Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" in 1776 argued famously that market forces lead to competitive outcomes and lower prices — if governments can resist the temptation to connive with business to protect monopolies from foreign competition.
The baby formula shortage debacle is a perfect illustration of what Smith meant.
In a desperate move to placate panicked parents having trouble finding formula for their infants, the Biden administration this week invoked Korean War era legislation, the Defense Production Act, to allow additional supplies of formula to get to market.
What exactly is the problem? Two words sum it up: monopoly and protectionism.
Just four companies currently control 90% of the U.S. infant formula market, reflecting the stranglehold of the pharmaceutical industry of which they are a part. Just as domestic monopoly in the insulin market has allowed Big Pharma to play God with diabetic lives, hungry babies are another market with "inelastic demand" — meaning that parents will pay almost any price to keep their young ones fed.
In a less than ringing call for more oversight of this price-gouging monopoly power, Robert Califf, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) head, said May 16 that more "diversity in supply … will be much discussed and needs to be considered in light of the levers that we have to make that happen."