Product Quality and Safety: Government Regulation or Free Competition?

by | Mar 24, 2015 | Regulation

In free markets with a strong protection of individual rights by the government, competition weeds out bad products and bad companies.


A brief news article in the Financial Post (FP) recently caught my eye: “Food safety watchdog suspends Costco Canada’s fish import licence.” According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Costco is not consistent in following food safety controls set by the regulator—a horror of horrors—and therefore Costco’s import license was suspended at the end of February. The FP article informs us that “Costco can’t import fish products into Canada until it takes corrective action and the agency is satisfied [emphasis mine] that the chain can effectively manage food safety risks.” Should we feel grateful and safe, because the Canadian government through its Food Inspection Agency is looking after us by restraining yet another greedy corporation from selling us “unsafe” fish?

No, we should not feel gratitude but outrage. The government has no business in inspecting the food anyone, whether Costco or a farmer at the market, sells us. The only role of the government is to protect our individual rights against the initiation of physical force and fraud. For example, should a company sell us tainted, spoiled, or defective goods, we can get a refund, because selling tainted goods violates our property rights. Or, if our health is harmed by consuming tainted or spoiled food or pharmaceuticals, we can get compensation, because our right to life was violated. Other than protecting our individual rights, the government should let markets be free to regulate themselves.

Many people would recoil at the thought of unregulated markets where people trade freely with each other. But those are the only kinds of markets that allow both businesses and the rest of us to flourish. The sales of tainted goods and defective products would skyrocket in free markets, these people would argue. But they are wrong. Quite the contrary, in free markets with a strong protection of individual rights by the government, competition weeds out bad products and bad companies.

In some industries, such as food and pharmaceuticals, product safety is critically important to consumers. But it is a mistake to think that government inspectors are the best way to keep those products safe. Yet, may people think that government inspection must be superior, because government bureaucrats, such as food safety inspectors, are not “tainted” by the profit motive. These bureaucrats have nothing at stake, the argument goes; they are just doing a job and carrying out regulations set by other “neutral” bureaucrats. Therefore, we should feel confident that they have our best interest at heart and they will do their utmost to keep us safe.

What is missing in this reasoning? The motivation to do the best job possible, as competently as possible. This is not to say there cannot be motivated and competent people working as government inspectors; however, if you have ever run your own business such as a restaurant or a day care, say, you have probably experienced government inspectors who may be zealous to the point of being unreasonable and yet not competent. They have secure jobs where compensation is not tied to merit; there is no particular motivation to do a good job.

However, businesses have all the motivation to keep their customers and thus their products safe. It is not in their interest to harm their customers—they want to be profitable in the long term. (Imagine the impact on Costco’s reputation if it sold tainted fish, and the cost of a recall and compensation, particularly if any customers also got sick from eating the fish). Therefore, many companies have internal quality control staff who have to be trained and competent, unless they want to lose their jobs. It’s in that staff’s interest to make sure that their employer does well so that they can do well.

Sometimes it may make sense to have external quality control and inspection for the sake of credibility, or simply to divide labor. But that quality control can be contracted out to private companies, which again are compelled by market competition and profit motive to do a good job.

Government should stick to its proper role, get out of regulating business, and let us decide if we want to buy fish at Costco or any products or services from other companies. We can count on the profit motive by companies—and the protection of individual rights by government—to keep products safe.

Full disclosure: I am a Costco fan, and I particularly like buying wild-caught fish there because it is always fresh and a good value.

Jaana Woiceshyn teaches business ethics and competitive strategy at the Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Canada. How to Be Profitable and Moral” is her first solo-authored book. Visit her website at

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Related articles

Regulations are Making Housing Unaffordable

Regulations are Making Housing Unaffordable

Fox News reports that the International Code Council, an organization that develops model building code policies, is finalizing its codes for 2024. Critics correctly argue that the new codes are a “backdoor climate initiative” and will add to the cost of new housing....

National Labor Relations Act and Compulsory Unionism

National Labor Relations Act and Compulsory Unionism

Whether a worker wants union representation ought to be an individual decision. The federal and state laws that turn it into a collective decision should never have been passed and after they were passed, should have been declared unconstitutional.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest