4 ms·

> the less processed foods that we eat This is literally none of the government's business

dragontamer 4y ago
I dunno. The US Government thinking about what we eat has been around since at least iodized salt, probably earlier. There's a famous 1800s court case about whether or not Tomatoes are fruits or Vegetables. The bulk of these regulations came after Sinclair's "The Jungle", pointing out all of the problems at food processing plants (albeit in fictional form, but there was truth in fiction) -------- Whether or not the US Government "should" care is kind of a settled case for over a century in my eyes. Now that being said, "processed food" is such an incredibly vague category filled with obvious snake-oil salesmen and fake news that I loathe to give any of that much of my attention. But the government thinking about what foods are safe (or not) to eat? That's literally their job and has been for a long, long time. ------- Now we can talk about where the regulations have failed, such as the Peking Duck exemption. (Peking Duck is delicious, and clearly safe. But by 1970s law / understanding of regulations, it was quite illegal). And its important to remember these cases and that regulation is far from perfect. But the overall concept of caring about what foods are safe and not safe is the point of FDA, USDA, and a whole slew of other agencies.
haliskerbas 4y ago
I would love it to be the government's business. I spend most of my time doing W2 work which the government automatically takes a cut from. I don't want to become a nutritionist, and I don't want candy to kill me faster than it would in Europe.
- exabrial 4y ago
  Who is forcing you to eat candy?
  - haliskerbas 4y ago
    No one, just like no one forces me to walk outside, but I love being able to breathe air that is not as poisonous (aka EPA).
    - exabrial 4y ago
      The difference is, air you don't have a choice, it's a shared resource, and it's required for life. So who is making your eat skittles?
p0pcult 4y ago
That's certainly one take. They probably shouldn't be able to regulate seatbelt use, or forbid pollutants. The free market will take care of it, right?
- xcdzvyn 4y ago
  Seatbelts were a product of the free market
  - p0pcult 4y ago
    The requirements to use them, where they exist, are not.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      Seatbelts were gaining adoption pretty damn fast before they got mandated. Ditto for safety glass, brake lights and airbags. I think if we didn't mandate them the only cars without them these days would be those ultra basic trims that they only make five of so they can advertise a low "starting at" number. ABS and traction control are the questionable ones that saw their adoption plateau and probably wouldn't have the adoption they do without government. Modern collision avoidance stuff appears to be making its way through the market lightening quick without mandate.
RubberSoul 4y ago
This is, of course, a major philosophical debate. I will just say that there could be reasons this is the government's business. One issue with modern food production for consumers is that it can be difficult to determine whether a particular ingredient is safe or healthy. Information has public good qualities, and having each consumer make an individual determination about whether each ingredient is safe/healthy is costly. The obvious way to justify government intervention here is that it's more efficient for us to pool resources and empower a third-party to produce the information we need and ban/label products that are likely unsafe. The decisions won't always be right, but the approach might be much preferred to the alternatives. Plus, conditional on socializing a lot of medical costs, it might make sense to put restrictions on behaviors that affect individual health.
- exabrial 4y ago
  So to summarize: * Your body, not your choice * If a person puts a substance into their their body that the governement doesn't like? Incarcerate them? Fine them to take away their means of buying more food?

I dunno. The US Government thinking about what we eat has been around since at least iodized salt, probably earlier. There's a famous 1800s court case about whether or not Tomatoes are fruits or Vegetables. The bulk of these regulations came after Sinclair's "The Jungle", pointing out all of the problems at food processing plants (albeit in fictional form, but there was truth in fiction) -------- Whether or not the US Government "should" care is kind of a settled case for over a century in my eyes. Now that being said, "processed food" is such an incredibly vague category filled with obvious snake-oil salesmen and fake news that I loathe to give any of that much of my attention. But the government thinking about what foods are safe (or not) to eat? That's literally their job and has been for a long, long time. ------- Now we can talk about where the regulations have failed, such as the Peking Duck exemption. (Peking Duck is delicious, and clearly safe. But by 1970s law / understanding of regulations, it was quite illegal). And its important to remember these cases and that regulation is far from perfect. But the overall concept of caring about what foods are safe and not safe is the point of FDA, USDA, and a whole slew of other agencies.

haliskerbas 4y ago

I would love it to be the government's business. I spend most of my time doing W2 work which the government automatically takes a cut from. I don't want to become a nutritionist, and I don't want candy to kill me faster than it would in Europe.

exabrial 4y ago
Who is forcing you to eat candy?
- haliskerbas 4y ago
  No one, just like no one forces me to walk outside, but I love being able to breathe air that is not as poisonous (aka EPA).
  - exabrial 4y ago
    The difference is, air you don't have a choice, it's a shared resource, and it's required for life. So who is making your eat skittles?

p0pcult 4y ago

That's certainly one take. They probably shouldn't be able to regulate seatbelt use, or forbid pollutants. The free market will take care of it, right?

xcdzvyn 4y ago
Seatbelts were a product of the free market
- p0pcult 4y ago
  The requirements to use them, where they exist, are not.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    Seatbelts were gaining adoption pretty damn fast before they got mandated. Ditto for safety glass, brake lights and airbags. I think if we didn't mandate them the only cars without them these days would be those ultra basic trims that they only make five of so they can advertise a low "starting at" number. ABS and traction control are the questionable ones that saw their adoption plateau and probably wouldn't have the adoption they do without government. Modern collision avoidance stuff appears to be making its way through the market lightening quick without mandate.

RubberSoul 4y ago

This is, of course, a major philosophical debate. I will just say that there could be reasons this is the government's business. One issue with modern food production for consumers is that it can be difficult to determine whether a particular ingredient is safe or healthy. Information has public good qualities, and having each consumer make an individual determination about whether each ingredient is safe/healthy is costly. The obvious way to justify government intervention here is that it's more efficient for us to pool resources and empower a third-party to produce the information we need and ban/label products that are likely unsafe. The decisions won't always be right, but the approach might be much preferred to the alternatives. Plus, conditional on socializing a lot of medical costs, it might make sense to put restrictions on behaviors that affect individual health.

exabrial 4y ago
So to summarize: * Your body, not your choice * If a person puts a substance into their their body that the governement doesn't like? Incarcerate them? Fine them to take away their means of buying more food?