5 ms·

If all the food producers decide to use the same cheapest ingredient, what help does labeling provide? This story is an example of the government doing what it

by bdamm 11y ago

If all the food producers decide to use the same cheapest ingredient, what help does labeling provide? This story is an example of the government doing what it ought to, helping the people be defended from the bad behavior of corporations and society in general. There is a larger question of how much harm should a product cause society before the government decides to put a stop to it. I would like the government to have a standard by which any issue is put to the test. The nanny state doesn't bother me as much as its arbitrary selectivity and application.

splat 11y ago
> If all the food producers decide to use the same cheapest ingredient, what help does labeling provide? But in what world is that true? In any grocery store you can get food that is organic or non-organic, GMO or non-GMO, with sugar or sugar-free, with fat or fat-free, kosher or not kosher, vegan or non-vegan. We consumers have more food choices today than we've ever had in the past. To claim that "all food producers" will just "use the same cheapest ingredient" is a straw man.
- eli 11y ago
  I think the "known to the state of california to cause cancer" warnings are on so many things that they are effectively meaningless. So that's probably an example of a required warning that has little effect.
- asnyder 11y ago
  Unfortunately, this isn't true. In many non-privileged areas you may have supermarkets like c-town, associated, fine-fare, or other non-boutique supermarkets that mostly stock mainstream products from mainstream food producers, as such they usually have very limited selections of organic and non-GMO foods, if any. So unless rules like these are passed, those groups are reliant on companies changing their behaviors based on market trends (such as rice krispy treats removing high fructose corn syrup from their boxed product). Worse, even in those cases most large food producers tend to roll out the "healthier" products specifically to the privileged areas, leaving the non-privileged with "worse" product.
  - refurb 11y ago
    I think issue of limited (and bad) food options has less to do with government regulations and more to do with the economics of those areas.
- feld 11y ago
  Apparently you've never been poor or lived in a food desert. Poor people can't buy Organic non-GMO things; they're not affordable. If we ban this, they stop consuming it. Later in life we aren't picking up the tab for their health issues. It just makes good economic sense and it's moral, too.
crazy1van 11y ago
> If all the food producers decide to use the same cheapest ingredient, what help does labeling provide? The only way that would happen is if consumers all decide to prefer the cheaper ingredient. Based on the number of higher end grocery stores and restaurants I've seen open within the last few years, I don't see that as likely at all. After all, a lot of food producers have already willingly decided to ditch trans fat.

by bdamm 11y ago

splat 11y ago

> If all the food producers decide to use the same cheapest ingredient, what help does labeling provide? But in what world is that true? In any grocery store you can get food that is organic or non-organic, GMO or non-GMO, with sugar or sugar-free, with fat or fat-free, kosher or not kosher, vegan or non-vegan. We consumers have more food choices today than we've ever had in the past. To claim that "all food producers" will just "use the same cheapest ingredient" is a straw man.

eli 11y ago
I think the "known to the state of california to cause cancer" warnings are on so many things that they are effectively meaningless. So that's probably an example of a required warning that has little effect.
asnyder 11y ago
Unfortunately, this isn't true. In many non-privileged areas you may have supermarkets like c-town, associated, fine-fare, or other non-boutique supermarkets that mostly stock mainstream products from mainstream food producers, as such they usually have very limited selections of organic and non-GMO foods, if any. So unless rules like these are passed, those groups are reliant on companies changing their behaviors based on market trends (such as rice krispy treats removing high fructose corn syrup from their boxed product). Worse, even in those cases most large food producers tend to roll out the "healthier" products specifically to the privileged areas, leaving the non-privileged with "worse" product.
- refurb 11y ago
  I think issue of limited (and bad) food options has less to do with government regulations and more to do with the economics of those areas.
feld 11y ago
Apparently you've never been poor or lived in a food desert. Poor people can't buy Organic non-GMO things; they're not affordable. If we ban this, they stop consuming it. Later in life we aren't picking up the tab for their health issues. It just makes good economic sense and it's moral, too.

crazy1van 11y ago

> If all the food producers decide to use the same cheapest ingredient, what help does labeling provide? The only way that would happen is if consumers all decide to prefer the cheaper ingredient. Based on the number of higher end grocery stores and restaurants I've seen open within the last few years, I don't see that as likely at all. After all, a lot of food producers have already willingly decided to ditch trans fat.