Food Regulation or: You'd Think We Could All Agree On This

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Well apparently I thought wrong. There is great division in these here lands over the proper handling of food regulation (or lack thereof) by our glorious Big Brother government, who exist only to extract our hard-earned tax money from us at gunpoint. Who put these clowns in power, anyway? I certainly didn't. That would require having me come out of my bunker to go to the polls, and there are Black Panthers there ready to pounce on me! But I digress.

Now, we can't have a discussion without some baselines and clarifications, the first of which is the fallacy that libertarians want anarchy. They don't- they are perfectly accepting of a nice democratic republic with a nice Constitution. They simply don't like being told what they can and can't do, and would like these restrictions kept to an absolute minimum. Fraud, perjury, forgery, violence, or really any process that relies on force or lying should be illegal, and we all agree on that.

I have a personal issue with libertarians in that some (to not cast a generalized glance) advocate a society driven by a profit-motive, but a lot of things that act toward the benefit of society go against the profit motive. Testing your food, stickers with expiration dates, very rigorous safety measures, all of these cost money and yet in a society without safety laws, these people are expected to still follow these procedures that cost them a lot of money? This didn't happen in history, and I don't know why it would happen if all regulations were removed. That's my one gripe, and I'd like to not focus on it as much to just address the issues I'm about to bring up.



To that degree, we discuss under the premise that it should be illegal to lie to your consumers. How do you keep an industry from lying to its clients? That is one of my first questions. One way is through government regulation. Here is an anecdote about how Heinz became the market leader in ketchup:

By the start of the Twentieth Century, Heinz was a major ketchup producer, but so were several companies who padded their bottom line by mixing rancid tomatoes into their product.

Seeing an opportunity, Heinz joined the chorus of scientists, consumer advocates and government officials who were clamoring for federal oversight of the processed food industry, even sending future Heinz CEO Howard Heinz to lobby President Theodore Roosevelt in favor of a the Pure Food and Drug Act, which prohibited some of the processed food industry’s most revolting practices and gave enforcement authority to the agency which would later become the FDA. In 1906 the Act passed, and most of Heinz competitors were pushed out of business.

Because Heinz was one of only a handful of major ketchup producers who were already in the business of mass producing ketchup solely from fresh tomatoes, they quickly capitalized on the vacuum that formed as the rancid ketchup industry collapsed. Heinz became the market leader, and it remains so today.

Others would advocate merely that you provide government funding to test, and require safety labels on products that may contain harmful substances. Let the people decide after reading the labels whether or not they want the product, right?

My point is simply to indicate that, despite Heinz’ belief that “pure food . . . is good business,” the truth is that thousands of American consumers bought rancid ketchup for decades, even though they had the option to choose Heinz’ safer product. Market forces left thousands of Americans sick from tomato mold. It wasn’t until the federal government got involved that rotten tomato ketchup left the shelves of local groceries.

My argument is thus: History shows that people aren't quite the rational thinkers we'd like them to be. Even today, people make poor choices all the time and it costs them dearly. We have warning labels on cigarettes, but smoking is still very popular. We have warning labels on alcohol, but that hasn't stopped alcohol-related diseases or DUIs. My argument is that warning labels are not enough. To truly remove a harmful product from the shelf is to regulate against it. To set a limit of harmful content in a product that makes it illegal to sell above that amount.

Why should we allow this to be a risk? What benefit does tainted food serve being on a shelf? Even if you allow compensation to the person who ate the tainted food, if it's deadly then they're likely going to die before they get a dime. Liability is a non-factor to the consumer when dealing with deadly substances.

In the Heinz example, they started out by advertising the product as being pure while the others used rotten tomatoes, but people still continued buying rancid ketchup. Despite having all the information, market forces continued to favor the cheaper, tainted food. Using this historical evidence, my conclusion is that people can't make rational decisions even under the best circumstances. To really understand this topic you really have to look at the pure food movement in the 1900s and how hard it was to get people to not eat rancid food. To get them not to eat contaminated meat from butchers which was food colored to not look bad. To have food produced in the same place that rats defecated in. To have no laws against expiration dates. It was very difficult in that day, despite vast amounts of information available to the people, to get them to stop poisoning themselves without laws. It sounds crazy to just believe people will eat something that can kill them, knowing it can kill them, but I believe that it's a well-educated, white, wealthy viewpoint. They don't know what it's like to be poor, hungry, and uneducated. It's just a fact of life that abject poverty causes a lot of bad decision-making, and there's no way to stop the cycle without regulation that keeps poison off the shelves.

Secondly, I believe that it makes no sense to allow a company to produce something that can kill somebody. There is no reason for it to be on the shelf in the first place. How big is the label? Is it big enough or is it hidden with small text? How is it marketed? You run the risk of people being deceived. If there is merely a law to test the product, but none that makes it illegal to actually do it, then what can you do? If the warning label sufficiently covers the risk (assuming it hasn't been hampered in any way), what can someone do for compensation?

The Pure Food and Drug Act was initially concerned with ensuring products were labeled correctly. Later efforts were made to outlaw certain products that were not safe, followed by efforts to outlaw products which were safe but not effective.

Let's not confuse my analogy with alcohol and cigarettes as some sort of bizarre argument to outlaw those things. Both of them are okay in moderation, but it only takes one bad piece of food to get poisoned. That is the essential difference.

A regulatory system prevents tainted food from making it to stores. It prevents people from even having the option to consume. The whole point of market regulation is to mitigate externality, not allow a broader range of (very poor) choice to the consumer. This is the key point here of a regulatory system.

When you mitigate externality, you keep from incurring extra costs. You have to remember: Salmonella spreads, e.coli spreads. Just allowing them to produce tainted food runs the risk of it spreading to the rest of their products. For example, under current regulation if a farm is found to have tainted spinach then it is forced to get rid of all their spinach, and their entire process of making spinach has to be reevaluated. That's what regulation does.

A final note is that I am aware and acknowledge the imperfections in our system. There is corruption, there are regulatory agencies that promote bad food, there are inefficiencies and many other problems. I wish to improve this system, and I believe that it doesn't come from doing away with it entirely and returning to the age of robber barons and the most unsanitary food conditions our country has ever had.

Source: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/libertarians-are-dumb-or-why-we-eat-heinz-ketchup/blog-298247/?page=2

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Actually, the pure food movement came about at probably the lowest point of American food sanitation in the nation's history.

I'm of the belief, based on research and reading I've done, that the situation was fairly overblown.

I don't see the downside. If a company can't make a food that won't poison you, I don't really have any sympathy.

So, to be clear, you don't see the downside of less competition, of fewer options? Really? Keep in mind, it is not like every food producer was a problem.

Please stick to food regulation. Also note that in food regulation you're never 'exempt' from testing.

The comparison is absolutely apt. The end result is the same thing - regulations, put in place in the name of "safety," existing only to minimize the competitive atmosphere.

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

If "competition" means allowing corporations to sell unsafe food, then I want less competition.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

First, your automatic go-to, "corporations," does not encompass every food producer impacted by misguided regulations.

Second, the regulations do not only negatively impact those who sell allegedly unsafe food.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

What if they sell a product that taints the "spirit"?

What if the product if consumed in sufficient quantity will lead to death?

Because I really want to hear how beer and cigarettes are fine and dandy.

Or why zealots should lay off of "harmful" pornography.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Yeah man, what if?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I'm of the belief, based on research and reading I've done, that the situation was fairly overblown.

I don't think we can go anywhere on this point without some serious citations. Just the evidence of Heinz becoming a near-monopoly means that nearly every other ketchup producer was using rotten tomatoes. That, to me, speaks volumes about the situation.

So, to be clear, you don't see the downside of less competition, of fewer options? Really? Keep in mind, it is not like every food producer was a problem.

I like competition. If lots of ketchup producers want to spring up and offer untainted food products, I'm all for it. The only competition that's stifled are the type that will market you an early grave, and no I don't have sympathy for that type of competition. If they're unable to create a food product that won't kill you, I do not welcome their competition.

You're right, not every food producer was a problem. However, the regulation just made it so their process resulted in untainted food. If this was enough to put them out of business, then the only thing holding them up in the market was their tainted goods, then I feel that they have no place in the marketplace.

The comparison is absolutely apt. The end result is the same thing - regulations, put in place in the name of "safety," existing only to minimize the competitive atmosphere.

This is not a contention of mine. It's true that regulations will drive business out of the market, but it's the kind of business that you or I would not be involved in. The system definitely has room for improvement, and I don't know about your example but if a company has gained enough credibility to not require testing for its toys, then it's a loosening of regulations because that company has acquired a sufficient amount of trust. Start-up toy companies, or smaller companies that don't have that level of trust yet, must show that their products are safe for the general public- especially children. If your solution is that they don't have to test their products, it's not a solution I endorse.

There's a difference between regulation that just enriches a certain entity, and regulation that insures safety. Competition being mitigated because businesses can't adapt is a side-effect of the regulation, not the purpose.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't think we can go anywhere on this point without some serious citations. Just the evidence of Heinz becoming a near-monopoly means that nearly every other ketchup producer was using rotten tomatoes. That, to me, speaks volumes about the situation.

I'll see if I have any of my books unpacked about this, then.

You're right, not every food producer was a problem. However, the regulation just made it so their process resulted in untainted food.

No, in this case, the regulation made it so the process resulted in no food.

If this was enough to put them out of business, then the only thing holding them up in the market was their tainted goods, then I feel that they have no place in the marketplace.

You're still assuming everyone was offering tainted goods. You understand the issue here, right?

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.

It's true that regulations will drive business out of the market, but it's the kind of business that you or I would not be involved in.

So you're fine with perfectly responsible businesses being forced out of the market by bigger guys because other smaller companies are being irresponsible?

Start-up toy companies, or smaller companies that don't have that level of trust yet, must show that their products are safe for the general public- especially children. If your solution is that they don't have to test their products, it's not a solution I endorse.

So, in other words, treat them as guilty until proven innocent. That's great.

There's a difference between regulation that just enriches a certain entity, and regulation that insures safety. Competition being mitigated because businesses can't adapt is a side-effect of the regulation, not the purpose.

And I wholly disagree. Wrapping up uncompetitive regulation with the veneer of safety is mere dishonesty. This isn't about safety.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

You're ignoring my point. The regulations also nuked companies that were making safe food.

Again; If they were already using processes that resulted in safe food then I have no idea why they failed. A regulation that tests a product for bacteria can only nuke a food product if it tests above a certain % threshold for that bacteria.

So your position is that every company was making tainted food? Really?

The fact that Heinz went from underdog to market leader means that the majority of ketchup producers were making rancid ketchup. There's no other way. If the test is positive for bacteria, then it has bacteria. They weren't making safe food.

You keep wanting to blow off this analogy, but it's key to understanding the regulatory process.

Not really. If this issue is so clear-cut then you can easily find an analogy in food regulation.

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...

If insuring that their products won't kill you upon consumption is too much of a load to bear, I have no sympathy. That should be a standard baseline for any food. No sympathy. None.

...and that's a decidedly unamerican viewpoint.

Uh, okay.

Which, of course, is absurd. If the preparation was the problem, the preparation was the problem, not the process.

Same thing.

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.

Like I said, paranoid worldview. I don't think regulators are out to get me. You can believe what you want, but know that you're toeing the line with conspiracy theorists on this one. Also, dishonestly, once again, requires that they actually don't do what they claim to do, aka they don't do testing, they don't make sure warning labels acceptable, they don't check for expiration dates, they don't take a tainted food product and require the producer to reevaluate its production method, and you would be extremely hard pressed to claim that they aren't doing these things.

That's exactly what I'm doing - arguing based on the merits. I'm surprised you see it otherwise.

Questioning motive is not arguing based on merits.

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.

It benefits them because people who use cheaper production methods could undercut them with potentially lethal goods. You would think that people wouldn't buy the cheaper, deadly food but history has proven otherwise.

To say that argument for regulation is NOT safety means that you're saying regulation has not caused businesses to use safer processes in creating food. History clearly proves this notion wrong. Please read up on the sanitary conditions of food in the 1900s.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Again; If they were already using processes that resulted in safe food then I have no idea why they failed. A regulation that tests a product for bacteria can only nuke a food product if it tests above a certain % threshold for that bacteria.

You understand that regulatory compliance carries a cost, right? That even if a company is already producing a safe product, a new regulation may carry a compliance cost that is too much to take on?

The fact that Heinz went from underdog to market leader means that the majority of ketchup producers were making rancid ketchup. There's no other way. If the test is positive for bacteria, then it has bacteria. They weren't making safe food.

I refer you to the Simpsons video below. This is terrible logic.

If insuring that their products won't kill you upon consumption is too much of a load to bear, I have no sympathy. That should be a standard baseline for any food. No sympathy. None.

Well, that's your call, then. Vicious and shortsighted as it is.

I don't think regulators are out to get me. You can believe what you want, but know that you're toeing the line with conspiracy theorists on this one.

Uh, wow. That's a bit much. Again, check out that book I mentioned, and then come back and say that.

To say that argument for regulation is NOT safety means that you're saying regulation has not caused businesses to use safer processes in creating food. History clearly proves this notion wrong. Please read up on the sanitary conditions of food in the 1900s.

More faulty logic. The argument for the Patriot Act was to combat terrorism, but was really just to give the government more police power. By your logic, since we've seen fewer terrorist attacks on American soil, "history clearly proves" the power argument wrong.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

You understand that regulatory compliance carries a cost, right? That even if a company is already producing a safe product, a new regulation may carry a compliance cost that is too much to take on?

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.

I refer you to the Simpsons video below. This is terrible logic.

How is the company producing safe food if they don't test it or use safety precautions? Even without regulations, I don't see how the food is safe without those. Pre-1906 producers just repeatedly misinformed their customers while using unsafe business practices to cut costs. Not all of them did this, but enough of them that it became a huge issue.

Well, that's your call, then. Vicious and shortsighted as it is.

We've seem to have done well since 1906. If it's really such a horrible piece of legislation, surely we would've been worse off post-1906 instead of better off?

More faulty logic. The argument for the Patriot Act was to combat terrorism, but was really just to give the government more police power. By your logic, since we've seen fewer terrorist attacks on American soil, "history clearly proves" the power argument wrong.

You're not beating my 'faulty logic' with an unrelated analogy. You and I both know that "stopping terrorism" is an abstract non-position and there's no way to actively enforce such a doctrine, and The Patriot Act did nothing but increase government surveillance of innocent citizens. However, food regulation sets out to test food for bacteria, and that's exactly what it did. There's no way to abstract that.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Can you prove that?

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Law.Food.and.Drug.Regulation

You really don't understand how bad it was back then. It was disgusting, and most people didn't have a choice in the matter. Rat feces in your burgers, dirt and grime all over your produce, I don't think we can get anywhere unless you accept the conditions were horrid and needed to change. The entire point of my topic was that market forces were not going to do this.

Because testing and safety precautions don't cause safe food.

Following known safe procedures doesn't result in something that's safe? It's technically true that you can undercook chicken and it can still be safe, but if you ALWAYS cook chicken to a certain temperature then it will ALWAYS be safe.

If we're truly better off, you haven't justified that, either.

I already linked to something, so you can read that if you still don't believe me. I'm not asking you to take my word for it, just read anything- ANYTHING on the subject.

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.

So, regulation enacted to test food for bacteria does not actually reduce the bacteria content of food because the companies that had bacteria in them were put out of business. No, this was just a coincidence, even though there's no other way the bacteria would be found if it wasn't specifically tested for it. You can't possibly be serious. I'm honestly flabbergasted.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The entire point of my topic was that market forces were not going to do this.

Which you still haven't established.

Following known safe procedures doesn't result in something that's safe?

Not always, no. Just like following unsafe procedures does not guarantee unsafe results.

but if you ALWAYS cook chicken to a certain temperature then it will ALWAYS be safe.

Uh, wow. No.

I'm not asking you to take my word for it, just read anything- ANYTHING on the subject.

You believe I have not. The reality is much more complicated than you're willing to admit.

So, regulation enacted to test food for bacteria does not actually reduce the bacteria content of food because the companies that had bacteria in them were put out of business. No, this was just a coincidence, even though there's no other way the bacteria would be found if it wasn't specifically tested for it.

I'm saying specifically that, even if bacteria levels dropped, the intent was not so much to drop bacteria levels but to accomplish something else.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Which you still haven't established.

Food quality as on a trend downwards in the late 19th century to the early 20th century, and it didn't change until regulation. Around the world, countries established food regulation and in every single instance, the quality of food reversed its trend from downward to upward.

Not always, no.

Show me where a proven safety procedure did not result in a safe food product 99% of the time. I'm talking about a regulated, proven safety procedure that has stood the test of time. The entire idea of a 'proven safe procedure' is that it produces a safe product. Your claim is that there's no such thing as a procedure that insures the safety of a food product, and that's completely ridiculous.

Just like following unsafe procedures does not guarantee unsafe results.

Stating something as true does not automatically make the converse true as well. You are replying to a claim I never made.

Uh, wow. No.

As long as you eat it following the term of cooking. Take an untainted chicken, prepare it using a proven safety procedure, if you follow it to the letter then you will never get sick. Maybe there's a one in a trillion chance, so we're not being absolute, since you like being pedantic whenever I use absolutes. The government has set standards that every restaurant must follow by law to prepare its food, and if the food comes to them untainted and these standards are followed then it is ALMOST impossible to get sick. 0.000001% chance.

Bacteria die at a certain temperature. We know this. We recorded this. We have empirically studied which temperature bacteria is completely eliminated at. If you eat it within a reasonable amount you have a one in a trillion times chance of getting sick. Fact. Read up on the facts of bacteria.

You believe I have not. The reality is much more complicated than you're willing to admit.

How is it more complicated? What's more complicated? I wanna know what's so complicated about all this, because it all looks plain as day to me.

I'm saying specifically that, even if bacteria levels dropped, the intent was not so much to drop bacteria levels but to accomplish something else.

So, are you planning to prove somehow that these policies were put in to reduce competition instead of improving food safety? Without any proof it sounds like conspiracy theory tinfoil-hattery. I don't understand why it's on me to prove that food safety regulation increase food safety (I know I know, ridiculous on its face) for which there are thousands upon thousands of sources, but you don't have to prove your position at all.

Also, you're admitting that this process actually improved food safety? Just getting that on record here.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"We've seem to have done well since 1906. If it's really such a horrible piece of legislation, surely we would've been worse off post-1906 instead of better off?"

This is again faulty logic.

If you start at 1 and then take action X which causes you to progress to 2 then 3 then 5 then 8 you are much higher on the scale than when you started. However it is possible that had you not taken action X that you would have progressed to 4 then 9 then 16.

You cannot say that without X we would still be back at 1, or alternatively looking backwards that X is responsible for us getting to 8, because you can never know what would have happened had you not done X


"How is the company producing safe food if they don't test it or use safety precautions? Even without regulations, I don't see how the food is safe without those. Pre-1906 producers just repeatedly misinformed their customers while using unsafe business practices to cut costs. Not all of them did this, but enough of them that it became a huge issue."

This is a flawed question however the answer is obvious, because in it's natural state most food is safe, that is why we call it food.

Testing does not and cannot ever make the food safe (true story, I work in Software QA and a common axiom in the field is you cannot test quality into the code), it can merely give you some level of evidence that it is. Precautions are similarly not axiomatically necessary because in the normal state the levels of bacteria and toxins in the food are perfectly in line with what our hunter gatherer ancestors consumed and therefore not harmful to us.

Then even to the extent that precautions are prudent as with most things in life you get 80% of the benefit with 20% of the effort. The simplest things like just washing the food off with water, washing the equipment down with soapy water periodically and making the prep crew wash their hands gets you the overwhelming majority of the benefit.

However, this is not where regulation stops and companies which produce perfectly safe food are continually shut down because they follow a process which does not line up with the regulation.

For an example of this there is a segment in the documentary Food Inc on this very issue where they interview a farmer who uses only natural growing and slaughter methods and sells directly to customers with no middle men, he has never had a customer get sick from his food because his process IS safe. However the government was at the time trying to shut him down because he was not using the same process which results in hundreds of people being sickened each year from contaminated food.

The problem with regulation is they are never limited to ensuring the food is safe, they are always written to ensure that a specific process is followed with no deviations, whether that process is the safest one or not.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

This is again faulty logic.

Safe practices existed at the time, but very few followed them. There is little evidence to support that they would have started following them on their own, without regulation. They didn't for a long time before that.

This is a flawed question however the answer is obvious, because in it's natural state most food is safe, that is why we call it food.

You misunderstand. I am not talking about a fresh fruit coming into a processing plant of some sort and coming out tainted, I'm saying the fruit GETS there moldy and rotten, and doesn't get separated out. This is what was happening. Salmonella and e.coli love spreading, so if you have one tainted tomato then it has a great chance to ruin the rest of your stock. That stuff needs to be separated out of the main batch immediately, or prevented from getting there in the first place.

The problem with regulation is they are never limited to ensuring the food is safe, they are always written to ensure that a specific process is followed with no deviations, whether that process is the safest one or not.

I'm still waiting for someone to prove this statement true.

In fact, the argument I hear, that 'science and knowledge' would've improved food quality is exactly what goes into these regulations. The safe methods are proven by scientists (they proved exactly at what temperature you kill bacteria, for example), not just commissioned to patients in an insane asylum.

The thing about libertarians is they believe in business to have good intentions but not in government workers or politicians. The thing about anti-corporation people is they believe the that businesses are only out to exploit and government is there to stop them.

The truth is, nobody gets into these things with malicious intentions. Humans are highly susceptible to greed, and more often than not fall victim to it. I don't believe these businesses are TRYING to kill their customers, but it's a relevant side-effect of their greed. Politicians can also fall prey to it, as we can see from the practice of lobbying. They can make regulations that benefit X over Y.

These just aren't the natural state of these things. They're outliers, and we can put in legislation that deals with both of them. Your last statement is just as hyperbolic as people who think all businesses would condone murder for an extra dollar.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

""Remember, before the Pure Food and Drug Act, there were no warning labels. You had no idea what you were getting, or what you were being told was the truth. They were not liable, not accountable, and had no reason to tell you the truth. You can't make an informed decision if you're being denied all the information."

Oh I absolutely agree to truth in labeling laws, well that is not quite true because I do not believe that we need separate laws for them, more generic anti fraud laws will suffice but yes requiring accurate information about the product you are buying is entirely consistent with libertarian thought.

That being said you characterization of companies in the late 19th century knowingly selling tainted food is inaccurate. The Germ Theory of disease was not a generally accepted scientific theorem until around 1880 and not conclusively proven until the 1890's. The pure food and drug act was passed a mere 2 decades later in 1906.

It is not so much that people were being denied information, it was that at the time most people didn't know what information was important. This is also why they were "not liable", because at that time the overwhelming majority of people who did get sick had absolutely no idea of the cause and so no lawsuits were ever filed and if they were there would have been no actual evidence to support the theory.


Ultimately here is the problem with your entire premise. You are seeing a correlation between the passing of food safety regulation and food safety improving and assuming that one caused the other and ignoring all other possible causes for that improvement such as technological and scientific advancement.

Even if you could show that government regulation is the primary reason behind improvements in food safety this does not mean than the 100 years of science and engineering that have occurred since then would simply disappear if the regulations were repealed. If that happened food would not go back to the "bad old days of "robber barons", in fact companies would be scrambling to find anyone that consumers would trust to certify them as being safe and consumers hearing horror stories like yours wouldn't buy anything that wasn't certified safe and our food would actually get even safer than it is today."

It is actually worse than that, there are several church run soup kitchens that were giving away home cooked means to the homeless and were shut down because their food was not prepared in a kitchen that met commercial regulations.

So the homeless people instead of eating the perfectly healthy food prepared in homes ate whatever they could find in dumpsters.

but yep, regulations only ensure that healthy food is eaten.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

But it's to help the poor! It's better for them to eat nothing than to eat stuff that doesn't meet regulation!

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

It's not illegal, they usually don't give it away due to liability (and they don't want to incentivize people to not buy their food).

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

I could be wrong, but liability is the argument I've heard regarding grocery stores giving away food past the sell-by (not expiration) date.