It’s often said that there’s a fine line between too much and not enough of many things in life and society.
Astronomers who search for potentially habitable planets have coined the phrase “Goldilocks Zone” as the range of distance in which such a planet could feasibly exist.
The Goldilocks Zone concept could also be applied to regulations. For instance, if a regulatory framework for a product is not sufficiently rigorous, unsafe products could enter the market, harming consumers or the environment.
In efforts to ensure we thoroughly consider all variables, we might end up ignoring those that impact whether we find the sweet spot, which are time and cost.
Read Also
First digital services tax; is supply management next?
If Donald Trump doubles down on his trade threats and targets supply management, Canada will find itself between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
If the regulatory framework is too rigorous, the time and cost to get products to market will be too high, so the regulatory framework would act as a barrier. We have seen fear become a timely and costly barrier for developments in new nuclear reactors and they have impeded genetically modified breeding technologies around the world.
We routinely take comfort in the efficacy of our regulatory systems because they protect us from unsafe products entering the market. However, no system can operate at 100 percent certainty. Eventually, an unsafe product will enter.
Evidence can be seen when vehicle manufacturers issue recall notices. Similar recall notices are issued by food safety and regulatory agencies when unsafe food products are identified.
Regulatory systems must ensure they are structured to manage proven risks. They should not be designed or used to manage the risks of hypothetical or speculative risks.
Hypothetical risks are those with some theory of risk but lack quantified evidence of risk. Speculative risks are those that lack both theory and evidence.
Regulatory systems that focus on precaution rather than risk … are ultimately incapable of functioning efficiently. Inefficiencies in risk management result in systems tilted toward precaution and are rooted in hypothetical and speculative risks, creating regulatory frameworks that serve as barriers to product commercialization.
When barriers are too high, investments decrease. This can negatively impact the economy because fewer new products enter the market and there is less competition to keep prices down.
New technologies commonly lower the cost of production and when regulatory barriers are high, these innovations fail to occur and the rate of innovation falls.
Regulatory Goldilocks Zones are achievable. However, it takes commitment to science-based evidence and the political fortitude to revise regulatory frameworks, even if this means reducing the regulatory burden.
Regrettably, many in society see any reduction in regulation as a weakening of system efficacy. The problem with this attitude is that regulations can be based on outdated technology.
The ability of activist organizations and social media to create a firestorm of negative messaging for governments intent on reducing regulatory burdens can make change less politically appetizing. Intentions can be sidetracked due to the political pressures brought to bear. We only have to look at how mainstream media is far more interested in promoting negative news stories than positive.
Regulatory efficiency is crucial to effective operation of innovation systems. The level of global information about safety and risk assessment is widely accessible. Regulatory failures are rare, and most problems arise from those that are overly rigorous but have little to no scientific justification.
Stuart Smyth is an associate professor in the University of Saskatchewan’s Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and holds the Agri-Food Innovation and Sustainability Enhancement Chair. This article first appeared on the SAIFood website. It has been edited for length.
