Why should we allow this to be a risk? What benefit does tainted food serve being on a shelf?
It doesn't actually impact you, so you shouldn't care.
Using this historical evidence, my conclusion is that people can't make rational decisions even under the best circumstances.
Your assumption is that the choice you would make is the rational one.
Secondly, I believe that it makes no sense to allow a company to produce something that can kill somebody.
Ban cars and kitchen knives!
You have to remember: Salmonella spreads, e.coli spreads. Just allowing them to produce tainted food runs the risk of it spreading to the rest of their products. For example, under current regulation if a farm is found to have tainted spinach then it is forced to get rid of all their spinach, and their entire process of making spinach has to be reevaluated. That's what regulation does.
And the result is overwrought panic situations with little guarantee of safety.
You make a good case, albeit nothing new, for the safety aspect of it. The problem is that you don't think beyond that - you aren't the least bit bothered that Heinz, for instance, was not looking for greater safety, but rather less competition. You don't seem to note how these rules distort costs, and how the regulatory system in place has less to do with safety than power - I urge you to read Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal, about an independent farmer in the south. The first few chapters will give you the idea, but much of what you're calling for is not about the safety of the consumer.
The best way to improve this system is to nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 19/7/11 00:59 (UTC)It doesn't actually impact you, so you shouldn't care.
Using this historical evidence, my conclusion is that people can't make rational decisions even under the best circumstances.
Your assumption is that the choice you would make is the rational one.
Secondly, I believe that it makes no sense to allow a company to produce something that can kill somebody.
Ban cars and kitchen knives!
You have to remember: Salmonella spreads, e.coli spreads. Just allowing them to produce tainted food runs the risk of it spreading to the rest of their products. For example, under current regulation if a farm is found to have tainted spinach then it is forced to get rid of all their spinach, and their entire process of making spinach has to be reevaluated. That's what regulation does.
And the result is overwrought panic situations with little guarantee of safety.
You make a good case, albeit nothing new, for the safety aspect of it. The problem is that you don't think beyond that - you aren't the least bit bothered that Heinz, for instance, was not looking for greater safety, but rather less competition. You don't seem to note how these rules distort costs, and how the regulatory system in place has less to do with safety than power - I urge you to read Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal, about an independent farmer in the south. The first few chapters will give you the idea, but much of what you're calling for is not about the safety of the consumer.
The best way to improve this system is to nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.