My Opinion
Government regulation shouldn't be over-regulated

I went to Giant the other day and bought some really nice chicken. Not a very exciting opening sentence, is it? It's not too special, because having quality meat available at the grocery stores is something we take for granted.

I don't understand why so many people are against government regulation these days. Frankly, I am glad to live in a country where I know the food I buy will be safe. I am glad that when I buy cold medicine the Food and Drug Administration has tested this drug. They have certified to the best of expert knowledge that, not only is my cold medicine safe, but it also effectively accomplishes what the label claims it will accomplish.

Highlighting the widespread negative public opinion about government regulation, the House of Representatives recently passed the Risk Assessment and Communication Act of 1995. The legislation would require proposed regulations protecting health, safety and the environment to undergo a detailed assessment of their effectiveness at reducing risk. The act also requires a cost-benefit analysis to be performed, so that if the cost of implementing a regulation is much greater than "anticipated benefit," the regulation would not be permitted.

Republicans, the primary supporters of this bill, promise us freedom from government. The Risk Assessment and Communication Act provides freedom to big business afraid of the cost of environmental and safety regulations. What will be the cost of reduced regulation to the rest of the country? Supporters have effectively convinced many Americans that the bill will improve their everyday lives by reducing the high cost of environmental clean-up in situations in which the benefits may not be significant.

This may be shocking, but government regulations exist for a reason. In an ideal world, people would take responsibility for the effects of their actions on the world around them, but please, this is real life. And here are some real-life examples.

The technology to put air bags in automobiles has existed for many years. It has been proven that air bags reduce fatalities in automobile accidents. If automobile manufacturers were truly responsible, they would have started installing them sooner. But, air bags are also expensive and business decisions are made based on high profit margin at the lowest possible price to consumers.

Some might argue that the market will force the improvements. Wouldn't it be a selling point to have an extra safety feature in your company's vehicles? Maybe, but the fact is the air bags weren't put in for years. That was a business decision, not a compassionate decision. Even when we began to see them in cars, it took a government mandate to make them available in low-cost vehicles. It's funny, but air bags don't significantly raise the sticker price of these vehicles.

In recent years, a couple of risk assessment issues have attracted some public concern. It turns out that both cellular phones and computer monitors emit very high electromagnetic fields in their immediate vicinity. When those devices are in use that immediate vicinity just happens to include someone's head. There has been concern that the high fields could increase the risk of brain tumors or other types of cancer.

Partly due to public demand, government regulatory agencies became interested in this problem, and experts have investigated potential negative effects. To date, no one has been able to prove significant correlation between the use of either device and incidents of cancer. Government agencies, aware of the importance of this technology to the American public and industry have been reticent to impose any sort of regulation unless a significant health risk has been proven.

This is a situation where risk assessments have and will continue to be performed. I am not arguing about the importance of risk assessments nor cost-benefit analyses. The Republican-sponsored bill goes further by formalizing the procedure and stating the required committees that must approve the risk assessment, making it more difficult for federal regulatory agencies to perform their already enormous mandate.

At the same time, the Risk Assessment and Communication Act creates loopholes which will allow corporate lawyers to argue their way out of protecting the environment and the safety of the people in this country.

So, resist the sound bites business lobbyists feed to us through our politicians. Government regulation is important in our daily lives. Unlike the picture that some politicians are trying to paint of regulatory agencies, they are not anti-business, nor are they necessarily ineffective. Visit or read about another country where certain environmental, food or drug regulations are not as strict.

Certainly regulations create a hassle for us some of the time. Until we live in a perfect and compassionate world, it is still good to have regulation on our side. For now, I can enjoy my Shake 'n Bake chicken with peace of mind.