You Dont Need A Weatherman

The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans published this month by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have provoked a good deal of comment, none of which was particularly surprising. Sampling that commentary did, however, help us to connect two or three perceptions that we have been forming over the past several decades.

The first is that the pervasive (if often diffuse) Climate of Opinion is strongly inclined to consider any input into government rulemaking by organizations that actually make and sell things as interference by Special Interests (bad), while input from groups formed to advance a particular philosophy is Public Advocacy (good). The logic here seems to be that taking money in exchange for goods or services necessarily turns the seller into an unprincipled liar. Unexamined is the equivalent effect of soliciting money to propagate a non-mainstream point of view.

We may imagine two young people, recently graduated from college with degrees in what nowadays is called "Communications," reading the help-wanted ads and sending in their applications. One is hired by a large consumer packaged-goods company; the other by a "cause" advocacy organization. On the job, both pay close attention to all the scientific literature that relates to their employers' respective missions, and draw on it to construct arguments appropriate to those missions. Both do this because they get paid to do it, and perhaps because they find it interesting; and, of course, they want to advance in their careers. We see no justification for slamming one for selling out to corporate greed, while applauding the other for standing up for the public interest.

Over the past several decades, a couple of new variables have come along. One is the emergence of corporate titans in the entertainment industry that have taken to producing movies that set up David and Goliath-like confrontations between cute underdog heroes and evil producers of things to sell. This evidently assures parents that their children are receiving virtuous messages about making the world better. Since those messages are crafted with great artistry and skill, the children enjoy them. And, of course, the producer can then license the cute underdog hero and supporting cast, thereby drawing a continuing revenue stream from selling things. Everybody wins -- but the children grow into adults with a flawed, simplistic view of what an economy does.

Another is the emergence of smaller product suppliers, sometimes starting as hobbyists, who have hit on the strategy of marketing premium-priced specialty goods as noble alternatives to the vile commodity items purveyed by greedy giant corporations. This pitch finds ready acceptance by people who grew up with the entertainments outlined earlier and who have enough disposable income to pay the virtue premium. And as a bonus, they get to feel morally and aesthetically superior to the poor wage slaves who can't afford that upcharge.

We may state here that some of these items really may be better, in one way or another, than their mass-market alternatives. And, certainly, those who enjoy a free market can purchase whatever they please. But we do think that those who use this marketing gambit are smoothing the way for future difficulties. If they arouse enough consumer anxiety to trigger public demand for action to impose onerous and unnecessary rules on their larger competitors, they may find themselves between a rock and a hard place if some future discovery casts doubt on the value, or safety, of their ingredients. We think some common-sense industry solidarity would not be amiss.

Finally, we believe that the accusations of industry influence on the dietary guidelines do in fact demonstrate the merits of our democratic system. It is considered chic to make fun of Congress, but we all would do well to consider the alternatives. The vending industry in the United States has benefitted greatly from the willingness of government institutions to take our needs into consideration when making rules. We also are fortunate to have a national association with an eight-decade record of effective advocacy. Operators in many other nations would be glad to have the governors of their nations' treasuries ask them, as stakeholders, what changes to the physical characteristics of the currency would have the least disruptive impact on their businesses. We do have a system that, on balance, works very well, even if it does not always produce exactly the results we want. The aim of consensus politics has been defined as "an equality of dissatisfaction," and it is well to keep this in mind.

As we enter a new year, then, we might resolve to stand up for the wholesomeness of the products we sell and the legitimacy -- or necessity -- of our making a profit by selling them. We also might commit to understanding the arguments of those who are trying to Make a Difference by putting us out of business. A very good place to start is by taking an active part in industry affairs by joining and supporting local and state trade groups, and the National Automatic Merchandising Association.