creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
22 May 2012
A Book for Republicans

Democrats have been having a field day with the cry of "tax cuts for the rich" — for which … Read More.

22 May 2012
Big Lies in Politics

The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is … Read More.

18 May 2012
A Racial Revolution?

Now that census data show — for the first time in American history — the number of white babies … Read More.

Spilled Milk

Share Comment

Despite the old saying, "Don't cry over spilled milk," the Environmental Protection Agency is doing just that.

We all understand why the Environmental Protection Agency was given the power to issue regulations to guard against oil spills, such as that of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska or the more recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But not everyone understands that any power given to any bureaucracy for any purpose can be stretched far beyond that purpose.

In a classic example of this process, the EPA has decided that, since milk contains oil, it has the authority to force farmers to comply with new regulations to file "emergency management" plans to show how they will cope with spilled milk, how farmers will train "first responders" and build "containment facilities" if there is a flood of spilled milk.

Since there is no free lunch, all of this is going to cost the farmers both money and time that could be going into farming— and is likely to end up costing consumers higher prices for farm products.

It is going to cost the taxpayers money as well, since the EPA is going to have to hire people to inspect farms, inspect farmers' reports and prosecute farmers who don't jump through all the right hoops in the right order. All of this will be "creating jobs," even if the tax money removed from the private sector correspondingly reduces the jobs that can be created there.

Does anyone seriously believe that any farmer is going to spill enough milk to compare with the Exxon Valdez oil spill or the BP oil spill?

Do you envision people fleeing their homes, as a flood of milk comes pouring down the mountainside, threatening to wipe out the village below?

It doesn't matter. Once the words are in the law, it makes no difference what the realities are. The bureaucracy has every incentive to stretch the meaning of those words, in order to expand its empire.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has expanded its definition of "discrimination" to include things that no one thought was discrimination when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed.

The Federal Communications Commission is trying to expand its jurisdiction to cover things that were never included in its jurisdiction, and that have no relationship to the reason why the FCC was created in the first place.

Yet the ever-expanding bureaucratic state has its defenders in the mainstream media. When President Obama recently mentioned the possibility of reducing burdensome regulations— as part of his moving of his rhetoric toward the political center, even if his policies don't move— there was an immediate reaction in a New York Times article defending government regulations.

Under a headline that said, "Obama May Find Useless Regulations Are Scarcer Than Thought," the Times writers declared that there were few, if any, "useless" regulations. But is that the relevant criterion?

Is there any individual or business willing to spend money on everything that is not absolutely useless? There are thousands of useful things out there that any given individual or business would not spend their money on.

When I had young children, I often thought it would be useful to have a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica for them. But I never bought one. Why? Because there were other little things to spend money on, like food, clothing and shelter.

By the time I could afford to buy a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica, the kids were grown and gone. But at no time did I consider the Encyclopedia Britannica "useless."

Weighing benefits against costs is the way most people make decisions— and the way most businesses make decisions, if they want to stay in business. Only in government is any benefit, however small, considered to be worth any cost, however large.

No doubt the Environmental Protection Agency's costly new regulations may somewhere, somehow, prevent spilled milk from pouring out into some street and looking unsightly. So the regulations are not literally "useless."

What is useless is making that the criterion.

To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

7 Comments | Post Comment
the EPA has decided that, since milk contains oil, it has the authority to force farmers to comply ...

There's oil in milk? Could you please explain that?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Maxx
Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:14 AM
Spilled milk is something to cry about, depending where it is spilled. The problem is with a term called BOD(5) or Biochemical Oxygen Demand, how much oxygen is needed to break down waste. U.S. Wastewater (sewage) is typically 200-300 mg/L or 200-300 mg of oxygen is needed for every liter, while Europe is about 600 mg/L. If you don't treat the waste you use up the oxygen in the water and kill the fish off.

Raw milk has a BOD(5) of 100,000 mg/L. This is very significant. If a milk spill were to enter the stormdrains and proceed to the wastewater treatment plant, the shock to the system can disrupt effective treatment. Directly in to a waterway can cause a significant fish kill.

As a fellow Engineer once told me, "We had a milk truck tip over and spill it's load. My boss flipped, you would have though oil was spilled!" It is that bad.
Comment: #2
Posted by: leaux
Wed Feb 2, 2011 10:41 AM
Well written, well said. We, the free people of the United States, are imploding with "useless" overreaching government regulation and bureaucracy. These "'useless" and overreaching regulations are symptomatic of a government populated by career politicians that have elevated themselves to a celebrity status, arrogant and unapproachable. Our government leadership is devoid of common sense, and apparently the voting public is too.
Comment: #3
Posted by: T. Evans
Thu Feb 3, 2011 8:05 AM
leaux: I don't know. Is it really that bad? I live in milk country... the third largest milk producing state, Western New York. I grew up working on and around farms. I have friends that work the milk plants, milk transportation etc.... I can tell you we live in such fear of a spill! (HA!)
This is such a joke.
It would be better if they did the same for slurry. Now, we do live in fear of those mandated offenses to the olfactory senses. In the "old" days when we just spread the manure on the field, you may smell it at the next farm, for half a day. But, now when they spread the slurry on the field, you not only smell it for up to 5miles down wind, it lasts for up to a week... and it is very foul!
Milk? HA-HA.... we are in such trouble. What ever happened to free enterprise, let alone freedom?
Comment: #4
Posted by: keith l terrill
Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:01 PM
Re: leaux
Another reminder. My best friend works in the oil/gas field. He is a well tender. They haul waste brine, oil waste, and of course pipe oil/gas products. And I have friends in the milk industry, production (farms), transportation, and processing (UpState Milk).
When there is an oil/gas spill... all kinds of DOE and specialist show up... and it is a major, major clean up.
When there is a milk spill... yes they turn out to clean it up... but it is nothing like the oil/gas spills. I don't see damns put on the rivers, I don't see the pick up materials spread out, etc.... they don't seam to be nearly as "hot" over the issue of spilled milk.
I don't know about your boss... but we don't shake in our boots over this.
Comment: #5
Posted by: keith l terrill
Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:09 PM
Re: leaux Beer has a very high BOD, too. Should EPA regulate beer, like petroleum also? Whole milk is 4% fat, the rest mostly water. Surely EPA could use some common sense and not regulate milk like petroleum. Dr. Sowell's article didn't mention this but EPA regulates "milk products" as oils also: yogurt, ice cream, and even blocks of cheese. Does that make sense to anyone?

Comment: #6
Posted by: WoodyPfister
Thu Feb 3, 2011 7:08 PM
Re: T. Evans
I totally agree with you. I mean for 1 thing I feel that 90 percent of politicians never completed high school by the way they think and act and go about their QUOTE business! and as for the people? has everyone fallen into the "do as I say and not as I do mentality?. PLEASE
Comment: #7
Posted by: JRaneeM
Sun Feb 6, 2011 4:39 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Thomas Sowell
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 26 May 2012
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 25 May 2012
Linda Chavez
Linda ChavezUpdated 25 May 2012

23 Jun 2009 Another "Good Thing"

29 Mar 2012 The Death of Mrs. G

6 Mar 2012 James Q. Wilson (1931-2012)