Should the Federal Government Require Better Labeling of Potential Food Allergens?

The common law and civil tort system serve as the best regulators of food labeling. McDonald’s does not face a legal requirement to warn that its coffee is hot and may cause scalding, yet liability concerns drive the company to include such warnings. The same principle applies to organic food standards, which independent third-party organizations establish. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not need to involve itself in allergen labeling, as doing so removes it from the private sphere — where it can adapt more quickly to new information — and places it in the political sphere, where special interests and political pressures dominate.

The FDA requires packaged foods to list on their labels if they contain nine major food allergens: milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, soybeans and sesame. Ironically, the FDA does not require advisory allergen statements such as “may contain” or “processed in a facility with,” leaving them voluntary. This voluntary labeling shows that manufacturers, not the government, already take the necessary precautions to protect consumers through market-driven incentives.

Such market-driven decisions demonstrate how economic incentives guide manufacturers without the need for intrusive government regulations. These incentives can be so compelling that manufacturers apply wacky warning labels to their products, such as “do not iron while wearing the shirt” and “do not hold the wrong end of a chainsaw.”

More importantly, replacing economic incentives with one-size-fits-all government rules makes consumers less safe. People tend to forfeit their due diligence when an authority is in charge. Studies show that individuals are less likely to ask about the risks and uses of prescribed medications — and often forget their names — compared to when buying over-the-counter drugs. I’ve lost count of how many times my patients were unable to tell me the names of the medications they take and why they take them. When the government absolves manufacturers of responsibility for warning labels, both manufacturers and consumers grow complacent. As the regulator becomes influenced by special interests, objective decision-making is replaced with political compromises. It may take a class-action lawsuit to prompt the government to update a labeling requirement, and only after the necessary comment period.

The best outcome for consumers is for the FDA to stop regulating labels altogether.