Houston, we may have a problem with business over-regulation: Germ-laden neckties & infant sippy cups.

Some argue that in a complex society somebody needs to look out for the weak and vulnerable--hence the call for regulation by government to "protect" society generally and consumers specifically.  The question now, in my view, is this: Can a good concept being taken too far?  Let me give you two examples of how I think it can.

One of the last measures passed by the New York Legislature was a call for a warning to be stamped on the top of baby sippy cups.  Yes, infant sippy cups--the kind parent use to pacify their off-spring.  The warning labels would proclaim the dangers of childhood tooth decay.  [The reason?  "I can show you photos of children who go to bed with sippy cups," says Executive Director of the state's Dental Association, Mark Feldman, the organization which pressed for the bill to be passed.]

Maybe doctors shouldn't wear any clothes at all??

But wait--there's more from the elected reps in New York.  They've proposed that the Great State of New York should ban health care providers from wearing neckties, wristwatches--and other items--that can spread deadly infections.  Wow...with that kind of logic, maybe health care workers shouldn't wear any clothes at all!  After all, neckties are just a part of ones apparel set--and if neckties are dangerous, how much more might lab coats, or shirts and blouses, pose a threat to carrying bad stuff??

If you asked me, one of the biggest problems facing commerce today is over-regulation.  Excessive interference of the state in the delivery of goods and services is a hidden tax on efficiency of operations, effectiveness of product appeal and performance, not to mention the willingness of the various players in commerce, those both selling and buying, to engage meaningful business.  Let's face it, at some point government regulation becomes state interference in the way things that make our society "work," well, work!  

Here are the two real problems.

So what's the problem?  I can think of at least two reasons to argue why much of these kinds of state interference represent a bad plan.  First, warnings don't alter human behavior all that much.  They make the proponents of them feel better, but experience shows that they have little effect on much of human behavior.  I have not doubt that Mr. Feldman could show us some photos of little kids with bad teeth, but I'm betting that a warning on sippy cups won't put much of a dent in the problem.  Let's be honest, consumer acclimatize to all the warning advice.

Which bring us to the second problem:  When one depends on regulation and warning labels, there's a false sense of accomplishing something significant--when there's really little that's done to make consumers--or health care providers in the example above--more savvy, knowledgeable, and prudent.  

If everything is dangerous--nothing is dangerous!

I can put it another way:  when everything is "signalled" to be fraught with danger, liability, or less than ideal outcomes, we become immune to the effect of warning labels period.  To the degree that everything has a down-side to it, the likelihood of consumers taking all or most of the stated "threats" seriously diminishes very dramatically.  

In effect, as warnings proliferate, the less we take any of them seriously.  Now that's a problem!  

Time will tell if Governor Cuomo thinks these are especially good ideas, but now you know how I'd recommend he treat his decision to veto or not!  
_______________________________________________________________

Follow Keith's biz blog on Twitter for updates and see more of what he's reading about on his Facebook Page. If you are inclined, you can write him at kmurray@bryant.edu.