On POTUS this morning on satellite radio, host Tim Farley was interviewing Washington Post columnist Dana Millbank about various political topics.  One topic was the reaction to First Lady Michelle Obama's whole nutrition and fitness initiative, and the reaction by many pundits to her getting "caught" eating ribs on vacation , and then the broader topic of using the "bully pulpit" of government to get people to eat more nutritiously and exercise more.

In discussing the government's role in such issues, Farley made a statement that perhaps those criticizing the government's involvement in such issues should advocate getting the government out of food altogether, thus when going to the store inspecting their own steaks, "poking and prodding" the meat to determine if it is fit to eat on an individual basis — basically, implying that if there were no Department of Agriculture inspecting food, we'd be forced to fend for ourselves.

The reality is that if there were no government food inspection, there would probably be a private sector substitute.  Consider Underwriters Laboratories:  a private, non-profit enterprise, UL certifies over 20 billion products across the globe.  Consumer Reports is another non-profit organization that helps consumers choose better, safer, more economical products.  Organizations like the Better Business Bureau act as private watchdogs on businesses and charities.  Is there any doubt that, absent the government involvement, private sector food inspection organizations would not rise to fill the void?  Perhaps there would be a variety of such organizations — both for- and non-profit — that would compete against each other.  Those that performed best would be able to charge more to for their certification, and products that met those certifications could likewise charge a premium — giving both the inspector and the producer a direct financial incentive to provide a quality product.  Consumers who were defrauded or harmed by products that didn't meet certifications would have opportunities for redress through the court system, providing an even greater financial incentive for not providing bad product.

Many people — perhaps even most — might prefer having the government be in charge of inspection.  An absence of government regulation brings back nightmares The Jungle-era meatpacking plants in the days of Upton Sinclair.  However, the world is a different place than it was in the early 20th Century; the prevalence of the internet, TV and radio, and worker mobility make more information available instantly and provide opportunities for workers to seek more favorable working conditions.

It's not realistic to suggest that it would be possible to move to a private system of food inspection.  It is most certainly incorrect, however, to assert that without it consumers would be isolated and helpless.