Comment on Why do some people say "I wouldn't want a government to dictate what I eat"? This would mean they'd be against food safety regulations, would it not?

remon@ani.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• splendoruranium@infosec.pub ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  This would mean they’d be against food safety regulations, would it not?
  

  It would not.

  Having traffic laws isn’t the same as banning cars, either.

  Of course it is. Part of traffic legislation literally involves banning certain types of vehicles, either in certain areas or on any kind of public road in general.

  source

  • remon@ani.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Exaclty … certain types in certain areas. That’s regulation. You wouldn’t just ban all vehicles. Do I really have to spell this out?

    source

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      are you being intentionally obtuse? obviously they wouldn’t ban all vehicle, that wasn’t suggested in the OP either.

      source

      • remon@ani.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Are you?

        We’re talking about banning one of the major things that is food. If you ban meat, you only have plants and fungi left. So yes, I think banning an entire branch of transportation is a decent analogy.

        source
    • splendoruranium@infosec.pub ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Exaclty … certain types in certain areas with a reason. That’s regulation.

      Which is just what I wrote, yes. Excising every unmaintained or outdated vehicle from traffic everywhere for example is just as valid a regulation as excising a certain type of food - any food - from general consumption. There’d simply have to be a good reason. And once there is, yep, what can and can be eaten gets dictated.
      Again, that’s already how it works, in traffic and in cuisine.

      source
  • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    yes, however as far as I am aware there are no laws in the us against any private vehicle usage on private land. Unlike the FDA which criminalizes owning or consuming certain chemicals.

    source

    • Randomgal@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      The difference is having a car on your land is your problem. Having dangerous chemicals that leech into the ground and water is a problem for everyone around you and the generations down the line.

      source
    • JigglySackles@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I don’t know. Pretty sure bleach isn’t allowed in most drinks but you can feel free to drink as much as you like at home.

      jk if that’s not obvious

      source
    • splendoruranium@infosec.pub ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      yes, however as far as I am aware there are no laws in the us against any private vehicle usage on private land. Unlike the FDA which criminalizes owning or consuming certain chemicals.

      You may have reached the limit of that car-metaphor there.

      source
• jagged_circle@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Most cities do ban many cars, because the harm air quality.

  Buying meat supports an industry thst also causes immense climate destruction, so it’s the same idea

  source
• SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Banning foods is the same regulation as banning golf carts from being licensed.

  Nobody’s gonna stop you from buying a golf cart and driving one (growing your own meat) but it’s deemed unsafe for you and society to drive one on the highway so you legally cant. (Can’t buy food that’s bad for society)

  source
• milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Food regulations are (mostly) about restricting food producers in ways that I already want/approve. Food safety, so I know there isn’t mercury in my baby’s formula.

  It’s necessary especially because companies want their profits, more than they want to produce good food.

  “Government dictating what I can eat” is restricting me about my own body, in ways perhaps I disagree with.

  source