Careful, there. Before we know it, Enoch might be saying it's fine to sell human breast milk in jugs simply marked "MILK".
Careful, there. Before we know it, Enoch might be saying it's fine to sell human breast milk in jugs simply marked "MILK".
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyt...verter#HistoryWidespread adoption had to wait until the extremely effective anti-knock agent tetraethyl lead was eliminated from most gasoline over environmental concerns, for the lead would spoil the converter by forming a coating on the catalyst's surface, effectively disabling it.[3]
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Right. And that market comprises what percentage of the total? I already addressed that point:
That's maybe 5 to 10% of the total market. If that much. That will be hardly a dent. Do you really not understand the concept of cumulative effects and why it is important to change a 100% of the market instead of a mere slice?
But I think that's the last I'll write here. You're unable to see reason, your arguments are shoddy and you're unable to read, as you've just proven.
It is an idiotic idea to think that criminal law alone would save us from environmental damages. Because: a) we already have the possibility to lay criminal charges and b) if criminal law was so effective in prevention of crime, then we would not have assaults, rapes, murders and the rest either.
It's a pipe dream with no rational basis.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Love it. Great way to sum up that disingenuous argument.
Anyway, and this is for GeeGee... speaking of things that have been proven to not work, it looks like we need to close down the USDA and FDA, because they don't work.
Somehow jumped to the top of my Google news list around lunch yesterday, but 16 people have died from listeria in Colorado-grown cantaloupes. Good thing the FDA is busy busting hippie heads instead of "saving lives," right?
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
No, but she probably thinks unlicensed amateurs should not be allowed to give women abortions and esp. not without taking the proper precautions.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
http://www.about-listeria.com/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7707600The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition established the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) to monitor the effectiveness of food safety interventions in 1996. In a study of FoodNet laboratory-confirmed invasive cases (where infection is detected in blood, cerebrospinal fluid, amniotic fluid, placenta or products of conception), listeriosis decreased by 24% from 1996 through 2003; pregnancy-associated disease decreased by 37%; and cases among those ≥50 years old decreased by 23% (Voetsch et al., 2007). The highest incidence was reported among Hispanic persons from 1997 through 2001. Differences in incidence by age group and ethnicity may be explained by dietary preferences. More recently, FoodNet surveillance data revealed that the incidence of listeriosis in FoodNet active surveillance sites was 0.27 cases per 100,000 population in 2007, representing a decrease of 42% compared with 1996—1998 (CDC, 2009). The incidence did not change significantly in 2007 compared with 2004—2006 but remained higher than at its lowest point in 2002 (CDC, 2008).
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00007/art00006RESULTS:
The rate of listeriosis decreased in all surveillance areas. Projection of these rates to the US population suggests an estimated 1965 cases and 481 deaths occurred in 1989 compared with an estimated 1092 cases and 248 deaths in 1993, a 44% and 48% reduction in illness and death, respectively. Among adults 50 years of age and older, rates declined from 16.2 per 1 million in 1989 to 10.2 per 1 million in 1993 (P = .02). Perinatal disease decreased from 17.4 cases per 100,000 births in 1989 to 8.6 cases per 100,000 births in 1993 (P = .003). Three serotypes (1/2a, 1/2b, and 4b) of L monocytogenes accounted for more than 96% of cases during each year of the study (1989 through 1993).
CONCLUSIONS:
The incidence of listeriosis in study areas was substantially lower in 1993 than in 1989. The temporal association of this reduction with industry, regulatory, and educational efforts suggests these measures were effective.
Despite growing concerns about cross-contamination of ready-to-eat foods with Listeria monocytogenes, our knowledge about the ecology and transmission of L. monocytogenes in retail establishments has remained limited. We conducted a cross-sectional study to characterize the prevalence, distribution, and subtype diversity of L. monocytogenes in 120 New York State retail deli establishments that were hypothesized to present an increased risk for environmental L. monocytogenes contamination (i.e., small establishments and establishments with a history of failed New York State Agriculture and Markets inspections). Analysis of these data along with previously reported data for 121 predominantly larger retail establishments in New York State identified establishment size, geographic location, and inspection history as significant predictors of L. monocytogenes presence and prevalence. The odds of an establishment being L. monocytogenes positive were approximately twice as high for large establishments, establishments located in New York City, or establishments with poor inspection history (as compared with establishments without these attributes), even though correlation between location and inspection history complicated interpretation of results. Within an establishment, L. monocytogenes was significantly more prevalent on nonfood contact surfaces than on food contact surfaces; prevalence was particularly high for floors and in floor drains, sinks, the dairy case, and milk crates. L. monocytogenes subtype diversity differed between sites, with lineage I isolates significantly associated with nonfood contact surfaces and lineage II isolates significantly associated with food contact surfaces. Isolates belonging to the same ribotype were often found dispersed across multiple sites within an operation.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
All that's nice and everything, but it doesn't change the fact that both the FDA and USDA are proven failures that we must eliminate because they don't work. And we know they're failed ideas that don't work, and can prove they're failed ideas that don't work, because they didn't stop this most recent outbreak, or any of the previous ones, for that matter. Irrefutable, undeniable proof that government regulation is an idea that's been tried and failed, and thus we should eliminate it immediately.
And if you don't like that, take it up with GeeGee, because those are her standards and her arguments that demand the abolition of all governmental authority.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
You will not trap me in your web of crazy.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm not going to let you get away with calling this *my* web of crazy. It's GeeGee's web of crazy, and to a lesser extent, Khen's web of crazy. Those are the standards and arguments they've been repeating for about 2 pages on why voluntary certification and self-regulation doesn't work (in spite of the fact that it actually does), and if that's the measuring stick, it's only fair to use the same stick for government-mandated "solutions" as well.
Like I said, take it up with GeeGee, because it's her position, or her "crazy," (to use your preferred term) and not mine.
Alrighty, then... not sure what you want me to do with that, but the only thing that jumps to mind is how freaking crazy it is to require a prescription for a human to use antibiotics when we (literally) dump tonnes of stuff onto farms for the cows and whatnot to eat.
Or are you just helping out by proving government regulation doesn't work either, what with the FDA encouraging tonnes of antibiotics to be used to make cows tastier?
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
You should really try letting them speak for themselves then. its not like you have a problem with exaggerating positions or statements, or ignoring context or anything like that.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It should help you appreciate how responsible agribusiness is wrt antibiotic usage when left to their own devices.
No no no. GGT and Khen have their own crazy. This particular one is all yours. It has CainCrazy stamped all over it and anyone who's read your posts here and on CC can recognise the truth of that in a heartbeat. Look, no-one's perfect at everything. Discrediting and baiting posters are a couple of your strong suits, and you have many others that are also very valuable to anyone who reads these threads. Truthful, sincere and meaningful communication involving people or ideas that you dislike, that's not one of your strong suits. You can't do it man. As soon as you manage to convince yourself that your opponent is a stupid/crazy cretin who's saying the most unbelievably absurd things the communication link is cut. That's all right; it clearly doesn't bother you and most of us have become adept at ignoring it when it becomes distracting. We're all glod's children, imperfect though we may be, so no worriesbut, if you want to fully appreciate how frickin' irritating your shadow-boxing is to anyone who can't ignore it, just read this post again.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Sure, if the health inspector happens to be there and sees it. What happens if you see it?
Two issues. First, you are able to buy raw milk, (which isn't as easy as you seem to think it is) tobacco, bathtub gin, etc... but you don't think people should be able to sell it? That's not cognitive dissonance?You don't get out much, is that what you're saying? It's interesting you say I'm the one with "cognitive dissonance". I can buy raw milk, raw tobacco, bathtub gin, or even road-kill venison, if I want. Key words being IF I WANT. Not because I'm forced to, as the only products available.
Second issue. You acknowledge the fact that there's a market for the products you want to buy, but you seem to think that nobody would want to fill that void. If I know people want pasteurized, homogenized, milk, under constant professional inspection from the udder to your refrigerator, then I'm going to make that happen and make a ton of money doing it. You, as a consumer, win because you get the product you want. I, as a manufacturer win because I've got a market that craves my product.
Nobody is forcing you to buy anything. You seem to be under the impression that there will only be one product, and that product will be milked from sick cows, sprinkled with glass shards, and packaged in an old lead paint can.
I see. You have GGT on ignore, or something, because in post #86, she flat out says voluntary regulation doesn't work, and that's why we must not use it, and her supporting evidence is one [hypothetical] death from bad food. Hardly the first time in this thread alone, either. I scrolled right through a good half-dozen other posts where she does the same thing: voluntary regulation/accreditation doesn't work, proof: one inapplicable example.
So, no, this isn't my crazy, this is me applying her crazy to her "ideal solution" (which happens to be your sacred calf), and all your nonsense about posting and rhetorical style doesn't change a thing about what's actually transpired in this thread. GeeGee claims we can't use methods that have been tried and proven to be failures in the past. Makes up one example that she thinks is related to voluntary association as her proof, asserts this is why we must not allow voluntary association as it pertains to food and the environment. Sorry if applying her "reasoning" to her favored solution happens to bother you because you hold governmental regulation dear, but you really should be complaining at GeeGee for using an "argument" that is so easily turned against your sacred calf, and not the me, for pointing out the painfully obvious.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
I know it's probably not possible for you to remain calm and rational during discussions where you disagree with others (I.E always), but I'm more than happy to help you out.
It's actually closer to 63%. According to that study, only 17% of those surveyed were completely unconcerned with the environment.
85% of the adult population in the US says they care about the environment. Moreover, over 30% of Americans are willing to spend 20% more for an environmentally safe product. A top-of-the-line factory catalytic converter would barely add 2% to the price of most new cars.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 09-28-2011 at 09:30 PM.
Sounds to me, like in the interests of consumer choice, we need government regulation to force an option for that 17% minority, because as it stands, those of us who want cheaper goods that result from environmentally-damaging processes (like dumping waste directly into the drinking reservoir) have no market option available.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Dear Cain,
the above are the contents of post #86 minus quotes from Enoch's posts.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Dear Minx,
I've bolded and enlarged the relevant part of post 86 to assist your reading, even though it's only the most recent example of the pattern of "argumentation" GeeGee's "utilized" in this "thread." And I did it again, in that last sentence, to aid you even further. (The bolded, underlined part is the most salient.)
And again, that pattern being: "GeeGee claims we can't use methods that have been tried and proven to be failures in the past. Makes up one example that she thinks is related to voluntary association as her proof, asserts this is why we must not allow voluntary association as it pertains to food and the environment."
*THAT* is her "crazy," as you phrase it, and that is what you object to me turning on your beloved government regulations... but again, as it's her "crazy," your complaints and objections should be directed at her, and not me, for I am powerless to do anything with regards to GeeGee's "crazy," beyond pointing out its existence.
And, as always, should you desire or require more assistance, I'm happy help, if you're willing to ask.
Cheers!
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Same thing. And now with all the cell phone cameras around, inspectors don't have to see everything themselves. Social media can "out" a restaurant that's disgustingly dirty or has food prep workers using one knife to cut raw meat and then tomatoes. Your notion is "that's good 'nuff!" to make them change practice, but it's really not. They could say the same thing you do...."If they don't like it, they don't have to eat here!" Once you've removed all the regulating agencies, there's no place for the consumer to go, except file a law suit? What would their legal complaint be, without a set of rules that are violated, anyway? And how would that shut down a place that's making people sick during the drawn out legal process?
There are FDA, USDA, CDC and state health dept. rules to follow because it's good for public health, more efficient than weeding through a gazillion 'private consumer advocate' groups, creates a consistency between states, and helps businesses avoid millions of potential law suits. I think you're forgetting that part, where rules/regulations can actually help businesses, instead of being viewed as some tyrannical chokehold on liberty.
Easier for me than you think (in the Amish and family farm dairy belt). I don't have a problem with some official rules limiting where/how foods are processed, labeled, stored, transported, or sold. We've discussed this before, and there ARE times of overreach (like requiring a church to have a professional-grade kitchen in order to hold a pancake fund raiser), but that doesn't mean we should totally gut or eliminate the FDA.Two issues. First, you are able to buy raw milk, (which isn't as easy as you seem to think it is) tobacco, bathtub gin, etc... but you don't think people should be able to sell it? That's not cognitive dissonance?
No, you're talking about market forces, demand/supply, cottage industries or niche business, not food safety or regulations. I wouldn't want raw milk as the only milk at a small corner store, and unsuspecting people (visitors, travelers, tourists, kids) grabbing a jug, and assuming it's the same as all other pasteurized dairy. You'd make a better argument about changing labeling or consumer awareness, instead of dismantling entire agencies.Second issue. You acknowledge the fact that there's a market for the products you want to buy, but you seem to think that nobody would want to fill that void. If I know people want pasteurized, homogenized, milk, under constant professional inspection from the udder to your refrigerator, then I'm going to make that happen and make a ton of money doing it. You, as a consumer, win because you get the product you want. I, as a manufacturer win because I've got a market that craves my product.
Nobody is forcing you to buy anything. You seem to be under the impression that there will only be one product, and that product will be milked from sick cows, sprinkled with glass shards, and packaged in an old lead paint can.
The EPA is just a big bully.
Let's see them regulate my neighbors' lawnmowers, leaf blowers, grass trimmers, and snow blowers, for both air AND noise pollution. No? Too weak? Gotta pick on asthma sufferers?
Also: (related)
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/0...ficial-deaths/
Makes sense, if you think about it for a second... pick on the asthmatics who can't spare the breath to complain... brilliant!
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Would the EPA still look like a big bully if corporations had a more cooperative attitude toward public health and public policy?
Your local municipality already writes zoning ordinances for "sound pollution", so take that up with them.
from your Listeria link:
Investigators found Listeria monocytogenes matching an outbreak strain in cantaloupe at a Denver-area store, and on equipment and cantaloupe at the Jensen Farms packing facility in Colorado, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Monday.
The federal "root-cause" investigation and environmental assessment includes on-site FDA and state of Colorado microbiologists, environmental health specialists, veterinarians and investigative officers, according to the agency.
The FDA said on-scene experts will continue to analyze the evidence to try to determine how the contamination occurred and, if possible, to identify controls to help prevent contamination in the future. The agency said the investigation's findings should help regulators develop Listeria policy and produce safety guidelines.
CDC was also tracking 17 states to make an outbreak map and Epi Curve, working with the FDA, state microbiologists and health professionals, vets and farmers, food vendors/grocery stores to coordinate recalls, and update and monitor hospital reports. Nationally. Sounds pretty effective to me!
I'd like to know how the laissez-faire, voluntary, libertarian ideal could possibly work as well? *Would appreciate an actual answer to that question, btw.*
Until things have advanced far enough that every grower, processor, importer, distributor and retailer (or consumer) can be their own epidemiologists using....who knows what, something like dipsticks or scanners to test monocytogenes, study genetic footprints, constant biological mutations, or contaminants in food....using large centralized government agencies makes more sense.
edit: forgot to add that it might also make sense to restructure some of these agencies: take the Food part of FDA and combine it with USDA, and take the Drug part of FDA and combine it with CDC. EPA could be incorporated into every/any agency that deals with water, air, soil, pollutants, discharges and waste.
Repeat:Cain and Enoch were both on-line after my post, but I still don't have an actual answer from either of them. Or from any other "libertarian". Is there some kind of time limit proving federal agencies "win" over libertarian ideals?I'd like to know how the laissez-faire, voluntary, libertarian ideal could possibly work as well? *Would appreciate an actual answer to that question, btw.*
GGT, we've been going back and forth over the same ground throughout the length of this, and other threads. Do you think anything I can say, any points I may bring up, will actually change your mind? Any failings in the regulatory environment will be seen by you as proof that there aren't enough regulations, or the regulations that we do have simply aren't the right ones. Any failings on the part of companies and individuals, (even heavily regulated companies and individuals) will only reinforce that view. Admitting that these selfsame people won't automagically become perfect in truly free market, (which is true and readily admitted) does the same for you. We could live in a completely controlled environment, where every possible move, every product, every person is viewed under the myopic lens of alphabet soup governmental agencies, and you still wouldn't feel truly safe. There is no such security to be found in this world, GGT.
The problem really is that we have different expectations of what we want from life. For instance, I do not want, or expect, a perfectly safe, government mandated and child-proofed, foam at the sharp corners and regulators watching every baby-step, world. I understand that freedom is inherently risky, even dangerous. For all the potential and perceived dangers, all the risks, all the shortcomings, it is still preferable to be free, to have choices, and bear the consequences of those choices, then to be subject to the whims and dictates of tyranny.
I already know your response, that you are free! That sensible, reasonable, well intentioned regulations don't impact your freedom. That it is a false dichotomy to claim perfect liberty or tyrannical governance. That even lolbertarians have limitations placed on their freedom. Libertarians openly acknowledge and accept that their freedom that stops where another persons nose begins, and they accept the incredible burdens and responsibilities that go along with that. People like you and Nessus think that means, "Fuck you, I've got mine," but that's not what it means at all. And this is why there can't be a productive conversation.
Well, it's one of the reasons, but probably not even the highest hurdle.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
I've been asking you to support your opinion, and answer the question with some specifics, not just more theoretical ideology. Not to change my mind (any more than I could change yours). If a theory works in practice, you ought to be able to show how.
That's not representative of my opinions at all. Neither are the other parts of your [snipped] post. I'd like better, smarter, more efficient regulations that keep up with a modern, growing, global world. Not a dismantling of agencies, not more for the sake of more "gov't control", or "promises" of a completely safe and secure world.The problem really is that we have different expectations of what we want from life. For instance, I do not want, or expect, a perfectly safe, government mandated and child-proofed, foam at the sharp corners and regulators watching every baby-step, world. I understand that freedom is inherently risky, even dangerous. For all the potential and perceived dangers, all the risks, all the shortcomings, it is still preferable to be free, to have choices, and bear the consequences of those choices, then to be subject to the whims and dictates of tyranny.
You love to talk about libertarians knowing limitations on freedom, "and they accept the incredible burdens and responsibilities that go along with that". But when it comes to nuts 'n bolts, practical applications or real life examples, you can't give any. None. Just that freedom is risky and dangerous, "choices" are better than "tyranny", and if companies pollute, sicken or kill, take 'em to court. Sue. I explained why (IMO) that won't work because of our expensive and overly litigious legal system that already favors deep pockets. Then your reply is that people like me just don't understand, engage in automagical thinking, end of conversation. Got it.
You want my specific opinion on how in a hypothetical libertarian country, a hypothetical libertarian watchdog group, could hypothetically track down a hypothetical outbreak of Listeria?
I think I've outlined several times in this thread how a corporation, farming cooperative, or individual could be approved by an industry standards/watchdog group, and part of that voluntary association could require them to submit to random screenings, and cooperate if there was an outbreak of food borne illnesses. Would this be voluntary? Absolutely. Could such an organization sell a batch of a potentially deadly cantaloupes that endangers potentially buyers? Sure. Does that happen in the current regulatory environment? Clearly it does.
Apparently, you seem to think that the underlying differences in our philosophy doesn't matter, and that's just not the case. My goal, and the goal of libertarianism isn't to have a completely risk-free environment. That's antithetical to freedom. Freedom is dangerous.
I believe I addressed that in the other parts of my [snipped] post.That's not representative of my opinions at all. Neither are the other parts of your [snipped] post. I'd like better, smarter, more efficient regulations that keep up with a modern, growing, global world. Not a dismantling of agencies, not more for the sake of more "gov't control", or "promises" of a completely safe and secure world.
If your goal isn't a safe and secure world, or at least a world that feels safer and more secure, what is your goal?Any failings in the regulatory environment will be seen by you as proof that there aren't enough regulations, or the regulations that we do have simply aren't the right ones.
Sure, you explained how in our current world the hypothetical changes I've suggested for a hypothetical libertarian utopia couldn't work? Yeah, I think we can all agree that's the case, but it kind of misses the point, doesn't it? It's a simple tautology to say that in the current broken system, implementing an alternative system that still operated under the current broken rules wouldn't fix the problem. That's not exactly stretching the imagination.You love to talk about libertarians knowing limitations on freedom, "and they accept the incredible burdens and responsibilities that go along with that". But when it comes to nuts 'n bolts, practical applications or real life examples, you can't give any. None. Just that freedom is risky and dangerous, "choices" are better than "tyranny", and if companies pollute, sicken or kill, take 'em to court. Sue. I explained why (IMO) that won't work because of our expensive and overly litigious legal system that already favors deep pockets.
The only time I used automagical was to acknowledge that problems don't just go away when regulation is removed. Nor do I think I've ever tried to suppress this conversation. What I have said is that we are approaching two different goals from two different perspectives. You're wondering how libertarians could fix problems with food safety. I'm wondering how we can maximize personal freedom and limit government intrusion into private contracts and transactions. Can I imagine how a theoretical cantaloupe cooperative could do their best to ensure that food borne bacteria aren't shipped along with their cantaloupe? Sure. In fact, they could have standards that exceed those currently in place. That could include regular, random checking of all their products, and the ability to initiate a recall as soon as any dangers have been detected. They could guarantee the freshness, quality, and safety of their produce, and who wouldn't appreciate that? I've said this time and time again though and it never seems to get through.Then your reply is that people like me just don't understand, engage in automagical thinking, end of conversation. Got it.
I don't know how many times I want to rephrase and repackage the same premise. Especially when every time I do it goes unnoticed and unacknowledged.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 10-03-2011 at 11:17 PM.
I asked you to compare the current Listeria outbreak, coordination between CDC, FDA, et al, using expensive labs and latest biology....with your alternative. Thought it was clear I wanted you to delineate who's going to do the epidemiology, tracing monocytogenes and biological 'footprints', on a national level:
CDC was also tracking 17 states to make an outbreak map and Epi Curve, working with the FDA, state microbiologists and health professionals, vets and farmers, food vendors/grocery stores to coordinate recalls, and update and monitor hospital reports. Nationally. Sounds pretty effective to me! I'd like to know how the laissez-faire, voluntary, libertarian ideal could possibly work as well?
Your latest answer is acknowledged, and I'm saying it's full of holes that reality and practicality makes it a non-answer:
A voluntary cantaloupe cooperative with the ability to initiate (but not mandate) a national product recall AND "guarantee" safety of their produce? Seriously, you think Jensen Farms, and all other cantaloupe farmers are going to build a co-op high-tech lab and do this, just for cantaloupe? Maybe just fruits, or vine fruits...all farms big and small, family farm and Big Ag farms? The importers are going to have their own labs too, or can they join a co-op to monitor foods coming from around the world? And who's going to follow a laundry list of various Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval Angie's List type warnings, when they could be a competitor using junk science or scare tactics? Anyone watching those voluntary watchdogs, besides more voluntary watchdogs? Talk about burdens on farmers, business, and shoppers that limit their choices.Can I imagine how a theoretical cantaloupe cooperative could do their best to ensure that food borne bacteria aren't shipped along with their cantaloupe? Sure. In fact, they could have standards that exceed those currently in place. That could include regular, random checking of all their products, and the ability to initiate a recall as soon as any dangers have been detected. They could guarantee the freshness, quality, and safety of their produce, and who wouldn't appreciate that? I've said this time and time again though and it never seems to get through.
Rational and logical use of science, technology and government agencies (not to exclude private ones, btw) to monitor and coordinate basic consumer health and safety, reduce risks, and give people a modicum of oversight that protects our freedoms. Like the freedom to buy food from groceries, eat in restaurants, drink the water, breathe air, drive a car....without having to do my own "investigation" first. Or hunt around for how many voluntary co-ops are, and if they're reliable.Apparently, you seem to think that the underlying differences in our philosophy doesn't matter, and that's just not the case. My goal, and the goal of libertarianism isn't to have a completely risk-free environment. That's antithetical to freedom. Freedom is dangerous.
If your goal isn't a safe and secure world, or at least a world that feels safer and more secure, what is your goal?
That's part of the role of government, limiting some freedoms so The Greater Good can have other freedoms protected.
I'm sorry that it didn't meet with your approval. If you're wanting me to admit that a voluntary organization is limited by being voluntary, then you've got me? Congratulations?
You seem to think it takes an expensive, high tech lab to do most of the testing. In fact, fast, cheap, and easy to administer/understand testing is becoming a large and important industry. I think your expectations of what it would take, (or what happens currently) and the actual realities of how the system works are two wildly different things.A voluntary cantaloupe cooperative with the ability to initiate (but not mandate) a national product recall AND "guarantee" safety of their produce? Seriously, you think Jensen Farms, and all other cantaloupe farmers are going to build a co-op high-tech lab and do this, just for cantaloupe?
A voluntary association would have dues, and given the size and scale of many of these produce operations, we wouldn't be talking a crippling amount. You pay five cents on every piece of produce sold, (which you can pass on to the customer for that wonderful seal of approval) and you've got a decent chunk of change to perform research, testing, inspections, initiate recalls, etc... The more groups who participate, the greater the recognition and renown the organization will have.Maybe just fruits, or vine fruits...all farms big and small, family farm and Big Ag farms? The importers are going to have their own labs too, or can they join a co-op to monitor foods coming from around the world? And who's going to follow a laundry list of various Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval Angie's List type warnings, when they could be a competitor using junk science or scare tactics? Anyone watching those voluntary watchdogs, besides more voluntary watchdogs? Talk about burdens on farmers, business, and shoppers that limit their choices.
You make it sound like people don't already buy Dole or Chiquita or <insert brand name here> because they are well branded, and known for their quality. Do you think people don't look at the USDA rating of the meat they buy? Do you really feel that it's an onerous burden as a shopper to look for a well known, easily understood label?
The meat of this discussion doesn't really interest me. It could be done a thousand of different ways, by a thousand different groups, some ways worse, many better than how I've outlined it.
I doubt many would advocate the irrational use of science, technology, and government agencies to monitor and coordinate basic consumer health and safety, and yet hippies still end up getting their raw milk spilled, simply by virtue of it being raw milk.Rational and logical use of science, technology and government agencies (not to exclude private ones, btw) to monitor and coordinate basic consumer health and safety, reduce risks, and give people a modicum of oversight that protects our freedoms. Like the freedom to buy food from groceries, eat in restaurants, drink the water, breathe air, drive a car....without having to do my own "investigation" first. Or hunt around for how many voluntary co-ops are, and if they're reliable.
I must have missed the day in school where I had the freedom to only have pasteurized, homogenized milk, even if I wanted to go straight to the distributor and get the raw kind. Is this Orwellian freedom we are talking about?That's part of the role of government, limiting some freedoms so The Greater Good can have other freedoms protected.
No need to be snarky. PCR testing isn't like a home pregnancy test. Not yet anyway.
All products sold by Bioo Scientific are intended for research use only unless otherwise indicated. This product is not intended for diagnostic or drug purposes, or for use in humans.
You used USDA, a federal regulating agency as an example of a well known and easily understood label, yet you want to get rid of it? Seems the only answer you have is....because it's a government agency.A voluntary association would have dues, and given the size and scale of many of these produce operations, we wouldn't be talking a crippling amount. You pay five cents on every piece of produce sold, (which you can pass on to the customer for that wonderful seal of approval) and you've got a decent chunk of change to perform research, testing, inspections, initiate recalls, etc... The more groups who participate, the greater the recognition and renown the organization will have.
You make it sound like people don't already buy Dole or Chiquita or <insert brand name here> because they are well branded, and known for their quality. Do you think people don't look at the USDA rating of the meat they buy? Do you really feel that it's an onerous burden as a shopper to look for a well known, easily understood label?
Here's an idea---use that voluntary raw food co-op you advocate, to get your raw milk! I'll bet they'd also have vitamins and supplements not evaluated or approved by the FDA, but can't make false medical claims on the labels.The meat of this discussion doesn't really interest me. It could be done a thousand of different ways, by a thousand different groups, some ways worse, many better than how I've outlined it.
I doubt many would advocate the irrational use of science, technology, and government agencies to monitor and coordinate basic consumer health and safety, and yet hippies still end up getting their raw milk spilled, simply by virtue of it being raw milk.
I must have missed the day in school where I had the freedom to only have pasteurized, homogenized milk, even if I wanted to go straight to the distributor and get the raw kind. Is this Orwellian freedom we are talking about?
Using that one example of feds busting a hippie group (that ignored labeling laws for four years) isn't a very good example of a tyrannical gov't out of control. Freedom to buy raw milk is being regulated or limited, not prohibited or banned. Not all federal regulations are bad just because you say so, or feel they are, simply because they're from a gov't. agency.
Do you believe Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death meant liberty from all/any federal oversight, in exchange for death by dinner?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
