As opposed to coming to the rational conclusion that buying the cheaper food was rational and it wasn't as bad as you think it was. Since people eat crap like lutefisk and balut, I don't think your conclusion is valid.
Honestly, I don't know why people put things in their mouth that will kill them. I've never been in poverty, so I can't understand that mindset. I made my guesses as to why, but the fact of the matter is that people can and will do it. Once that's accepted, I then move on to how to stop them from doing that.
Also, you're conflating a gross product (bad ketchup) with food that's a health risk because of germs (tainted spinach).
Rancid ketchup made from moldy, rotten tomatoes is certainly a health risk unless you just don't believe in bacteria. You're at risk for e.coli, salmonella, and other maladies. Ketchup is actually much more susceptible to these than mustard or relish, oddly enough.
By increasing the cost, generally more than you would have otherwise, plus you've reduced freedom and given preference to one company over another which leads eventually to the corporatism we have now.
The cost of regulation does not outweigh the negative externality of a country without food regulation. You have people in bad health, going to the hospital or dying and leaving widows/orphans, honest producers of non-contaminated food being driven out of the market because they can't compete with the low prices of people offering poison. There are mountains of costs associated with not regulating food, and they are not comparable to the higher overhead that a business must incur in order to insure their product's safety.
Also, if I'm giving preference to someone who won't kill you with their food product rather than someone who will, then good. I have no sympathy for people who market death with a smile.
All of which stem from what you're advocating.
They are not inherent, and the amount of good that's come from the regulation easily dwarfs the bad in every conceivable way. If you don't believe me, read anything on the sanitary conditions of food in the 1900s.
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 18:09 (UTC)Honestly, I don't know why people put things in their mouth that will kill them. I've never been in poverty, so I can't understand that mindset. I made my guesses as to why, but the fact of the matter is that people can and will do it. Once that's accepted, I then move on to how to stop them from doing that.
Also, you're conflating a gross product (bad ketchup) with food that's a health risk because of germs (tainted spinach).
Rancid ketchup made from moldy, rotten tomatoes is certainly a health risk unless you just don't believe in bacteria. You're at risk for e.coli, salmonella, and other maladies. Ketchup is actually much more susceptible to these than mustard or relish, oddly enough.
By increasing the cost, generally more than you would have otherwise, plus you've reduced freedom and given preference to one company over another which leads eventually to the corporatism we have now.
The cost of regulation does not outweigh the negative externality of a country without food regulation. You have people in bad health, going to the hospital or dying and leaving widows/orphans, honest producers of non-contaminated food being driven out of the market because they can't compete with the low prices of people offering poison. There are mountains of costs associated with not regulating food, and they are not comparable to the higher overhead that a business must incur in order to insure their product's safety.
Also, if I'm giving preference to someone who won't kill you with their food product rather than someone who will, then good. I have no sympathy for people who market death with a smile.
All of which stem from what you're advocating.
They are not inherent, and the amount of good that's come from the regulation easily dwarfs the bad in every conceivable way. If you don't believe me, read anything on the sanitary conditions of food in the 1900s.