|
This commentary originally appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press Thursday, July 31, 2008. Comments welcome there
Regular readers know I expend a lot of column inches railing against big government and unnecessary taxation. I don't see a virtue in being ranked in the top 10 highest-tax states, and I don't believe increasing taxes is going to get us a 'better Minnesota.' So when I say 'well done' to the Minnesota Department of Health, I probably have some explaining to do.
The media have been reporting about and praising the Minnesota Department of Health for its key role in unraveling the mystery cause of the salmonella outbreak that had baffled federal investigators for months. In less than two weeks after the first case in Minnesota, MDH investigators traced the source of the outbreak that sickened more than 1,200 people in 43 states and Canada to jalapeno peppers grown in Mexico, shipped through wholesalers in California and Texas.
A contributing reason for Minnesota's quick and accurate investigation is centralization of responsibility and authority to investigate epidemic outbreaks. In many states, county health departments take the lead and only report up to the state; here, the MDH is in charge of investigations from the first recognition of an outbreak.
Predictably, some progressives are latching onto the "Case of the Tainted Jalapenos" to justify high taxes and expanded government. If you're of the progressive ilk and hoping that my praise for the MDH signals I am about to recant my contrarian ways and "admit" the benefits of big government, you will be sorely disappointed.
What we have here is a teachable moment, a moment that supports the idea that government governs best when it does just what it SHOULD DO and not all that it CAN DO.
The problem with progressive analysis that deems "Tainted Jalapenos" a case for big government is the progressive inability to make distinctions between legitimate functions of government and expansion of government into areas where it doesn't belong. Tracking down the source of a salmonella outbreak is a legitimate public health concern and a legitimate function of government — not just because I say so or some progressive think tank says so, but based on consistent and predictable criteria. A public health issue that necessitates government intervention must meet three issue-neutral criteria:
- A person is exposed to a risk to which he did not consent. People do not consent to being exposed to tainted food.
- The risk can affect everyone or anyone. A salmonella outbreak of unknown origin poses such a widespread risk.
- A reasonable person cannot avoid the risk on his own in a reasonable manner. Avoiding all possible contaminants might be a short-term precaution, but it is not a reasonable long-term solution. A reasonable person cannot tell by looking at food whether or not it is tainted.
Thus, government has a legitimate role in assuring a safe food supply; one can debate how this is done most effectively, but it is beyond debate that the government has the obligation to protect people from risks to which they do not consent and cannot reasonably avoid on their own. In fact, that is the primary "should do" of government. If fraud or criminal negligence is involved, punishing the perpetrator and/or administering civil suits that might arise are also obligations of government.
However, contrary to the progressive argument, the praiseworthy effort of the MDH does not justify an expansion of "public health" beyond its legitimate responsibilities. It does not justify doing away with private property rights to prevent bar and restaurant owners from allowing smoking for patrons who choose to do so. It does not justify "sin taxes" on fatty foods or making our children's body-mass-indexes a matter of government concern. It does not justify "transforming" the Minnesota health care system at the expense of freedom to contract among patients, doctors and insurance companies.
Not every health issue is a public health issue.
What people should be thankful for is not that Minnesota hasn't cut its Department of Health, but that despite the best efforts of the Legislature, the Minnesota Department of Health has not yet expanded its purview too far beyond its proper function. So it can still do, and do well, that which it is supposed to do.
Well done, MDH. Well done.
Craig Westover is a contributing columnist to the Pioneer Press Opinion page and a senior policy fellow at the Minnesota Free Market Institute (www.mnfmi.org). His e-mail address is
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
. This commentary originally appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press Thursday, July 31, 2008. |
