Just because you want products certified by a government body to be safe doesn't mean you have a right to force others to live according to your standards.
Meat inspection deals with a different failure of ideal markets than direct externalities, to wit, information asymmetry. However,the market inefficiency produced by information assymetry itself has negative externalities, so it's not unrelated.
For example, most people don't understand how microprocessors work. But this is addressed through an effective and spontaneous process of delegating responsibility.
The government can play a positive role in helping manage this complexity, by providing certification programs, and freely available public information. What it should not do is constrain the actions of individuals, by mandating that a particular standard be used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
the money quote being
The cost of dishonesty, therefore, lies not only in
the amount by which the purchaser is cheated; the
cost also must include the loss incurred from
driving legitimate business out of existence.And in any case, the market for lemons is a theoretical exercise. It does not actually happen in real markets, because there are various market mechanisms that emerge to address it.
The point is that everyone is worse off in a situation like this, both customer and (legitimate) business.
It is a type of market failure, everyone loses.
The "market mechanisms" you speak of are government regulations establishing minimum standards and forms of redress (e.g., and most on the nose, lemon laws).