Yes, the companies incur a higher overhead for their extra precautions in testing and safety. This is a much lower cost than the negative externalities that arise from lack of regulation.
Can you prove that?
How is the company producing safe food if they don't test it or use safety precautions?
Because testing and safety precautions don't cause safe food. My wife doesn't use a hairnet in our kitchen, the food is still good. I may have waited a few too many hours to put my leftovers in the fridge, the food was still good.
. If it's really such a horrible piece of legislation, surely we would've been worse off post-1906 instead of better off?
If we're truly better off, you haven't justified that, either.
However, food regulation sets out to test food for bacteria, and that's exactly what it did. There's no way to abstract that.
What I was saying with the analogy you don't like because it kind of torpedoes your position was that we can look at a result and say "hey, it worked" even though the result may very well exist independent of the regulation.
no subject
Can you prove that?
How is the company producing safe food if they don't test it or use safety precautions?
Because testing and safety precautions don't cause safe food. My wife doesn't use a hairnet in our kitchen, the food is still good. I may have waited a few too many hours to put my leftovers in the fridge, the food was still good.
. If it's really such a horrible piece of legislation, surely we would've been worse off post-1906 instead of better off?
If we're truly better off, you haven't justified that, either.
However, food regulation sets out to test food for bacteria, and that's exactly what it did. There's no way to abstract that.
What I was saying with the analogy you don't like because it kind of torpedoes your position was that we can look at a result and say "hey, it worked" even though the result may very well exist independent of the regulation.