs on vehicles in public areas. He could have been jailed 30 days and been fined $250.

Pagan, a lawyer, took down the sign. He also filed a lawsuit in federal court.

Pagan’s case will be heard today by all 14 judges of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit previously ruled in Glendale’s favor.

“Glendale was seeking to … subject me to jail time — and they can’t do that when they’re violating the First Amendment,” Pagan said.

In an affidavit filed in the case, Glendale Police Chief Matt Fruchey said the ordinance aims “to prohibit attractions or activities which would induce people to come into the roadway,” putting them in danger. He also said the ordinance makes the village environment more pleasant.

Of course it does, Chief.

What’s at stake is actually pretty significant:

Jeff Rowes, an Institute for Justice lawyer, predicts the case’s outcome will exert national influence over freedom-of-speech issues and could redefine “commercial speech” rights for the 32 million people living in the court’s four-state territory.

“If Glendale wins, then — at least in the 6th Circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee) — governments will be able to ban even the most harmless speech just because they feel like it,” Rowes said.

“If they can ban totally harmless speech on a whim, what happens when more controversial speech comes along?” Rowes said. “If we decide that putting someone in jail is the right way to deal with ordinary speech like a ‘for sale’ sign, the First Amendment is in grave jeopardy.”

Like it isn’t already ?

1 115 116 117 118