• Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    9 hours ago

    What is so incredible is that we are living st a time with such massive food surplus that it would blow the mind of anyone living in the past… but they will let all of it go to waste and just add bullshit to the food just because they can…

  • toadjones79@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Bleach, actually. A small amount of bleach added to spoiled milk makes it taste brand new. The government actually suggested this in a few countries for a while.

    Plaster in flour was common enough that after the miller, the middle men, and then the baker all added a cut, there were loaves being sold with less than 20% flour in them. The result was mass malnutrition.

    Also, and this is a spicy one but backed by basic economics, regulations are a required element to capitalism. The notion that deregulation is pro capitalism is a misinterpretation of the idea that markets are self regulating. A free market is one that is free of corruption and unfair business practices. Which cannot exist without regulations and the enforcement of those regulations. All our current economic woes are the result of straying away from proven economic theory (mostly deregulation) to the right allowing the corruption of the marketplace and emergence of a strong oligarchy.

    • T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      9 hours ago

      A free market is one that is free of corruption and unfair business practices. Which cannot exist without regulations and the enforcement of those regulations.

      We’ve had numerous laws precisely because companies couldn’t play fair, and made things worse for all involved. The government didn’t pass laws against company towns, scrip, and predatory pricing because they decided to ban things for fun.

  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    That’s just the free market working as intended. Collateral damage.

    Maybe people should do research on the available milk brands before giving it to their children if they didn’t want them to drink bleach.

    Edit: I tried to resist adding the “/s,” but we live in crazy (stupid) times, so…

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      The Free Market (holy be thy name) gives you the choice between $1/bottle for milk with chalk and bleach, or $10/bottle for one with less chalk and bleach. If you want one without chalk and bleach, you’ll need to find your own cow.

      Also, the cows all have birth defects and need uranium-powered antibiotics to stay alive.

      Now, let us open our song books to number 34: “Praise Hayek and His Perfect Mustache”.

    • stelelor@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Excellent idea! I’m sure that information will be readily available from independent trustworthy sources that are not the government! Failing that, I always have my trusty mass spectrometer in my kitchen and I run all my foods through it just in case!

    • T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Maybe people should do research on the available milk brands before giving it to their children if they didn’t want them to drink bleach.

      Without regulation, the company could also just lie. Nothing would dictate that they would have to tell the truth about their product.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Well that’s why you need to do your own research. As in looking at products under microscopes, doing physics equations, etc.

        If you’re not an expert on every product you purchase (and the science behind them), well then that’s on you and your kid deserves getting lead poisoning from his band-aids.

  • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    20 hours ago

    To continue with the argument of “the market will self-regulate and people wouldn’t buy that brand anymore so they would never do it again”

    Okay but how many people died, how many people are suffering long-term effects, and what’s stopping them from adding a different deadly thing to our food?

    • spooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      11 hours ago

      To continue with the argument of “the market will self-regulate and people wouldn’t buy that brand anymore so they would never do it again”

      Turns out the parent company owns every other brand of that product, so going to another brand is meaningless

    • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 hours ago

      And also they’re already basically Monopolies. You don’t have real options. Most food products come from like 3 mega corps who own hundreds of brands.

    • WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      wouldn’t buy that brand anymore so they would never do it again

      Assuming there is perfect information in the market. In reality there is heavy information asymmetry.

      It also assumes free competition while we have every market dominated by a few players buying up everyone else, often with cartel like behavior.

      • Robust Mirror@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        14 hours ago

        It also assumes it is immediately deadly poison, and doesn’t do something like cause early dementia 25 years later.

        • TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          It also assumes the masses behave rationally, which they won’t ever.

          We’ll just get the cheapest shit with the limited information we are given, unless it is life-or-death, where we will pay any price out of fear.

    • ApatheticCactus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Market self regulation assumes informed consumers that are smart enough to know what things mean. Also it assumes healthy competition and companies that are competing to make the best product at the chrapest price. It ALSO assumes brand lotalty isn’t a thing, and consumers are judging things purely objectively.

      Like, i understand the idea, but in practice there are a ton of caveats.

      • suicidaleggroll@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Market self regulation assumes informed consumers that are smart enough to know what things mean

        Not just smart enough, but informed enough. That means every person spending literally hundreds/thousands of hours per week researching every single aspect of every purchase they make. Investigating supply chains, performing chemical analysis on their foods and clothing, etc. It’s not even remotely realistic.

        So instead, we outsource and consolidate that research and testing, by paying taxes to a central authority who verifies all manufacturers keep things safe so we don’t have to worry about accidentally buying Cheerios that are laced with lead. AKA: The government and regulations.

    • workerONE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Also, if you want inspections to make sure there isn’t bird shit in the milk, then you need regulation. Otherwise people are just drinking bird shit and they don’t know.

  • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    This is true, but it’s important to remember that some regulations were not written in blood, but instead in racism - see R1-zoning as one of the most significant examples.

    Regulations are just tools, really. They can evidently be used for good, and should be used for good, but some are being used for bad and should be reformed.

    • 5too@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Sure, and such regulations should be reformed. We should not just start turning stuff off and seeing who breaks!

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I wish that would go without saying, but current events are unfortunately evidence of that not being true.

  • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    21 hours ago

    just to point out the other side of this…

    (and I already know I’ma be downvoted for just saying that)

    Some regulations are bad. Many are good and we actually need them, but some are bad. For example, when there’s a few large companies in an industry, they often lobby for regulations designed to increase the cost of doing business. While the big fish can pay the costs of these extra regulations, smaller companies cant, and just cant compete with the big fish, lowering the amount of competition in the industry and promoting more monopolistic behavior. We saw Openai try to do exactly this back when they went to Congress to warn the senators about the dangers of ‘agi’ and how it quickly needed to be regulated. Well they failed, and now there’s tons of companies with their own products that rival Chatgpt in every way other than the brand recognition.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      There’s also regulations that actually hurt the things they are intended to protect. It’s generally called perverse incentives. The example here is related to endangered species. It’s in the interest of those that find an endangered species on their property to “shovel and shut up” as the presence only creates problems for the owner.

      • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        its solved by getting money out of politics, along with removing regulations that don’t make sense and keeping the ones that do

        • Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          Folks here think regulation, and immediately put it to food and Ai or other white collar applications.

          Working in plastic manufacturing for ten years, and chemical manufacturing for a few more, the term deregulatuon terrifies me. Regulations keep employees safe, and aims to keep the products we make safe.

          I think of environmental impacts first and foremost, which is the kind of deregulation I assumed was meant with this regimes obsession with bringing back coal, oil, and mining/deforestation if our national parks.

          Getting money out of politics is implemented with regulation. We only have one environment, and they want to deregulate environmental safety/preservation.

          • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            45 minutes ago

            …removing regulations that don’t make sense and keeping the ones that do

            Having safety regulations for plastic manufacturing and protecting the environment makes sense, so those should exist.

        • baines@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          19 hours ago

          sure but regulatory capture and a controlled market are not really a counter argument to regulation so much as an argument for more regulation

          strict rules enforcing disclosure and other sunshine laws are key to exposing corruption like you are suggesting

        • Nikls94@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Wait, so you’re telling me that this politician who will definitely get a CEO position in that company does not want to make life better for me?

    • Sundray@lemmus.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      20 hours ago

      The tweet itself limits its scope to food safety regulations specifically. The title of this lemmy post was condensed for brevity, which might create the impression that it’s trying to make a larger point about regulations in toto. But I figured I could get away with it because I figured that surely people would read the tweet before commenting.

      • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        38 minutes ago

        I know, but pretty much every comment on this point about regulation isn’t just discussing food regulations, their talking about regulations as a whole. Also my point about some regulations not helping can still be applied to foods.

        I mean look at the stuff they say about ketchup:

        The consistency of the finished food is such that its flow is not more than 14 centimeters in 30 seconds at 20 °C when tested in a Bostwick Consistometer in the following manner: Check temperature of mixture and adjust to 20±1 °C.

        https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-155/subpart-B/section-155.194 - section B, part 1.

        the flow of ketchup does not matter in the slightest to anyone

    • real_squids@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Reminds me of car startups (in the US) taking off one wheel, turning them into moto/autocycles, so they wouldn’t have to go through expensive car certification processes

  • Ambiance6195@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    Speaking of Americans, at least half of us are criminally uneducated and watch literally nothing but Fox News. You can’t teach them even with indisputable proof. If the talking heads say it’s bad, then it’s bad.

    • Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      Framing one half of the population as beyond saving or inherently evil is not just lazy - it’s historically dangerous. It reduces millions of individuals into a caricature and gives people permission to treat them with contempt, as if that’s somehow virtuous. That kind of thinking has been used to justify some of the worst things we’ve done to each other as humans.

      When you actually talk to people outside your bubble, you quickly realize that most of us want the same basic things - stability, safety, meaning, a fair shot in life. We just have different beliefs about how to get there. Writing off entire groups as irredeemable only erodes any future possibility of understanding or change.

      • Ambiance6195@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        13 hours ago

        For fucks sake, this whole “let’s all hold hands and sing Kumbaya” response is pure garbage. They’re trying to pull that “oh, it’s just different opinions” crap, but that’s a load of bullshit. We’re not talking about whether pineapple belongs on pizza here. We’re talking about a movement built on lies, hate, and actively trying to undo hundreds of years of suffrage and civil rights movements that allow you to have free speach.

        This ain’t about “different beliefs on how to get there.” Half these people are living in a fantasy world where facts don’t matter and anyone who doesn’t look or think like them is the enemy. You can’t “understand” someone who thinks immigrants are poisoning the blood of America or that the last election was stolen with zero proof. That’s not a “belief”; that’s a dangerous delusion.

        And this whole “tolerance” nonsense? Please. You don’t tolerate people who want to strip away your rights or incite violence against your neighbors. That’s not virtuous; that’s being a damn doormat. Some ideas are just plain wrong, and some people are so far gone on the Fox News Kool-Aid that they’re beyond reason. Pretending otherwise is just enabling the madness.

        The Paradox of Tolerance is akin to an invading force telling the insurgence that no one else has to die as long as they comply.

        • Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          13 hours ago

          For fuck’s sake, this whole “we need to live peacefully with our neighbors” rhetoric is pure garbage. They’re trying to pull that “oh, we just need to coexist” crap, but that’s a load of bullshit. We’re not talking about disagreements over taxes here. We’re talking about a group built on lies and corruption, poisoning the roots of our nation and threatening everything we’ve worked for.

          This isn’t about “different ideas on how to build a society.” These people live in a fantasy world, manipulating the media, the economy, and the schools. They don’t care about our culture, our history, or our future. You can’t “understand” someone who undermines the moral fabric of the country and destroys our unity from the inside. That’s not a belief - it’s a threat.

          And this whole “tolerance” nonsense? Please. You don’t tolerate a parasite. That’s not virtuous - that’s weak. Some ideas are poison. Some people are too far gone. Pretending otherwise just enables the collapse.

          Sound familiar?

          Because it should.

            • Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 hours ago

              The thing is, when you speak to red hats on an individual level, the person you commented said they want the same basic safety and quality of life we do. I agree, this is true.

              Where it strays is folks in power have preyed on the ignorance of the most blue collar, “School is for yuppies” “never lived anywhere but the boonies/sticks” kind of people.

              The propaganda worked on them. They were targeted by this regime for decades, and it’s finally manifested.

              Of course I speak on a macro level, because on a micro level I’ve cut out every racist/bigot in my life. Propaganda is a hell of a drug, and not everyone finds value in education which helps you spot it. Its a mess for sure

              • Ambiance6195@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                10 hours ago

                That’s the point if “The Paradox of Tolerance”. I talk to these people on a daily basis. On the surface level, they are decent human beings. Until such a topic is touched on.but when they truly feel comfortable, is when they start spewing hate. That’s when I stop sympathizing.

                Every person deserves a right to speak, but when that speech encroaches on another’s right to existence, is where I draw the line.

                • zenforyen@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  A truly free society maximizes relative freedom for as many as possible, not absolute freedom for some at the cost of freedom of others.

                  And yes, this is exactly the line drawn by the paradox of tolerance.

                  The difference between left and right wing, non - economically, is still about distribution of power. But not only monetary power, but also the power granted by the positive and negative freedoms we have in a social system. Only that in our societies, freedom and wealth are heavily entangled, and increasingly so.

            • Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              11 hours ago

              I simply took your message and swapped out Republicans to Jews just to highlight the eerie similarities in tone and logic. I hoped this would be obvious and wouldn’t need explaining. I guess I was wrong.

              • Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 hours ago

                you telling me conservatives and corporate sociopaths are an ethnicity? you telling me the world wouldn’t be a better place without them? are you seriously so fucking stupid that you think we can compromise with christian nationalists?

                purge now, purge yesterday, purge forever. or humanity dies.

  • FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Hands up if you didn’t already know that. Or intuited it. To me this seems to be something only US-Americans who argue purely ideologically for a “small government” need reminding of. They’re paradoxically often the first in line calling for government intervention when their drinking water is full of poop or something.

  • rasbora@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    22 hours ago

    “But what about my rights?? Drinking spoiled milk with chalk probably cures cancer or something, of course They don’t want you doing that! Why do you hate freedom?”