No one likes to boss other people around more than environmentalists. Their wildly unrealistic policy agenda combined with an innate disdain for other humans makes them alarmingly aggressive about imposing their wills on others, regardless of any negative impacts these decisions might have. And of course, the ideal friend to a bossy group of meddlers with unpopular opinions is the government bureaucrat. Unelected, unaccountable, and able to act unilaterally without the need for consensus or diplomacy, regulatory agencies are perfectly capable of hearing the shrill call of the vocal minority, and translating their message into rules that affect everyone else.
Occasionally though, through that rare coincidence that causes even stopped clocks to be right twice a day, the interests of the environmental crowd align with those of freedom, and when that happens we should all take note, even when the issue in question may seem to be one of relatively small import.
Several environmental groups are now lobbying the Federal Trade Commission to amend its “Care Labeling Rule,” a regulation that tells clothing manufacturers what they can or cannot print on clothing labels with regard to care instructions. Currently, the rule states that garments that cannot be safely washed must be labelled “dry clean only.” or “do not wash” even if alternative cleaning methods would be equally safe, or even preferable. Many people are not even aware that most dry cleaners also provide a service called “wet cleaning” because that phrase is not legally permitted to be included on clothing labels, regardless of how safe or effective it may be for a particular item of clothing.
It also turns out that wet cleaning releases fewer chemicals into the air and water than does dry cleaning, so the environmentalists are objecting to the fact that regulations are preventing the existence of this alternative method from being known. Those who operate professional wet cleaning shops will benefit from having more people aware of their services, and many dry cleaners who offer the service will also benefit by having alternative ways to wash clothing.
An alteration to the rule not only gives more options to consumers and to cleaners, but it allows manufacturers, who are in the best position to know how their clothing should be cared for, to be more precise and specific in their labelling.
For once, environmental advocacy groups are actually advocating for a loosening of restrictions and an expansion of freedoms. It’s a shame they are not always so rational. Labelling requirements may seem like a small issue to kick up a fuss over, but the fact is that they are used all the time as a way to impose costs on industries under the guise of consumer protection. The same people who want to loosen labelling requirement for the clothing industry want to tighten them when it comes to food.
The anti-GMO (or as I like to call them, anti-food) crowd have been howling for years to require the labelling of all genetically modified organisms, not for the purposes of information, but to scare consumers away from crops they personally don’t like, and create greater administrative hurdles to selling produce. Menu requirements under the Affordable Care Act require pizza places specializing in delivery service to post the calorie counts of their 34 million different combinations of topping in physical locations no one visits.
The labeling process should be a mutually beneficial information sharing between producer and consumer, not a centralized dictate. Through competition and choice, consumers will demand the information relevant to them, and producers will supply the information that their customers need to use the product most effectively and achieve the greatest satisfaction. While fraud should of course be prevented, any other labeling decisions are best left to individual choice.