4 ms·

> Do you think people manufacturing the products you buy are interested in poisoning you? Would they do it? They would lose all their customers, their reputatio

by Jochim 5y ago

> Do you think people manufacturing the products you buy are interested in poisoning you? Would they do it? They would lose all their customers, their reputation would be damaged... no, I do not see it. There's a long history of businesses adulterating their products in order to increase profit. One of the most infamous being the Chinese infant formula scandal[0]. It seems incredibly naive to think that these regulations haven't been paid for in human lives. The main reason for having the government take responsibility for certain things is that they should be available to everyone in society. Roads and schools are a great examples of this in practice. Also, who wants to live a world where you constantly have to figure out if something is safe to fucking eat. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal

germandiago 5y ago
there is a long story also of why that does not depend on having a government, come on... and many other things. I just advocate for the possibility that better paradigms are possible (and some have even existed in the past!). But how come you have to figure out if food is safe just because it is not the government who certifies that food?! Man, we are not going to agree at all, I see. Yes, you go to a link for China, where the biggest government is and you have death penalty. A good show of why governments work for food control, right? hahahahahaha! You are just making my point, man. It does not depend on it.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  Man, you're digging a grave for your own point of view. If you compare China where the regulation is strict (but compliance is sloppy) with India, where both are lacking, China's incidence of death from poisoning is at least 2x lower.
  - germandiago 5y ago
    That is just partial data. There are way more countries and I am sure the correlation is not like the comparison between India and China. Though I admit I did not search that data, just an intuition that there are countries where people stick more to rules and do not cheat you and places where you turn back and they do it. And no, it is not because of regulations. I lived in South East Asia for almost a decade. Anyone will cheat u there way more often than in most european countries. It is not regulations. It is people and culture. Yes.
- Jochim 5y ago
  > But how come you have to figure out if food is safe just because it is not the government who certifies that food?! Because rather than trusting a centralised entity responsible for food safety I now need to figure out which of the 5,000 profit driven "certification" authorities are actually trustworthy and aren't just an arm of the food manufacturer. In the best case scenario I end up finding 5 or so organisations that will certify the ingredients I use most often, and I'm a bit fucked if I ever want to eat something they don't cover. In the worst case those 5 organisations have previously been bought by the market leader and now are now operated as fronts. > Yes, you go to a link for China, where the biggest government is and you have death penalty. The infant formula scandal is simply the one with the most widespread media attention, probably because the profit motive lead to babies being poisoned. It was a counter example to your initial point that food manufacturers would never dream of adulterating their products. If you'd rather have a western example, then in the UK a supplier of one of the largest supermarkets Tesco, was caught adulterating their "beef" burgers with horse meat. > Yes, you go to a link for China, where the biggest government is and you have death penalty. I don't see how the death penalty has any bearing on what we're discussing. > A good show of why governments work for food control, right? hahahahahaha! You are just making my point, man. It does not depend on it. It shows that they had the motivation, resources, and authority to find and punish those responsible. I don't agree with the form the punishment took but it illustrates the limitations of a private certification body once people start dropping dead. In fact they would be incentivised to help cover up any incidents lest they lose customers.

by Jochim 5y ago

germandiago 5y ago

there is a long story also of why that does not depend on having a government, come on... and many other things. I just advocate for the possibility that better paradigms are possible (and some have even existed in the past!). But how come you have to figure out if food is safe just because it is not the government who certifies that food?! Man, we are not going to agree at all, I see. Yes, you go to a link for China, where the biggest government is and you have death penalty. A good show of why governments work for food control, right? hahahahahaha! You are just making my point, man. It does not depend on it.

lostmsu 5y ago
Man, you're digging a grave for your own point of view. If you compare China where the regulation is strict (but compliance is sloppy) with India, where both are lacking, China's incidence of death from poisoning is at least 2x lower.
- germandiago 5y ago
  That is just partial data. There are way more countries and I am sure the correlation is not like the comparison between India and China. Though I admit I did not search that data, just an intuition that there are countries where people stick more to rules and do not cheat you and places where you turn back and they do it. And no, it is not because of regulations. I lived in South East Asia for almost a decade. Anyone will cheat u there way more often than in most european countries. It is not regulations. It is people and culture. Yes.
Jochim 5y ago
> But how come you have to figure out if food is safe just because it is not the government who certifies that food?! Because rather than trusting a centralised entity responsible for food safety I now need to figure out which of the 5,000 profit driven "certification" authorities are actually trustworthy and aren't just an arm of the food manufacturer. In the best case scenario I end up finding 5 or so organisations that will certify the ingredients I use most often, and I'm a bit fucked if I ever want to eat something they don't cover. In the worst case those 5 organisations have previously been bought by the market leader and now are now operated as fronts. > Yes, you go to a link for China, where the biggest government is and you have death penalty. The infant formula scandal is simply the one with the most widespread media attention, probably because the profit motive lead to babies being poisoned. It was a counter example to your initial point that food manufacturers would never dream of adulterating their products. If you'd rather have a western example, then in the UK a supplier of one of the largest supermarkets Tesco, was caught adulterating their "beef" burgers with horse meat. > Yes, you go to a link for China, where the biggest government is and you have death penalty. I don't see how the death penalty has any bearing on what we're discussing. > A good show of why governments work for food control, right? hahahahahaha! You are just making my point, man. It does not depend on it. It shows that they had the motivation, resources, and authority to find and punish those responsible. I don't agree with the form the punishment took but it illustrates the limitations of a private certification body once people start dropping dead. In fact they would be incentivised to help cover up any incidents lest they lose customers.