No Stupid Questions

Unregulated anarchy vs nanny state. There's a wide spectrum in between we can argue about, but let's not get too far toward either extreme.

Dictating what you eat and banning things you shouldn't eat are very different things.

You're talking about two different things.

Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods

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

It's entirely possible to be in favor of food safety regulations and opposed to the government banning foods outright. In fact, I think one could safely presume that those are the positions most commonly held by most people.

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.

It means that they’re not a nuanced thinker.

There's a big difference between food safety and not eating meat. One is about companies putting dangerous stuff in food that can potentially harm people, the other is about something which humans have been eating ever since they existed. I understand that there are some arguments to be given about why we shouldn't eat meat, but those are definitely not as widely supported as disallowing the companies to inject "poison" into our food. In my opinion banning meat definitely would go way too far, the cost of banning meat far exceeds the benefits for public wellbeing.

Almost anyone I've ever encountered that would say that phrase exactly like that, also doesn't get vaccinated and foams at the mouth if you tell them they shouldn't drink raw milk.

Now, personally, I would rather my food be safe for human consumption but I also don't want to be nannied. Hotdogs ain't healthy but I like them. But unlike raw milk or undercooked meats, the unhealthy stuff in the hotdog isn't going to make me so sick that it can make other people sick.

I come from a dynasty of educators. I cannot emphasize that enough. At Christmas I had to explain what a molecule was. Amongst them were several teachers and administrative individuals.

Most people who say that do so for dogmatic reasons, not because they arrived at this conclusion after careful analysis. It's the political point of small government.

These are the same people who will probably be first in line shouting for government intervention when their drinking water is full of chemical waste.

You can try to reason with folks like that but you probably won't change their mind. Just try not to shout at them.

i feel like there's a lot of astroturfing in the comments here, how depressing

Yes. People who oppose science-backed food regulations are dumb or selfish or both

Two farmers live next to each other. One raises cows, the other pigs.

The cow farmer can get milk from their cows and drink it, but some governments say they can't give that milk to their neighbors.

That's where the government should have no business between private parties.

The Amish run into this problem alot.

Now the pig farmer can't give a whole hog to their neighbor, some governments say it must go through an approved butcher.

That's also a problem.

Setting rules about what can and can't be done for retail sale between strangers, makes sense thats a good place for regulation. Rules between private people not so much.

In the case of banning meat, there better be real human studies with metabolic wards and hard outcomes. Using epidemiology and low risk associations to push a political or religious agenda is exactly what government regulation should NOT do.

I think it's more like government can ban what can be sold as food and make advice. They can't really stop you from drinking bleach or eating the grass in your yard or whatever. They can only prevent you from feeding it to someone else or selling it as food.

Meat isn't a food that could be banned in the same way as, say, Red Dye #4 or force-hydrogenated fats or high fructose corn syrup. They could make farmers cull whole herds of cows if mad cow broke out i guess, but there are wild hogs, backyard chickens and goats, it's just not a controllable food.

I don't think they thought about it very much. It's like that spongebob meme where patrick has the wallet. Or the Friends one that I don't know the name of the template. You could go point by point building up a case for why there should be government regulations, but as soon as you say like "regulation" they go "Nope bad"

Though some people really do believe they as a rugged individual will be able to research and test all of their food without an FDA or whatever. If they buy bread that has sawdust in it, they'll be able to tell, and somehow get a refund, or buy some other bread that doesn't have sawdust. That seems like a lot of work and optimism compared to regulations and inspections by qualified professionals earlier in the process.