In 2010, the Obama administration pledged
its support for the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act. This ambitious bill
suggested reforms to combat the rising rate of childhood obesity by imposing
strict guidelines for all foods sold in public schools. One of its most
signification requirements was that school lunches would have to offer twice as
many fruits and vegetables. Although the legislation seemed to have admirable
intentions, the Schwan Food Company repealed its support for the bill because it
would also require tomato paste to be considered just that—tomato paste. Under
previous legislation, there existed an important loophole, which recognized two
tablespoons of tomato paste as equivalent to eight tablespoons of tomatoes or a
full serving of vegetables. Because Schwan manufactures 70% of all pizza sold
in school cafeterias, the new legislation directly threatened the company's
monopoly-like influence in the school lunch market. Schwan, along with dozens
of processed food manufacturers, spent millions in lobbying efforts to reverse
the new food standards. Ultimately, their lobbying efforts succeeded, and the
budget for the bill passed in November of 2011 with the pizza-as-vegetable rider.
The
Schwan Food Company’s lobbying success supports Stigler’s supposition that
regulation is acquired by industry and is designed primarily for its benefit.
The pizza-as-vegetable designation allowed Schwan to maintain its level of
pizza sales without changing its product. The stipulation acted as a barrier to
entry for smaller fresh-vegetable producers who genuinely complied with the new
demands of the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act, albeit at a higher price. This
turn of events also calls into question the “protection of the public” theory
of regulation. If regulation were employed for the benefit of the
consumers, the government would have remained firm in its original declaration that
pizza is not a vegetable to protect the health of public school students. The pizza lobby, thus, demonstrates the power of
corporate interests. And perhaps, Jon Stewart got it right when he said, “It’s not
democracy, its DiGiorno”.
1 comment:
Hi Stephanie, I really like your post. You nicely contend that Stigler's theory on regulatory capture is evident in this example with the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act and Schwan Food Company. Some may be concerned with Stigler's propositions because it reveals the potential for corruption in our political and business institutions. The words of Milton Friedman ring in my mind, "Every act of government intervention limits the area of individual freedom directly and threatens the preservation of freedom indirectly..." I think that this quote from "Capitalism and Freedom" should guide the discourse on the capture theory of government. Do you think that the federal government should be involved on this issue? Especially given their propensity to pimp their votes in exchange for their own personal, political gain. If Stigler's theory is evident in a variety of industries today, then it seems to me the only way to counter it is by limiting the power of government officials. What are your thoughts?
Post a Comment