AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Raw Food Raid - Less Freedom for More Protection?

15 3015
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

The LA Times talks about a raid against a raw food market. They seem to be in favor of the actions taken and they report that the government was "enforcing rules designed to protect consumers from unsafe foods and to provide a level playing field for producers."

Provide a level playing feel? Basically, they want to control the market. Just so everyone is on the same page, this is not how the free market works. Whether you support the free market or not, is purely your opinion.

ReasonTV, on the other hand, focuses more on the freedom to make unhealthy choices and the way the government handles raids.

Even though the LA Times mentioned this, they barely made any emphasis on how overboard the FBI went. During the raid, the FBI pulled their guns out on the workers. Another woman, who was also mentioned in the LA Times, was handcuffed for selling raw milk.

Should we be allowed to sell anything we want? Should we be allowed to buy anything we want? How much protection is too much protection and should protection be up to the government and other beurocrats? Should we focus on educating others rather than relying on regulations to protect people? Should we be allowed to take risks that may end up harming us?

What is your opinion?

  • 15 Replies
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

How much protection is too much protection and should protection be up to the government and other beurocrats? Should we focus on educating others rather than relying on regulations to protect people? Should we be allowed to take risks that may end up harming us?


I do think this does take it a bit far. yes we should focus on education rather then regulation. Yes I do think we should have control over what we do to our own bodies.

However I do think the government is in the business of protecting the people, so there should be some standards in health and safety of a product. In other words If I go to a grocery store and buy food I generally expect that food to be safe to eat. Without such standards we wouldn't be able to be sure what is or isn't safe to eat. Also isn't it a bit contradictory to expect the general public to be on average stupid but educated enough to make good decisions?
Efan
offline
Efan
3,086 posts
Nomad

Part of the article in case no one bothers with the link:

July 25, 2010|By P.J. Huffstutter, Los Angeles Times

With no warning one weekday morning, investigators entered an organic grocery with a search warrant and ordered the hemp-clad workers to put down their buckets of mashed coconut cream and to step away from the nuts.

Then, guns drawn, four officers fanned out across Rawesome Foods in Venice. Skirting past the arugula and peering under crates of zucchini, they found the raid's target inside a walk-in refrigerator: unmarked jugs of raw milk.

Stupid investigators. Why the hell would they pull out guns for a food investigation? They knew it wasn't drugs or guns. People should choose what they eat. If you can buy meat raw, then what's wrong with milk and others?
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Also isn't it a bit contradictory to expect the general public to be on average stupid but educated enough to make good decisions?


Even if the general public was, at average, stupid, we should not make regulations to protect them from their own mistakes for the following reasons.

1. There are many regulations that harm smart people who know how to handle situations and objects that are being regulated. An example would be marijuana. Many people are able to smoke marijuana, stay off the roads, and to keep away from other drugs and alcohol.

2. We can't wrap the world in a protective foam that prohibits the intelligent from entering doorways to exciting worlds, merely to cater to dumb people.

3. Some people do dumb things despite knowing the risk. Therefore, they are not dumb due to lack of information, but dumb in the sense they make bad decisions. Shouldn't we be allowed to make bad decisions?

Without such standards we wouldn't be able to be sure what is or isn't safe to eat.


The people buying this food signed a waver. They are well aware that there may be risks to eating raw food. Some of them may not believe those risks to be true, but others simply take their chances. If you go into a small shop and they are selling home made jams, should the government be allowed to tell them they aren't allowed to sell the jams because they are not properly labeled? What if the government decides it should be illegal to sell home grown fruits and vegetables?

I believe we should have the ability to buy products that are not approved by the government. If the government is to get involved at all, I believe they should make it so you have to inform your buyers if your product has or has not been approved by the government or FDA or whatever. That's fair, those willing to take risks can take their risks, and those who want to make sure their food is safe, can buy from foods they know were approved by the FDA. If people eat food that is not approved by the government and get sick because they didn't know better, that's too bad.

Oh yeah, also, most people aren't stupid. Only half of them, the conservative half. Or wait, only the liberal half. I forget which one.

The world isn't black and white and even if one side has evidence, people should have a right to be wrong, shouldn't they? Sometimes, the people who are said to be wrong, are somewhat right. Sometimes, they want to use something that is commonly abused or bad for something good, but can't. Who knows? I can tell you who doesn't, the government.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

This whole regulation that the government used is just another way to harm small businesses just because they aren't "refined" enough. We have laws regulating against vile, expired, and otherwise rotten foods sold to the public, but that should be enough--contrary to raw foods, this stuff can actually harm, sicken, and kill people. To those that get harmed from the raw food, it is simple--they did not properly cook the food.

Even though the LA Times mentioned this, they barely made any emphasis on how overboard the FBI went. During the raid, the FBI pulled their guns out on the workers. Another woman, who was also mentioned in the LA Times, was handcuffed for selling raw milk.


Words cannot describe how angry I am over this. Although it would be a tad bit humorous to see a worker on television getting handcuffed for selling milk.

"We are putting you under arrest because your foods are deemed not that safe". WHO said so, and which bill?
logantheking
offline
logantheking
254 posts
Scribe

Freedom and protection are inversely related.
In this case, the customers lost the freedom to eat raw foods and 'gained' the protection offered by the government on common-sense issues.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Even if the general public was, at average, stupid, we should not make regulations to protect them from their own mistakes for the following reasons.


I was speaking in a collective sense.

The people buying this food signed a waver.


That doesn't sound like a bad idea for selling risky foods. Though I think you may have missed my point here. There are many companies who already try to get around regulations just to sell a product that is less safe but cheaper to them to produce. With a completely unregulated system such crooks could run wild, not caring who get's hurt for there bottom line. As the consumer we would have no way of knowing what is what.

What if the government decides it should be illegal to sell home grown fruits and vegetables?


Considering the risk factors involved in raw milk I don't think these two are comparable. I think a better comparison would be with the selling and consumption of things like blow fish.

If the government is to get involved at all, I believe they should make it so you have to inform your buyers if your product has or has not been approved by the government or FDA or whatever.


Good idea, I think I would go one further and keep such unapproved products out of large produce stores like Publix. Basically if your small you get to work with less regulation giving you the chance to become big. If your big then you have more regulation to follow but you have more pull in the market. Basically the bigger you are the more responsible you have to be.

Oh yeah, also, most people aren't stupid. Only half of them, the conservative half. Or wait, only the liberal half. I forget which one.


That was quite uncalled for, you really should know better then that.

but that should be enough--contrary to raw foods, this stuff can actually harm, sicken, and kill people.


Raw foods can do that to you as well.

A couple of videos on the subject of raw milk.
Raw Milk
Raw Milk Followup: Liberty vs. The Public Good
Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,001 posts
Shepherd

Raw foods can do that to you as well.


This is very true. But doesn't this come down to personal choice? If you do not wish to be served raw product, do not go there. I really don't see how this is complicated.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

In this case, the customers lost the freedom to eat raw foods and 'gained' the protection offered by the government on common-sense issues.


Common sense? In that case, alcohol should be made illegal. Drinking screws you up, and it causes many problems for many people. Therefore, it should be illegal. It's common sense.

Two things I have to bring up.

1. "Common sense" is a phrase that should never be uttered in a debate. Common sense differs person to person. If it's "common sense, therefore it should be made illegal," then should we not even have to worry about making it illegal if it's common sense? Of course, nothing is truly common sense. Common sense is a sarcastic word that can't be anything but sarcastic.

To simplify what I'm trying to say, there's no such thing as common sense because what is obviously right or wrong for one person may not be for another. It's common sense that drinking is bad for you, that is merely my own opinion and even though it's common knowledge, people still drink because they believe nothing bad will happen to them for one reason or another. The same exact thing can be said for people who eat raw food and drink raw milk.

2. We should be allowed to do stuff that is not in our best interest.

Wolf, I watched the first video that you linked. At 3:52, he flashes numbers. 37,000 cases of milk-borne disease and 1,700 cases a year in the US. This is such an incredibly small number. After that, 104 hospitalizations in 7 years? Only 2 deaths? This number is next to zilch. Granted, most people are not drinking raw milk. My point is, these numbers are incredibly small, and it's hardly a risk at all to drink raw milk according to these numbers.

The video you linked absolutely blew everything out of proportion. Mole hills have been turned into nuclear bombs that eat babies. Basically, what I got from the video was, "if there's even a minute chance of getting sick or even death, it's not worth it." Two children died from milk, that's a very small number.

"You're taking a measurable risk in drinking it." With the numbers he provided, it's hardly measurable at all.

I heard about fugu and how many people die eating it. It's a stupid risk to take. There's absolutely no reason to take such a risk. I support people's right to take that risk.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

For once I am in total agreement with Nemo. The numbers shown are infinitesimally small, so small that you are about as likely to be killed by a dive bombing bird while skinny dipping in the Antarctic as to die from drinking unpasteurized milk. The numbers are based off of all cases of milk borne illness in the US, however take into account how many people consume milk products.

We are talking about millions of people purchasing hundreds of millions of products annually, and we have 2 deaths and 104 hospitalizations in 7 years? So the odds are what, probably 1 in 2 billion or so? And over this much of a risk the FBI raids a store with guns drawn on unarmed and non-violent citizens?

iFyre
offline
iFyre
48 posts
Nomad

This is an example of risk vs. rights.

The government in that example is moving an extreme decision to raid partly risky milk. Most people are scared of violence so if that is the feeling of the sellers then why would they point their guns at them, If I were in that situation I would be traumatized, also why bring guns? Are they scared of harmless civilians? Why, would there be a salesman that would throw a box of mils at them? Most of that possibility is impossible. If the government won't care about peoples feelings why do they even want to care for their health as well?

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

We are talking about millions of people purchasing hundreds of millions of products annually, and we have 2 deaths and 104 hospitalizations in 7 years? So the odds are what, probably 1 in 2 billion or so? And over this much of a risk the FBI raids a store with guns drawn on unarmed and non-violent citizens?


Oh I agree this reaction is defiantly over board. I just don't think there should be a complete hands off system so as to prevent those would who would sell a sub par product at the risk of the consumer just to make an extra buck.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Oh I agree this reaction is defiantly over board. I just don't think there should be a complete hands off system so as to prevent those would who would sell a sub par product at the risk of the consumer just to make an extra buck.


True, but then what kind of regulations can we have? People desire organic and untreated foods, and they should be able to purchase them without having to own their own farm and milk the cows themselves.

Certainly there needs to be a quality control procedure, but I don't think that it should be as big as the FDA. Your average simple farm owner cannot afford to pay the fees and associated costs with having his product inspected by a government approved factory agent, especially when you are dealing with unpasteurized products which have a very short shelf life as it is.

And, as was stated earlier, you already have to sign a waiver showing that you recognize the risks associated with untreated products, or undercooked meat, prior to purchasing them. And simply because something is untreated does not indicate that it is a 'sub-par' product at all. In fact, untreated products are typically above par, hence the increasing demand for organic foods in today's society.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Certainly there needs to be a quality control procedure, but I don't think that it should be as big as the FDA. Your average simple farm owner cannot afford to pay the fees and associated costs with having his product inspected by a government approved factory agent, especially when you are dealing with unpasteurized products which have a very short shelf life as it is.


That's why I suggest the small guy have to face less regulation, while the big guys have to face more. This gives the smaller guys room to grow and keeps the bigger guys in check.

And simply because something is untreated does not indicate that it is a 'sub-par' product at all. In fact, untreated products are typically above par, hence the increasing demand for organic foods in today's society.


This much is questionable. Organic foods shipped in don't seem all that great from my experience. Though local stuff hasn't been bad.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

That's why I suggest the small guy have to face less regulation, while the big guys have to face more. This gives the smaller guys room to grow and keeps the bigger guys in check.


The only problem with this is that many politicians cater to big business, and to gain support, the won't do anything unless one is backing them up. It's hard to get big business to agree to such things.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

The only problem with this is that many politicians cater to big business, and to gain support, the won't do anything unless one is backing them up. It's hard to get big business to agree to such things.


I just see that as part of the problem that needs changing.
Showing 1-15 of 15