From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Labelling laws
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 11:53:27 GMT

In article <1ej6s3INN1f8@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}Out of several responses to my postings on labelling, some interesting
}responses have come up.
}
}First, nobody named an alcoholic beverage with a complete list of
}ingredients despite my challenge to do so.  Nor has anyone explained why
}manufacturers don't.

That's not true.  One person mentioned how at least some alcoholic beverage
manufacturers were trying to get legal prohibitions against their listing
their ingredients repealed.  I don't remember who this was or know whether
it's true, but it is an explanation, thus refuting your claim that no one
explained the occurence.  Perhaps you missed the post.

}One person mentioned that some restaurants (such as McDonalds and Burger
}King) are posting ingredients and nutritional information without regulations
}requiring it.  My challenge was to name an industry where this was widespread
}or universal without legal requirements, not exceptional cases which do so
}as a marketing ploy to counter charges that their food is unhealthily fat
}laden, etc.

The universal bit is an ex post facto stipulation that certainly wasn't
clear to me.  However, how's about the example of health food restaurants?

I tried to indicate the burden of proof you bear for nutritional labeling
laws: 1) that its benefits outweigh its costs; and 2) that the costs should
be paid by the manufacturers.  You've cited no data on costs and benefits,
nor have you even bothered to support your assertion of the legal obligation
upon the manufacturers to pay this cost with any argument.  All you've done
is assert that anyone who challenges you on this is an extra-terrestrial.

You also assume that the only way to discover if a product contains a
substance toxic to special groups of consumers is to ask the manufacturer.
Aside from the liability for fraud or criminal negligence for either lying
or failing to answer, it's also possible for the products to be tested.

}I also liked Ingraham's point that on PC's, learning how much memory and
}disk is attached is free, but that it's not free to learn the ingredients
}of unlabeled food, or to evaluate many other important aspects of products
}that labelling laws make conventional.

Correct!  It isn't free - for either consumers or producers.  Why should
producers have to label all their products for a mere few consumers?
}This
}label also functions as a contract, with a presumption by law that it is
}complete and not fraudulent.

True, but what about the inevitable incompleteness which could lead to
a consumer dying from a substance not listed?  There would be no legal cause
of action, at worst, and a much more difficult one, at best.

}I can just keep on naming industries where labelling standards in the USA
}provide low-cost efficiencies for consumers.  How about fabric contents and
}care labels on clothing?  Mandated by law in the US, but not in most other
}nations.  No international industry standard exists.  Would libertarians
}like to explain that?

Insufficient demand to cover the transaction costs.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2321 alt.politics.libertarian:1926