Vulgar Second Best Theory: Salt edition

As before, this is a 3 step process with the following relevant variations:

1) Identify supposed market failure (iodized or iodated salt will be underconsumed in a free market)
2) Identify policy (mandate salt iodization)
3) Declare victory (assume policy has solved problem)

As usual, there is no emphasis on determining the truth of 1, the effectiveness of 2, or finding out whether there are other factors at work (sometimes from previous applications of this theory). Case in point: iodine levels are mandated in Guatemala, but outcomes are not met.

"A number of factors are known to influence the stability of iodine in salt, such as the duration of storage, size of salt crystals, impurities, moisture of the salt, ambient temperature and humidity, and sunlight exposure. Iodate, which is used to fortify salt in Guatemala, is intrinsically more stable than the iodide used in industrialized nations. The presence of an inadequate amount of iodine in salt suggests an attempt to fortify the salt at the site of production. Inadequate quality control and lax government monitoring and enforcement probably play a role in the genesis of most samples in the range of 5 to 29 ppm. For samples with lower iodine levels, we cannot discount the introduction of unfortified salt into the supply either as contraband from a neighbouring country or from national producers not in compliance with the legal requirements to fortify their product."

But they have such good intentions. Maybe the problem is not enough power in the hands of their government? Perhaps a salt monopoly is the answer? And stricter border control?

Okay, I think I've beat this topic to death now (1 and 2).