Why do some people say "I wouldn't want a government to dictate what I eat"? This would mean they'd be against food safety regulations, would it not? Context was the idea of a government banning meat
Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods
This would mean they'd be against food safety regulations, would it not?
It would not.
Having traffic laws isn't the same as banning cars, either.
This would mean they’d be against food safety regulations, would it not?It would not.
Having traffic laws isn’t the same as banning cars, either.
Of course it is. Part of traffic legislation literally involves banning certain types of vehicles, either in certain areas or on any kind of public road in general.
Exaclty ... certain types in certain areas with a reason. That's regulation. You wouldn't just ban all vehicles. Do I really have to spell this out?
yes, however as far as I am aware there are no laws in the us against any private vehicle usage on private land. Unlike the FDA which criminalizes owning or consuming certain chemicals.
Most cities do ban many cars, because they harm air quality.
Buying meat supports an industry that also causes immense climate destruction, so it's the same idea
It means that they’re not a nuanced thinker.
You're talking about two different things.
Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods
This would mean they'd be against food safety regulations, would it not?
It's entirely possible to be in favor of food safety regulations and opposed to the government banning foods outright. In fact, I think one could safely presume that those are the positions most commonly held by most people.
Horse meat is illegal.
Having ate horse in the past - when it was legal I can assure you that the ban is entirely a perfect example of needless regulation. I never had it , but friends of mine said the best 'buffalo wings' they ever had was from a resteraunt that was shutdown for serving dog - they were catching local pets which is a good regulation, but the lack of legal ability to get dog is needless.
No it isn’t. Not in Canada anyway.
Which is stupid.
And...?
Not here. I think the aversion to horse meat is mostly a US thing.
Oddly enough, so is horse dick!
Now, anyways.
It wasn't always the case. It took a porn star dying after porn makers in the 2000s forced a horse to rape a woman (yes, I typed that right), and film it. The practice had been going on since the 70s, but now a woman died. So lawmakers got together and said "Ya know what? No more sleeping with horses. I don't think anyone will argue that proposed law, and I can use it on the campaign trail next election!"
And so it was. No more horse fucking porn.
And I guess the meat is also illegal. I'm sure there's a story there too.
There's a big difference between food safety and not eating meat. One is about companies putting dangerous stuff in food that can potentially harm people, the other is about something which humans have been eating ever since they existed. I understand that there are some arguments to be given about why we shouldn't eat meat, but those are definitely not as widely supported as disallowing the companies to inject "poison" into our food. In my opinion banning meat definitely would go way too far, the cost of banning meat far exceeds the benefits for public wellbeing.
We're in a climate catastrophe, and the meat industry is one of the major contributing polluters causing it.
So it makes sense to ban factory farming, because it's killing us.
Most people who say that do so for dogmatic reasons, not because they arrived at this conclusion after careful analysis. It's the political point of small government.
These are the same people who will probably be first in line shouting for government intervention when their drinking water is full of chemical waste.
You can try to reason with folks like that but you probably won't change their mind. Just try not to shout at them.
I come from a dynasty of educators. I cannot emphasize that enough. At Christmas I had to explain what a molecule was. Amongst them were several teachers and administrative individuals.
At some point, you need to revisit and refresh your understanding of the world. People can and do forget information they learned 30 or 40 years ago if they're not making use of it on at least a semi-regular basis.
I'd like the government to suggest things, and point to the science on things, but to leave the informed choice ultimately up to me.
I want them to deny bad actors the ability to sell dangerous foods on the open market.
Informed choice should be between safe products.
Whats your stance on cigarettes and alcohol?
Theres no realistic reason cigarettes should be sold to anyone, ever - but the government (in Australia where I am at least) have put the warnings out there and if people choose to still smoke, despite the packets themselves graphically showing someone with gangrenous toes, then shouldn't that be up to the individual?
Orrrrrrrr, and hear me out......
We thin the herd. We sell products that if you spend any time paying attention, you know NOT to buy.
"Delicious home baked cyanide cookies! Just like grandma used to bake! That one time...."
And then? If you eat those cookies, that's on you.
Although, this bakery would have an uphill battle maintaining a regular customer base.
"Context was the idea of a government banning meat" says the original post.
I agree that you can't possibly be fully informed on every part of everything you buy or consume, there's too much info and for a lot of it you need a good understanding of biology, science and food science to even grasp what some ingredients are for and how they work.
I am not against the governments telling people the dangers of certain foods (such as increased cardiovascular issues with overconsumption of red meat, or risk of stroke due to smoking) but as long as the consumer is informed of such, it should be up to them - not up to the government banning something like meat
And I'm against the abuse animals suffer and the whole meat industry, by the way. I hate what happens to the animals, but thats a whole other can of worms...
Do you have a degree in chemistry? How do you know which 7 syllable words on the side of the box are dangerous and which ones aren't?
In an unregulated market, who is there to say that the ingredients even need to be listed on the box?
Every purchase can be like its own little surprise!
I'm gonna paste in a reply I made to another comment which I think will answer my view on this
"Context was the idea of a government banning meat" says the original post.
I agree that you can't possibly be fully informed on every part of everything you buy or consume, there's too much info and for a lot of it you need a good understanding of biology, science and food science to even grasp what some ingredients are for and how they work.
I am not against the governments telling people the dangers of certain foods (such as increased cardiovascular issues with overconsumption of red meat, or risk of stroke due to smoking) but as long as the consumer is informed of such, it should be up to them - not up to the government banning something like meat
And I'm against the abuse animals suffer and the whole meat industry, by the way. I hate what happens to the animals, but thats a whole other can of worms...
Should the government simply suggest companies accurately label the contents of food products?
No. The government should absolutely enforce correct labelling on anything a person is to consume. Like cigarettes in Australia, if the consumable poses a health risk that too should be labelled clearly.
Aaaand now the town's water supply has murcury in it, thanks.
Leaving critical thinking up to the masses??? Oh......oh no.
Natural selection.
If the danger is clearly labelled, and all ingredients and potential hazards are clearly advised...
it would work pretty well after a few years, just ignore the deaths during the roll out.
Yes. People who oppose science-backed food regulations are dumb or selfish or both
I don't think they thought about it very much. It's like that spongebob meme where patrick has the wallet. Or the Friends one that I don't know the name of the template. You could go point by point building up a case for why there should be government regulations, but as soon as you say like "regulation" they go "Nope bad"
Though some people really do believe they as a rugged individual will be able to research and test all of their food without an FDA or whatever. If they buy bread that has sawdust in it, they'll be able to tell, and somehow get a refund, or buy some other bread that doesn't have sawdust. That seems like a lot of work and optimism compared to regulations and inspections by qualified professionals earlier in the process.
sawdust is edible though, now digestable is a different question entirely and will require a few centuries of research to get data on due to my pro-sawdust-in-food lobbyists.
i feel like there's a lot of astroturfing in the comments here, how depressing
I really don’t get it. There’s definitely a group of ideologues that are pushing anti-meat on here, and flood any post on the topic. Something like that either needs funding or volunteers coordinating. I’m guessing either extremist anti-meat groups, or big ag astroturfers trying to make them look bad.
I think it's more like government can ban what can be sold as food and make advice. They can't really stop you from drinking bleach or eating the grass in your yard or whatever. They can only prevent you from feeding it to someone else or selling it as food.
Meat isn't a food that could be banned in the same way as, say, Red Dye #4 or force-hydrogenated fats or high fructose corn syrup. They could make farmers cull whole herds of cows if mad cow broke out i guess, but there are wild hogs, backyard chickens and goats, it's just not a controllable food.
Yum tasty cardboard is back on the menu. /s
Hyperbole-loving drama queens.
Statement wise "I don't want the government to tell me what to eat" or variations could mean basically anything. Most of the time it's posturing on behalf of the idea that a lack of government regulation is a good thing which ignores a rather bloody history of food suppliers adulterating food with harmful substances in the name of preservation / cheapening production cost or using production practices that cause the likelihood of contamination of food.
Once you scratch the surface of the argument you can usually figure out more exactly what they mean and it often isn't things like government subsidy programs publishing food pyramids based on shady science and economics rather than in the interest of health.
Often it's based out of perceived personal inconvenience or the appearance of moral judgement such as when there's some sort of health labelling initiative.
In Canada there are a lot of things that are not considered legal additives for food that are used in the US and the difference in strictness is in part because the Health care system in Canada is funded publicly. Producers of foodstuffs cost the government money directly if whatever they put in it has no nutritional value and causes known health problems. Rather than let companies create messes and tragedies which the government is on the hook to clean up when people's health fails they remove the issue at it's source. In the US there's less incentive as these costs become scattered in the form of individual medical bills and oftentimes the savings are from food being shelf stable for longer. Shrugging one's shoulders at the fallout or claiming its an exercise of "freedom" is in service to those who make money hand over fist.
Unregulated anarchy vs nanny state. There's a wide spectrum in between we can argue about, but let's not get too far toward either extreme.
Kinder eggs should NOT be banned, and Americans have an inferior product because of it.
........but also I agree with the banning of Red dye #3.
It's banned in the US because we're sue-crazy. Companies can't rely on the common sense of their customers here. Even if the egg comes with a blinking neon sign that says there's a non edible toy inside, someone would sue (and win!) claiming that it's not enough and the toy shouldn't be there in the first place.
I was about to protest, but grog calls for red dye #2, so we're all good.
That's anarchy? Wow, that's dumb. They should not just collectively decide something. They should write down what they decided so that people who couldn't attend or that later come from outside the community know what has been decided. Or, even better, if I know I can't participate in the decision (or don't want to) I should be able to pass my voice to somebody who's there who I trust. Or, even better, just in case that person spontaneously gets sick or dies, to a group of people. Maybe, to get some consistency with people getting to know the details of the decision making process and the prior decisions, only redistribute these stand in votes every few years or so. Just to get the anarchy organised a bit.
I have to admit I never really understood how anarchist societies were supposed to work. Now that you've pointed out they are just people banding together to make collective decisions based on expert information, I can't fathom why I ever thought they could go wrong.
As a (social) anarchist, yeah there's a wide range. The government shouldn't tell people what they're allowed to eat, in my opinion, but they should protect them from dangers and exploitation. We don't usually have the tools, or the time, to test all our food to ensure safety. We need government oversight for that. However, they shouldn't go too far beyond that and force us to eat particular things.