I like the government to force companies to meet certain regulations for production of various food items so that they’re safe for everyone, but then let me pick at the grocery store from what’s then produced.
AceSLive@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’d like the government to suggest things, and point to the science on things, but to leave the informed choice ultimately up to me.
BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s a harsh quote, but it gets the point across: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” Carlin was right, and it applies here. Sure, half of us may be able to adequately identify what we should and shouldn’t eat, but there is another half that can’t. With proper education we can change that, but right now corporations educate better through commercials than schools do through lectures. We have to maintain oversight because the evil of capitalism will choose profit over people every time.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
without relevant regulations, though, you won’t know what you shouldn’t eat because you won’t know that they’re putting sawdust in peanutbutter or borax and fermheldahyde in milk.
Maybe it’d be okay to have plaster of paris in flour, though. I mean, how else are you supposed to sculpt that Italian loaf like the french baguette?
Don’t be fooled. The people screaming about unpastureized milk and other things are being used so corporations can go back to poisoning you with shit. and that’s pretty much the most charitable I can be of that particular lot.
AceSLive@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I feel a reply I made to someone else addresses my side of this:
“Context was the idea of a government banning meat” says the original post.
I agree that you can’t possibly be fully informed on every part of everything you buy or consume, there’s too much info and for a lot of it you need a good understanding of biology, science and food science to even grasp what some ingredients are for and how they work.
I am not against the governments telling people the dangers of certain foods (such as increased cardiovascular issues with overconsumption of red meat, or risk of stroke due to smoking) but as long as the consumer is informed of such, it should be up to them - not up to the government banning something like meat
And I’m against the abuse animals suffer and the whole meat industry, by the way. I hate what happens to the animals, but thats a whole other can of worms…
LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
[deleted]AceSLive@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
“Context was the idea of a government banning meat” says the original post.
I agree that you can’t possibly be fully informed on every part of everything you buy or consume, there’s too much info and for a lot of it you need a good understanding of biology, science and food science to even grasp what some ingredients are for and how they work.
I am not against the governments telling people the dangers of certain foods (such as increased cardiovascular issues with overconsumption of red meat, or risk of stroke due to smoking) but as long as the consumer is informed of such, it should be up to them - not up to the government banning something like meat
And I’m against the abuse animals suffer and the whole meat industry, by the way. I hate what happens to the animals, but thats a whole other can of worms…
LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
[deleted]AceSLive@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I feel those examples are less about eating the meat (well, aside from all the issues that come with eating humans) and more about preventing them becoming meat in the first place - but yes, with everything theres nuance and outliers, but as a general I’d say that if people know what they’re eating and know the risks, and what they do doesn’t pose risk to others then let them eat whatever it is they’re eating…
smol_beans@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Do you have a degree in chemistry? How do you know which 7 syllable words on the side of the box are dangerous and which ones aren’t?
Stovetop@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
In an unregulated market, who is there to say that the ingredients even need to be listed on the box?
Every purchase can be like its own little surprise!
AceSLive@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’m gonna paste in a reply I made to another comment which I think will answer my view on this
“Context was the idea of a government banning meat” says the original post.
I agree that you can’t possibly be fully informed on every part of everything you buy or consume, there’s too much info and for a lot of it you need a good understanding of biology, science and food science to even grasp what some ingredients are for and how they work.
I am not against the governments telling people the dangers of certain foods (such as increased cardiovascular issues with overconsumption of red meat, or risk of stroke due to smoking) but as long as the consumer is informed of such, it should be up to them - not up to the government banning something like meat
And I’m against the abuse animals suffer and the whole meat industry, by the way. I hate what happens to the animals, but thats a whole other can of worms…
ccunning@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Should the government simply suggest companies accurately label the contents of food products?
AceSLive@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
No. The government should absolutely enforce correct labelling on anything a person is to consume. Like cigarettes in Australia, if the consumable poses a health risk that too should be labelled clearly.
jagged_circle@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
Aaaand now the town’s water supply has murcury in it, thanks.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Leaving critical thinking up to the masses??? Oh…oh no.
AceSLive@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Natural selection.
If the danger is clearly labelled, and all ingredients and potential hazards are clearly advised…
desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
it would work pretty well after a few years, just ignore the deaths during the roll out.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I want them to deny bad actors the ability to sell dangerous foods on the open market.
Informed choice should be between safe products.
AceSLive@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Whats your stance on cigarettes and alcohol?
Theres no realistic reason cigarettes should be sold to anyone, ever - but the government (in Australia where I am at least) have put the warnings out there and if people choose to still smoke, despite the packets themselves graphically showing someone with gangrenous toes, then shouldn’t that be up to the individual?
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Neither is healthy for you, but neither is going to kill you outright in small amounts. So heavily regulated and limited to adults is fine as long as the companies aren’t allowed to outright lie about their products like cigarette companies used to do. Those are basically on par with eating excessive amounts of unhealthy food when consumed in small quantities.
By safe I’m referring to things like food that isn’t going to kill you in the short term because it is spoiled, toxic, has harmful additives. You know, the things that lead to food regulation agencies that keep companies from selling rotten meat or food with lead intentionally added for flavor.
AceSLive@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The original post context was the banning of meat
I’m not saying government shouldn’t regulate safety - but that if something is safe for consumption it shouldn’t be banned, like the original posts example of meat.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Orrrrrrrr, and hear me out…
We thin the herd. We sell products that if you spend any time paying attention, you know NOT to buy.
“Delicious home baked cyanide cookies! Just like grandma used to bake! That one time…”
And then? If you eat those cookies, that’s on you.
Although, this bakery would have an uphill battle maintaining a regular customer base.
oo1@lemmings.world 3 weeks ago
That’s alright, when the 100% chalk contraceptive pill and the polyethylene ‘super sensitive’ condom hit the market I think they’ll do ok.
Gold_E_Lox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
im not sure if this is satire or not?