Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!pertec!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Libertarianism and the Police Message-ID: <380@kontron.UUCP> Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 17:49:08 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.380 Posted: Thu Jul 18 17:49:08 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 21:16:29 EDT References: <55@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1594@dciem.UUCP> <1617@dciem.UUCP> <354@kontron.UUCP> <611@cybvax0.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 81 > In article <354@kontron.UUCP> Clayton Cramer writes: > > Private quality testing groups are in a position to put a stamp of > > approval (much like Underwriters Labs) on products that meet standards. > > (Very much like the Food and Drug Administration does with meat.) You > > can be sure that grocery store chains would make a big hype that, > > "We carry only Consumer Research Institute approved foods." as a way > > of encouraging customers to shop there. In short order, I suspect that > > all chain stores, and almost all independent grocery stores, would > > do so. > > Sounds good, but there are a variety of reasons why it wouldn't work as well > as the current system. > > Once you have consumer research groups competing to certify quality, > there are basic conflicts of interest. First, the research group has a high > value placed on keeping information about the products private for two major > reasons: 1) so that your competitors have to conduct expensive certification > procedures themselves, and 2) to protect yourself from potential discovery > of negligence. These are not large problems for the FDA. > 1. Consumer research groups like Consumers Union stay afloat financially by making the information available in their magazine. Your statement is demonstrably false. 2. I don't understand WHAT you are talking about. Do you mean an manufacturer would keep data relating to their product secret to avoid lawsuits? You are correct. Consumer research organizations would have a powerful incentive to locate such information in the interests of maintaining their image. You may also recall that the exploding Pinto gas tank idiocy was discovered at least partly because some Ford engineers leaked memos disclosing willful negligence on the part of the company. Even if you assume that everyone who works for a company is without scruples, you can be certain that some bribes, appropriately placed, can put all sorts of evidence of negligence into the public record --- and consumer research groups seem like a very appropriate group to do that. > Second, no information that would allow comparison of client's products to > those of others will be released unless it shows the client's product is > better. Non-profit groups don't have this problem. > I'm still confused by what you are saying. Consumer research groups right now buy competing products for testing. They don't rely on the manufacturer being helpful. > Third, neither the client nor the research organization will be willing > to bear the cost of failure to maintain quality: they will try to offload > it as much as possible on the consumer, and let the consumer attempt to > prove "fraud". These sorts of gambles can be quite economic, especially > in a case like the recent Lindane contamination of watermelons. The > melons were ordered off the shelves by a government agency, after another > agency detected the pattern of poisoning. Competing organizations would > not be willing to share information that makes them potentially vulnerable, > and would be more hesitant to order possibly dangerous foods off the shelves > because of the costs to their clients: the markets and growers. They would > not want to publicize the danger of already-purchased melons because of the > bad PR. They would want to conceal their own knowledge of the problem > to justify inaction in case of later torts. > Consumers Union is not paid by manufacturers of products; they therefore have no incentive to be concerned about what manufacturers think. Competing organizations would have a powerful incentive to expose corruption by their competitors, just to demonstrate they group A is more trustworthy than group B. > My sister is a safety director for a large pharmeceutical firm. This is > quite an analogous position, because she is essentially competing with > other safety directors who could do her job, yet faces the conflicts of > interest of keeping the facilities safe for employees, not creating many > many expenses, and not leaving herself or the company liable. She faces > all of the above problems, but is glad (as a conscientious, pro-worker > professional) that there are government agencies to provide the minimal > framework of things that must be done. > -- > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Your sister's position is NOT analogous. She works for the company. If she worked for an organization that was responsible to the employees (for example a union), she would not be facing these conflicts. I don't think you understand the concept of private certification.