4 ms·

" It's not likely we will have such protections in the US." It is generally safe in the US to assume consumer protections don't exist until an incident forces

by zeruch 4y ago

" It's not likely we will have such protections in the US." It is generally safe in the US to assume consumer protections don't exist until an incident forces an industry change, or a regulatory event materializes. The US generally does not care about consumers at all, except in terms of keeping or upping the rate of consumption.

zeruch 4y ago
I like how this was down-voted, even when the evidence is staggeringly in its favor. We consistently wait for hazard to materialize before we implement post-event safeguards, instead of putting up health parameters and expect commercial entities to meet them consistently. We laugh at the regulatory frameworks of places like Europe and Japan, yet they consistently get fewer food recalls, or stories about pink-goo as a food source, let alone the disparity in what they will allow in their food supply. We nearly had a civil uprising about mandating seat belts. Elsewhere? Some griping and little else. Etc.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  It was probably downvoted because it isn't true. In particular, California pushes a lot of proactive vehicle safety measures. There are many states which wouldn't require these measures, but California is a big enough market that many manufactures simply implement them nationally. "stories about pink-goo as a food source" This is a non-story. The EU didn't ban pink goo (aka LFTB), they simply require that citric acid is used for sterilization rather than ammonia gas. Furthermore - there's nothing at all wrong with eating all parts of an animal, as long as it's safe. What country do you know of that doesn't eat tripe?
  - zeruch 4y ago
    It is fairly true (yeah, it's more complicated than a simple flat comparison, but in general, yes the EU and elsewhere does a better job and takes a more proactive approach). Also, nice throwaway account. California is not the US (and frankly much of the US balks at California attempts to push things from gas mileage standards to any environmental quality standard to privacy, etc), and since the tail end of the Reagan years the US has largely given up its affirmative regulatory concerns to the EU. We're great at providing space for for-profit middlemen, but categorically mediocre or worse on preventative concerns. * https://www.safeopedia.com/2/4270/ehs/comparing-eu-health-safety-laws-across-the-pond https://www.safeopedia.com/2/4270/ehs/comparing-eu-health-sa... * https://www.theregreview.org/2013/01/01/01-oxholm-ppr-vogel/ https://www.theregreview.org/2013/01/01/01-oxholm-ppr-vogel/ * https://info.orrsafety.com/safety-hub/usa-vs-europe-biggest-difference-in-worker-safety https://info.orrsafety.com/safety-hub/usa-vs-europe-biggest-... * https://www.fooddocs.com/post/food-safety-standards https://www.fooddocs.com/post/food-safety-standards * https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2...
    - throwaway09223 4y ago
      But you're cherry picking regulatory areas. The US is far more conservative and cautious around drugs, for example.
      - zeruch 4y ago
        The irony of you saying I'm cherry picking, then doing it yourself looking for an out isn't lost on me. Given you picked the one area where the US started it's agency as an actual consumer-safety oriented one (a rarity), and a centralized one, is a good topic to look at: "The FDA historically developed as a consumer protection agency, whereas the regulations from the European Commission arose out of a need to harmonize inter-state commercial interests while preserving national “autonomy.” Thus, whereas the FDA has the advantages of centralization and common rules, the European Union regulates medical drug and device approvals through a network of centralized and decentralized agencies throughout its member states." - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452302X16300638 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452302X1... Congrats, you cherry picked the outlier. And I'd argue based on the fact that we actually allow endless Pharma advertising and doctor lobbying, and the EU generally forbids it, that we still come up short comparatively.
        throwaway09223 4y ago
        An example of something you ignored in a categorical statement isn't cherry-picking. It's a counter-example disproving your claim. And it seems you agree, so we're done.
        zeruch 4y ago
        " so we're done." Thank $DEITY_OF_CHOICE

by zeruch 4y ago

zeruch 4y ago

I like how this was down-voted, even when the evidence is staggeringly in its favor. We consistently wait for hazard to materialize before we implement post-event safeguards, instead of putting up health parameters and expect commercial entities to meet them consistently. We laugh at the regulatory frameworks of places like Europe and Japan, yet they consistently get fewer food recalls, or stories about pink-goo as a food source, let alone the disparity in what they will allow in their food supply. We nearly had a civil uprising about mandating seat belts. Elsewhere? Some griping and little else. Etc.

throwaway09223 4y ago
It was probably downvoted because it isn't true. In particular, California pushes a lot of proactive vehicle safety measures. There are many states which wouldn't require these measures, but California is a big enough market that many manufactures simply implement them nationally. "stories about pink-goo as a food source" This is a non-story. The EU didn't ban pink goo (aka LFTB), they simply require that citric acid is used for sterilization rather than ammonia gas. Furthermore - there's nothing at all wrong with eating all parts of an animal, as long as it's safe. What country do you know of that doesn't eat tripe?
- zeruch 4y ago
  It is fairly true (yeah, it's more complicated than a simple flat comparison, but in general, yes the EU and elsewhere does a better job and takes a more proactive approach). Also, nice throwaway account. California is not the US (and frankly much of the US balks at California attempts to push things from gas mileage standards to any environmental quality standard to privacy, etc), and since the tail end of the Reagan years the US has largely given up its affirmative regulatory concerns to the EU. We're great at providing space for for-profit middlemen, but categorically mediocre or worse on preventative concerns. * https://www.safeopedia.com/2/4270/ehs/comparing-eu-health-safety-laws-across-the-pond https://www.safeopedia.com/2/4270/ehs/comparing-eu-health-sa... * https://www.theregreview.org/2013/01/01/01-oxholm-ppr-vogel/ https://www.theregreview.org/2013/01/01/01-oxholm-ppr-vogel/ * https://info.orrsafety.com/safety-hub/usa-vs-europe-biggest-difference-in-worker-safety https://info.orrsafety.com/safety-hub/usa-vs-europe-biggest-... * https://www.fooddocs.com/post/food-safety-standards https://www.fooddocs.com/post/food-safety-standards * https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2...
  - throwaway09223 4y ago
    But you're cherry picking regulatory areas. The US is far more conservative and cautious around drugs, for example.
    - zeruch 4y ago
      The irony of you saying I'm cherry picking, then doing it yourself looking for an out isn't lost on me. Given you picked the one area where the US started it's agency as an actual consumer-safety oriented one (a rarity), and a centralized one, is a good topic to look at: "The FDA historically developed as a consumer protection agency, whereas the regulations from the European Commission arose out of a need to harmonize inter-state commercial interests while preserving national “autonomy.” Thus, whereas the FDA has the advantages of centralization and common rules, the European Union regulates medical drug and device approvals through a network of centralized and decentralized agencies throughout its member states." - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452302X16300638 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452302X1... Congrats, you cherry picked the outlier. And I'd argue based on the fact that we actually allow endless Pharma advertising and doctor lobbying, and the EU generally forbids it, that we still come up short comparatively.
      - throwaway09223 4y ago
        An example of something you ignored in a categorical statement isn't cherry-picking. It's a counter-example disproving your claim. And it seems you agree, so we're done.
        zeruch 4y ago
        " so we're done." Thank $DEITY_OF_CHOICE