Should the search for the source of salmonella be left to the free market?

Question

If the free market can solve trade regulation problems, wouldn't this be a good test?

My sense is no, that Agri-biz is too far separated from the consumer in this case as in many other (less threatening) problems.

Answer 1

Considering that the full might of the FDA and CDC (what's left of both agencies after all the Bush budget cuts) cannot figure it out, maybe the free market can.

But then again, I doubt they would report it if they did.  Can't afford to lose $1/share on Wall Street for bad news.

Corporations have repeatedly proven that they are not good stewards of the public interest.

Answer 2

Uhm... no, they wouldn't have told us in the first place.

Answer 3

It is ultimately about controlling the food supply. How many of you could feed your families without  Wal-Mart?

Answer 4

No, because the free market is based on profit and loss.

For example, say is costs $100 million to stop distribution of tomatoes that may or may not have salmonella. Compare this to the statistical risk that some people may get sick or even die. Say the actuary calculations show that based on the risk, it will cost $80 million to compensate the survivors of the people who die from salmonella poisoning.

This means that the free market would choose to pay $80 million in compensation rather than $100 million to prevent any illness and death.

Hence my answer - no.