Sprinklegate and Europe’s Permission Society

The hard-working people running Get Baked, a bakery in Leeds, England, were having a normal day—until, as the owner described, a “man in a boring tie” from West Yorkshire Trading Standards paid them a visit. The cause? A customer had inspected her pastry and reported the bakery for using illegal sprinkles, sparking a scandal now known as “Sprinklegate.”¹

That’s right: illegal sprinkles. The bakery imported sprinkles containing the dye known as Red 3 (also called E127 or erythrosine), which is illegal in the United Kingdom under a regulation inherited from the European Union.²

Sprinkles are key at Get Baked, whose distressed owner, Rich Myers, wrote on the bakery’s Facebook page:

Whilst this might seem like it’s not a big deal, it’s actually very f******* annoying, as A LOT of people ask for Birthday Bruces [a chocolate cake with sprinkles] and Raspberry Glazed Donut Cookies are not only our best selling cookie, but they’re utterly sensational. It is HIGHLY unlikely that we will find any legal sprinkles that we will use as a replacement. British sprinkles just aren’t the same, they’re totally s*** and I hate them. I am extremely passionate about sprinkles. . . . We will obviously need to make some adjustments to the menu in order to compensate for this truly horrendous ordeal.³

Sprinkles clearly are an important ingredient for this baker. Shouldn’t he be able to use the ones he deems best?

The intention of many regulations, such as the one banning most food additives in the European Union, is supposedly to protect consumers. For example, the EU’s “justification” for maintaining the ban on Red 3 for most uses is that it “protects” children from a dye that can allegedly cause hyperactivity.⁴ Of course, parents may reasonably prohibit their kids from consuming Red 3, but is there any reason for the government to “protect” the rest of us from it? It’s also worth noting that Red 3 has important uses; as one reporter states, “It is the only food colouring that provides the appropriate colour, doesn’t bleed into other fruit in a mixed fruit can, and has a stable shelf life.”⁵

Very well, some may say, this particular ban is unwarranted. But generally speaking, don’t we need consumer protection regulations to stop companies from poisoning unwitting consumers? Many people think so, given that companies can harm consumers by lying about the contents of a product, knowingly including dangerous ingredients, or neglecting proper quality standards (such as a restaurant sickening a customer through lax cleaning protocols). Killing your customers happens to be bad for business, however, and it’s also illegal. Companies have every incentive not to harm their customers knowingly or through neglect. This is especially true in our connected world, where news of such incidents spreads quickly.

Most countries, including those in the European Union, have laws prohibiting such rights violations.⁶ And they should; it is governments’ job to protect individual rights. But it is not governments’ job to “protect” us from voluntarily taking risks. People regularly—and often rationally—choose to take certain risks in order to achieve certain values. For example, driving a car, consuming alcohol, and playing sports all entail some level of risk, but the value one can achieve from them (relaxation, transportation, and exhilaration) may make the risk worth it for some individuals. Laws that prevent consumers from taking on some risk to enjoy a particular value, such as raspberry glazed doughnut cookies, are not a protection of rights, but a violation of rights.

Further, with recent trends in avoiding artificial flavors and colors, many companies make a point of advertising that their products don’t contain such ingredients. This makes it even easier for consumers to make their own decisions about risk versus value. In other words, producers have already created a solution for those who wish to avoid such ingredients as Red 3. Why, then, must everyone be prohibited from using these ingredients?

The regulation banning Red 3 is an example of something deeper: Europe’s “permission society.” In the EU, food additives are universally banned until they have been authorized. Authorizations are based on “a safety assessment, the technological need, and ensuring that use of the additive will not mislead consumers.”⁷ This cumbersome “guilty until proven innocent” method hampers innovation, as everyone is prohibited from using unapproved compounds without permission, regardless of their potential benefits.

And, in the EU, laws requiring such permissions aren’t limited to food additives. For example, companies may not produce, import, or use genetically modified organisms (GMOs) without government permission. According to EU law, national governments must conduct a “case-by-case evaluation” considering effects to human (and, if applicable, animal) health, as well as effects to the environment, before approving their use.⁸ Licensing laws for certain occupations are another example; as of 2016, about 22 percent of occupations in the EU require a government-authorized license. This means that nearly a quarter of the labor force has to get permission from the government to practice their occupation. A report published by the European Commission itself admits that such requirements result in 705,000 fewer jobs across the EU.⁹

In Europe, the government is typically seen not as a protector of rights (as it ought to be), but as a parental figure that must protect its citizens from all risks—as though we, as adults, can’t be trusted to use our own judgment in assessing risks. This attitude and the resulting policies are not only infantilizing, but they hinder innovation and the creation of the best possible products.

The most innovative businessmen, artists, and craftsmen painstakingly select even the smallest elements of their creations, and this is part of what makes the results so amazing. Steve Jobs, for example, was known for obsessing over minute details. He even insisted on sourcing a particular shade of high-quality stone for Apple stores from a specific quarry in Italy rather than replicating its color and texture with concrete—a solution that would have been ten times cheaper.¹⁰

Producers should be free to act on their own judgment to create the best possible cupcakes, retail stores, or whatever else they make or provide. Regulations, such as the one prohibiting Red 3, hinder us all in countless ways on a daily basis. Although many such regulations might seem small, and many might even seem well-intentioned, they’re still incursions on our right to act on our own judgment and on producers’ right to act on their own judgment to produce the best products possible for their customers. And that limits everyone’s ability to maximize their flourishing.

About Angelica Walker-Werth

Angelica is a fellow at Objective Standard Institute, an assistant editor and writer for The Objective Standard. Her roles at OSI include managing the internship and scholarship programs, course administration and development, and editing On Solid Ground. She writes nonfiction articles and speaks about Objectivism and fiction; you can see her work at walker-werth.com. She is also voracious reader of fiction in her spare time, and writes about the ideas in fictional works at fictionosophy.substack.com.

View all articles by Angelica Walker-Werth →