The reason why im asking is because there are processed foods that impact our health style and how we eat, if we get to much of what we want it will be an addiction to eat it 24/7 or every single day so why not tone it down or something, I mean the whole quesiton is why is the government is invovled? the reason why he is invovled is because he has power of our country and where we live in he can ask or order companies that get products or make products to lower down for peoples food consumption on sweets so is it really okay for the government to put some more thought into the regulations regarding the food industry? My answer would be he won't really care but do we need to have more government regulations within the food industry?

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. Are you asking if the government should regulate food to make sure it is produced properly, or if the government should get involved and get companies to make healthier foods?

>>2 Why not a little bit of both?

>>3 Because the gov't shouldn't be deciding whether or not something is healthy nor regulating what we can and can't have food wise. I mean what the fuck. If I want a pasturized processed slice of cheese over my hormone filled steak, that's my business, not the government's.

>>4 But aren't you being a little naive towards business practices? I mean think of it this way. Without government regulation on food production, couldn't companies make dangerous, chemical laced, rotten, or unhealthy foods very cheaply and sell them to us? And supposing you believe the free market will prevent those companies with inferior products from succeeding-wouldn't two separate food markets just emerge? One safe and nutritious, at restrictive costs, and one that anyone could afford, but not really fit for consumption? I agree no one should be telling you in particular what to eat, but without regualtions, we're just pawns to corporate control. At least the government theoretically has some vested interest in protecting us.

>>5 Glad someone brought this up. >>4 Think back to the Wild West in America: people made things that they claimed to be a miracle cure for anything and everything, sometimes they were benign concoctions, i.e. just water, but they could easily have been laced with lead.

>>5 I don't see the issue with two separate food markets.

I think tougher government regulations on food safety is a good idea, but it is not the solution to this problem. The solution is to stop using large companies to distribute food. They have to get their food all over the country, have it all taste the same, and have it last for a long time on the shelves. That is going to reduce the quality and healthiness of the food, no matter how much you sincerely don't want that.

The solution is to use smaller businesses. That way you can know where the food is coming from. You would probably have to reduce your standard of living to cope with the prices, and most people aren't willing to do that. But that is the real problem here, not companies making shit products. You can use all the regulations in the world, the only solution to this and many other problems is for the average consumer to stand up do something about the system they're in.

>Without government regulation on food production, couldn't companies make dangerous, chemical laced, rotten, or unhealthy foods very cheaply and sell them to us?

>Implying they don't
>Implying the government is not a corporation
>Implying the government has your best interest in heart

looooool. You're fucking dumb, kid.

>>8 Oh no Chreggome, you're totally right in regards to our own government. The current FDA is a mess, after the chinese milk disaster a couple years ago, and their faliur to take action, I've lost all faith. But in regards to A government, not THE government, they theoretically have more of a duty to you than a corporation.
>>7 Thats a very noble approach, and most likely the ideal, but the fact of the matter is, I have no faith in humanity. The media system is such a disaster that getting enough peoples attention for long enough to convince them to do something is impossible, let alone having them actually do it.

>>9 The disaster of a media system we have is the people's fault. Getting the media to change is the people as well. Who watches 'the media' and makes them money?

It's not about having faith that they'll do it on their own, because they won't unless their survival is at stake, but that's the only way we can really trust anything we buy. We have to scrap the chain system, because we can't handle it. People will not buy local if it means reducing their standard of living, even if it's clearly better and safer. People will not give up their way of life, no matter how obviously wasteful or illogical it is. That is the only real problem here, in my view. The government and corporations have so much power over the people, for no real reason other than fear.