Bugs in your burger

When government programs are spun into existence, not all goes according to plan

In 2015, a friend, school choice supporter, and Idaho Freedom Foundation donor called to alert me to a bill that she was supporting. Despite being very much a libertarian-leaning Republican, she liked the idea of the state creating a STEM Action Center, STEM being shorthand for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. The stated purpose of the program, as described in the Statement of Purpose for House Bill 302 was to help move Idaho kids into STEM-related jobs after graduation, and at nominal cost.

This photo will make more sense if you keep reading

As per the Freedom Index, we never viewed legislation through the authors’ intentions. If a bill created a new government program, it was always a negative score. It didn’t matter the excuses given. And it most definitely didn’t matter who was supporting it. My donor friend said she understood this but wanted me to understand the reasons for her support for the bill. Still, I warned that the day will come when she regrets the decision.

That’s because when it comes to government programs, things never go quite as advertised. Conservatives who support government programs tend to imagine them as they might run them. That’s seldom what happens. And in the case of the STEM Action center, it didn’t take long for things to run off the rails.

A decade on from the program’s creation, the center has gone from costing $647,000 in the first year (admittedly down from the original estimate of $2 million), to $6.2 million this year.

What’s more, the STEM Action Center has used some of its money to fund Idaho Businesses for Education, an anti-school choice lobby organization, which is ironic given the fact that one of the agency’s original backers was so ardently pro-school choice.

---

All of this leads me to discuss another attempt by a conservative to use government in way in a seemingly “limited government” way, but from the get-go obviously would not work as predicted. Republican state Rep. Heather Scott tried to create a new government program in the state Department of Agriculture to regulate food labels for added insects and lab-grown meats. Scott voiced disappointment with the fact that her legislation failed recently in committee.

Now, keep in mind that Heather is one of my favorite legislators in Boise. She’s in a league with very few others that I hold in super high regard for their vote records. If she continues on her path, she’ll join the camp of former legislators that never changed their values: friends of mine like Lenore Hardy Barrett, Maurice Clements, Lee Barron, Ron Crane, and Dick Harwood, to name a few.

But here, Heather made the same mistake that other conservatives make: she imagines herself running the program. State and federal agencies are already involved in regulating food, at a variety of different levels. Food label requirements tend to happen federally, but there’s nothing magical about the federal government doing so (in fact there’s nothing in the Constitution to make it the federal government’s role).

But food labels don’t mysteriously leave out certain ingredients because of lack of space. Label requirements are written into laws and regulations, the latter of which is negotiated by industries and by the agencies in charge of the program.

This is why it is the practice of the federal Food and Drug Administration to allow things like mold, insect parts, and rat feces in your food without it being disclosed on the nutrition label.

This occurs throughout the government-regulated agriculture industry. When I worked for the state Department of Agriculture in 2005-2006, I was surprised to learn that “organic” doesn’t mean “grown without chemigation.” This is another example of an area where industry negotiates with the government to define what constitutes an organic product and the details are administered by government regulators. This is still much the case today.

So had Heather’s bill passed, the result would have been the same. There’d be crickets in your taco, but as long as it was less than 5% cricket, that’s OK and not necessary to announce in a label. However, a private sector food monitor — Heather describes a phone app on your phone that does this — would be more inclined to provide an honest portrait of what’s in your food. It doesn’t require a single government agency, rule, or law. The app developers need to get it right or people will stop using the app. There’s a market force at work that requires an honest accounting of what’s going on. You don’t get that in government.

More on another substantial problem with Heather’s bill, below, for paid subscribers.