Richard Morrison and Jeremy Lott welcome guests Marc Scribner, William Yeatman, Lee Doren and Angela Logomasini to Episode 94 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We tackle politics in the Aloha state, freedom of information at the University of Virginia, Bureaucrash’s best and brightest and the attack of the nanny state.
sound science
Nanny state regulators got it all wrong back in 1977 when the feds placed a warning label on the sugar substitute saccharine. They said it could cause cancer, but their underlying science was flimsy. It took them more than 20 years to admit to that mistake and remove saccharine from the list of carcinogens.
And federal health officials have long warned us all to cut back on salt because they say it might contribute to heart disease. Most people trust this advice, but it’s most likely not true for everyone. Salt appears to be a problem largely for individuals with hypertension, but not so much for the rest of us. Those of us who like salting our veggies and other things to make them more palatable, probably would like to know the whole story.
Yet Nanny statists at National Institutes of Health (NIH) don’t want to give us the whole story. They apparently refuse to release research that might contradict their warnings. Since 2003, that data has been subject to a Data Quality Act petition–a process that is supposed to ensure that the federal government doesn’t base policy on faulty science. Accordingly, regulators are supposed to release data when petitioned, but they usually don’t comply with the law, which lacks a good enforcement mechanism. The feds have managed to keep this research a secret for a long time. That way they can set whatever policies and recommendations they please–without any accountability.
In this case, they start by urging everyone to cut back on salt. Then local and state governments may start regulating salt based on such specious recommendations. As those laws grow, the feds might even step in. Such is the progression of many nanny state regulations.
The recent Climategate scandal underscores this point. The absence of scientific transparency gives regulators free reign. Then regulators and their collaborators can finesse the science in a way that best suits their regulatory aims while concealing inconvenient findings. Personal liberties and economic freedoms are eventually wiped out along with the facts. Bureaucrats end up more powerful, and life for everyone else is less palatable.
Photo attribution: Duchamp’s photostream on flickr.
Led by groups like the Environmental Working Group (EWG), environmental activists continue in their crazy crusade to fight pesticide use of any kind, even when it serves important public health benefits. One such benefit involves making produce affordable by warding off pests that reduce yields and make fruits and vegetables more affordable. Since these foods fight off cancer, making them affordable has important public health benefits as people eat more when prices are lower. Yet because some portion of these foods many have trace chemicals on them–so low that they don’t matter for public health purposes–greens are actually discouraging people from eating some fruits and vegetables. Among the “dangerous foods” they say are peaches! That’s crazy! See more about the EWG’s ridiculous–and dangerous–crusade against healthy fruits and vegetables here.
Image attribution: foodistablog’s photostream on Flickr.
Remember the fuss when it was revealed that Sarah Palin had enquired about removing books from her town library? It would have been so much simpler if she’d just regulated them away on health and safety grounds. Because that’s the effect of the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act, possibly the most ridiculous example of regulatory overreach this side of the EPA.
As the Headmistress explains over at The Common Room blog, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has explicitly rejected the arguments of libraries and booksellers that common sense should apply, because:
…we know that the ink used in children’s books prior to the 1980′s did contain lead. We have not gotten the kind of information we need about all the components of children’s books to be able to issue them a blanket exemption. The industry has made assertions and done very limited testing, but the Act requires more, as it should, before we can exempt a children’s product from the lead content requirements of the law. We cannot act on the “everyone knows children’s books don’t contain lead” and “historically there has never been a problem with lead in children’s books” assertions, particularly when we now know that children’s books have indeed contained lead in the past. Our staff has asked the book industry to provide us with additional information. They need to provide all of the information that our staff believes is necessary in order for the Commission to act based on sound science and comprehensive market coverage.
Note the point about Congress passing a law encompassing “all products” for children under twelve, “and they are surprised to discover it included books.” No better example could there be of Congress abusing its powers of regulation, and no better example should there be for real regulatory reform in this country. We have, after all, ten thousand such commandments.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 