Should business monitor themselves?

[Topaz]

The Feds allowed XL to monitor themselves for quality control but XL didn't follow their own rules and hundreds if not thousands of people are getting sick. The Tories keep saying they have 46 inspectors ther, but, what they didn't say was XL has increased the number of cattle processed up to 4000 per day. Now, I don't know that much about the minister but XL is partly owned by ranchers, and I'm wondering if there could be a conflict of interest here, I may be wrong on this but, today things do happen. In my view, the meat to the US and to other parts of Canada, should not have left the plant until it was cleared. One inspector claims that it used to take two years before one had their licence to be an inspector and now a days its too short and the inspectors may not have the education that is needed, which could have happened at the XL plant. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/questions-grow-over-why-ottawa-didnt-act-as-fast-as-us-on-unfit-meat/article4590806/

[Guest Manny]

Seems to me that this government reduced the number of available inspectors, and when confronted with it they assured us that it would not affect the safety and quality of food for Canadians.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

This is how business works:

A) Follow regulations and guidelines.

Not follow regulations and guidelines.

Which option costs less at present? B.

Ok, let's generate more profit by risking killing people with e.coli

Self-regulation is a horrible idea since corporations have no moral/ethical compass. If they think they can skirt the rules and likely get away with it to generate a higher profit, they will.

Edited October 6, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Moonlight Graham]

This is how business works:

A) Follow regulations and guidelines.

Not follow regulations and guidelines.

Which option costs less at present? B.

Ok, let's generate more profit by risking killing people with e.coli

Self-regulation is a horrible idea since corporations have no moral/ethical compass. If they think they can skirt the rules and likely get away with it to generate a higher profit, they will.

Exactly. Capitalism is amoral (not immoral, not moral), as it is driven by ONE concern: profit. Unregulated, business concerns for maximum profit will often trump any concerns for public safety, the environment, workers safety/well-being, prudent function of the market etc. That is why government regulations exist.

Therefore, businesses generally should not be regulating themselves without some sort of public oversight.

[Michael Hardner]

Therefore, businesses generally should not be regulating themselves without some sort of public oversight.

Agreed. What constitutes 'generally' may be related to where moral ambiguity can be played to the disadvantage of public welfare. Deregulation can be played as an efficient and effective way to monitor, but only if the safety risks are clearly minimal.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Agreed. What constitutes 'generally' may be related to where moral ambiguity can be played to the disadvantage of public welfare. Deregulation can be played as an efficient and effective way to monitor, but only if the safety risks are clearly minimal.

The biggest problem we have is that the corporations that are supposed to be getting regulated... get their faithful employees placed on regulatory bodies. Monsanto employees a regulatory body? WTF?

This is why our regulations act as barriers to entry and do not actually solve issues. They don't want competition and they don't want to change their business model. It should be ILLEGAL for anyone with vested interest or prior attachment (unless deemed a whistle-blower to poor corporate compliance) to sit on a regulatory body.