Some businesses support regulation



Our country’s system of safeguards is good for American business as
 well as for the public’s health and the environment.  You would never 
know this, however, from reading the news out of Washington, which is 
dominated by reports on the antipathy to regulation of the business 
lobby and its Republican allies in Congress.



I was reminded of the more complex views of business toward regulation
 the other day when I dug up news reports on the salmonella outbreak in
 peanut products a little less than two years ago.  Nine people died
 and hundreds were sickened in the outbreak that was traced to
 contamination at a facility in Georgia of the Peanut Corporation of
 America. In his testimony before Congress, David Mackay, then president of the Kellogg Company, reported that the company recalled seven million
 cases of Keebler cookies and other peanut-based products, and revamped
 its internal controls.



He also asked the Federal government to play a greater role in food
 safety inspection.  He urged Congress to establish a single agency
 with responsibility for food safety, to undertake annual inspections 
of food processing plants that were particularly vulnerable to disease
 outbreaks, and to enact into law federal authority to recall food 
products directly (instead of relying on voluntary compliance). In 
short, he asked the federal government for more regulation. 
With the support of the Grocery Manufacturers of America, other 
interests Congress incorporated these and other reforms in the Food
 Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA) of 2010. Among the many 
provisions of the law are the beginnings of safeguards to protect 
against illnesses resulting from imported food.



Last month the Food and Drug Administration exercised its authority to 
ban contaminated foods for the first time when it seized from a
 Washington State plant spices and condiments that had been exposed to
 rodents and insects.



It makes eminent sense that Kellogg would appeal to Congress to 
protect the food supply.  Public structures underwrite many industries
 so that consumers can buy with confidence.  Drugs, air travel,
automobiles, toys, and countless other products and services are 
willingly purchased without worry by consumers who believe that
 government protects them from irresponsible purveyors such as the
Peanut Corporation of America.



Likewise, providing public goods and performing functions that 
individual parties cannot be expected to provide is recognized across
 the political spectrum as a proper role for government.  That’s why we
 have transit systems and bridges paid for with public funds, as well
 as public universities, courts and police and fire departments.
Our system of safeguards, on which Kellogg and so many other producers 
depend, is currently under attack, already threatening progress in 
food safety.  The House Republican majority has voted to thwart the
 new food safety agency by withholding funds for its implementation.
The Senate has acted to maintain Department of Agriculture funding,
including funds for the new agency.  The issue is still in limbo.
Two other pieces of legislation, the so-called REINS Act, and the
 Regulatory Accountability Act, contest the value of regulation at more 
general levels.  They would greatly impair the already complex
 regulatory process by adding layers of Congressional oversight for
which the Congress is poorly staffed, and requiring analysis of the 
costs of regulation without regard for the benefits that would accrue.



The current campaign against our system of safeguards is 
single-mindedly focused on reducing regulatory requirements on 
businesses.  But as the heads of the Kellogg Company and other food
 and consumer producers surely know, we are best served by a balanced
 approach to regulation that protects the health and safety of people 
and the environment at the same time that it recognizes the needs of 
business interests.

Michael Lipsky is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Demos.