The Industry "self regulation" has been played...and it failed

C

Cypress

Well-known member
I'm shocked to learn that when you allow industry to "self regulate", somehow they don't manage to "find" a lot of problems.

U.S. food safety policy faulted

Critics say industry fails to police itself

By Jonathan D. Rockoff * Sun reporter
March 3, 2008

WASHINGTON - The recent recall of 143 million pounds of ground beef highlights the problem with the government's heavy and growing reliance on industry to police itself: Companies have too much leeway to overlook contamination, and inspectors don't have the time or power to catch violations before suspect food gets sold, according to government inspectors and food safety experts.

Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. in Chino, Calif., withdrew the ground beef last month after it was caught on videotape ignoring requirements designed to prevent meat from diseased animals from entering the food supply.

"The video of the Hallmark plant is evidence of what can happen when packing plants are left to police themselves without the government oversight they need," said Trent Berhow, vice chairman of Berhow Inspection Locals, which represents 6,500 U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors.

"When the company is in charge of creating their own records and doing their own food safety checks, they're not going to find problems themselves," he said.

The federal government has been giving various sectors of the food industry more safety responsibilities as a way to prevent bacterial outbreaks, not just react to them. After a string of recalls of fresh produce, peanut butter and pet food, the Bush administration proposed last year that the practice be expanded even more broadly, to companies in the United States and suppliers abroad.

But agency inspectors, food safety experts and former government officials fear that there will be more episodes like the beef recall without the close monitoring and tough sanctions that they say have been lacking.

"We are fortunate more hasn't gone wrong," said William K. Hubbard, a former associate commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration who helped develop its preventive programs, which he says have been weakened by tight budgets. "I hate to say it, but it may take a national food scare for people to realize you can't just have cops catching people when things go wrong."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.beef03mar03,0,2727187.story
Click to expand...
 
Blah, blah, blah... Nobody really advocates "self regulation" as you intend it, that is, no wants this sort of thing to go without consequences.

But, there are other means of regulation, market oriented ones that will not and cannot come about so long as the government crowds them out.

The other consequence should be severe punishment, civil and possibly criminal, for those that knowingly endanger customers. Come down on them with both feet with such overwhelming punsihment that it threatens the going concern. And if you remove privileges enjoyed by corps then they can't just restructure and start again.
 
Even Dano expected that fraud would be a crime and that those who perpetrated it as heads of companies would be prosecuted.
 
Yes the government has come down so HARD on companies that break the law. Why there was the huge 400,000 dollar fine Wal Mart got for hiring illegal aliens. Boy howdy that 400k almost put Samco right outta business.
 
If the Government spent 1/2 the money on fraud instead of the wasteful regulation the economy would function much smoother. The Governments inability to do this is hardly a reason for more Government intervention.
 
Socrtease said:
Yes the government has come down so HARD on companies that break the law. Why there was the huge 400,000 dollar fine Wal Mart got for hiring illegal aliens. Boy howdy that 400k almost put Samco right outta business.
Click to expand...
Which was my point.
 
The business of government is business. Government has no interest in punishing businesses for getting caught breaking the law and defrauding consumers. So long as NOT TO MANY PEOPLE die you will never see businesses get a smack down for bad behavior. Christ the Ford Pinto escapade was a crime, what with Iacocca's "Let em Burn" memo. But nothing there. Why would ANYONE believe that the criminal acts of business people would reap criminal charges. The only real time you see that is when somebody illegally profits from insider info. THEN OMG! We have to prosecute them for unfairly making a profit!
 
Socrtease said:
Yes the government has come down so HARD on companies that break the law. Why there was the huge 400,000 dollar fine Wal Mart got for hiring illegal aliens. Boy howdy that 400k almost put Samco right outta business.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you intend here. I was not arguing that they have.

But the hiring of illegal aliens does not compare to the selling of tainted meat. One is fraud and a direct violation of the rights of the consumer (i.e., a REAL crime). The other is failing to comply with government rules.

I really don't care where the employees of Wal Mart were born. It has no impact on me. Not with out some tortued logic of xenophobes and even then quite indirectly.

If they sale me something that's unreasonably dangerous to my health when used properly and the danger is not inherent to the product, then they have committed a real crime.
 
RStringfield said:
I am not sure what you intend here. I was not arguing that they have.

But the hiring of illegal aliens does not compare to the selling of tainted meat. One is fraud and a direct violation of the rights of the consumer (i.e., a REAL crime). The other is failing to comply with government rules.

I really don't care where the employees of Wal Mart were born. It has no impact on me. Not with out some tortued logic of xenophobes and even then quite indirectly.

If they sale me something that's unreasonably dangerous to my health when used properly and the danger is not inherent to the product, then they have committed a real crime.
Click to expand...

I agree completely, but I was trying to point out that even when they are proven to have directly committed a crime they receive a slap on the wrist and good stern finger wagging.
 
Socrtease said:
The business of government is business. Government has no interest in punishing businesses for getting caught breaking the law and defrauding consumers. So long as NOT TO MANY PEOPLE die you will never see businesses get a smack down for bad behavior. Christ the Ford Pinto escapade was a crime, what with Iacocca's "Let em Burn" memo. But nothing there. Why would ANYONE believe that the criminal acts of business people would reap criminal charges. The only real time you see that is when somebody illegally profits from insider info. THEN OMG! We have to prosecute them for unfairly making a profit!
Click to expand...


So long as they can channel outrage of the citizens into more revenue streams and jobs for themselves (i.e., regulatory agencies and the necessary taxes to fund them), yes, you are right. Not to mention how the regulatory scheme allows them to extort the industries regulated without any real regard to safety or consumer concerns.

Maybe their should be mandatory minimums for fraud. :)
 
RStringfield said:
So long as they can channel outrage of the citizens into more revenue streams and jobs for themselves (i.e., regulatory agencies and the necessary taxes to fund them), yes, you are right. Not to mention how the regulatory scheme allows them to extort the industries regulated without any real regard to safety or consumer concerns.

Maybe their should be mandatory minimums for fraud. :)
Click to expand...
Those are baddddd words to a criminal defense attorneys. But, you maybe right. And my bet is corporate america is more afraid of prison that drug dealers are. Although corporate criminals go to Club Fed when they get caught.
 
There shouldn't be mandatory minimums, but the reality is they are often trusted entities and because they are in such a position there should be increased penalties to regular joe's...
 
Socrtease said:
I agree completely, but I was trying to point out that even when they are proven to have directly committed a crime they receive a slap on the wrist and good stern finger wagging.
Click to expand...

The problem of corruption in the regulatory agency is far more likely and harder to control since they do not answer to the public. The difference is that a functioning regulatory agency that truly removed these risks would be extremely costly. Even if it worked it would not work.
 
Socrtease said:
Those are baddddd words to a criminal defense attorneys. But, you maybe right. And my bet is corporate america is more afraid of prison that drug dealers are. Although corporate criminals go to Club Fed when they get caught.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I put the smiley on there. I don't like them either, but I'd rather they were used here than in most other areas.
 
RStringfield said:
Yeah, that's why I put the smiley on there. I don't like them either, but I'd rather they were used here than in most other areas.
Click to expand...


Reactive litigation based-regulatory schemes that try to unshit the bed are unworkable. Shouldn't we try to limit and minimize harm in the place? And what's the likelihood that enough consumers will be able to actually litigate any claims after suffering injury? And aren't you really just shifting the regulatory responsibility from one unelected entity (regulatory agency) to another (judges)?
 
Dungheap said:
Reactive litigation based-regulatory schemes that try to unshit the bed are unworkable. Shouldn't we try to limit and minimize harm in the place? And what's the likelihood that enough consumers will be able to actually litigate any claims after suffering injury? And aren't you really just shifting the regulatory responsibility from one unelected entity (regulatory agency) to another (judges)?
Click to expand...
Unless the cases are tried in state court, then they are at least tried infront of an elected official. The longarm statute in most states would allow a suit against compaines in state court but most of them end up in Fed court
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top