RFK Jr puts food lobbyists on notice

This could go well or it could go poorly... The government shouldn't be telling us what to eat. On the other hand, the government shouldn't be encouraging or subsidizing low quality food either. The only correct answer is to get the government out of the way here.
 
If the NONS are going to buy out enough Dems and Reps who are "gettable" to reject RFK Jr.'s appointment, it's going to cost them a lot of money.

No big deal for them, but what do you think the rate will be? I wonder how much the offshore lawyers get for a cut.
 
Imagine living in 2024/2025 and still thinking that the food industry is a free market. Get with the times. Government is in bed with food and ag corporations. So, I won't be crying a river for the poor, poor multi-billion dollar global corporations are forced to remove toxic chemicals from our food.
 
Matt Collins said:
Valid point. But the way to fix it is NOT by adding more government control or involvement, just the opposite.
Click to expand...

One "easy" thing to do is get rid of the corn subsidies and the sugar tariffs.

Then maybe everything will stop having HFCS in it.
 
Matt Collins said:
This could go well or it could go poorly... The government shouldn't be telling us what to eat. On the other hand, the government shouldn't be encouraging or subsidizing low quality food either. The only correct answer is to get the government out of the way here.
Click to expand...

A lot of people don't truly know what they're eating though, and I think the corporations who buy the lobbyists and use the revolving door at the FDA to keep favorable people in charge of the decision-making, like it that way.

A proper role of government is to protect people from fraud, and I think a convincing case could be made against companies putting toxins in the food, on those grounds.

It really wouldn't take much for us to ask our friends in Europe to share their research on why they banned certain chemicals from being used in food processing. Here in America it's like we just don't give a sh**. (but I think we would, if people were informed)
 
Last edited:
Matt Collins said:
Valid point. But the way to fix it is NOT by adding more government control or involvement, just the opposite.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. It's not adding more government control to simply tell Kellogg's that they can't use toxic chemicals in their breakfast cereal for children. It's literally not.
 
familydog said:
You're missing the point. It's not adding more government control to simply tell Kellogg's that they can't use toxic chemicals in their breakfast cereal for children. It's literally not.
Click to expand...
It is unconstitutional for the federal government to do it, yes. And also, there shouldn't be regulation, but instead damages via torts for doing things that harm others.
 
nobody's_hero said:
A proper role of government is to protect people from fraud
Click to expand...
Kind of. The government has basically one job, and that is to provide justice. That doesn't really mean "keeping us safe" because that mentality leads to autocracy. If someone harms you, then the government is there to provide justice for that action, and how it does that depends on how severe it is. Civil court, lawsuits, or criminal penalties. But as far as something similar to prior restraint, no the government shouldn't.
 
It seems like real food, eggs, meats, and other things are getting demonized in favor of everything prepared. Why can't I go to the hardware and purchase dynamite to blast out a stump or split a rock? Why can't I purchase an effective rodent, roach, or ant, killer without a license? There are many agriculture items that were once on the market that are now banned. If I cannot put something on my crop, why should a manufacturer be able to put equally addictive and or health damaging things in prepared foods?
 
Matt Collins said:
Kind of. The government has basically one job, and that is to provide justice. That doesn't really mean "keeping us safe" because that mentality leads to autocracy. If someone harms you, then the government is there to provide justice for that action, and how it does that depends on how severe it is. Civil court, lawsuits, or criminal penalties. But as far as something similar to prior restraint, no the government shouldn't.
Click to expand...

If the FDA approves it, there's no lawyer who is going to take up any case against a major food corporation. The FDA's approval is essentially shielding them from liability. Any lawsuit brought forth would be DoA.

Hence, removal of such approval would not be 'more government', even if the result would be, in essence, a ban on those additives.

This is one of those things I can't really get animated about.

I see it the same as when people here freaked about governments (mainly states) going after Facebook and other social media. "Oh no, protect the free market!"

Yeah, no. As suspected and was later revealed, Facebook was willfully working with the government to censor/ban/remove/throttle unpopular (dissenting) viewpoints.

It's, basically, the same as with the food industry.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
 
Last edited:
Matt Collins said:
It is unconstitutional for the federal government to do it, yes.
Click to expand...

This isn't a country of laws. This is a country of political will.

Corn and wheat subsidies are also unconstitutional, but they aren't going away. So telling telling direct and indirect beneficiaries of welfare what they can and can't do doesn't give anyone the right to get on a moral high ground.

Matt Collins said:
And also, there shouldn't be regulation
Click to expand...

But there are regulations and they aren't going away. Stop living in libertarian fantasy land and live in the real world.
 
Anti Globalist said:
Any company that put toxic chemicals in our food need to be watched.
Click to expand...
They need to be sued into bankruptcy and the people who did it held personally and/or criminally liable. But that doesn't take the FDA to accomplish. And it shouldn't be done at the federal level.
 
familydog said:
Sure, but telling a company they can't poison us is not a bad law.
Click to expand...
Well 1, it's not the federal government's job to do that. The state governments can do that if they want, but the Constitution doesn't permit the Feds to regulate food.

Also, I agree, government should provide justice and hold people accountable for their actions. But no prior restraint.
 
Matt Collins said:
Well 1, it's not the federal government's job to do that. The state governments can do that if they want, but the Constitution doesn't permit the Feds to regulate food.

Also, I agree, government should provide justice and hold people accountable for their actions. But no prior restraint.
Click to expand...

I don't like that the FDA exists, but if it does exist, I would prefer it exist in a manner that might actually be useful.

And as nobody's hero pointed out, it doesn't really count as "more government" for the FDA to remove liability protection for a food ingredient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
RFK Jr. Wants ALL Americans To Be Tracked
Replies
10
Views
75
Firestarter
Firestarter
Swordsmyth
RFK Jr. pulls $500 million in funding for vaccine development
Replies
3
Views
82
acptulsa
acptulsa
Swordsmyth
RFK Jr. Moves to Cut Soda from List of Approved Food Stamp Purchases
Replies
18
Views
185
TheTexan
TheTexan
CaptUSA
RFK Jr. Fires Entire CDC Vaccine Panel
Replies
12
Views
153
acptulsa
acptulsa
Swordsmyth
RFK Jr. Will Order All New Vaccines to Undergo Placebo-Controlled Testing
Replies
0
Views
15
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Back
Top