Hacker News Reader

Comment by jgwil2 | Hacker News Reader

Note the irony of these nominally conservative, pro-free-market states being more than willing to introduce burdensome regulation when it tips the scales in favor of industries they deem worthy of protection.

View on HN

It'll be really entertaining when they make the law so strict beef that we learn that most "burgers" have too much egg, breading, or beef byproduct to count as a burger.

It's pro "big business" ... as long as that big business is a big employer in their state and is big in helping them get reelected.

Mis-labeled food laws have been around in all these states for a long time, without, I think, much objection.

I'm 100% in favor of consumers not being misled. Truth in labels.

But veggie burgers have been around for 20 years and nobody has been "fooled" into thinking they are beef. The word burger doesn't mean "cow".

The purpose of these laws is transparent, and it's not "consumer protection".

That's a pretty sweeping claim. I have accidentally bought "Chik'n nuggets" before so it's not much of a stretch to believe some people might make mistakes.

I absolutely support the label being clear. There should be no pictures of chickens on the label and no need to try to trick people into thinking there is chicken in there.

But to say the word "nugget" is restricted to only chicken products is just anti-competitive.

I've accidentally bought buttermilk instead of milk before. I don't think that we can regulate names such that no one will ever mistakenly purchase the wrong item. Ultimately, there is a standardized ingredients list included with the required nutrition information on almost every packaged food product. Whether that's sufficient or there should be more restrictions is an open question, but I really don't think that these arguments are being made in good faith in this case.

Pro free market is more of a libertarian thing not a conservative thing.

Republicans still think they believe in limited government though. They don't notice the irony when they ask the government to keep the governments hands off the government benefits they like.

Note the irony in a HN commentor complaining about US states regulating things the way Europe regulates things[0].

It's ironic turtles all the way down. ;)

Honestly I don't see this regulation as a bad thing. Having to use some different text on your label costs approximately nothing since you have to have a label of some sort so it's not really burdensome. Stores sell margarine beside the butter. I don't see why they wouldn't sell the beef approximation beside the beef. I'm not the target customer though. I won't be buying this stuff until it's so cheap that they start cutting 80/20 beef with it.

[0] per TFA, Europe has very similar laws about food labeling.

Edit: You people have no sense of humor.

I don't think the majority of European lawmakers have ever claimed to favor a small-government approach to regulation, so whether it's a good idea or not, there's no hypocrisy there.

RE: burdensomeness of the regulation, another commenter already pointed out the historical usage of the language we're talking about banning. Imagine you spent the last twenty years building your brand around the term "veggie burger." I suspect you would find it burdensome if you suddenly had to change that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com