Statists Argue AGAINST food inspection when free market wants more

These people, are insane. Sadly, it’s fairly typical.

Check out some of the comments in THIS reddit thread. I don’t know where to begin with such people. They defy all logic.

open quote[–]repmack 531 points 24 days ago

Scientifically yes random testing is fine, but to say no you can’t have higher standards just shows you what a crappy organization the USDA is.

permalink
parent

[–]PENISCHEERIOS 627 points 24 days ago

I disagree. I think they are trying to prevent this company from using as a marketing ploy “trust our meat, we test every single cow” and creating a false panic among consumers when random testing is effective.

Kind of like the whole bottled water, don’t trust your tap water smear campaign.

permalink
parent

[–]BangkokPadang 308 points 24 days ago

If they want to spend millions of dollars to test every cow, and use that as a marketing device then what is wrong with that?

permalink
parent

[–]inner-peace 374 points 24 days ago*

Because if it becomes the industry standard, the cost gets passed to the customer, end of the day everyone is paying more for meat and we’re not any safer. Its an inefficient use of resources. EDIT: The prevalence of human disease from mad cow is incredibly low in this country, with a total of 3 confirmed human cases ever. MORE EDITS: consumers are stupid and don’t know whats best for them, the fear of mad cow is disproportional to the danger it poses

permalink
parent

[–]aggregarrett 82 points 24 days ago

the cost gets passed to the consumer…it’s an inefficient use of resources

See, some people would argue that factory farming and meat subsidies already leave the cost of meat in the United States in complete disproportion to its actual value. It’s too cheap. So this leads to increasingly cut costs (and corners) on the producer side, and over consumption on the consumer side.
close quote

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*