News

How Food Regulations Make Us Less Healthy | Learn Liberty

How Food Regulations Make Us Less Healthy | Learn Liberty



“How Food Regulations Make Us Less Healthy” by @LearnLiberty ▻ Get Learn Liberty updates in your inbox! Why do we …

source

Tagged: , , , , , , ,

39 Comments

  1. ivan date

    without regulation,
    .. there will be food ,
    from, cheap 'come from no where' 'unhealthy' to expensive 'healthy' food
    some producer will fight to be cheap ..
    some producer will fight to be healthy..
    That will happen … only that simple ….and nothing to do with KFC or McD

  2. Stephan Azor

    This is a crock. They're taking the public health concern and injecting misinformation. I've personally lost 25 lb. in 2 months shopping at local farmers markets and whole foods. The biggest reason why a bag of potatoes at Safeway is cheaper than a bag of potatoes at your local farmers market is because your local farmer doesn't get the subsidy that the potato corporation that supplies Safeway gets. The real answer is to stop the food subsidy all together. If food subsidies were  removed from the market all together, we would see a real free-market response to all of the food processing because the processed food costs several times more than unprocessed food. The money for processing the food has to come from somewhere and it comes from both our taxes and the loan repayments received by providing "aid" to third world countries. (See Aid as Imperialism by Teresa Hayter; http://amzn.to/1tz2aVr)

  3. Natasel

    So the love of profit and fear of loss for is enough?

    Wow! So all those stories I hear about companies screwing over the health of people for profit must have been wrong!

    As for the legal battles, don't we need a government for that?

  4. Joe Ferrari

    The problem is, gov't regulation or not, business that are supposed to compete with each other really don't. There's another video on this channel that explains how competing companies actually share all most all their information with each other. So I say what competition? The big whigs of these companies have their cocktail parties together. They mingle. The CEO of JC Panie and the CEO of Macy's share drinks and shoot the shit with each other. But we need to keep the gov. out of those parties

  5. Alec Soltes

    Whether or not a big business supports or opposes regulation depends on how much it expects to gain from the cartelizing benefits. The right amount of government regulation keeps the market free from pesky competitors, but too much regulation starts doing more harm than good to the business it affects. Increasing regulation doesn't address the effects of the cartel it creates and generally results in greater business-government cooperation as business lobbies for its removal.

  6. emoplato

    Except you will never remove the idea of "buying" big government. Whenever have a qualifying power people will associate with it and develop commonalities to have a relationship. Those who don't have the resources can't develop it because they are centered in a smaller locus of society. People buy things in which that are already made. This use of buying though runs contradictory to that fact as if somehow money changed the product in the hands of the consumer.

  7. Joe Ferrari

    When i study librarian arguments and reasoning I wonder who it is they are attempting to argue against. So regulations harm small businesses but, help big businesses? You're telling me that gov't is in bed with big business? What a revelation ! How could I have missed that? When you use the term "government" in place of "regulation" you are using doublespeak and you're missing the point. Regulations can be positive so long as the big business doesn't buy our representatives.

  8. WaAaAaAaAaAaaa

    Funny is the fact that most of Learn Liberty 'professors' teach or have studied in very mediocre and/or religious universities. Also, Edward Stringhman actually teaches in a state university. Lol. The irony…
    Howard Baetjer also teaches in a state university. And so do many others of them.

    Want to know why all these so-called 'economists' studied and teach at very very mediocre state universities? Because they were too poor in economics and mathematics for the likes of Yale, Harvard, LSE, etc.

  9. heavym3tal

    If you look at historical evidence, safety came as a consequence of competition between food producers. Don't forget that there is an allowable amount of foreign material allowed in packaged foods, which is a regulation that comes from the FDA. Does that mean it can't make someone sick? No, it just means that the FDA determined the safety vs. cost benefit, and not the companies themselves.

  10. Henry Wiltcher

    If a company sold eggs which were known to contain salmonella and people were hurt by it there would be a lot of news surrounding it. The cost of legal battles to the company would be damaging. The cost of lost business would be damaging. It would be more beneficial to the company to sell healthy food.

  11. Natasel

    SOUNDS like it makes sense, but I can't shake the feeling that without some regulation (at the very least, someone should be feeding questionable food to a lab rat just to see if it dies) food safety might not be so great.

    Am not happy with the increase of cost in the production of food that step would take, but a totally unregulated free market doesn't have the best record about giving a damn about the health consumers as long as profits are healthy.

  12. shorty701s

    I first learned about the enormous cost of the "organic label" to small farmers when I worked for Whole Foods a while back. The reason why there are so few certified organic companies in the U.S. is because the government makes it so expensive to actually obtain a certification that the entire industry ends up being one big oligopoly.

  13. Nar'ok Fireshout

    This is America, what sin is considered is not considered to be the law. An A.I? Do you know where A.I, technology is at? AI is only capable of reacting to some very basic situations, not on thinking at the level needed to spot lies. Then you have malfunction, if the machine is malfunctioning you could send a number of innocents to jail. If you want a better justice system go to law school, read all about how ours works, decide all the liberties everyone may want, then protect them.
    -Continued-

  14. Ani G

    Have you heard of class action law suits?
    We need a civil law system. That is what I was trying to say. Laws should not be a voting game or in the hands of the all powerful juror– but the law. An online jury means an artificially intelligent one which is given variables and gives desired result based upon them (like siri).

  15. Nar'ok Fireshout

    For that very reason our system is better now than the one you are proposing. The problem is court needs to be fair, protect peoples rights, and dish out justice. Its not always perfect, sometimes crooks get away. Though that will always be better than loosing our liberties.

  16. Nar'ok Fireshout

    … What I was saying is it would be economically impossible to fund a case long enough to win against a multi-million dollar company. Especially if it is just you versus them. Now I understand you are an idealist, you forget that the masses are idiots and if you left things to an online jury you would find a lot more criminals getting off. Look at how men respond when a cute girl is the one being charged. Regardless of her crime, they will side with her. _Continued_

  17. Nathan Walker

    I have no problem with the aspect of scientists learning about genetics, and the fact that we are "playing god," my issue is with the health concerns that publicly unlabeled GM crops present to the population. Genetic modification does not scare me; I am only concerned with the implications that current GM crops have.

  18. RadicalRC

    Shale we ban all advertisements as an Objection to Liberty? Now we need a department of truth in garage sale advertising and the like. I do not think it is rational for a person to claim they under the mental control of an advertiser and made bad or destructive decisions by their own hand but not by their conscious decision. It's trying to replace personal responsibility. The only alternate to voluntary exchange is involuntary exchange. That is tyranny.

  19. Derp Inyourderp

    But what I'm saying is that when we think we're voluntarily buying what we desire, we're not. Companies manipulate us. People think Soda A tastes better than Soda B (even if they're actually the same) entirely because of the pretty packaging or they buy a more expensive car insurance policy from the company with the funniest commercials.

  20. BrokenMikrofone

    The Jungle was a fictional book, written by an open socialist, who wrote it specifically to demonize that industry. I bet you don't even know, that only like 10 pages of that book has anything to do with the meat industry.

    It's like me saying "Well if X is the prive we have to pay to avoid a repeat of Atlas Shrugged, I am all for it" Repeat of what, when it's just fiction?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *