Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and the Police
Message-ID: <611@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 15:50:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.611
Posted: Thu Jul 11 15:50:54 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Jul-85 07:18:20 EDT
References: <55@umcp-cs.UUCP>  <1594@dciem.UUCP>  <1617@dciem.UUCP> <354@kontron.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 49
Summary: 

In article <354@kontron.UUCP> Clayton Cramer writes:
> Private quality testing groups are in a position to put a stamp of
> approval (much like Underwriters Labs) on products that meet standards.
> (Very much like the Food and Drug Administration does with meat.)  You
> can be sure that grocery store chains would make a big hype that, 
> "We carry only Consumer Research Institute approved foods." as a way
> of encouraging customers to shop there.  In short order, I suspect that
> all chain stores, and almost all independent grocery stores, would 
> do so.

Sounds good, but there are a variety of reasons why it wouldn't work as well
as the current system.

Once you have consumer research groups competing to certify quality,
there are basic conflicts of interest.  First, the research group has a high
value placed on keeping information about the products private for two major
reasons: 1) so that your competitors have to conduct expensive certification
procedures themselves, and 2) to protect yourself from potential discovery
of negligence.  These are not large problems for the FDA.

Second, no information that would allow comparison of client's products to
those of others will be released unless it shows the client's product is
better.  Non-profit groups don't have this problem.

Third, neither the client nor the research organization will be willing
to bear the cost of failure to maintain quality: they will try to offload
it as much as possible on the consumer, and let the consumer attempt to
prove "fraud".  These sorts of gambles can be quite economic, especially
in a case like the recent Lindane contamination of watermelons.  The
melons were ordered off the shelves by a government agency, after another
agency detected the pattern of poisoning.  Competing organizations would
not be willing to share information that makes them potentially vulnerable,
and would be more hesitant to order possibly dangerous foods off the shelves
because of the costs to their clients: the markets and growers.  They would
not want to publicize the danger of already-purchased melons because of the
bad PR.  They would want to conceal their own knowledge of the problem
to justify inaction in case of later torts.

My sister is a safety director for a large pharmeceutical firm.  This is
quite an analogous position, because she is essentially competing with
other safety directors who could do her job, yet faces the conflicts of
interest of keeping the facilities safe for employees, not creating many
many expenses, and not leaving herself or the company liable.  She faces
all of the above problems, but is glad (as a conscientious, pro-worker
professional) that there are government agencies to provide the minimal
framework of things that must be done.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh