When people are sick of dying, some form of regulation, or at least a trusted communication channel, will likely take root. In the mean time, lots of people are going to die.
This is a heavy price. So I wonder: is this issue worth all those deaths?
That said, it's ridiculous to assume that if you do away with enforcing food safety and quality standards things will be peachy. That's not how free market works. You or your kids will likely die of poison. Because quite a lot of entrepreneurs are assholes and the only thing that stands between you and painful death are those regulations.
(Don't believe me? Do some shopping on eBay. Or better, go work for a week in a grocery store and see the shit they pull off while still staying within regulations. I'm a chatty person so I quickly make friends with people at stores, and a side benefit of that is that I get told when not to buy meat from them...)
Obviously, that is not actually true. Those regulations are a recent phenomenon. But before we had them, very few people suffered painful death from their lack.
On the other hand, they also save lives by forbidding stuff that would have killed people. Now the hard problem is to find the sweet spot where you minimised the lives lost by both over- and under-regulation. (In addition to improving the accuracy and efficiency of said regulation.)