Truck and Barter

Another quick pointer of a post here, to an interesting interview I read via Econopundit. Bruce Ames, the noted researcher whose work has been trumpeted by both sides of the environmentalist aisle (he appears to have been a bit vocal, and has now altered his message, but overall he strikes me as a fair scientist presenting his findings, rather than a sort of bell-ringer), gives Virginia Postrel a great interview about chemical bans, carcinogens, and more.

The part that inspired a post:

In 1990, he spoke out against California's Proposition 128, which would have banned many pesticides, and he has been highly critical of the ban on Alar. The best way to prevent cancer, Ames now believes, is to "eat your veggies." Any government action that makes fruits and vegetables more expensive ultimately causes cancer. In recent years, Ames has added a dollop of the economist's sense of trade-offs to the cancer researcher's zeal for prevention.

As I've mentioned in the past, I often tend to see regulation as not only an interference with economic processes, but as potentially harmful as well. While I can't speak to the science behind this one (the link between veggies and cancer rates), I do think the point is a valid one. Even if it's not certain that it's cancer-causing to eat less healthy, less "natural" foods (I still don't understand the term "organic" -- wouldn't "chemical free" work, and not invite the common comment that ALL food is basically organic?) it is definitely bad for your health.

If regulation limits the access lower-income people have to healthy food, then it simply continues the trend of having the incidence of obesity fall heavily on the poor. (An interesting paper here. And this is an overview presented at a conference.) Fast and pre-made food is often cheaper, and easier, so it's more heavily consumed by people with tighter budgets.

Banning chemicals on poorly founded beliefs could easily drive up the cost of production for farmers (as crop yields are lower, the approved chemicals could be more expensive, and so on) and ultimately the price of the goods at the market. Regulation on suspicion now could mean a certain impact on the frequency of obesity -- a health issue with side effects well-demonstrated across the nation (not to mention the long-term impact on health insurance costs and therefore premia).

And of course, the issue is of much more immediate concern for some. The UN's ban on DDT prevents the use of one of the (if not the) best tool to fight malaria based on science that is challenged by respected groups, and not just those of us who are skeptical of all regulation in general.