Consumer protection laws and business-individual health conflicts

Business Law

During the consumer movement of the 1960s and 1970s, Congress enacted a substantial amount of legislation to protect "the good of the people." There is only one problem with consumer protection laws -- they are slow to react and even harder to enforce. As a result of this situation, corporations are allowed to profit at the expense of consumers' health. The resistance comes in a number of stages. The first is denial of the problem, wherein the corporations argue that there is not enough evidence to link their products with the negative outcomes that are being reported. Then there is the lobbying that causes politicians to defer action until a later date, or ignore the call to action altogether. Too often, when statutes are enacted, corporations fight them to the end, resulting in flawed legislation that either has loopholes, require interpretation from the judicial branch or is difficult to enforce. As a result, consumer protections are subsumed to corporate interests.

There are many examples of this over the past few decades. A recent example would be Republican efforts to water down the role of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, something that will allow financial corporations -- already responsible for a horrible recession and lingering economic malaise -- to further abuse consumers (Puzzanghera, 2011). Other examples include the seemingly neverending battle against cigarette companies, who continue to deny links between their toxic products and cancer (Proctor, 2012). Sugar consumption is linked to cancer, diabetes and heart disease, yet there are no controls on the use of sugars in processed foods. Little to nothing has been done to address the obesity epidemic in the U.S. Even addictive substances can be added to food with impunity, as the legislative branch remains years if not decades behind the level of scientific knowledge about these issues. Evidence-based policy is shown the door in favor of pleasing corporate donors, a reality that is nothing short of corruption.

Facts Relevant to the Legal Issue

Hellmich (2009) reports that studies have shown that the obesity epidemic will cost America $344 billion in medical expenses by 2018. The costs of carrying extra weight are measured in cancer rates and in the increased risk of diabetes and heart disease. Given how important health care costs -- and the control thereof -- are to the national budget, this should be a critical political issue. Yet the laws do not address this issue at all, leaving all Americans to pay both directly and indirectly for corporations to profit from robbing us of our health.

The reality is that our food is contributing to this obesity epidemic. There are other factors such as a sedentary lifestyle, and it is noted that many food additives have not been studied for their impact on our health (Goldberg & Zimmerman, 2011), but many are suspected to contribute negatively to our health and to obesity in particular. High fructose corn syrup, something that only became common in food in the early 1980s, is one of the cited culprits (Bray, Nielsen & Popkin, 2004).

That much food makes it to market without significant testing is alarming. The FDA is charged with regulating our food supply, but it rarely acts as a watchdog, or best acts like one with few teeth. An example of this would be the recent recall of hydrolyzed vegetable protein. This additive, manufactured by a Las Vegas company, grew in popularity to the point where it was used in thousands of different food products. Yet it was subject to a recall because of salmonella risks (MSNBC, 2012). Products like this should not make it to market, but FDA approval is a rubber stamp, on the assumption that if any problems emerge they will be dealt with at a later date. There are no long-term longitudinal studies done on food additives, so we may consume them for decades before finding out that they are toxic, or causing concerns. All the while, corporations are profiting from these additives that are killing us.

Legal Issues

The legal framework for business in the U.S. is complex. In keeping with the spirit of free market capitalism, Congress is historically hesitant to act laws that restrict business unless there is a compelling reason. Early consumer protection laws were written in response to allegations in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle about the meatpacking industry. The result was the Pure Food and Drug Act. A different form of consumer protection was the Sherman Act of 1890, which provided protection against monopoly and anti-competitive practices on the part of business. Consumers benefit from these laws because they encourage competition and make it very difficult for companies to obtain and subsequently abuse monopoly positions in the market.

Consumer protection legislation, however, runs in contrast to policies at the Commerce Department, which has a mission of fostering a business-friendly environment. In general, the Commerce Department sees just about any attempt to regulate the activities of business as detrimental to business. This view may be technically correct, but misinterprets the role of government to be a tool of business. Government does represent business interests, but must balance business interests with the interests of the people. This means enacting consumer protection laws. The underlying principle in most countries is that there are limits to the extent that companies should go in the pursuit of profit, and harming people is one of those limits that should not be crossed. This basic ethical view is not held by many American corporations, and that puts the government in an inherent conflict of interest in trying to protect the rights of citizens not to be subject to needless harm with the desire of corporations to maximize their profits.

A number of acts have been enacted in order to enhance consumer protections, but there remain significant gaps with respect to dangerous products, especially in our food. According to the Federal Trade Commission, protections extend to textiles, lending, credit, petroleum marketing, insurance, telemarketing, gambling, pornography and a whole host of other industries. The strong lobby of food industries, and the agricultural businesses that support them, mean that there is a gap in legislation about that set of products.

Conclusion

The government intervenes in the markets for products when those products put the consumer at risk. This was the cause for the original Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and all the subsequent laws since that regarding food. Yet even today, government action lags on unhealthy food additives, and the laws on the subject are vague and weak. As a result, there is a health epidemic. Not only will this cost hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy -- arguably more than the profits earned by the companies who thwart this legislation -- but millions will die young and suffer as well. That runs contrary to over one hundred years of consumer protections regarding our food supply.