Why Buy the Milk if You Can’t Tell Whether It’s Hormone-Free?

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

My colleagues have done an excellent job of demonstrating the unconstitutionality and general craziness of the proposal to forbid labeling milk "hormone free." I’d like to point out that if we follow this line of reasoning, we’ll have to change the labels on all other breakfast foods, too:

  • Cereal will no longer be labeled as "crunchy" or "crispy," because that implies other cereals are soggy.

  • Eggs will no longer be labeled "free-range," because that implies some hens are raised in tight spaces.

  • No more golden delicious apples, because that implies other apples are not tasty.

  • No more "I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter," because that implies you could believe that other butter substitutes are just substitutes.

In short, this proposal is just as bad as the FDA’s idea to forbid labeling suncreens above SPF 30, because it implies that the higher SPF sunscreens offer more protection … even though they do.

Truth in Advertising

Posted on by Dave Roland

The St. Joseph News-Press has a report today (spotted via John Combest) about two bills before the General Assembly that would prohibit certain truthful labeling on dairy products. As the story points out, these bills have nothing to do with the contents of the milk bottles — they just prohibit how milk producers would be allowed to label their products.

This is a very important matter for many smaller dairy producers because, with so many large dairies utilizing hormones or other chemicals to increase their cows’ output, the smaller operations want to assure consumers that their milk is not produced using such methods. It’s a selling point that both helps the farmers differentiate their product from similar products and helps consumers make informed decisions about the food they are buying for their family. If a customer would prefer to purchase products that have not been produced with the use of certain hormones or chemicals, why on earth would the General Assembly try to prevent dairy farmers from providing the relevant information?

Special interests. And, unfortunately, they seem to be well-served by the bills currently under consideration. These bills are essentially geared to prevent large hormone- and chemical-using dairies from unwanted competition by the smaller guys — but they also specifically exempt dairy producers using "organic farming," as defined by the state. Organic farmers will love this, because they can continue to realize the benefits of differentiating their products from the large producers without having to compete for consumers against small non-organic dairies. Thus, the bill’s advocates can achieve their goals while minimizing opposition.

In addition to being terrible policy, this scheme is unconstitutional. Both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 8, of the Missouri Constitution protect freedom of expression — including commercial speech. These constitutional provisions safeguard the right to advertise truthfully about a product, so long as the product itself is legal and the advertisement does not mislead consumers about its attributes. The labels that would be banned by these bills are well within the constitutions’ protections because they merely make an accurate statement about the contents of the products therein. And even if it were found that a dairy producer’s labeling was false, the proper solution would be to punish the falsehood rather than to prohibit other producers from placing truthful labels on their products.

Please, Legislature, Save Us From the Horrors of Labeled Milk

Posted on by David Stokes

Mr. Combest has the link to a St. Joseph News-Press story on an absolutely ludicrous idea that combines the worst parts of the nanny state with the worst of rent seeking. Can you believe that some people, in 2008 … in America … think they have the right to produce milk without hormones, and to actually put a label on the milk saying that? If we allow this, pretty soon we’ll have to let liquor stores say they have the "coldest beer in town" even if they can not prove with certainty that it is, indeed, the coldest in town. Perhaps there is a legitimate reason why small dairy farmers should be prevented from labeling their milk "hormone free" — which it is — other than pressure from lobbyists for larger dairy farmers, but I can’t possibly imagine what that reason would be. At least one consumer quoted in the story understands capitalism and liberty:

"It’s my choice, whether it’s healthier or not,” Karen Schaefer said as she grabbed two bottles of Shatto milk from the dairy case. “If they don’t use the hormones, they should be allowed to say that.”

A supporter of the proposed ban on labeling hormone-free milk as hormone-free has a less clear understanding of such things — or perhaps he does understand, but just wants to throw up as many roadblocks as possible for his competition:

“In saying their milk doesn’t contain something, they are implying that other products do, which often isn’t the case,” Mr. Hegeman said.

So the fact that the small producers might IMPLY something (this must be said like Chris Penn in Reservoir Dogs) is now grounds to limit their freedom? This has to be the most unconstitutional proposal in Missouri since Ladue tried to ban signs protesting the Gulf War from someone’s yard. (This must be said like Lionel Hutz, attorney at law. I am not going to say where Lionel Hutz comes from, because if you don’t know, I have no desire to associate with you.)

Illinois Legislators Jump on the Sales Tax Holiday Bandwagon

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I should be more careful about what I say on this blog, because when I make crazy suggestions, people take my advice. When I asked whether longer sales tax holidays might be better than three-day ones, that was a rhetorical question. But now Illinois legislators are proposing a 10-day sales tax holiday to help people out with their back-to-school shopping in August. I predict that people will rearrange their shopping days to buy things during those 10 days, rather than later in the month. Kind of like how they react to Missouri’s sales tax holiday, only spread over a longer time period.

I hope Missouri and Illinois aren’t going to engage in an arms race of longer and longer sales tax holidays. If a state decides its sale tax is too onerous, it can lower the rate. That would help people and the economy all year round, and people wouldn’t have to change their shopping schedules in August.

Missouri’s Kelo

Posted on by Dave Roland

The nation was stunned in 2005 when the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Constitution allowed the City of New London, Conn., to force its citizens out of their homes simply because the city thought it could generate more taxes if their modest residences were replaced with luxury condominiums and high-end retail stores. The popular outrage against the Supreme Court’s decision resulted in a widespread effort (in which the Show-Me Institute’s director of policy, Jenifer Zeigler Roland, played a major role) to make sure that Kelo could not happen in other states.

Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated by a recent court decision, Missouri was among the states whose eminent domain reforms merely rearranged deck chairs on the Titanic. Unless the Missouri Supreme Court proved willing to restore the property rights guaranteed by the state’s Constitution, cities and agencies across the state could continue to take perfectly normal properties in order to give them away for the profit of a governmentally preferred owner. With last week’s unfortunate decision in City of Arnold v. Tourkakis, (and kudos to Nick for an excellent post on this topic) it seems unlikely that the Missouri Supreme Court is willing to prevent the eminent domain abuse that currently plagues this state.

This abandonment of property rights is deeply unsettling. As a nation — and as individual states — Americans adopted Bills of Rights in order to make sure that certain essential liberties would never be subject to restriction or elimination. Among those freedoms is the assurance that governments have no right to take away someone’s property unless it is required for the construction of a road or public building. The real-life consequences when the government does take someone’s property illustrate why this power mustbe tightly limited.

Eminent domain is rarely threatened against wealthy people or those who can fight back. Instead, the usual targets are communities composed of minorities, the poor, and/or the elderly. In the middle of the 20th century, cities so regularly used eminent domain against black neighborhoods that the practice was commonly referred to as "Negro removal." That offensive label eventually fell out of use, but poor black communities continue to be condemned far more frequently than white communities. A 1989 study estimated that of 10,000 families that Baltimore displaced in the name of removing blight, fully 90 percent were African-American. Mindy Fullilove, an expert on the impact of eminent domain on minority communities, estimates that more than 1,600 black neighborhoods have been destroyed nationwide.

But then there are elderly people. In Kelo v. New London, Wilhelmina Dery was an 87-year-old still living in her family home, in which she was born. All she wanted was to live out her final days in those beloved, familiar settings. She eventually did get her wish, but only because she died before the city got its chance to kick her out of her home.

In Norwood, Ohio, the city took the residence of Carl and Joy Gamble, an older couple who received their condemnation notice just days after they were finally able to retire. They were uprooted from the home in which they had raised their family and built their American Dream, and separated from their nearby family and friends, after which they moved into a small apartment with a daughter in Kentucky. After a grueling three-year legal war, the Ohio Supreme Court vindicated their rights, but the stress drove Carl to his grave and left Joy in such delicate health that she couldn’t return to the home she had sacrificed so much to save.

I was recently told about an elderly couple in Rolla who weren’t physically able to cope with a move when they were threatened with eminent domain. The wife had Alzheimer’s disease and the husband was terrified to complicate her dementia by moving her to an unfamiliar environment. Unmoved by their plight, the city tried to make it look like they were just holding out for more money. One councilmember said they should just move to a nursing home.

Someone’s home represents their stability and shelter, both in physical and emotional ways. It is the centering location in their life, the place to which they should be able to return each day and know that they have their own place in the world. These things are especially precious for people who can claim ownership of very little else. But rather than protecting the rights of these citizens, both courts and legislatures have been content to sacrifice their security in the name of "progress," or — more coarsely — so they can be replaced with a wealthier, "more desirable" class of people.

Eminent domain abuse is not just unconstitutional — it is unjust, immoral, and abhorrent. And, assuming that Missouri’s lawmakers and courts will continue to stand by as more and more home and business owners are wrecked by these abuses, the people of this state will have no choice but to
amend the state Constitution in the hopes of restoring the security that should be an American birthright.

Markets Develop, Even When Suppressed (and when you’re a kid)

Posted on by Justin Hauke

To combat childhood obesity, school districts across the country have adopted ever-more-draconian measures to ensure that students are provided with a “healthy diet” throughout their school day.

While I take no issue with schools encouraging healthy eating habits (certainly, I think this is a good thing), I do object to some of the more stringent measures that schools have chosen to take, such as zero tolerance policies. Mostly, my objections stem from the fact that I am fundamentally opposed to omnipresent “father knows best” statist policy, in which the state tells people how they should or should not run their lives. But it’s not just that I object to the terms of such measures, it’s that enforcement of such standards is practically impossible. Schools should recognize that it is up to parents to instill good eating habits in their children, and not the responsibility of the schools themselves. Because despite school districts’ best efforts to prevent “unhealthy food” in their schools, where there’s a will there’s a way.

Case in point: A California-based newspaper details the ever-growing black market for candy among grade-school students. Of course, this is old news to young’ns like me. I remember my own candy racketeering in middle school. Of course, I was only a candy runner in those days (I helped deliver it), not the actual candy supplier (that is, I didn’t keep it in my locker … those kids got suspended).

If SMI addressed social issues, I might argue that this logic unfortunately carries forward to the adult world, as well. But mostly, I think it is interesting how even children understand fundamental economics. That is, when schools (or government officials) limit supply amid strong consumer demand, they make it very profitable for black-market suppliers to deliver their product.

Good Thing It’s Not Called “Freetown”

Posted on by Justin Hauke

Frenchtown, a historic French quarter of St. Charles, is the latest challenger of spurious eminent domain abuse.

In 2006, the St. Charles City Council voted to designate 15 acres of land in the Frenchtown area as “blighted.” Once again, the rationale for the “blight” designation had little to do with actual urban decay. Rather, it was ostensibly seen as little more than a policy tool to award property tax break incentives to wealthy developers. For a review of Missouri eminent domain abuse, I remind readers to check out Tim Lee’s comprehensive study.

The worst part of the story, however, is the shameless defense by the city’s eminent domain advocates:

Supporters of the measure argued that a large-scale effort was needed to combat longstanding decay and that a piecemeal approach […] wouldn’t work. They said eminent domain was a last-resort tactic that probably wouldn’t be used in most cases.

And yet these same advocates argue that eminent domain should be used in this situation. But what keeps future developers from appealing to the same logic? Surely, the eminent domain advocates recognize the slippery slope they have created. If property rights aren’t constitutionally protected, then there’s no reason to believe that any developer’s assets will be any more secure than the property they originally usurped.

What incentive do businesses have to relocate to a district that has already set a precedent for eminent domain abuses? What about the Homer Tourkakises of the world? Entrepreneurs who invest their time and savings into developing a vibrant business in St. Charles are now at the mercy of future political whims. Eminent domain doesn’t strengthen property values, it destroys them.

Who is the better steward of land resources: the vested individual with a business interest, or an unelected bureaucrat with a vision?

KC Budget Crunch Continues; Payroll Still Padded

Posted on by David Stokes

The Kansas City Star continues its thorough coverage of the budget situation in KC with a clarifying and honest article about the background of the budget problems — albeit one presented in a mildly annoying Q&A format. Don’t get me wrong, the strengths of the article far outweigh the format, and at least Q&A is better than the worst writing format of all: the pathetic "5 myths about something or other." But back to the budget.

The most important part is right in the beginning (emphasis added for all following excerpts):

Q: How did the city get into this mess?

A: The bottom line is that, for years, Kansas City’s expenses have grown faster than its revenues. Since the 1970s, the city’s population has dropped from more than 500,000 to about 450,000. Its infrastructure needs have increased substantially, and revenue growth has not kept pace with inflation. The city provides millions of dollars for indigent health care and other social and cultural services that the suburbs don’t have. Since early 2000, Kansas City has also taken on mounting debt obligations and guaranteed incentive payments to developers.

Meanwhile, gasoline costs are skyrocketing and the city must spend more for pensions, health care and salary raises. Although the city downsized in 2003, the work force has crept back up from 4,344 in 2005 to 4,678 currently.

Too many TIFs and too many city employees are obviously a recipe for budget deficits, but I object to the theoretical aspects of the problem just as much as I object to the budget realities. Too many government employees are there intentionally, as part of political machines, designed to be kept on the payroll for the benefit of the governing faction. This is true even in civil service positions, because civil service employees are usually going to want to grow government for their own benefits as much as patronage employees do. (Do not take this as a criticism of civil service rules; they are clearly preferable to patronage.) Too many TIFs, or other abatements, play into the idea that the government — rather than the market — knows what the economy of Kansas City needs, by granting favors to certain plans but not others. Next point in the article:

Q: What are the main proposals to cut spending?

A: Funkhouser would slash the zoo and Liberty Memorial subsidies, eliminate 220 jobs, and close the jail and the animal shelter. At the same time, he would add $10 million for street paving, hire 20 new police officers and spend $200,000 on a citywide education summit.

City Manager Wayne Cauthen initially recommended using a $14.6 million wireless telephone settlement and across-the-board department cuts to help balance the budget. Critics said Cauthen papered over the city’s problems; he has since submitted alternatives.

Last week, Finance Committee Chairwoman Deb Hermann and Vice Chairwoman Jan Marcason submitted a compromise that pared back Funkhouser’s harshest cuts but cautioned against Cauthen’s optimistic revenue projections. It includes many difficult choices. A committee narrowly sent that plan on to the full council.

I commend the mayor for his proposal to cut government jobs, for reasons discussed above. If a job is not necessary, you should eliminate it rather than just keep someone on for the benefit of the machine — or to be nice, on the taxpayer’s dime. I think that outsourcing such things as the jail and animal shelter are worth strong consideration, but I don’t know enough about the exact details of both to argue for or against closing them. And I don’t think that now is the right time to fund a new summit of any kind, be it talking about education or climbing Taum Sauk.

Certainly, the cell phone settlement will help — as well as provide regular revenues in the future — but using a one-time windfall to close a problem just moves the problem to next year, when it may be even greater. By making the tough choices now, the Kansas City administration and council are doing what they were elected to do. I find it very impressive.

Bills About Internet Bullying

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

An article in the Post-Dispatch summarizes the various proposals on cyber-bullying that the Missouri and Illinois legislatures are considering. Like all the other proposals I’ve seen on this issue, these would be difficult to enforce and probably wouldn’t have prevented the Megan Meier tragedy had they been law in 2006. Here’s an example:

One lawmaker has suggested making it a felony for any adult to have electronic contact that "demonstrates a knowing disregard for the health, safety and welfare" of the child.

How can you tell whether the disregard is knowing or not? But at least that proposal just forbids bad behavior (albeit ambiguously) — other ideas out there would establish new programs and requirements only tangentially related to what happened to Megan Meier. One bill would require public schools to institute policies about online bullying, never mind that Megan’s alleged harasser was an adult woman outside of the control of public school administrators.

These legislators are well-intentioned, but the most effective protection against online bullies are watchful parents.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging