| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > We collectively agree that
> > we'll drive on the right side of the road, that red lights mean stop,
> > that you have to pass certain standards to operate the motor vehicle
> > on public property, that insurance is required, that all vehicles meet
> > certain safety standards, (like having the same bumper height...) etc.
>
> Why, if these are good ideas, is it necessary for there to be regulation? And
> if they're not actually good ideas, why is it a good thing that they are
> mandated just the same? c.f. regulation of how much bone slivers can be
> present in my hot dogs. Absent that regulation, meat companies would compete
> on how little they had, or not having any at all, but now that we have a
> minimum standard, they all don't bother to mention how much is in there any
> more. Regulated standards ensure mediocrity because no one tries to exceed
> them, there's no market advantage in doing so.
If you'd add onto this a policy of full disclosure, I think I'd agree here.
My concern is that there could easily be a practice of rug-sweeping, under
which companies do whatever they feel like doing, all the while spinning and
respinning other companies' accustations re: food content. With the presence
of regulatory agencies (which could, I admit, have analogies in privatized
watchdog organizations), food vendors are at least forced to adhere to
standardized rules, and corporate spin therefore carries (at present) less
weight.
And, while we're discussing the contents of hot dogs, let's not overlook
rodent hairs and hog anus!
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
