From: ctm@ardi.com (Clifford T. Matthews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: labeling laws
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:41:20 GMT
Organization: ARDI

Mike Huben wrote:

>>Tell me the ingredients in your favorite several alcoholic beverages.
>>You can't: it's not on the labels.  Why?  Because they are exempted from
>>labeling laws other than volume and proof.  This has resulted in deaths
>>from allergic reactions (for example, egg albumen is used to clarify some
>>wine, and sensative individuals have died from not knowing such obscure
>>industry practices, which a simple label would reveal.)

OK, I'll bite.  I'd like Mike Huben to provide a reference for a
death that has resulted from the lack of an ingredient label on
alcoholic beverages.  I'm not arguing that such a thing *couldn't*
happen; I'm just questioning the instances that he mentions.  It
seems to me that for a label to have made a difference, Mike has
to document a case of someone who died from an allergic reaction
to albumen in an alcoholic beverage *and* give us reason to believe
that the person was aware of his / her allergy *and* also document
that the deceased would have suspected alcoholic beverages enough
to read the label, but didn't suspect alcoholic beverages enough
to check with a support group for people with this type of allergy
(even though the penalty for not doing so was in fact his or her
death).

I'm skeptical because in a previous post Mike wrote*:

	Labelling standards and terminology that provide real information to
	customers is something NO industry has ever voluntarily provided because
	producers and consumers are adversaries.

and yet the industry that I work in has indeed voluntarily provided
standard labels of "k" for 1024 and meg for k * k.  NOTE: at one
time some computer manufacturers referred to 65,536 bytes as 65k,
while now it's universally agreed that 65,536 is 64k.  I also buy
UL listed appliances and eat at eating establishments that volunteer
that their food is not cooked in lard (I'm a vegetarian and I don't
eat food cooked in lard).  Now my last example was of an individual
restaurant and is in fact not typical of the restaurant *industry*,
but Mike's explanation for why "... NO industry has ever voluntarily
..." is sufficiently simplistic:  "producers and consumers are
adversaries" that it should apply to individual restaurants just
as well as it applies to ALL industries (and in fact, it does apply
just as well to both; it doesn't apply).

*Actually Mike, not unlike many other net denizens, frequently uses
hyperbole in his posts.  Of course Mike, still not unlike many
other net denizens, castigates his (libertarian) opponents for
doing this and hints that their net-endemic faults are due to, or at
least go hand-in-hand with, libertarianism.  Perhaps Mike should
read some of the other newsgroups.

>>It's obvious in the case of alcoholic beverages that the public is not
>>responsible enough or capable of determining what a "good" label is.

No, it's not obvious.  It's obvious that the public lacks responsibility
in its use of alcohol, but I wouldn't ascribe that to a lack of
being able to determine what a "good" label is.  In fact, I *would*
ascribe it to an unwillingness to take responsibility for one's
own actions.

>>We already have some labelling laws.  We can see now that their burden is
>>not onorous: it's pretty light.

Is it really pretty light, or could it be another cue that people
don't need to look out for themselves; the government will do it
for you?  Could the combined influence of all those cues be
significantly undermining our willingness to be responsible for
our own actions?  Are labelling laws really a stamp-of-approval
for the "the free market doesn't work, 'cause people other than me
are so dum" crowd?  If so, could that in fact be undermining our
belief in the free-market and be one of the stepping-stones to even
goofier regulations and liabilities (how much does a ladder cost?
why?)?  How much benefit is there from mandating these labels?

I write letters.  I ask questions and I boycott products.  I firmly
believe that responsible consumers are several times more effective
than government regulations.  Food labeling laws treat but a symptom
of consumer indifference.  As such, they mistakenly give people
the impression that the dialog between producer and consumer must
be conveyed by an intermediary with a gun.

>>I don't know about you, but I read that information that is
>>mandated by law.  I read ingredients and measures.

I read labels and ask questions.  I do so whether or not there's
a law that requires answers to my questions.  However, it's clear
that when the labeling laws were passed, sufficiently large
percentages of consumers didn't care about the information that
the producers could choose not to print it.  A vocal minority
managed to get the laws passed anyway, so that everyone can bear
the burden of supplying the information for the few.  Ironically,
I'd guess that there's a fair amount of overlap between the people
in favor of such laws and the people that would justifiably recoil
in horror were a food tax proposed.  That's right, such a burden
may not be steep, but it is certainly born by those that can bear
it least.

Meanwhile, restaurants aren't required to list their in-greed-ients
and yet some do.  Beauty aids aren't required to list whether or
not they use animals for testing their products, yet some do.  I
like knowing about both of these things, yet I don't feel comfortable
forcing the producers to provide the information if they don't
want to.

Mike Huben is in favor of ingredient labeling laws for alcoholic
beverages.  He has told us that due to a lack of intrusion of the
government into the transactions between we the imbibers and they,
the distillers, people have died.  I ask not only for a reference,
but I ask also that you, gentle reader, consider that even if people
have died, isn't it possible that there are less draconian ways
to have saved the same lives?

	--Cliff
	ctm@ardi.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian