Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods
I don’t support a ban on eating meat, but I support a ban on making it. Charge the supplier, not the user. Raising a pet so you can kill it is obviously animal abuse, it should have been made illegal a long time ago.
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.
Why would this farmer be legally able to rape cows and steal her milk?
You are going to be really disappointed when you learn where fertilizers come from.
It comes from my own poop, tree mulch, and veggie scraps.
deleted by creator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_milk
Go for it, if you have the patience.
It means that they’re not a nuanced thinker.
Yum tasty cardboard is back on the menu. /s
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.
“The government shouldn’t dictate what I eat“ is a misrepresentation of the government’s role in food regulation. They are setting minimum quality and safety standards so that you can make informed decisions among things that aren’t likely to kill or otherwise hurt you. They aren’t dictating your diet. They’re putting up guardrails around the groups making what goes into your diet.
While we are on the subject, this is one of the great ironies of the “MAHA” movement (cringe). They all talk about how the food in Europe is so much fresher and better for you and not processed yada yada. Do you know why Europe has better food than we do? Mountains and mountains of regulations. Which as we all know is anathema to conservatism.
We’re in a climate catastrophe, and the meet industry is one of the major contributing polluters causing it.
So it makes sense to ban factory farming, because it’s killing us.
Statement wise “I don’t want the government to tell me what to eat” or variations could mean basically anything. Most of the time it’s posturing on behalf of the idea that a lack of government regulation is a good thing which ignores a rather bloody history of food suppliers adulterating food with harmful substances in the name of preservation / cheapening production cost or using production practices that cause the likelihood of contamination of food.
Once you scratch the surface of the argument you can usually figure out more exactly what they mean and it often isn’t things like government subsidy programs publishing food pyramids based on shady science and economics rather than in the interest of health.
Often it’s based out of perceived personal inconvenience or the appearance of moral judgement such as when there’s some sort of health labelling initiative.
In Canada there are a lot of things that are not considered legal additives for food that are used in the US and the difference in strictness is in part because the Health care system in Canada is funded publicly. Producers of foodstuffs cost the government money directly if whatever they put in it has no nutritional value and causes known health problems. Rather than let companies create messes and tragedies which the government is on the hook to clean up when people’s health fails they remove the issue at it’s source. In the US there’s less incentive as these costs become scattered in the form of individual medical bills and oftentimes the savings are from food being shelf stable for longer. Shrugging one’s shoulders at the fallout or claiming its an exercise of “freedom” is in service to those who make money hand over fist.
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.
We’re in a climate catastrophe, and the meat industry is one of the major contributing polluters causing it.
So it makes sense to ban factory farming, because not only is it making us sick. Its literally causing mass death and extinction
In the 90s they linked hot dogs to cancer.
But EVERYTHING is linked to cancer.
But also everybody is getting cancer.
Increased seatbelt usage correlates to increased cancer rates.
I have had raw milk in the past - long before it was the in thing. I visited a farmer (his daughter wasn’t as hot as I was lead to believe) and they just got their milk from the tank after milking was done. Since then I can’t stand store bought milk. Though I suspect fresh is what matters more than raw.
Still knowing what I do now I won’t drink it again.
Iirc, Europe has raw milk. They only do basic filtration. That’s why they don’t refrigerate it.
european milk is definitely pasteurized and refrigerated, not sure where on earth you’ve seen room temperature milk…
we do however also have extra pasteurized milk, which is more tolerant of storage conditions and time
Carefully cleaning the udder and teats, and very quickly refrigerating raw milk should significantly reduce the risks of bacterial contamination and growth. This is not done in most cases though, so raw milk usually carries a much higher risk of listeria.
Having had listeria once–contaminated green beans–I very much do not recommend it.
Hyperbole-loving drama queens.
i feel like there’s a lot of astroturfing in the comments here, how depressing
Anything besides just eating a little less meat.
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.
Most cities do ban many cars, because they harm air quality.
Buying meat supports an industry that also causes immense climate destruction, so it’s the same idea
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 and eating it) but it’s deemed unsafe for you and society to drive one on the highway so you legally cant. (No right to food that’s bad for society)
You can’t access golf carts on the highway (can’t access bad food in the grocery store)
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.
Exaclty … certain types in certain areas with a reason. That’s regulation. You wouldn’t just ban all vehicles. Do I really have to spell this out?
are you being intentionally obtuse? obviously they wouldn’t ban all vehicle, that wasn’t suggested in the OP either.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
You can’t possibly be fully informed on every single purchase you make. Even being generally informed is a somewhat privileged position to be in. You have to remember that these companies are spending billions of dollars to trick you into buying their stuff regardless if they do what they suggest or don’t. It’s not a fair fight, we need consumer protections. It’s one of the major pitfalls of libertarianism
I guarantee you if there were no rules, you would get yourself poisoned. It would simply be a matter of time
“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…
The government has banned eating human meat. Should that be allowed?
How about endangered animals, if we want a less extreme example?
We can narrow the scope all we want but generally, there is somewhere the government likely needs to intervene.
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…
if people know what they’re eating
And therein lies the problem. People can’t know what they’re eating unless there is a lot of government regulation for businesses to list what they are putting in a clear, concise manner, readily available at the time of purchase and/or consumption. We also have to constantly check that they’re being honest. And what do you do if it’s a mistake? You think in the current regulatory environment that companies are going to subject themselves to a society where if they fuck that up, they’re gonna be held accountable? Give me a break.
The next step is that everybody has to understand everything they are looking at, and assess every single thing they ever put inside their bodies from top to bottom. This is not feasible. Yes we all need to understand better what we consume, but we often take for granted, even you, the many things that we just consume without thought.
Should you have to check the quality of the water literally every single time you drink it everywhere you go? How do you even get that info when you’re in a public space? Are there just going to be labels all over the world plastered on everything we engage with our five senses? I mean really tease this stuff out, apply it to your daily life with every single thing you breathe in, put on your skin, eat, etc. It’s not reasonable.
I for one like that I can take for granted that the food I am eating at a restaurant is, generally speaking, safe to eat. I don’t want to get E. coli. I don’t want to get trichinosis. I don’t want lead poisoning or sawdust in my food. If you expect businesses to do what they want and consumers to live by “caveat emptor,” you’re going to be so sorely disappointed by the body count.
You see all of this as some sort of nanny state or whatever you want to call it, I see them as common sense, bare minimum guardrails.
I’m not arguing against anything you’ve said. In fact, I said most of what you just said 2 replies ago.
Leaving critical thinking up to the masses??? Oh…oh no.
Natural selection.
If the danger is clearly labelled, and all ingredients and potential hazards are clearly advised…
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?
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…
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!
I want them to deny bad actors the ability to sell dangerous foods on the open market.
Informed choice should be between safe products.
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.
That’s alright, when the 100% chalk contraceptive pill and the polyethylene ‘super sensitive’ condom hit the market I think they’ll do ok.
im not sure if this is satire or not?
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?
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.
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.
Should the government simply suggest companies accurately label the contents of food products?
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.
Aaaand now the town’s water supply has murcury in it, thanks.
