Food Safety: Government, Private, Other?

Branched off, once again, from tnu's U.S. Constitution topic.

Start reading here until the link, basically.

Anyone want to start off?

Moved from other thread:

I have a hypothetical situation to propose: Say there was an independent organization to regulate foods and some food producers chose to take part, and had higher prices for their guaranteed quality foods, and say this brought the prices for their foods (due to member fees and payment for testing, and, perhaps, collusion and gouging) above what the poorest, say, 25% could reasonably afford, so they're forced to live off the much poorer quality foods that don't have the seal, and, thus, could kill them.

Would this be worth an independent, non-governmental agency? I know my answer (edit:) is a resounding no.

edited 2nd Apr '11 5:06:15 PM by Acebrock

I, obviously, would say it was not.

Well, the last point I added in the last thread before noticing this one was to the effect that judging from the ABA for lawyers, these kind of groups might have some role in self-regulation, but they are more about lobbying for that industry. Seems like a bad idea to leave regulation to them.

I wouldn't think so.

edited 2nd Apr '11 5:05:28 PM by Jordan

Then we'd have an oth er standards orgninization corpping up to see these poorest members of society as a customer base. thus creating competition in quality control.

^ Ah, but it is cheaper to use less-safe materials than it is to use safe ones. Why waste money on safety, when you are not actively punished for being unsafe? Is it not simpler to not leave people the ability to be free to know that all of their food is, at the very least, unlikely to make them ill?

edited 2nd Apr '11 5:07:33 PM by AllanAssiduity

Maybe. If there was no money in it (not even enough for a non-profit to run such an organization and break even), then that probably wouldn't happen. These oranizations don't spring up out of thin air after all

Goverment agency: The problem is simple, what if I am in a country that does not receive media coverage of its neighbors, and the food safety regulation is monotone? Basically it means it CAN mess up, and there is nowhere else to look to provide the answer of "they messed up" as a contrast.
Which means in order to have a goverment food regulation organ you must have it divided into separat branches doing the EXACT same job, and some sort of census system to get agreement on the approved stamp.
Theoretically you could setup a privat organisation to do that, but there is a few problems:
1. Nothing is forcing them to behave. Which means they could be bribed
2. Even if they do not approve something, it could still be sold
3. The idea of setting up several branches and a safety system to avoid corruption goes against the very idea of profit, hence it will not be done

Basically for a private food safety organ to be "worth it", the court system must also be fully oiled and working. But only give the companies a incentive to not put out the untested really toxic stuff.
It means that you could fully well sell poison, providing it kills the people slowly enough.

For electronics it is a bit different:
1. If something has a CE stamp, it means that it can take a minor beating, if it does not have a CE stamp, then it is rubbish
2. Who actually looks at the stamps? I don't except when I take a "so this is how the shit looks like" at the object

these private agencies can be bribed. I hate that argument it assumes that governement agencies can't be bribed.

This makes me think of all the lectures I've had on zoonotic diseases. The thing is, food safety also has bearings on our export industry. I would consider that an aspect for the government to handle.

What is it with the idea that government needs to be mommy and tell you what's good foryou all the time? We'r adults can't we be responsible for our own actions? But no people have to get scared and say "we need mommy to protect us".

To quote an oft misinterpreted philosopher: without a strong central gov't. (which is less necessary today, though certain countries <cough>Somalia</cough> show why government is necessary, even now) "the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Also, why trust a group that only has profit as a motive to help you? And don't tell me you can rely on yourself. No man is an island.

Frequently adults aren't responsible about their own actions. Sad thing to learn isn't it.

At any rate, nobody is arguing that you shouldn't be putting rats into our bodies. I have no clue where your getting that idea from. We are saying that we would like to have the right to not have to worry about whether our sausages are safe to eat.

Also the issue isn't so much that Government can't be bribed. It's that private industries are concerned only with profit and eliminating competition. There's no incentive for them to be ethical. Government is concerned with mainly order and power, it's in their interests to keeps us from wanting to rebel. Whether through force or keeping us fat and happy.

The thing is, if the government was in the business of enforcing food that's good for you, the stuff most big restaurants sell would be banned, and fast food would look more like school lunch. NO one would be okay with that, so the most the government can really do is give advice on good nutrition.

Besides, most of the voices calling for more stringent dietary restrictions for all are private concerns like CSPI.

Why not? Why do I need Big Brother to constantly be watching me? My understanding is that freedom is the ability to make mistakes. You can't have one wi th out the other. With every right comes responsibility and that is what we need to grasp. An all powerful government can't enforce repsonsability or alturism in people. laws do not change people only Ideas do.

We can't know what's in the food we eat. How exactly am I supposed to ensure that the sausages I buy from the butcher aren't chock full of parasites? Hmm? I could ask the butcher, but he/she could be lying or misinformed. I could go find the suppliers, but how exactly is the average person supposed to know what constitutes a disease risk in abbatoirs and feedlot systems?

It is impossible to be sure that the meat you eat is safe yourself, unless you raise and slaughter your own animals or buy your meat from somebody who does.

edited 2nd Apr '11 6:40:55 PM by LoniJay

and that's the glory of the itnernet a vast reposetory of information you are responsable for your own health and your own life no one is rewsponsible for you and you are responsible for no one else.

Tnu. What on Earth are you arguing!? We're talking about how the FDA keeps corporations from screwing us over. Nobody is arguing that you can't eat whatever you like. I don't care if you decide to sniff glue and I'm all for your right to do it. I am also for the right to buy some food and knowing what I'm buying is what I get.

And you expect everything on the internet to be accurate. That those private organizations won't spread false information just to increase their profits.

edited 2nd Apr '11 6:45:12 PM by Alichains

Yeah, this isn't about Big Brother or any other libertarian bogeyman, this is about food safety. Stick to the topic. please.

The thing is I trust these orginizations of government with requiring that information be provided only otherwise you get tot he idea of banning foods and our current War on Drugs. I trust them no further with regulation only information and even that is stretching it.

Seriously, tnu, you think you can gain all the knowledge you need to ensure food safety just by googling some stuff? No! People spend years studying parasitology, epidemiology, microbiolgy, etc before they can be considered qualified to judge food safety. You think google is going to let you bypass all that?

And good luck checking out the safety precautions underway at your local meat's abbatoir online.

please forgive me i've become abit apranoid lately of any centralized body because of a sort of Slippery Slope Theory. I've come to see these sorts of entities as inherently coercive since they operate under therat of force. I really should calm down a little.

tnu 1138: The goverment is fully corruptable, but it is harder to corrupt than a corporation or a non-profit organisation.
Why? Because a corp is FOR profit, and bribes is PROFIT.
When profit is not the goal, bribing is easier.
But your entire argument reallies on a fallancy that we support a 100% centralized unseparted body that does not even attempt to aquire a mirror and fix itself.

Except thanks to fun little biological facts like herd immunity and disease mutation, I pay for your mistakes too.

Best option I can think of is government regulation with private bounties - you get rewards for catching out companies that cheat or corruption in government enforcement. Throw on some publicly funded nonprofit NGOs as watchdogs of the whole system and we're clear.

Alternatively, don't prohibit unsafe foods, but tax them extra at a rate that will make up for the health care costs they inflict. You wanna skimp on health and safety? Fine, but your product will cost more on the shelf than the guy who was cautious. There's your free market solution!

edited 2nd Apr '11 7:01:55 PM by RadicalTaoist

That last part goes beyond what government should do. restricting a corperations ability to screw us over, fine. but taxing "unhealthy" foods is just like trying to enforce a diat at gunpoint.