“Ugh, this one needs to go down in flames. I would hate to go back to the days where anyone could sell anything, caveat emptor, and injured people had no recourse.”
The present “solution” to these concerns leads us to a government first presumes the power to tell me what I can and cannot ingest thus violating one of my may unalienable rights.
Second, it leads to a government that is willing to kill people who are selling unapproved vitamins or raw milk. Well, government doesn’t really intend to kill them, but during raids by machine-gun equipped SWAT troops, accidents can happen.
Third, it protects commercial interests who are favored by that same gun-wielding bureaucracy via regulatory capture.
Fourth, it leads to false claims of harmless substances when the bureaucracy that enforces its monopoly on competence tells us that there is nothing to worry about, we should just move on with our lives, when in fact a real hazard exists.
See for example: FDA claims no need to test Pacific fish for radioactivity.
http://www.adn.com/2011/04/16/1813982/fda-claims-no-need-to-test-pacific.html#ixzz1JlrzUS7x
Sixth: this bureaucracy becomes self-serving. Companies that work within the system and are cooperative with it get protection. For example, the CDC estimates that in 2011 contaminated food caused approximately 47.8 million illnesses, over 127,800 hospital admissions and over 3,000 deaths.
But we don’t send a SWAT squad to Jack in the Box when contaminated beef causes several deaths, we send a team of biologists. Had that same number of people died after eating organic beef from an organic farmer in Arkansas, the SWAT raid would have been broadcast live.
see: Spending Big at the Ag Department
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-05-27/spending-big-ag-department
Now certainly the public health is an important issue. However, government is only force and as George Washington observed, like fire in that it was a wonderful servant but a terrible master. The present structure of protecting the public costs a lot of lives and part of the media-government collusion is to protect government from the public seeing how much damage it does in the process of protecting us.
One solution is for government to set standards based on sound science and prudent practices but to limit its power to simply requiring labeling as to how well a product complies with the standard. We don’t have to threaten people with machine guns (and risk actually killing them) in order to stop their ability to sell to the public.
Even with my proposal we all must realize there are limits to government, another fact that government bureaucrats just cannot understand. This fact is proved by crack addicts every day.
To a gun-wielding bureaucrat every power of government is there for him to use and his budget only gets bigger when he can use those powers. Government only can grow at the expense of our liberty and prosperity. Our government is way too large and way too expensive as it is.
Let me add that the case of the deaths from contaminated beef at Jack in the Box is a great example of how product liability claims have a far greater effect on corporate behavior than the regulators, who were doing their job at the very moment the beef was being contaminated.
You can eat whatever you want--if you want to eat raw nightshade berries picked fresh from your garden, you can do so. The FDA and USDA, however, will prevent you from selling them as a health food. Their job is to make sure that food products offered for sale meet a certain level of safety requirements.
Second, it leads to a government that is willing to kill people who are selling unapproved vitamins or raw milk. Well, government doesn’t really intend to kill them, but during raids by machine-gun equipped SWAT troops, accidents can happen.
Wow, talk about hyperbole.
Although I can't say I see anything wrong with sending someone who intentially sells unsafe contaminated products in wilful disregard of safety and health regulations to prison.
Third, it protects commercial interests who are favored by that same gun-wielding bureaucracy via regulatory capture.
Huh? Do you mean those commercial interests like the local farmers and ranchers who comply with local, state, and federal laws and sell their products at local farms and markets? Is there any reason they *shouldn't* be protected?
Fourth, it leads to false claims of harmless substances when the bureaucracy that enforces its monopoly on competence tells us that there is nothing to worry about, we should just move on with our lives, when in fact a real hazard exists.
Please tell me, what is the "real hazard"? Am I to presume, because of the nature of the articles you linked, that the scientific assessment that it is not necessary to test west coast fish for radioactive contamination from a plant several thousands of miles away somehow adds up to a "real hazard" being ignored?
Sixth: this bureaucracy becomes self-serving. Companies that work within the system and are cooperative with it get protection. For example, the CDC estimates that in 2011 contaminated food caused approximately 47.8 million illnesses, over 127,800 hospital admissions and over 3,000 deaths.
So, companies that practice Good Manufacturing Processes to ensure that their products are safe to consume are "protected" by the system (by which I assume you mean they aren't being shut down)? Why is that a problem? With so many foodborne illnesses, it doesn't make sense to argue for more lax standards.
One solution is for government to set standards based on sound science and prudent practices but to limit its power to simply requiring labeling as to how well a product complies with the standard. We don’t have to threaten people with machine guns (and risk actually killing them) in order to stop their ability to sell to the public.
The people making the regulations *are* scientists, working with the most comprehensive and current scientific data available. I don't see a problem with it. OTOH, restricting regulatory authority to simply requiring labeling of products while allowing anyone to sell anything won't protect anyone. So what if half the dairy cattle at that farm have tuberculosis and the other half carry E. coli H157O7--the raw milk they're selling at their unrefrigerated roadside stand is clearly labeled "Raw milk--may contain pathogens", so it's okay! And no one can sue them, either, since their label meets legal requirements! Oy.