Informing consumers

It is fair to say that informed consumers are a positive force in free markets because a market where “prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between sellers and consumers… free from any intervention by… authority” needs market competition to set prices. And competition is hinged on consumer choice. This is where information comes in - informed consumers have the tools to differentiate products and services and make buying decisions accordingly; uninformed consumers are dupes, malleable and subject to the persuasive antics of marketing campaigns. So only informed consumers are truly capable of participating in market competition necessary to a free market. This means a real free market demands producer transparency.

****

Examples of product labeling…

GMO content (in food)
list of ingredients (food)
Nutrition label (food)
Fiber content (clothing)
Washing instructions (clothing)
Made in…
Assembled in…

****

But separately mandating transparency for each class of consumer products through legislation counters the “free from any intervention by… authority” of free markets. So what would be the least intrusive legislative means to inform consumers about market products? A single law would encompass many of these issues: demand that all claims on product labels be truthful. This allows producers to be as transparent or opaque as they wish and consumers are assured that the available information is true, even when incomplete.

For example, any of the following lists of ingredients would be consistent with a truth in labeling law:
-flour, sugar, salt…
-pesticide free: pesticide free (flour, sugar, salt… )
-95% GMO free: non-GMO flour, non-GMO sugar, salt…
-organic: organic (flour, sugar, salt…)
-95% organic: organic flour, organic sugar, salt…
-flour, HFCS from glyphosphate treated corn, salt...

An interested consumer would reasonably infer the first three contains ingredients derived from conventional and/or GMO crops and the last contains GMO corn. A disinterested consumer would not bother to read the list and make purchases based on other criteria. And fanatical consumers will choose to cook at home from quality ingredients.

****

Food labeling rules have been among the most contentious in recent years. Anti-labeling forces have often made paternalistic arguments: studies have shown [GMOs] are not dangerous to humans; labeling [GMO] foods would promote fear of ‘frankenfood’; BSE testing/reporting would generate confusion amongst consumers. These are baseless arguments because added information will clear up the confusion of interested consumers and disinterested consumers will be unaffected one way or another.

****

Producers would not be able to claim unfairness because they are free to respond to market forces by changing their product… labeling, marketing, production, formula, etc... at will. A truth in labelling law does not compell transparency or disclosure. Untenable truths can be avoided by evasion, in which case, the only information available to consumers is through the process of comparison.

This also has the benefit of extending transparency to all consumer products, including manufactured goods and pharmaceuticals. Minimum regulation for maximum benefit for all concerned.