According to a recent paper over at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER): The researchers find that mandatory calorie posting influenced consumer behavior at Starbucks in New York City, causing average calories per transaction to drop by 6 percent (from 247 to 232 calories).
That’s 15 calories and the additional loss of property rights. It’s liberty on the cheap — in NYC, anyway.
{ 13 comments }
WOW! According to a quick google search the average Starbucks consumer buys coffee six times a month from their local Starbucks. 15 calories at 6 times a month = 90 calories saved a month (or about 1/3 of a pound a year). Go gov!
My girlfriend (whom I’ve convinced of many libertarian views but is not necessary one herself) made the argument that (forgetting government intervention) food producers such as Starbucks should have a contractional liability to provide nutritional information as part of the exchange of money for the food product. She argues that as the consumer you have the right, as part of the contract of trade, to be fully aware of the chemical makeup of the food you wish to consume. I feel this is a bit of stretch for contractional duties. However, I could see this as a possible legitimate demand of the consumer upon the producer that you have the right to have full knowledge of the product you are buying. Thoughts?
if producers choose not to divulge products’ ingredients, in a laissez-faire regime they may be punished by consumers flocking to producers who do. the food police imagine the public to be an idiot.
Newson covers it well, but it’s worth considering the other end of the bargain too: if the coffee customer has an enforceable right to know exactly what’s in his coffee drink, shouldn’t the used auto dealer have an enforceable right to know exactly how much you put in your checking account this morning and are prepared to pay?
in my local supermarket, there’s a section dedicated to foods suitable for coeliac disease sufferers, where customers obviously are prepared to pay much higher prices for guaranteed gluten-free foods. likewise the halal section has a loyal clientele, obviously confident in the integrity of these brands’ purity and adherence to muslim food practices. this product differentiation would likely prevail even absence any state oversight. tort actions and consumer reports would also tend to ensure products live up to their promise.
This assumes that state thinks that consumers act in their best interest, however state does not think that, neither wants them to act so (hence no need for the state intervention). Therefore they feel an urge to tell everyone what they can or cannot buy/consume. It’s the old “if it weren’t for state inspections etc., people would get poisoned all the time as food producers only care about profits and neglect the product quality”, oh an yes, the “snake oil” argument too.
Back in the 1960′s, 1950′s the food economy was much more free than today and no company bothered to display their nutritional value.
Only when the government forced companies to show nutritional data did such data appear.
As a libertarian, I feel in a moral dilemma here because I am very happy that companies are forced to tell the truth about the products so that I can make informed decisions.
In addition to what has been said…
If, in fact, a “contract of trade” exists, then that contract would have to be mutually and voluntarily agreed upon. So, if the seller does not post the calories or other nutritional information AND the buyer makes the purchase anyway, then the vouluntarily agreed upon contract is that the buyer purchased something of undisclosed calories. How could the buyer then say they had the contractual “right” to know what was in it?
This would be akin to buying a house “as is”, then saying that you had the “right” to know the roof was defective. You already agreed to the nondisclosure!
why doesn’t the nber harness its great empirical prowess and finally reveal what is the optimal number of fairies dancing on the pin-head?
newson,I agree that NBER reports are devoid of real meaning. But … Those reports sometimes drive government policy. Of course, those reports only drive policy when the findings match what the policymakers want to cure. Bloomberg and such will brush off this study with a ho-hum.
yes, you’re right. i didn’t mean to imply that nber was to be dismissed as benign. i think that it is self-serving, a vanity-parade for empiricists and an intellectual prop for all manner of government nonsense. not a liberty-promoting body at all.
When you are forced to give up dietary information, you are being forced to potentially give up formulations and other product information, which could cost you a competitive advantage. This happens in the livestock feed industry all the time. I agree with those of you who say that tort actions, private comsumer ratings/reports, and word of mouth would solve these problems. But, then again, we can’t trust the “idiot” population to figure things out on their own, and thus, would have mass catastrophe without the government!
This all has to do with honesty. It’s dishonesty in packaging, and the use of the words “Best” “Fresh” “Natural” “Wholesome”. At some time in America we decided that lying in marketing was the way to go. People were naive, and trusted big business. Why? Because of their size of course…if you can get that big, you MUST know what you’re doing!! We live in a lying, greedy society that starts with the individual. Anyone that’s going to sell you their car, knowing it has a cracked block and doesn’t inform you of it, is a liar. America hasn’t learned yet, that lying and deception to chase the almighty dollar has destroyed their country.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }