A poor choice, maybe. That doesn't make it irrational. Driving a car can kill you, does that make it a poor choice over a bicycle or walking?
Yes, because driving cars is the same thing as eating rotten food. Can you people do anything besides make ridiculous analogies? "Both of these things are potentially harmful to you, therefore they are exactly equal." You know, except driving a car has upsides, what is your proposed upside for eating rotten food that makes it equal to driving a car?
No they don't, and no they aren't. You are making an unfounded assertion, not an argument.
Yeah man, there's no drawbacks to a society eating rotten food. Completely unfounded.
And it certainly won't stop any faster with you taking away cheaper food options and making other foods more expensive.
Cheaper food options that kill you is not a good way to stop poverty, unless you want to stop the cycle by killing all the poor people.
As others pointed out, you are asserting that it was the food regulation that improved health and not the actual improvements in knowledge and technology that improved health. That doesn't prove anything.
What are you talking about? Food quality as actually devolving. Prior to the early industrial period, people just ate whatever local produce they had. They could inspect it for themselves, but they didn't have jars and food coloring to mask the rottenness of the food. The centralization of the meat industry and the rise of processed foods are just a couple of the reasons for the rise of food-borne illness. It was becoming easier and easier to misinform people and hide the nastiness of food. Food quality was going down until the regulations, not up.
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 23:16 (UTC)Yes, because driving cars is the same thing as eating rotten food. Can you people do anything besides make ridiculous analogies? "Both of these things are potentially harmful to you, therefore they are exactly equal." You know, except driving a car has upsides, what is your proposed upside for eating rotten food that makes it equal to driving a car?
No they don't, and no they aren't. You are making an unfounded assertion, not an argument.
Yeah man, there's no drawbacks to a society eating rotten food. Completely unfounded.
And it certainly won't stop any faster with you taking away cheaper food options and making other foods more expensive.
Cheaper food options that kill you is not a good way to stop poverty, unless you want to stop the cycle by killing all the poor people.
As others pointed out, you are asserting that it was the food regulation that improved health and not the actual improvements in knowledge and technology that improved health. That doesn't prove anything.
What are you talking about? Food quality as actually devolving. Prior to the early industrial period, people just ate whatever local produce they had. They could inspect it for themselves, but they didn't have jars and food coloring to mask the rottenness of the food. The centralization of the meat industry and the rise of processed foods are just a couple of the reasons for the rise of food-borne illness. It was becoming easier and easier to misinform people and hide the nastiness of food. Food quality was going down until the regulations, not up.