No, in this case, the regulation made it so the process resulted in no food.
For those that couldn't adapt to not making their food into poison, yes. I have no sympathy.
You're still assuming everyone was offering tainted goods. You understand the issue here, right?
They were... this is a historical difference I suppose. You really have to read up on the sanitary conditions of food in the 1900s. You don't seem to believe it was as horrifying as I'm claiming here.
To go back to the toy analogy, the CPSIA was put in place because a small number of toys from China were using lead ingredients. Not all toys contained lead.
I really want to stick to food here... regulations for other products follow their own unique rules. I'm not talking about a regulatory system in general, as that's an extremely broad topic, but just the one that covers food, because I think it's the easiest to defend. Whether another regulation is too strict or too loose, like for toys, I would have to do some research on. If your claim is that the regulation for toys is far too strict and drives out businesses with safe products because the amount of safety required is overblown, that may be true, but I'm not in a position to confirm one way or another.
So you're fine with perfectly responsible businesses being forced out of the market by bigger guys because other smaller companies are being irresponsible?
Huh? If they're engaging in regulation-approved processes that result in safe food then they're not getting driven out. If they're being perfectly responsible in the first place then they're under no threat.
So, in other words, treat them as guilty until proven innocent. That's great.
When it comes to food that may kill you from one portion, hell yes guilty until proven innocent. It's up to them to prove their food is safe, I shouldn't be at risk from death if a new tasty food product comes out. One example is someone who was making bacon-wrapped hotdogs and used an improper process to prepare them and ended up making a bunch of people sick from salmonella. They're liable not only for the damage, but the breach of regulation for not using a process that insured bacteria-free food.
And I wholly disagree. Wrapping up uncompetitive regulation with the veneer of safety is mere dishonesty. This isn't about safety.
Do you think I'm a corporate shill? Or that I just have financial and sociological reasons for a regulatory system? You can question motives all you like, but it's a really poor and frankly paranoid notion to take up. Argue the issue based on its merits, not your perceived view of a motive on the part of the regulatory agency and those who support it. The only way this system could be dishonest is if it actually didn't do what it set out to do. It said it would remove deadly products from the shelves, and put warning labels on anything, and that's what it did. For it to be dishonest, it would have to be doing wholly different things from what it set out to do.
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 17:55 (UTC)For those that couldn't adapt to not making their food into poison, yes. I have no sympathy.
You're still assuming everyone was offering tainted goods. You understand the issue here, right?
They were... this is a historical difference I suppose. You really have to read up on the sanitary conditions of food in the 1900s. You don't seem to believe it was as horrifying as I'm claiming here.
To go back to the toy analogy, the CPSIA was put in place because a small number of toys from China were using lead ingredients. Not all toys contained lead.
I really want to stick to food here... regulations for other products follow their own unique rules. I'm not talking about a regulatory system in general, as that's an extremely broad topic, but just the one that covers food, because I think it's the easiest to defend. Whether another regulation is too strict or too loose, like for toys, I would have to do some research on. If your claim is that the regulation for toys is far too strict and drives out businesses with safe products because the amount of safety required is overblown, that may be true, but I'm not in a position to confirm one way or another.
So you're fine with perfectly responsible businesses being forced out of the market by bigger guys because other smaller companies are being irresponsible?
Huh? If they're engaging in regulation-approved processes that result in safe food then they're not getting driven out. If they're being perfectly responsible in the first place then they're under no threat.
So, in other words, treat them as guilty until proven innocent. That's great.
When it comes to food that may kill you from one portion, hell yes guilty until proven innocent. It's up to them to prove their food is safe, I shouldn't be at risk from death if a new tasty food product comes out. One example is someone who was making bacon-wrapped hotdogs and used an improper process to prepare them and ended up making a bunch of people sick from salmonella. They're liable not only for the damage, but the breach of regulation for not using a process that insured bacteria-free food.
And I wholly disagree. Wrapping up uncompetitive regulation with the veneer of safety is mere dishonesty. This isn't about safety.
Do you think I'm a corporate shill? Or that I just have financial and sociological reasons for a regulatory system? You can question motives all you like, but it's a really poor and frankly paranoid notion to take up. Argue the issue based on its merits, not your perceived view of a motive on the part of the regulatory agency and those who support it. The only way this system could be dishonest is if it actually didn't do what it set out to do. It said it would remove deadly products from the shelves, and put warning labels on anything, and that's what it did. For it to be dishonest, it would have to be doing wholly different things from what it set out to do.