Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nominated to the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) was in Washington D.C last week to take questions from lawmakers he tries to convince to confirm his nomination after Donald Trump takes office. 

Many skeptics of his policies and beliefs say that he takes a heavy regulatory approach to “Make America Healthy Again.” Kennedy attempted to emulate the European model of food regulation, but as a European who is very familiar with Europe’s failed experience with food reforms leading to less choice and higher prices, I would caution against this approach.

RFK Jr. has previously taken aim at food dyes, telling Fox Newsthat food dyes are carcinogenic and cause ADHD, implying that they ought to be banned by the FDA. The Food and Drug Administration recently started considering a ban on red dye No. 3, which activists believe is “linked” to hyperactivity.

Here’s the crucial point to consider: The word “linked” does a lot of heavy lifting here because this particular dye only affected rats that were given unusually high doses in scientific studies. 

One could write at length about the reliability of animal studies and what they really mean for humans, but the mere fact that the doses were much higher than what even a human would consume shows us that environmental activists do not understand the concept of dosage. Too much of anything will be bad for you — in fact, “too much” describes quite literally the exact quantity that is excessive. 

For instance, this is equally true for glyphosate residues in beer or aspartame sweetener in Diet Coke. You would need to drink 264 gallons of beer for the glyphosate to adversely affect you or gulp down 36 cans of sugar-free Coke for the aspartame to be bad for you. 

Farmers are people who know this very well: the right amount of fertilizer grows your crops; a too large amount will kill them. This is precisely why we look to scientific agencies to analyze the dosage that is safe for human consumption.

As a European, the approach of regulating everything with such a heavy hand reminds me of home. Over here in Europe, the precautionary approach to food regulation means that we spend more on food and have fewer choices in our supermarkets.

Each time I visit a supermarket in America, I walk the aisles in awe, like a refugee of communist East Germany discovering capitalism in the West after the fall of the wall. In Europe, we take the precautionary approach in most things: We ban or slap labels on things that don’t need them, much like California, which requires coffee to carry a cancer warning label. 

When I visit American grocery stores I see that Fanta has a bright and appealing orange color, while its European equivalent looks like expired lemon juice. Why is that? The food dye used in American Fanta isn’t banned, because regulators in Europe were also unable to prove any negative health effects related to the dyes, but in a precautionary approach, still require a health warning label.

To presumably avoid a label that would scare off consumers, Coca-Cola simply doesn’t color the drink in Europe.

I find a future without food coloring bleak. While we might be adults, we still enjoy color. It inspires us to see things other than gray. 

A supermarket aisle is supposed to be a colorful experience, whether it’s the packaging or the food itself. However, on a more significant point, how paternalistic is the approach to removing color in the first place?

My impression was that the last presidential election was also a repudiation of big government — that the government ought not to tell you how to live your life, what to eat, and what to do. More individual freedom, instead of government mandates, through which bureaucrats determine how best to live your life. 

It is a laudable aim to want to make Americans healthier, but the idea of banning food dyes neither achieves that nor entices Americans to become more responsible consumers. If we look to the government to even tell us what color our food should be, where will it end?

Originally published here

A month after postal workers walked off the job, the Government of Canada asked the Canada Industrial Relations Board to order an end to the strike. This may seem like a relief to Canadians, but it is also time to reflect on why the country is forced to suffer such disruptions every few years. How much longer do Canadians have to be held hostage to the whims of a Crown corporation with a monopoly on letter mail?

The strike has caused charities to lose significant sums of money at a time when Canadians are usually feeling particularly generous. For example, the Ottawa Citizen recently reported that the Ottawa Mission, a local homeless shelter, relies on holiday charity mail-outs for donations from a broad base of donors, especially at this time of year. The Salvation Army has also stated that donations are down 50 per cent since the beginning of the strike.

The Canada Post strike could also not have come at a worse time for Canadian small businesses, as this is the season in which their sales are usually highest. Back in November, the Globe and Mail reported that “​​small businesses, which tend to be dependent on Canada Post because it is a cheaper option for parcel delivery, have warned that a prolonged strike could devastate them financially and could lead to higher costs for consumers.”

This has proven to be correct. I spoke with Canadian small business owner Brynn Deamer, who said that, “Canada Post is the only option for Canadians to send letter mail, all of my Canadian customers must use other parcel carriers like UPS, Purolator, FedEx. So when my customer orders, they must now pay at least $15 for shipping to get their orders on time, which, with my items being an average $10-$40, that type of shipping cost is far too high.”

What happens if a customer doesn’t want to pay $15-$20 for shipping from a small business? “I’m still offering the free Canada Post shipping option, but they have to wait to get their package shipped out until the strike is over,” Deamer said. Even though the strike has now ended, her customers will likely be waiting a long time, as experts are saying that most packages will not arrive before Christmas.

Deamer went on to recount what she has seen happening to other small businesses: “Some are taking the route that I did and are offering other shipping options, and some are all together shutting down their shops temporarily and hoping the strike ends soon.”

Vincent Geloso, a Canadian economist who teaches at George Mason University, recently argued that it might be time to break up the Canada Post monopoly. There is a precedent for this. He gives examples found in Europe, where, as a result of a European Commission directive, “all letters regardless of weight have been open to competition since 2013. The directive does not mandate the privatization of state-owned postal companies; it simply ends postal monopolies.”

Without a monopoly over letter mail, Canada Post would have to compete with other providers like any other company would. Workers could still strike when they felt they needed to, but such strikes would no longer hold Canadians hostage due to the Crown corporation’s monopoly.

Some European countries went even further and privatized their postal systems. As a result, Geloso points out that prices for stamps and other postal services fell by 11 per cent in Austria, 15 per cent in the Netherlands and 17 per cent in Germany over 10 year when adjusted for inflation, with all those countries now having lower prices than the European average.

Before the strike happened, Canada Post was planning on increasing stamp prices in January to try and generate about $80 million in revenue. Now that the strike has added to its financial burden, Canadians shouldn’t be surprised if harsher actions are taken to recoup the Crown corporation’s losses.

The last time Canada Post workers went on strike was in 2018, and it was also timed to coincide with the start of the holiday season. Canada Post’s monopoly allows its union to hold the entire country hostage, especially during the holidays. Without that monopoly, workers could still strike, but it would no longer bring charities and small businesses to their knees. It is time for Canadians to seriously rethink this government-granted monopoly before the next strike hits and ruins another holiday season.

Originally published here

A federal court has blocked enforcement of a requirement that most restaurants and other small businesses report who owns them to the U.S. Department of the Treasury by Jan. 1. 

Failure to comply could have exposed covered companies to fines of up to $10,000, though the federal agency charged with policing the first-of-its-kind mandate indicated that it would provide an unofficial grace period to foster compliance. 

The requirement applies to most U.S. limited liability companies, or LLCs, as well as small corporations. Concerns that employ at least 20 people or have at least $5 million in revenues are exempted, as are 23 specific types of companies. 

Covered operations formed prior to Jan. 1, 2024, are required to reveal who controls them—what Treasury calls the beneficial ownership information, or BOI—in a filing submitted to the department no later than Jan. 1, 2025. Companies that were formed since Jan. 1 had 90 days after they were created to provide Treasury with the info.

Read the full text here