[quote=harvey]You could start with explaining how private-sector is going to do a better job of “inspecting our meats.”

Seriously though, are the functions of agencies like the FDA/USDA/FAA/NTSB etc. really going be better served by a yet-untested private solution?

(Question is for sduude, not mm)[/quote]

Hey harvey. Thanks for asking. I’m not sure I really need someone to inspect my meat and if I did, I’m pretty sure I could find someone to do it for less than the FDA.

I also tend to put some faith in people. I don’t think our meat is safe because we have the FDA. I think it is safe because there aren’t any ranchers/butchers in the world that want to kill people with their meat. It is bad for business. Yes, people make mistakes and get sloppy and even greedy, so you need some way to keep that from happening.

Likely this role could be fulfilled by insurance companies. Killing people with food you sell is bad business and insuring companies that kill people with food they sell is even worse. If I could see a stamp on there that says “Insured by xxx financial” then I would know that there is someone who is protecting not only my interest but their own interests as well by making sure that meat is safe.

Businesses like Consumer Reports could take on an increasing role as well.

Also, I would like to see the role of government be more of a facilitator than funder. Maybe they certify several capable inspectors who could compete for the inspection business and earn reputations for certifying meat that doesn’t kill people.

And, after all is said and done – if the private market can’t provide a way to ensure that the meat is safe, then the market for meat would probably dry up, which means the FDA has been keeping an industry in business that shouldn’t be which means a whole lot of malinvestment.

I’m not saying or implying this is the case in that particular market, but just showing how sometimes these government agencies that people think they need can bring about unintended consequences.