I find it interesting that you think it's more effective to get the government to do the job of protecting human health when it effectively operates as a monopoly (and a horrifically corrupt one at that) VS a model that would allow for greater free-market competition.
When whistleblowers like this come forward, it creates demand for change-- that demand gets met quickly without regulatory capture. However, since we live in a hell world ruled by Big Daddy Government who is beholden to the conglomerates that it's supposed to regulate, there will instead be some new nonsense "clean meat" label (a la "organic certified" or whatever-- which means nothing btw) to assuage the general population into believing another lie while continuing to poison themselves. Sure, small local farmers may adapt if they don't go out of business first, but only the most-attentive of the population will actually get to accessing their product. Additionally, these sorts of massive industry conglomerates that stomp all over everything we hold dear aren't even possible without government regulatory capture.
There is a role for government to deal with two major problems of human civilization, because humans aren't civilized enough; the free rider effect, and negative externalities. The latter is just this situation.
Government is as inevitable as death, because humans are political animals.
Thus, you may as well use the power of the state to do things like protect people from poisoning, because this is a failure of the market to do so right now.
(edit, based on the link, the UK allows .15% of plastics in the feed. Based on the pictures, that was a hell of a lot more than that in the US plant. Either it's a law violation, or US regulations allow for way more)
Sure. Here's a source, though centered on the UK -- https://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/en/2022/07/inconceivable-allowing-plastic-in-livestock-feed/
I find it interesting that you think it's more effective to get the government to do the job of protecting human health when it effectively operates as a monopoly (and a horrifically corrupt one at that) VS a model that would allow for greater free-market competition.
When whistleblowers like this come forward, it creates demand for change-- that demand gets met quickly without regulatory capture. However, since we live in a hell world ruled by Big Daddy Government who is beholden to the conglomerates that it's supposed to regulate, there will instead be some new nonsense "clean meat" label (a la "organic certified" or whatever-- which means nothing btw) to assuage the general population into believing another lie while continuing to poison themselves. Sure, small local farmers may adapt if they don't go out of business first, but only the most-attentive of the population will actually get to accessing their product. Additionally, these sorts of massive industry conglomerates that stomp all over everything we hold dear aren't even possible without government regulatory capture.
Just my $0.02
Thanks, I'll check out the link.
There is a role for government to deal with two major problems of human civilization, because humans aren't civilized enough; the free rider effect, and negative externalities. The latter is just this situation.
Government is as inevitable as death, because humans are political animals. Thus, you may as well use the power of the state to do things like protect people from poisoning, because this is a failure of the market to do so right now.
(edit, based on the link, the UK allows .15% of plastics in the feed. Based on the pictures, that was a hell of a lot more than that in the US plant. Either it's a law violation, or US regulations allow for way more)