There's a pseudo-libertarian "Government Regulations are EVIL" sentiment that continues to float around out there that food regulations are not necessary because (a) food companies are only interested in the welfare of their customers, (b) food companies would never do anything to harm customers, even if it would save them money, (c) and if they did, customers magically know it, and would simply go to other food companies.
The problem is, the Invisible Hand is just as likely to goose you as save you. And the bigger problem is, we already tried that system. There was a time when food companies — say, meatpacking firms — didn't have government regulations on cleanliness and inspections and not having disease-ridden, rotting, contaminated product. It was a free market paradise. And you know what? Ready Upton Sinclair's The Jungle for how that worked out.
So why would we roll back food regulations just to make things easier for food companies? Or propose new regulations that are voluntary guidelines. Because, y'know, if "voluntary" worked, issuing the guidelines wouldn't be necessary, would it?
(Are there stupid, wasteful, unnecessary, ripe-for-repeal regulations? Almost certainly. But anyone proposing repeal or "voluntarization" of a regulation because "the free market will take care of it and protect consumers through magical unicorn pixie dust and the equally believable good will, charity, and bonhomie of corporate America" has a very, very steep road to convince me.) #ddtb
Embedded Link
The Jungle, Revisited – Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money
The meat would be shoveled into carts, and the man who did the shoveling would not trouble to lift out a rat even when he saw one—there were things that went into the sausage in comparison with which …