For those that couldn't adapt to not making their food into poison, yes. I have no sympathy.
You're ignoring my point. The regulations also nuked companies that were making safe food.
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.
So your position is that every company was making tainted food? Really?
I really want to stick to food here... regulations for other products follow their own unique rules.
You keep wanting to blow off this analogy, but it's key to understanding the regulatory process.
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.
I'm saying this about all regulations, something you have yet to be able to counter. The toy analogy shows that it's still happening today, 100 years later.
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.
Except that's not the case. Companies acting in responsible ways DO get forced out because the regulations become too overbearing or expensive. Regulations assume guilt...
When it comes to food that may kill you from one portion, hell yes guilty until proven innocent.
...and that's a decidedly unamerican viewpoint.
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.
Which, of course, is absurd. If the preparation was the problem, the preparation was the problem, not the process.
Do you think I'm a corporate shill? Or that I just have financial and sociological reasons for a regulatory system?
Neither - I think you're misinformed as to why regulation occurs and what results from it is all. I do not feel you've thought this one through enough.
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.
That's exactly what I'm doing - arguing based on the merits. I'm surprised you see it otherwise.
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.
Which it is - the argument for regulation is safety. The purpose of regulation is not, it's about reducing the competition. That's why you see so much support from industry leaders on the regulatory side - they know it benefits them.
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 18:42 (UTC)You're ignoring my point. The regulations also nuked companies that were making safe food.
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.
So your position is that every company was making tainted food? Really?
I really want to stick to food here... regulations for other products follow their own unique rules.
You keep wanting to blow off this analogy, but it's key to understanding the regulatory process.
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.
I'm saying this about all regulations, something you have yet to be able to counter. The toy analogy shows that it's still happening today, 100 years later.
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.
Except that's not the case. Companies acting in responsible ways DO get forced out because the regulations become too overbearing or expensive. Regulations assume guilt...
When it comes to food that may kill you from one portion, hell yes guilty until proven innocent.
...and that's a decidedly unamerican viewpoint.
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.
Which, of course, is absurd. If the preparation was the problem, the preparation was the problem, not the process.
Do you think I'm a corporate shill? Or that I just have financial and sociological reasons for a regulatory system?
Neither - I think you're misinformed as to why regulation occurs and what results from it is all. I do not feel you've thought this one through enough.
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.
That's exactly what I'm doing - arguing based on the merits. I'm surprised you see it otherwise.
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.
Which it is - the argument for regulation is safety. The purpose of regulation is not, it's about reducing the competition. That's why you see so much support from industry leaders on the regulatory side - they know it benefits them.