It would be okay, then, to put arsenic in food as long as it was clearly labeled on the packaging, huh?
I don't think we need to be cared for, but I do think the government should be there to prevent us from being exploited. Sodium in food is an edge case, admittedly, but they're not telling people what they can and can't do; they're telling companies.
Personally, I tend to avoid the oversalted packaged food, as I think it tastes terrible, and is clearly oversalted in order to hide cheap ingredients. But if you really like that much salt in your food, there's nothing preventing you from cooking it yourself.
In the real world, companies are completely amoral. If they can do something that will make them more money, it doesn't make any difference what the other repercussions might be. I think that we need an equally powerful counteragent, and government fills that role. Admittedly, they often don't do it terribly well, but it's better than nothing.
Bitt, I agree with you about companies -- they are amoral. What I'm arguing is the morally justified reasons for regulation. I am not a free-market fundamentalist that believes that markets and corporations can run without regulation with only the market to guide them. But creation of a utopia of public health is not a good reason to regulate the market.
Yes, they should be able to sell arsenic if it's clearly labeled as such. They should not be able to sell food containing arsenic without people's knowledge. Before you say that's ridiculous, consider that what many people consider poison, such as tobacco, trans-fats, marijuana or heroin, other people consider worth the deleterious side-effects (trans-fats have a different texture). The philosophy of liberty says that it's up to people to make those decisions for themselves, not the government to decide what "good" is for everyone.
Previous Topic
Index
