The Grave Danger of Catfish Terrorism
When the State of Alabama recently announced that it was banning the importation of Vietnamese basa fish, the stated reason was to protect health and safety. Officials even intimated that some sneaky terrorists might be trying to kill Americans by slipping poisoned catfish into our food supply. Of course we all know the real reason has nothing to do with this. It's all about protecting the interests of domestic producers at the expense of the consumer. [FULL ARTICLE]
Comments (13)
Thank you Professor Anderson for an illuminating article concerning an issue about which I know virtually nothing. In particular, you point out how beneath the superficial, high-sounding rhetoric, the actual goals of the government regulation are to restrict trade and benefit one group of producers over another. And of course, as a result of this intervention, the welfare of consumers is damaged. Similar to Rothbard's approach to these types of investigations, you have attempted to determine who actually benefits from the proposed law or regulation, and in this instance, as in almost all others, it certainly is not American consumers. Instead, the beneficiaries are specific groups of producers and, of course, the politicians and bureaucrats and their technical advisors that promulgate the laws and regulations.
Published: August 22, 2005 8:10 AM
Speaking of empty rhetoric - where I live in Ireland the farmers are calling for a ban on Brazilian beef because the Brazilian farmers are 'cutting down the rainforests'! But Brazilian beef is cheaper even with the hefty import duty added on. The sad thing is that people are now praising the farmers for finally caring about the environment...
Published: August 22, 2005 8:41 AM
These types of problems are inevitable in a system where government is allowed to override property rights and restrict trade. Rather than simply protecting our right to life and property, we can expect politicians to use their powers to benefit themselves and their friends. This is a continuation of the battle between Jefferson and Hamilton over how big a role government should play in society. The triumph of Lincoln and the Republicans marked the end of what was left of limited government and ensured that nothing would be beyond the reach of government meddling. I have written a little about this subject here.
Published: August 22, 2005 10:07 AM
I have not fully formalized this thought-train, so if someone knows of a better laid out argument, please point me in its direction.
When one begins to study praxeology, one can begin to make sense of the underlying structure of modern society; in specific a finer understanding of the myriad relationships, institutions and interactions between its individuals. When one has a clear understanding of human motives, it is not hard to pinpoint the actions that people will take to secure certain ends.
I have come to the conclusion that even in the face of the regulating state and its punitive disincentives, most people will continue to accord their goals a higher position on their value scales. That means that regardless of some ethical platform envisioned by the government at large, the individuals within will still perform actions based on where the ethical implications fall in accordance to their personal value scale. (You might be more motivated to return a lost wallet containing $100, than a lost briefcase containing $100,000.)
In other words, I fervently believe in the maxim "When x is outlawed, only outlaws will have/do x."
If so, what are government regulations, but that which forces people to either:
a) flout the law according to what their value scale determines in regard to the a risk vs. benefit analysis
b) submit oneself to the dictates of law even when the expected results are dangerous, costly, or otherwise unattractive in comparison to the means that a free person would choose to implement.
Either way you look at it, regulations exist solely to establish objective, one-size-fits-all value scales, which everyone must conform to, individual preference, subjectivity and all prudence aside.
This article demostrates an example of where this policy of anti-individual choice-making leads to; one should not be all suprised to see that there are both winners and losers when individual choice is removed, and the power of these decisions handled by a few corrupted megalomaniacs.
Published: August 22, 2005 1:35 PM
Hahaha, they actually said it was to protect people from "bio-terrorism"? I don't think they're in tune with the latest party line. Shouldn't they have said it was to protect people from "bio-violent extremism"......
I don't think anyone will fall for that ridiculous
excuse for protectionism. By any chance, does Louisiana and Alabama have catfish farming?
Published: August 22, 2005 2:35 PM
I live in a nation that practices internal trade restrictions, that is, construction workers from one province are forbidden to work in another province.
With regard to foreign fish invading domestic America waters, the Mississippi River system as well as the St. Lawrence River system have seen boats come in and release ballast as well as foreign fish species. The Vietnamese catfish is harmless compared to what already swims in the lakes and streams over here.
And the foreign varmints arrived here courtesy of state-owned and state-controlled watrerways.
Harry Valentine
Published: August 22, 2005 4:38 PM
The restrictions placed upon the Democratic People's Republic of Viet Nam , in regards to terrorist catfish might serve another, over-looked agenda. Particularly as regards to the workers living within said workers paradise.
FedGov, USA is still a MILD collectivist system. After all, I don't believe that there are any commisars extant yet.
The DPSVN is a harsh collectivist regime. I hear tell that commisars abound over there. I also hear that they are humorless.
The export of said catfish, would enhance the survival of that harsher collectivist state, therefore enabling it to totter on a bit further , until complete collapse.
Here is a silly comment. Said DPRVN, exports plenty of herion to the United States. Why not diseased catfish?
Or is that too far a stretch?
Respects,
Z.
Published: August 22, 2005 9:35 PM
The latest flap about Vietnamese catfish being "contaminated" with a harmless fluoroquinolone antibiotic, approved for use in humans, is clearly a case of the regulators protecting the regulated while fleecing the consumers they are supposed to protect, and Professor Anderson has made this point very clear.
However, Anderson goes one step too far by needlessly and erroneously making the following argument: "...it seems that Chappell is saying that the basa may very well be safer than catfish in the United States precisely because the antibiotics used in Vietnam are likely to be more effective than what U.S. fisheries are allowed to use...consumers would prefer to take their chances with antibiotic-fed fish as opposed to eating diseased food."
The fact is, the fluoroquinolone antibiotic is used because it can cure the catfish of a disease known as enteric septicemia in catfish, or ESC. As the name implies, this is a disease of catfish, not of humans, which can cause them to stop eating and die. It is not a threat to humans (see this link). It is simply a matter of farmers protecting their stock from massive losses, not their customers.
Published: August 22, 2005 10:53 PM
A good article . . . thank you.
However, it only grazes the surface of the negatives of government intervention into the food supply, and health. Read Masterjohn's article . . . Or consider, despite his perpetual dances with regulators, Kevin Trudeau's "Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About." And why do we hear so little about ip6?
Anyone doing an expose on the rise of the AMA would do many a great favor, since it is truly one of the biggest profit-generating organizations in the world, without which Big Pharm and govt. would be relegated to straining gnats and swallowing camels (which they manage to do anyway!)(thank goodness for wars, which cause our attention to stray!).
Whatever, since 1994 I have not darkened a physician's doorway, save for the hernia surgery last year, but I took nary a pain pill. A few beers took the edge off the discomfort the first evening. I will not touch anything pharmaceutical (since 1994), my meat is prairie fed and my veggies home grown. I avoid flouride and aspertame always, and enjoy green tea, beer and coffee in copious amounts, which keep my bladder active and my prostate normal.
I use butter and the fat from my bacon to fry my eggs over easy, and I love real cream in my coffee.
I can trudge-jog a mile or more a day, walk three times that, stay awake 18 hours, sleep six, and shame guys half my age with my energy level. My weight is precisely where it should be, and my vital signs even better.
My vices? I like selling my product for a profit, smoking my cigs, sipping my beers, and loving my Lady. If govt. takes the first three, I can make do doing 'em myself anyway. If they come after my Lady--well . . .
They will have a wildcat on their hands for sure!
"They" being government, whose existence I happily ignore with relish.
:-) jb
Published: August 24, 2005 12:39 AM
A sample email, to which I responded that we should ban the sun because it causes cancer:
"We are finding banned chemicals in imported catfish in the U.S. It is the FDA's job to make sure that the product that has been found does not enter the market place. This is a health issue not part of the war that the media has created. If these chemicals were found in the U.S. catfish, we would be going though the same procedure. Europe has already gone through the alerts of chemicals in basa, like malachite green, as you can see in the site below (look at weeks 32 and 31 for example). Malachite green is an industrial dye that is used to kill fungus problems in aquaculture. This chemical is banned in the U.S. because it causes cancer. Do you want to eat it or serve it to your family?"
Oh, by the way, the sender's domaine is catfish.com
Published: August 24, 2005 9:27 AM
Lol. That's a funny email. People should also know that catfish are bottom feeders. I mean they literally eat anything and I do mean anything. So the hell what if they eat some malachite green, they eat crap too.
Published: August 27, 2005 9:25 PM
Actually, the US channel catfish are top feeders. In the wild, they come into the shallow waters at night to eat small fish. Also, the same variety which is farm-raised are fed floating pellets of grain, thus they feed on the surface. I should know, I used to have a catfish pond and fed them a "Floating Farm Pond Chow" that I purchased from Burt Reynold's Ranch Store in Jupiter, Florida. Your bottom feeder theory is only a myth and not accurate.
Published: April 8, 2006 9:44 PM
Check out the following website for the most comprehensive information on the web about the dangers of Basa and how US Farm-Raised Catfish is a MUCH SAFER choice.
http://www.catfishrestaurants.com
Published: April 8, 2006 9:48 PM