• Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    16 hours ago

    To continue with the argument of “the market will self-regulate and people wouldn’t buy that brand anymore so they would never do it again”

    Okay but how many people died, how many people are suffering long-term effects, and what’s stopping them from adding a different deadly thing to our food?

    • spooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      7 hours ago

      To continue with the argument of “the market will self-regulate and people wouldn’t buy that brand anymore so they would never do it again”

      Turns out the parent company owns every other brand of that product, so going to another brand is meaningless

    • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 hours ago

      And also they’re already basically Monopolies. You don’t have real options. Most food products come from like 3 mega corps who own hundreds of brands.

    • ApatheticCactus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Market self regulation assumes informed consumers that are smart enough to know what things mean. Also it assumes healthy competition and companies that are competing to make the best product at the chrapest price. It ALSO assumes brand lotalty isn’t a thing, and consumers are judging things purely objectively.

      Like, i understand the idea, but in practice there are a ton of caveats.

      • suicidaleggroll@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Market self regulation assumes informed consumers that are smart enough to know what things mean

        Not just smart enough, but informed enough. That means every person spending literally hundreds/thousands of hours per week researching every single aspect of every purchase they make. Investigating supply chains, performing chemical analysis on their foods and clothing, etc. It’s not even remotely realistic.

        So instead, we outsource and consolidate that research and testing, by paying taxes to a central authority who verifies all manufacturers keep things safe so we don’t have to worry about accidentally buying Cheerios that are laced with lead. AKA: The government and regulations.

    • WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      wouldn’t buy that brand anymore so they would never do it again

      Assuming there is perfect information in the market. In reality there is heavy information asymmetry.

      It also assumes free competition while we have every market dominated by a few players buying up everyone else, often with cartel like behavior.

      • Robust Mirror@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It also assumes it is immediately deadly poison, and doesn’t do something like cause early dementia 25 years later.

        • TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          It also assumes the masses behave rationally, which they won’t ever.

          We’ll just get the cheapest shit with the limited information we are given, unless it is life-or-death, where we will pay any price out of fear.

    • workerONE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Also, if you want inspections to make sure there isn’t bird shit in the milk, then you need regulation. Otherwise people are just drinking bird shit and they don’t know.