Legislation and self-regulation
Self-regulation is the term used to refer to the situation where the parties in an organization industry or trade sector of the economy are mandated to monitor their conformance to legal, ethical, social as well as safety standards. In some cases, self-regulation tends to be more efficient and effective under which the regulation is passed to consumers. Therefore, the process of rules enforcement, monitoring, and remediation processes is easier and fast. The legislation is the government regulation that is enacted to protect its citizens, more specifically, the consumers for the business sector. Therefore government regulations tend to protect the immediate consumer; however, the impact they might have on the business sectors.
Government regulations are often better in situations where the industry may fail to eliminate the unethical behavior known to the public. Therefore regulations become infective where there arises a conflict of interest. Laws enacted by the States may thus force the party concerned to comply with such regulations. The concept of whether legislation or self-regulation should apply depends typically on the issue at hand. It also depends on the economic impacts, social, health, and rights of the citizens in the state. The two regulations are to be imposed. When government regulation has an infringement on the rights of its people and can affect the country at hand, it is better to impose a more friendly regulation to avoid contradicting such acts. Consequently, there are some situations where self –laws do not protect the health of the people, and thus, in this case, legislation is vital. This is after proving that self –regulations might be weaker.
Peru’s Junk Food Act came about after the recommendations that were published by the World Health Organization on the marketing of food and non –alcoholic beverages to children. The Act brought about a mix of reactions where some supported the Bill while the majority of the groups gave a dissenting opinion on the Bill. Column Journalist Augusto Roderich gave a dissenting opinion over the Bill by giving out his advice about the Bill. First, he claimed that the Act was an invasion of privacy on something very sensitive such as the kind of food on what people eat. I partially support the Journalist’s sentiments that the law is very clear against the invasion of privacy. One is entitled to privacy and has what it takes to guard against its intrusion. People have a right to choose on what to eat whether harmful or not essential in their diet. Therefore the Act was tending to infringe on the rights of people on choosing what diet to undertake. As far as a balanced diet is essential for the health of a person, some people want not to take balance diet foods, and it is their right.
In the Bill under section 3, it had outlined that it aims to reduce and curb non-communicable diseases that come along with obesity, chronic illness, and overweight. However, the critics of the Bill claimed that the problem never existed. Statistics from the Ministry of Health also showed that the percentage level of obese was low and thus contradicting statements from the Bill under section 3. In this, I believe that the self –regulation was applicable where the government had to impose measures that required the business industries in the food sector to reduce the fat contents and level of sugar in the Junk foods rather than imposing the Act. The law was also violating the freedom of free enterprise since the kiosks, cafeterias, and industries that were selling and producing the products could be rendered inactive and, in some situations having an impact on the Economy of Peru. Further, there was no critical health issue associated with Junk food, and it was thus crucial for the country to adopt the self –regulation if indeed it aimed to protect the future health of its citizens.
Freedom of choice allows people to choose what is right and wrong, depending on their own opinion. In health matters, people also have a right to decide about their health when to die. This was depicted in the case under health care insurance that the government was forcing people to get health insurance to protect their future health. The court, however, upheld that people have the right to choose what is good or bad regarding their health. Therefore individuals free to eat and choose what they want. What happens that when the law prohibits junk food that contains sugar and fats and allowing eating other products that contain such ingredients is useless and not applicable? Therefore self-regulation is the only way to reduce the consumption of fats and sugars at high levels.
Under the ethical and legal concepts, I consider that the law was unethical and therefore s could not have been enacted. Basing the number of retails stores that engaged in distributing and selling junk foods. It was evident that the law could have negative economic impacts in the private sector, thus affecting formal trade, at the same time, encouraging the informal sale of smuggled goods. Therefore in some instances, it was impossible to implement the law. It was also justifiable that the law could lead to sanitation problems in schools when the packaged foods were prohibited and thus exposing school children to infectious diseases. Therefore, in this case, it was essential to rely on self-regulation rather than legislate. The legislation also brings about the enforcement body that strains the state budget, as indicated in the Case study, where the nutritional oversight body was created, adding a burden to the state spending.
However, the issue of legislation and self-regulation depends on time and situation at hand. Therefore before choosing the appropriate measure, one has to ask the question. Is it necessary to legislate or rely on self-regulation? This, after carefully assessing the benefits accruing from the two measures. The law had good intentions for its citizens by ensuring their health safety and reducing obesity among children. Health specialists urged that the rules were suitable for the school children and future generations in minimizing the risks of illness like Cancer and Diabetes. The nutritionist also supported the law as it may reduce the spread of disease. The code is good at first as far as the health of Peru’s citizens is concerned. However, are there other measures that are effective in fostering the health of Perulans than legislation? What overall impact does the law have on the economy, international trade, and the private sector in Peru? Are the implications justifiable? Therefore it can be noted that it was better to rely on self –regulation than to legislate since it was an effective measure than enacting the Junk Food Act.