Hacker News Reader

Comment by DRW_ | Hacker News Reader

>Anytime we talk about "banning" something I prefer a very conservative approach (conservative as in let's not ban things unless we are really sure). We are constantly learning new things that upend what we used to accept as science regarding nutrition and how the human body works. I think we do ourselves a disservice sometimes by banning things that we don't understand (and sometimes we think we understand but really don't).

If you aren't sure, then I don't think I get the logic on the default being "okay, feed it to your kids!". Surely it makes more sense to be cautious about the things we ingest..

View on HN

If you aren't sure, then I don't think I get the logic on the default being "okay, feed it to your kids!".

Um. There's kind of a big difference between requiring something and just not forbidding it.

> Surely it makes more sense to be cautious about the things we ingest..

Completely agree

> If you aren't sure, then I don't think I get the logic on the default being "okay, feed it to your kids!".

False dichotomy. I don't think the choices are either "ban it" or "okay, feed it to your kids!" There's a middle ground there that I think makes more sense.

What’s the middle ground you are referrring to? Don’t feed it to kids but feed to adults? If you don’t know something is safe for consumption then it shoulnd’t be sold, right?

Isn't that what we do for alcohol? We already tried prohibition. It didn't stick.

Getting into specific policy prescriptions is tempting the fate of Godwin's Law, but I don't believe it's wise or even possible to regulate every single molecule that gets sold for consumption.

Constant evaluation, testing, and liability for people/companies that knowingly use dangerous or harmful ingredients can go a long way here. In fact often times it's the only way broader datasets can be gathered. The market provides a strong incentive here as well not to poison your customers.

I also think that education, including warnings on packages, and then letting adults make their own decisions, is a good way to go. One state that I know of recently banned a pest control chemical because some idiot sprayed his dog's food bowl with it. The dog later died. The state's knee jerk response of banning it is counter-productive IMHO. I've been using it for DIY pest control for many years and it is one of the most effective I know of, and when used as directed is perfectly safe (don't spray anything that will be ingested with it, such as dog food bowls, gardens, etc).

The market provides a strong incentive here as well not to poison your customers.

The history of corporate malfeasance and the desire of people to optimize for short term gain versus long term gain indicates that your view is not supported by reality.

For example see the cigarette industry and how it deliberately made its products addictive and more dangerous.

The history of corporate responsibility and the desire of many other people to optimize for long term viability and survival does indicate that my view is supported by reality.

Your implication that because one or several persons (or companies) did something wrong, therefore all of mankind is bad/evil is fallacious. Because a neighbor of mine is a thief or a murderer, does not make all neighbors thiefs and murderers. We hold him accountable for his actions.

I suggest you have things backwards. There are lots of examples of corporations and people doing the right thing when incetivized by market forces. There are lots of examples of corporation and people doing the wrong thing when incentivized by market forces. The conjunction of these two facts ought to lead you to the conclusion that we should not rely on the market for incentivization against corporate malfeasance and wrong doing. Society, in the form of government, needs to be vigilant against wrongdoing and in the case of food we ought not rely on market forces to prevent bad actors from unleashing their bad intentions on society. Your view is not based in reality because history has shown that corporations sometimes do bad things in response to market forces. So relying on market forces to regulate corporate behavior is not a good idea.

Your view would make sense if market forces always lead to companies not wanting to poison their clients. But this isn’t the case.

Ok, I think we're actually a lot closer to agreement than it would seem. I think you've zeroed in on the the last sentence in my paragraph:

> Constant evaluation, testing, and liability for people/companies that knowingly use dangerous or harmful ingredients can go a long way here. In fact often times it's the only way broader datasets can be gathered. The market provides a strong incentive here as well not to poison your customers.

as my one prescription, when in fact it is not. It's just a piece of the puzzle. In fact I agree with this statement of yours:

> Society, in the form of government, needs to be vigilant against wrongdoing and in the case of food we ought not rely on market forces to prevent bad actors from unleashing their bad intentions on society.

I also may have over-read into your reply that you don't believe the market has any ability to disincentivize bad behavior, which after reading your latest reply may not be the case. Please correct me if I'm not summarizing your point accurately, but it seems you agree that markets do incentivize good behavior, but that it isn't perfect and therefore governments should have a role in ensuring people (and corporations) don't misbehave. If that's an accurate summary of your position, then I agree with that. We may disagree on what optimal intervention levels look like, but we could at least agree on the broader point :-)

The premise of your second paragraph is not supported by what I wrote. I’ve made no claims about every corporation (entity/person/whatever). I just pointed out that some corporations are incentivized to do wrong and thus relying on market forces is not a good idea.

> There's a middle ground ...

You mean the good old "Okay, I won't say anything when you feed it to your kids, but I didn't say it's OK, so if they die it's your fault!" ground?

What would that middle ground look like?

Selfishly, I’d be happy with banning a lot more food stuff. I love salt, sugar, and saturated fat, and like that they are well understood.

Most of the newer riskier things are ways to improve margins for companies that mass produce food, either by letting it sit on a shelf longer, or to make processed cornmeal taste more interesting.

Is the middle ground “feed it to someone else’s kids”?

It's impossible to prove that a food item is safe. The two categories are known to be bad and not know to be bad.

We’re pretty sure that wheat is safe, right? We don’t have a proof in a mathematical sense but it’s clear that wheat is ok to eat.

shrugs 30 years ago, everybody would have agreed that bread is safe. Now: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/295235.php

Actually, no, there's plenty of people that believe wheat not be safe. Obviously this is true as well if you have Celiacs, which also wasn't widely known until relatively recently.

Your definition of safe does not correspond to most peoples’ definition when it comes to food. Safe, in this context for most people, means safe for general consumption. Unsafe means that the product causes harm in just about everyone who consumes it.

I'll agree with that wrt to Celiacs, but not the broader point. Many of the people that follow the Paleo diet (which is no small contingency) believe that wheat in general is indeed not safe.

I doubt you can find a credible source to say that wheat is poisonous or otherwise causes harm in the way that most people associated that word as it pertains to food. It may not be healthy and some people may think it’s better to eat other things but they don’t think it kills people or otherwise seriously harms a person.

But even if you are right as it pertains to wheat your claim is that no food can be deemed safe. That’s a big claim and one that is very hard to support. We know some foods are safe (in the general sense of the term).

Tricky claim because everyone who says wheat is dangerous, you could claim is not credible to you, whereas someone else might find them to be credible. Could be real tautological.

It’s not tricky. I’m a reasonable person. A credible source would be a published, peer reviewed research paper. There are other credible sources. This is just one example of a credible source.

> But even if you are right as it pertains to wheat your claim is that no food can be deemed safe

I think you've confused me with will4274 who said:

> It's impossible to prove that a food item is safe. The two categories are known to be bad and not know to be bad.

Regarding the subject tho, I think definitions of "safe" and also who would comprise a "credible source" are probably more to the crux of the discussion.

Yes, I thought you made the comment that will4274 made.

>then I don't think I get the logic on the default being "okay, feed it to your kids!"

Why would you feed something to your kids just because it’s legal?

Who are the idiots that just pick things blindly off of shelves in stores without reading what’s in it?

Sugar is completely legal, yet I read the amounts of sugars in foods to avoid high sugar items. I’m also not giving my children bottles of olive oil to drink with dinner.

Do you always read all ingredients for prepared food you buy?

Don't you?

I honestly do not, and I never saw anybody doing that...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com