4 ms·

The difference is that asbestos or lead exposure are much more dangerous and they are easily replaced with other materials that provide near identical functiona

The difference is that asbestos or lead exposure are much more dangerous and they are easily replaced with other materials that provide near identical functionality. In moderation sugary and fatty foods and drinks are completely safe. Also, the substitutes available either taste completely different or are of dubious safety themselves (aspartame, margarine, etc.). One approach is to punish everybody because a few people over consume these foods and another approach is to provide robust and accurate nutrition labels and warnings, and ensure that adults are properly educated to understand how to read them. You may disagree, but I value freedom and find the latter preferable to the former.

manuelabeledo 4y ago
> The difference is that asbestos or lead exposure are much more dangerous and they are easily replaced with other materials that provide near identical functionality. But that's not the issue. Asbestos insulation could be perfectly safe too, as it is lead in paint, mercury in thermometers, etc. But societies deemed the risks greater than the benefits. You may not mind living in a house coated with lead. I'm glad the government has banned it. > ... another approach is to provide robust and accurate nutrition labels and warnings, and ensure that adults are properly educated to understand how to read them This is unrealistic and naive, starting with the fact that "robust and accurate" nutrition labels must be enforced by the government. If we were to get rid of such regulations, corporations have proved over and over again that they see no incentive in providing better products over higher profits. Also, your argument presupposes that every single consumer has the tools and capabilities to receive and benefit from such "education", which is, obviously, not true for e.g. older adults, or people with certain disabilities.

manuelabeledo 4y ago

> The difference is that asbestos or lead exposure are much more dangerous and they are easily replaced with other materials that provide near identical functionality. But that's not the issue. Asbestos insulation could be perfectly safe too, as it is lead in paint, mercury in thermometers, etc. But societies deemed the risks greater than the benefits. You may not mind living in a house coated with lead. I'm glad the government has banned it. > ... another approach is to provide robust and accurate nutrition labels and warnings, and ensure that adults are properly educated to understand how to read them This is unrealistic and naive, starting with the fact that "robust and accurate" nutrition labels must be enforced by the government. If we were to get rid of such regulations, corporations have proved over and over again that they see no incentive in providing better products over higher profits. Also, your argument presupposes that every single consumer has the tools and capabilities to receive and benefit from such "education", which is, obviously, not true for e.g. older adults, or people with certain disabilities.