In recent years, Republicans have argued that Congress is a more responsible policymaker than the executive branch. But when it comes to regulation, Congress is often much worse, and for just one reason: Executive agencies almost always focus on both costs and benefits, and Congress usually doesn't.
As a case in point, consider the Senate's recent vote, by a margin of 63-30, in favor of a new law to require national labels for foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMO). The House is expected to pass the bill in the near future. However popular it might be, the coming law would almost certainly fail the minimal requirements that American presidents — from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama — have imposed on federal regulators before they can finalize similar rules.
Since 1981, federal agencies have been required to do two things: quantify the costs and benefits of regulatory requirements, and demonstrate that the benefits justify the costs. Congress did neither — which is typical.
For the GMO labeling requirement, lawmakers made no serious effort to quantify the costs for companies and consumers. A Consumers Union study concludes that the annual expense would be $2.30 per person. That doesn't sound like a lot (and Consumers Union strongly supports mandatory labeling, giving it an incentive to lowball the costs). But its estimate still entails a total annual cost far in excess of $100 million — the executive branch's threshold for "economically significant" regulations, which must be accompanied by detailed investigations of economic consequences.
Reliable data are hard to find: A study funded by the Corn Refiners Association, which opposes mandatory labeling, estimates the total cost to be $3.8 billion. Before imposing a nationwide mandate on food producers, Congress should be expected to come up with some numbers of its own — and to put them out for public scrutiny.
Whenever they require labels, regulators ordinarily are also required to project significant benefits for consumers, usually in the form of economic savings or reduced mortality or morbidity. But in terms of human health, labels are expected to produce no benefits at all. Nor is anyone seriously arguing that consumers will save money.
True, some people believe that genetically modified crops will cause environmental damage, but many scientists have contested that belief. In any case, no congressional committee has made a serious effort to show that labels are justified on environmental grounds. Without some kind of justification, an executive agency could not possibly survive the cost-benefit scrutiny that presidents have long demanded.
The bill's proponents argue that the American people want labels. They're right. But the public desire for labels seems to be based on the unfounded belief that GM food is harmful to human health. On that count, presidents from Reagan to Obama have agreed: Regulation should be based on concrete evidence of benefits, not baseless fear.
