4 ms·
> Consumers are key to change Consumers are given responsibility for too many things. When I buy something I have to check how it impacts the environment, anim
by jopsen 9y ago
> Consumers are key to change
Consumers are given responsibility for too many things. When I buy something I have to check how it impacts the environment, animal welfare, fair trade, worker impact, company social responsibility, price, antibiotic usage, palm oil usage, health impacts, allergens, various toxins, suspected list of toxic substances, company reputation, etc.
When will it end? IMO this doesn't scale... This needs regulation, I'm fairly sure the EU is doing it's part, where is the US?
- macspoofing 9y ago>When will it end? When you want it to end. You're putting those burdens on yourself.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jopsen 9y agoNo, the people who say that this is up to the consumers, rather than being a regulatory issue. Those people are doing big-corporations a favor, by trying to shift the burden to me, who we all know can't possibly do this.
- macspoofing 9y agoExcept we don't operate in some sort of unrestricted free market. There are agencies like the FDA that enforce food and pharma standards - so you can trust that nothing at a grocery store will poison you. There are laws, regulations and trade deals that govern how commerce is conducted. What you're doing is injecting personal, arbitrary and capricious standards on top of the already existing massive regulatory framework and then complaining it is too hard. No kidding! Don't do that then or at least don't be a martyr about it.
- pishpash 9y agoYou're right it is completely not scalable, and not only that, but incompatible with present-day market economics. One of the most important things we give up for the abstraction of market transactions with interchangeable goods is information outside the transaction.
- petepete 9y agoThe EU is doing its part. The UK media ridiculed and undermined it constantly for "red tape". Now we're leaving; things will only get worse.
- thriftwy 9y agoHow about they stop demanding paperwork before any production is made, and instead go after actual trespassers by doing blind tests? Because, you know, as a consumer I fail to see how paperwork protects me from anything. Being expert at paperwork doesn't mean you're an expert of being a fair tradesman. Paperwork collectors mentality is precisely what we should beat off of bureaucracy.
- lukaslalinsky 9y agoWould you apply the same concept to drugs? Would you allow pharmaceutical companies to sell anything and catch them if they sell something that kills people? While it's not the same situation, the difference between food and drugs is not that great.
- thriftwy 9y agoI'm not sure about drugs, but the process they have right now also inspires zero confidence in me: * It costs billions effectively confining market for a few huge conglomerates. * It passes throuh drugs that turn out to not have any observable effect or which are worse than ones already on market. * It did allow pushing opioids for the epidemic. It's not pretty. It might be better than nothing in this extreme case, but that's a pretty low bar.
- jopsen 9y agoInteresting idea... Catching things with blind tests as a way to increase compliance while reducing the burden of documentation. If it could be done efficiently, that would certainly be better.. I suspect that tests might be expensive to scale, and not offer sufficient precision... Antibiotics might disappear over time, for example. IMO we should always strive to improve regulation and make it more efficient.
- Feniks 9y agoI cut down on eating meat to 3 times a week but Burgers won't like that. An alternative is organic free range meat but damn that's too expensive.
- jopsen 9y agoNice, move... But you also have to choose the right shampoo :) And some shampoos might have organic ingredients, while the contents is manufactured in an environmental damaging fashion... Others might be environmentally responsible, but not organic. Some might be both, but nighter of those is a guarantee that it's good for you. Organic snake poison, might be organic, but it's still very unhealthy :) Point being that consumer choice is not a good way to solve these problems. That said, eating less meat is generally a good approach. But replacing it with organic free range meat is not a perfect solution without a study. Could we feed the entire planet this way? Is it as efficient in terms of fodder needed? Is free range better than caged in terms of animal welfare (usually, yes, but there could be caveats).