11 ms·

> I remain stunned at the things that are heavily regulated in America vs not. Yes. This looks like a clear example where a regulation in place, and enforced,

• kybernetyk 10y ago
  > but regulations should be included in that future so it serves citizens Regulations rarely serve citizens. They usually serve special interest groups.
  • cloudwalking 10y ago
    Citation needed. I can think of quite a few food, consumer, financial, medical, and environmental regulations that directly serve me and my fellow citizens.
  • nefitty 10y ago
    I don't consider my desire to live in a pollution-free environment to be a "special interest".
  • tekklloneer 10y ago
    You really don't seem to remember or have been alive before a lot of these regulations were put into effect. Ever look at a food nutrition label? That one was fought tooth and nail.
    • 0xfeba 10y ago
      Still being fought. Trans fats can be listed as 0g as long as it's <=0.5g. Sugar still has no % DV. Many other things the industry fights against.
      • chimeracoder 10y ago
        > Sugar still has no % DV. Because medically, that's a complicated question. The 25-40mg/day number that's often cited is for added sugar, not inclusive of all sugar in food. That's something that's a little trickier to evaluate for processed food[0], and it varies a lot more between people than other substances for which a recommended daily value is listed. [0] For example, fruit juice can have no sugar added, but still contain what are likely unhealthy levels of sugar depending on the serving size
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
        • 0xfeba 10y ago
          > Because medically, that's a complicated question. That fine, but with all the misdirection around sat/trans fats, and the current global obesity epidemic, I find it hard to believe the industry is solely concerned about reducing consumer confusion (IIRC, that's their stated reasoning) around a % DV for sugar. That is, we need some kind of yard stick for sugar, because what we have now is not sufficient for the problems our society has. It may not be % DV, but off the top of my head, say relative sugar ratio to other food products in the same category. But that can be gamed as well since there're only a handful of independent companies in the industry.
          • chimeracoder 10y ago
            > It may not be % DV, but off the top of my head, say relative sugar ratio to other food products in the same category. But that can be gamed as well since there're only a handful of independent companies in the industry. Right now, there isn't sufficient medical consensus to require labeling. A metric that is trivial to game can be far worse than not having one at all, as is picking a metric that ultimately turns out to be incorrect and counterproductive. We know that, broadly, "too much added sugar isn't good". But we don't know exactly how much, or what the tradeoffs are with "replacing" added sugar with natural sugar (by substituting foods in diets), or with replacing added sugar with various sugar substitutes, or even if there is a meaningful difference between the different kinds of sugar (sucrose, glucose, fructose, etc.). There are speculations with some evidence to suggest reasonable hypotheses, but prematurely acting on those hypotheses has very far-reaching consequences.
    • mikeash 10y ago
      I'm always gobsmacked when anyone fights against labeling requirements. If you don't want people knowing what's in your stuff, should you really be selling it to them? It's been really interesting to watch the fight over GMO labeling. A lot of people who I'd normally consider to be on "my side" in this (pro-GMO) are strongly against labeling requirements.
      • microcolonel 10y ago
        Granted, GMO labeling requirements are essentially a "give an inch" scenario. Since there is no logical reason why GMO would be the deciding factor between safe and unsafe versions of a plant (especially since the resulting plant is tested in the same way as common produce), it really seems asinine to require the labeling. Requiring GMO labeling legitimizes hooplah; and opens the door to labeling requirements for almost any dumb, irrelevant characteristic of the product. This also introduces tonnes of new requirements up and down the supply chain, it's not just about labeling at that point, because now you have to be able to prove that you don't need the label. Then there's the problem of the commercial code. If you say it's GMO, so that you don't get sued by GMO paranoids, then you could be sued by sane people for selling goods of a different description than the one on the label (by just saying it's GMO to be safe).
        • elif 10y ago
          if it is GMO, is it not reasonable to assume it is likely to have more herbicide/pesticide particles?
          • microcolonel 10y ago
            I don't think that assumption can be made, no. My understanding is that the purpose is generally not to be able to put more pesticide on the crop, but for the crop to react less to the amount of pesticide necessary to provide the desired environment for the plant; and this is only in the case of pesticide-resistance modifications. There are, for example, GMO rice strains which are intended to increase yield in pesticide-free crops, and in cooler climates than typically desired for rice.
  • kbart 10y ago
    So why these "special interest groups" do everything they can to avoid regulations laws being passed?
  • BrailleHunting 10y ago
    "If all men were angels, no government would be necessary." -James Madison Hence effective, nuanced regulation is absolutely vital and libertarianism is an illusionary utopia like communism, with sensible and practical being somewhere in the middle.
    • vidarh 10y ago
      Libertarianism comes from the left, first used by an anarcho-communist. Between libertarianism and communism there's nothing.... Yes, I know what you mean, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Right-wing libertarianism differ from left-wing libertarianism in the view on property in particular. But neither see regulation as always unacceptable, but "just" want government actions to maximize liberty. This can lead to very different outcomes depending on how you think. E.g. food safety regulations will restrict the liberty of both seller and buyer. But at the same time if properly done they protect the buyer against potentially far worse damage to liberty - ultimately potentially costing the buyers life. The seller on the other hand at worst suffers a loss of revenue. There are further few cases where the buyer would knowingly and willingly buy unsafe food without intending to put others at the risk of harm. As such the ultimate consumer's liberty is likely to be at greater risk than the sellers liberty in the absence of regulation. Weighing the relative impact on liberty, some degree of food safety rules would seem to be the lesser evil. I'm not saying that's the only alternative or right intrpretation, but that libertarianism in general is more complicated than just stripping all rules. Stripping the wrong regulation can have a greater negative than positive impact on liberty
      • mikeash 10y ago
        Maybe instead of trying to write specific regulations for every little thing, we should just equalize this imbalance of damage. If a seller's misbehavior causes a buyer's death, then consider that as murder. If it's premeditated, execute the people responsible. OK, I don't really think this would be a good idea, but I do think it's worth at least thinking about how that would look and why we don't do it. Why is it that the alternative to regulation must always be "caveat emptor"? If a company deliberately sells a faulty product that kills a customer, they should be treated just like a common criminal who breaks into someone's house and shoots them. From this perspective, regulations are as much about protecting the sellers as it is about protecting the buyers.
  • lawless123 10y ago
    >Regulations rarely serve citizens. They usually serve special interest groups 3 blind women would disagree.
  • veidr 10y ago
    Your comment is being downvoted to hell, because it utterly deserves to be. It's not only wrong to the point of being asinine — it's also the precise propaganda concept that is most widely promoted by special interest groups in their campaigns to defeat or roll back regulations that serve citizens.
  • ionised 10y ago
    The same can be said about lack of regulation.
  • fennecfoxen 10y ago
    Dude. I mean, I broadly agree, but you can't just throw it out there on an article like this like it'll be productive in any way at all; you've got to actually make a case. Remember that even the regulators who most ostentatiously serve special interest groups usually have some excuse that they're trying to make things safer and better for people at large somehow or another: you should seek to pre-emptively overcome at least the basic entry-level apologetics for them, doubly so in a situation like this. Things that could make your case: - bring up the issue of regulatory capture (ideally with an example from the exact relevant bureaucracy) and complain that this is evidence that the bureaucracy is focused on the interest groups instead of on the people it claims to protect, with overreactions after the fact that do not actually serve to provide effective protection (chronically fighting yesterday's battle) - bring up the actual negative impact of certain regulations on people and demonstrate that they are worse than this particular failure (candidate topics: insanely slow FDA approval of new manufacturing of generic drugs leading to things like the EpiPen episode, "certificate of need" legislation leading to higher prices and reduced availability of medical services in the name of protecting incumbent hospital profits, etc) - look for other failures where medical regulatory frameworks have demonstrated that they are ineffective ways to protect people - perhaps opine that these people are going to be ruined now anyway and that a regulatory backlash is totally redundant, thwarting none of the bad guys and burdening good guys ... in short, try a post with, like, actual content sometime, it's more effective :b