4 ms·
It's just a bit odd that highly specific examples like this make it into written law. A pretty clear example of what happens when you have a Government that can
by Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
It's just a bit odd that highly specific examples like this make it into written law. A pretty clear example of what happens when you have a Government that can be heavily influenced by corporate lobbying.
I don't think your average reasonable person is in opposition to requirements to label food correctly and not mislead consumers. These things are already written in law, in the case of food it's governed by the FDA. However, when we start including overly specific laws like this, of which this is but one of many (sheesh, check-out what was in the TPP), then every other company in every other industry wants the same treatment, and we end up with a convoluted mess that we have today. This is a problem because your average citizen can't possibly keep up with all this; but more importantly these overly specific laws are a nightmare when it comes time to introduce new legislation. So much time is wasted on garbage like this.
The TPP actually had plenty of reasonable components to it, but it was also filled to the brim with corporate garbage. It's hard enough to form trade agreements and pass legislation without corporations insisting their obscure needs must be met. Particularly when legislation and agreements are either signed and passed as entire unit, or not at all. It just wastes everyone's time when there's a few odd sticking points holding up the whole process.
- wbl 8y agoWhy is it odd to have identity standards for food?
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y agoIt's not, and I never said that it was; quite the opposite actually. I said that it's odd that these things are written in law seems as we already have laws that cover this more broadly. Attempting to maintain in written law explicit definitions of every food that humans can fathom, and how they are presently produced, is clearly untenable.
- torstenvl 8y agoSeems pretty clearly tenable to me. It is, in fact, being tened. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y agoReally? You're genuinely arguing that every single edible substance and combination thereof ought to be recorded in written law?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- torstenvl 8y agoNo. I didn't argue that. Happy to keep talking if you want to respond to what I actually did say.
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y agoMy apologies, perhaps you need to elaborate on what you meant when you wrote: > Seems pretty clearly tenable to me. It is, in fact, being tened. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ in response to: > Attempting to maintain in written law explicit definitions of every food that humans can fathom, and how they are presently produced, is clearly untenable.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wbl 8y agoIf you have a vauger law you get all sorts of arguments that "well, cheddar doesn't have to be cheddared" and "10% meat is enough in meat sauce" etc, etc.
- torstenvl 8y agoI don't understand your argument. You seem to be opposed to specificity in the written prohibition. So what's the alternative? You'd prefer it if FDA regulations didn't have the force of law? Or would you prefer it if FDA regulations were secret, unwritten, unavailable for cheddar manufacturers and cheddar manufacturer compliance officers to examine? Neither of those seem like good solutions.
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y agoIt's called industry standards, and it's common practice and already in place in written legislation. Written laws give Government bodies power to maintain and enforce theses standards, independent of legislation that needs to be passed through long slow processes involving many politicians who have no knowledge of the relevant field.
- torstenvl 8y agoIndustry standards don't have the force of law unless they are given the force of law. > Written laws give Government bodies power to maintain and enforce theses standards, independent of legislation that needs to be passed through long slow processes involving many politicians who have no knowledge of the relevant field. "Written laws ... independent of legislation" doesn't make sense. What are you trying to say here?
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago> "Written laws ... independent of legislation" doesn't make sense. What are you trying to say here? You're right, it doesn't. That's what happens when you truncate a quote to completely remove the context.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]