Mike wrote:

> Here's a question for you Tim,

I'd like to take a crack at it too.  :-D

> Let's assume that feeding ground up
> livestock to livestock is a risky
> behavior. It goes on here in the U.S.
>
> How, in an unregulated system, do you
> get people to follow immediately
> practices that are in the best interest
> of the community when those practices
> are, in the short term, likely to be
> rejected as profit killers?

First of all, your questions assume a lot of facts not in evidence.  Anarchy
and regulation are not mutually exclusive, nor are the "best interests of
the community" (whatever that means) and profit.

The best way to approach any sort of "anarchy" question is to assume that
you are already in a state of anarchy and then ask the question, "what would
*I* do to protect myself and others from this health hazard?"

You should really do the head-work for yourself, but I can throw out a
couple of ideas to show how I'd approach the problem.

1) To protect myself, I'd only eat beef that had been certified as okay by
someone I trusted.  I'd be comfortable if it carried the Kosher mark, the
Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, Underwriters Laboratories "UL" logo,
Consumers Report rating or maybe even a "no-mad-cow" assurance from the Beef
Council ("It's What's for Dinner").  All of these are forms of voluntary
"regulation."

2) To protect everyone else, I might start a business that tested and
certified beef.  It could either use the Consumer Report business model
(consumer directly bears the cost of certification) or the Kosher model
(producers bears the cost).  Hopefully, I'd do well by doing good.

In any case, selling bad products is not consistent with short or long-term
profit.  Businesses don't submit to voluntary rating/certification because
they are nice guys, but because it enhances their ultimate profit by
quelling consumer fears.  And if you don't believe this simple truth, just
try to buy a can of "Bon Vivant" vichyssoise soup.


 S a n d y

Reply via email to