This is a weird comment thread on a post about the latest crusade of the nanny state — against salt.
This would actually be good for me, because I have cut way back on the salt over the past few months, and have thereby reduced my blood pressure, but neither my salt intake, or anyone else’s, is the business of the FDA.
[Update late morning]
More thoughts on the FDA and sodium at Reason.
This week the FDA is also in the news with regard to arsenic in fruit. Consumer Reports found that widely purchased brands of grape and apple juice have unhealthy amounts of inorganic arsenic, and their advocacy wing is calling on the FDA to better regulate arsenic levels. The amount of arsenic isn’t enough to cause you to immediately drop dead (far from it!), but doctors believe that it is enough to raise your risk of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. The FDA was initially resistant – you can read about this resistance by googling arsenic in news.google.com if you want to know more.
So, a question for libertarians: do you think there should be a difference between how the FDA should treat salt and how it treats the very small amounts of arsenic found by Consumer Reports? Both are believed by a majority of doctors to cause serious long term health problems, but, as is repeated here most emphatically, science is never settled.
Well, I certainly treat poisons and essential compounds differently…
Bob-1, the news story has a private group testing apple juice and getting arsenic levels of 25 parts per billion (ppb). The WHO apparently has decided that arsenic levels of 10 ppb leads to a 6 in 10,000 elevated risk of cancer. So if we assume the risk is linear at this point, then we’re looking at an addition 1 in 1,000 risk of cancer using the WHO estimates. That sounds like a tempest in a teapot to me.
Don’t try to derail the conversation with unsettled science! Also, why mention that the group is private? Do you think private groups are less trustworthy?
Seriously, what is the proper role of the FDA, according to libertarians? Should the FDA keep unhealthy additives out of food? If not, then we’ll have to rely on the health analysis of (competing) private groups, right? It troubles me that Consumer Reports has very little competition in many areas.
I’m unclear on whether Rand objects to the FDA’s nanny state meddling because
a) lots of salt is not unhealthy,
b) lots of salt only unhealthy for some people
c) we simply don’t know enough about salt – the science isn’t settled
d) the FDA nanny state shouldn’t ban any additives, even arsenic in actually unhealthy amounts
or e) some other option.
or
(d)
So, libertarians are happy for the government to get involved if person A stabs person B, but don’t want the government to get involved if company A puts “actually unhealthy amounts” of arsenic in person B’s food?
This is why libertarianism hasn’t caught on.
Uh, Bob-1, person A stabbing person B is a deliberate act. Are you claiming that someone is knowingly “putting” arsenic in food? Where I come from (planet Earth), that’s called “attempted murder.”
On the other hand, having a farm in a part of the country where there is more arsenic in the water than there is in a bottle of, oh I don’t know, Evian water, isn’t attempted murder. It’s called “life on Earth where the human body has learned to process a certain amount of toxins that occur naturally in the things we eat.” I don’t know how you aim to prevent people on Earth from eating the food that is grown in the ground here.
Oh yeah, and I love the way the Chief Comment Thread Derailer is accusing someone else of derailing a comment thread. You are being a little Accusy Accuserperson today, aren’t you?
Andrea, the arsenic is deliberately added. Look up “arsenic in agriculture”. As many articles explain, inorganic arsenic was once used in pesticides, but it was found to be too dangerous. Now organic forms of arsenic such as disodium methyl arsenate are used (I just looked that compound up, it doesn’t roll off my tongue) are used instead. The concern is that the safer organic arsenic compounds are converting to the inorganic form of arsenics. In addition, the inorganic form is used in some cases — you can read about it. I’m not accusing the farmers of murder, but they are doing something dangerous that the government traditionally regulates because citizen safety is at stake.
In any case, I asked Rand about additives. He gave his answer regarding additives. This clarifies his philosophy. As I told Karl below, if you have a different opinion, I’d like to hear it. But I’m interested in libertarian philosophy, and how to make it actually work — it is off-topic to spar over the details of how arsenic is used in agriculture.
Also, why mention that the group is private?
Bob-1, you said that the FDA was “in the news”. But we see that the actual story is of a study and claims made by someone else. Further the concentrations of arsenic aren’t notable being only slightly higher than the legal concentrations for drinking water with pretty negligible effect as a consequence.
I thought I made it clear that the FDA was initially resisting calls for change, and now was reconsidering.
Here is an example of the FDA being “in the news”:
Arsenic in apple juice concerns prompt action by FDA
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-apple-juice-arsenic-parents-20111202,0,3497662.story
—
It is irrelevant to the topic of libertarianism hether the arsenic itself is in high enough concentrations to be worthy of concern. I brought it up as an analogy, to ferret out whether libertarians are upset about the FDA banning any additives, or just tasty ones. For the purposes of the analogy, lets just imagine the arsenic was in high enough levels to be quite dangerous. Rand clearly stated that even in that case, he would not want the government to get involved. Your opinion, and other readers’ opinions, might differ, and I’d be interested in that.
It is irrelevant to the topic of libertarianism hether the arsenic itself is in high enough concentrations to be worthy of concern.
It is completely relevant. If the issue is banning something as unhealthy regardless of quantity, then we are back to 20th Century Progressives calling for the abolishment of alcohol. The same 20th Century Progressives that created the FDA.
If the odds are 1/1000 people might develop cancer because of increased arsenic levels, then lets not forget that the FDA approved arsenic for use in treating leukemia and PET scans to identify tumors. Perhaps people calling for the FDA to heighten the ban on arsenic should think about what happened when Progressives pushed the EPA to ban DDT for the same reasons. Just look at the increased risk of mercury poisoning due to the ban on the incandecent light bulb.
Maybe the issue with libertarians is that the government is too blunt an instrument for controlling risks. Perhaps libertarians would rather see more private institutions like Consumer Reports that have no regulatory power, but can still provide advice to consumers. Perhaps that has something to do with Karl mentioning them as being private, rather than any effort to derail the comments? When private companies give advice and consumers are allowed to act on that advice as they choose, that’s called liberty and freedom.
Regarding Consumer Reports, yes, that was why I was teasing Karl. But the joke fell flat. I did say I was troubled by CR’s lack of competition in many fields. (Lots of outfits review cars, but hardly anyone reviews fruit juice or baby seats for safety. And even for cars, there is only one reputable private safety reviewer – the IIHS) If the government got out of the consumer safety business, presumably competition would increase.
I read your answer several times, but I still don’t understand how you would answer the question I asked Rand: do you think the government shouldn’t ban or regulate any additives to food, even arsenic in actually unhealthy amounts?
Looking at the comments, at least the anti-libertarian (or is that anti-freedom?) side is trying out the rhetoric of libertarians. For example, mandating low sodium foods gives eaters the “freedom” to salt their food to the desired level. They obviously don’t have a clue what freedom means, but at least they’re trying.
CUT BACK ON SALT!!!? Because ‘they’ said so?
Screw ’em, from here on out…I’m salting my anchovy pizza!!!
The dose makes the poison.