One needs only to taste legit French cheese, compared with, say, Austrian manufactured French cheese, to know food quality laws have little to do with actual food quality, and Austria has one of the strictest food legal systems in the World.
Not sure how you got from food safety to how much you like the taste of particular cheese, but to me they're very different problems. I'm only talking about food safety.
> They also conveniently keep volunteers and churches from feeding the homeless, so subsidized corporations can handle that.
Not generally, but perhaps in your area. Where I am there are special exemptions for charitable organizations giving out food: https://www.sfdph.org/dph/EH/Food/lscfo.asp
There are still some requirements, which I think is good. Nobody, homeless people included, should receive unsafe food.
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/05/what-are-the-odds-840...
https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/rawmilk-outbreaks.htm...
But this all seems pretty far afield from my point, which is that food safety laws benefit the poor. I am happy to believe that some dangerous food, like casu martzu or blowfish sushi, is also very tasty. But taking risks for exotic, connoisseur food experiences is also generally the provenance of the rich. So it seems like this also proves my point.
Further I'm aware of Food Not Bombs winning a case by claiming an expressive first amendment right to share food.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/crime/os-homeless-feedi...
Though local ordinances, they require certified and licensed establishments, so it still rolls back to the original issue.