Horse and pig dna found in UK beefburgers

[Symmetry]

Or why it's a good idea to have regulations.

Beefburgers sold in some of the biggest supermarket chains in the UK were found to contain horse and pig DNA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21059623

how does this show that regulation is a good idea? all it shows is that a company lied to their customers and now they have to face charges. the regulations failed.

Weakened regulations in the UK failed to catch this, more stringent regulations- and I'm sure you're not against such regulations as "is this actually beef" measures caught it in Ireland.

Still, thanks for the laugh. I'm still for regulating that beefburgers contain beef and only beef, and that that's a good idea.

Are you in favor of regulations monopolized by the national government or are you in favor of competitive regulatory agencies?

Government, why?

[BigBallinStalin]

Or why it's a good idea to have regulations.

Beefburgers sold in some of the biggest supermarket chains in the UK were found to contain horse and pig DNA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21059623

how does this show that regulation is a good idea? all it shows is that a company lied to their customers and now they have to face charges. the regulations failed.

Weakened regulations in the UK failed to catch this, more stringent regulations- and I'm sure you're not against such regulations as "is this actually beef" measures caught it in Ireland.

Still, thanks for the laugh. I'm still for regulating that beefburgers contain beef and only beef, and that that's a good idea.

Are you in favor of regulations monopolized by the national government or are you in favor of competitive regulatory agencies?

Government, why?

So, why is the national government's monopoly on regulation optimal?

[Symmetry]

Or why it's a good idea to have regulations.

Beefburgers sold in some of the biggest supermarket chains in the UK were found to contain horse and pig DNA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21059623

how does this show that regulation is a good idea? all it shows is that a company lied to their customers and now they have to face charges. the regulations failed.

Weakened regulations in the UK failed to catch this, more stringent regulations- and I'm sure you're not against such regulations as "is this actually beef" measures caught it in Ireland.

Still, thanks for the laugh. I'm still for regulating that beefburgers contain beef and only beef, and that that's a good idea.

Are you in favor of regulations monopolized by the national government or are you in favor of competitive regulatory agencies?

Government, why?

So, why is the national government's monopoly on regulation optimal?

What else do you propose? A Standard and Poor's, Moody's etc. model for regulation of food?

[Funkyterrance]

Or why it's a good idea to have regulations.

Beefburgers sold in some of the biggest supermarket chains in the UK were found to contain horse and pig DNA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21059623

how does this show that regulation is a good idea? all it shows is that a company lied to their customers and now they have to face charges. the regulations failed.

Weakened regulations in the UK failed to catch this, more stringent regulations- and I'm sure you're not against such regulations as "is this actually beef" measures caught it in Ireland.

Still, thanks for the laugh. I'm still for regulating that beefburgers contain beef and only beef, and that that's a good idea.

Are you in favor of regulations monopolized by the national government or are you in favor of competitive regulatory agencies?

Government, why?

So, why is the national government's monopoly on regulation optimal?

Because when it comes to things like food, what you don't know won't hurt you?

[2dimes]

So, why is the national government's monopoly on regulation optimal?

In theory their interest would be to only allow high quality food.

[Gillipig]

Fast food burgers tastes like shit! I'm actually surprised it doesn't contain any.

[Funkyterrance]

Fast food burgers tastes like shit! I'm actually surprised it doesn't contain any.

You get what you pay for.

[Symmetry]

So, why is the national government's monopoly on regulation optimal?

In theory their interest would be to only allow high quality food.

I don't disagree, but it's worth noting that "high quality food" here means beef that doesn't have pig and horse stuff thrown in.

[2dimes]

But seriously though, it makes one wonder what happened to people 100 years ago when they bought food made by private businesses. They must have been dropping like flies!

There probably were cases of severe food poisoning. I suspect that is why governments started to inspect meat producers.

Part of what makes a smaller butcher shop safer are, less people to contaminate product, less volume of product making it easier to separate a bad piece or batch, and a smaller area to clean or disinfect.

I think I see what you mean about accidentally putting pork in beef but again smaller volume would make it easier to keep track of what you have where.

[Gillipig]

Fast food burgers tastes like shit! I'm actually surprised it doesn't contain any.

You get what you pay for.

If that were true they'd have to pay people to eat it.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, why is the national government's monopoly on regulation optimal?

What else do you propose? A Standard and Poor's, Moody's etc. model for regulation of food?

No government monopolies on regulation.
Courts which enforce laws against fraud.
Markets where consumers appropriately respond to fraudulent meat producers.
Brand names.
And competing agencies which inspect food.
(So, either have provincial governments offering their own regulatory agency, and/or have regulatory agencies on the market, or have no government regulatory agencies at all).


The problem with the government monopoly is that when it fails (e.g. with the horse meat), it doesn't go out of business; therefore, the incentive structure favors stagnation (relatively low innovation to address problems). Since there's no profit and loss incentive, they can't tell as accurately as those on the market how well they are satisfying consumer demand. Also, increases in their revenue do not result from satisfying consumers, but simply from spending other people's money which was involuntary gained through taxation or from irresponsible deficit spending.

Finally, regulatory capture, political capitalism, voters aren't rational, the problems of politics explained by public choice theorists, etc.

[2dimes]

So, why is the national government's monopoly on regulation optimal?

In theory their interest would be to only allow high quality food.

I don't disagree, but it's worth noting that "high quality food" here means beef that doesn't have pig and horse stuff thrown in.

I think that may or may not be considered a part of high quality but regardless of how good the ingredients are I agree.

They should also be ensuring that all producers label contents correctly. At very least so you can choose what ingredients to eat but also in case someone has a food allergy to even the finest quality of something.

[Symmetry]

So, why is the national government's monopoly on regulation optimal?

What else do you propose? A Standard and Poor's, Moody's etc. model for regulation of food?

No government monopolies on regulation.
Courts which enforce laws against fraud.
Markets where consumers appropriately respond to fraudulent meat producers.
Brand names.
And competing agencies which inspect food.
(So, either have provincial governments offering their own regulatory agency, and/or have regulatory agencies on the market, or have no government regulatory agencies at all).


The problem with the government monopoly is that when it fails (e.g. with the horse meat), it doesn't go out of business; therefore, the incentive structure favors stagnation (relatively low innovation to address problems). Since there's no profit and loss incentive, they can't tell as accurately as those on the market how well they are satisfying consumer demand. Also, increases in their revenue do not result from satisfying consumers, but simply from spending other people's money which was involuntary gained through taxation or from irresponsible deficit spending.

Finally, regulatory capture, political capitalism, voters aren't rational, the problems of politics explained by public choice theorists, etc.

I'm not sure there is a government monopoly on regulation. Why do you think there is?
Most of your proposals exist already.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, why is the national government's monopoly on regulation optimal?

What else do you propose? A Standard and Poor's, Moody's etc. model for regulation of food?

No government monopolies on regulation.
Courts which enforce laws against fraud.
Markets where consumers appropriately respond to fraudulent meat producers.
Brand names.
And competing agencies which inspect food.
(So, either have provincial governments offering their own regulatory agency, and/or have regulatory agencies on the market, or have no government regulatory agencies at all).


The problem with the government monopoly is that when it fails (e.g. with the horse meat), it doesn't go out of business; therefore, the incentive structure favors stagnation (relatively low innovation to address problems). Since there's no profit and loss incentive, they can't tell as accurately as those on the market how well they are satisfying consumer demand. Also, increases in their revenue do not result from satisfying consumers, but simply from spending other people's money which was involuntary gained through taxation or from irresponsible deficit spending.

Finally, regulatory capture, political capitalism, voters aren't rational, the problems of politics explained by public choice theorists, etc.

I'm not sure there is a government monopoly on regulation. Why do you think there is?

If there's one regulatory food agency which is funded by the national government, then this is a monopoly. If companies cannot compete directly with the monopoly--by offering similar services--then this is a monopoly. Since this is the case for government regulatory agencies, then they are monopolies (i.e. they have monopolies on regulation over their respective markets that they monitor).


Why do you support regulation from the national government--given the numerous problems mentioned?

[2dimes]

The problem with the government monopoly is that when it fails (e.g. with the horse meat), it doesn't go out of business; therefore, the incentive structure favors stagnation (relatively low innovation to address problems). Since there's no profit and loss incentive, they can't tell as accurately as those on the market how well they are satisfying consumer demand. Also, increases in their revenue do not result from satisfying consumers, but simply from spending other people's money which was involuntary gained through taxation or from irresponsible deficit spending.

Again I say, "In theory"...

The government's interest is to stop billions of dollars in profits due to the sale of tainted meat. They are already paid either way and only should want to protect their tax payers.

dimes meat inspekshun and Thai massage inc's interest is in making millions of dollars stamping that meat as rilly gud!

Unfortunately now days the government employees are subject to wanting to cheat for the same reason. We probably need both, to watch each other.

[Symmetry]

So, why is the national government's monopoly on regulation optimal?

What else do you propose? A Standard and Poor's, Moody's etc. model for regulation of food?

No government monopolies on regulation.
Courts which enforce laws against fraud.
Markets where consumers appropriately respond to fraudulent meat producers.
Brand names.
And competing agencies which inspect food.
(So, either have provincial governments offering their own regulatory agency, and/or have regulatory agencies on the market, or have no government regulatory agencies at all).


The problem with the government monopoly is that when it fails (e.g. with the horse meat), it doesn't go out of business; therefore, the incentive structure favors stagnation (relatively low innovation to address problems). Since there's no profit and loss incentive, they can't tell as accurately as those on the market how well they are satisfying consumer demand. Also, increases in their revenue do not result from satisfying consumers, but simply from spending other people's money which was involuntary gained through taxation or from irresponsible deficit spending.

Finally, regulatory capture, political capitalism, voters aren't rational, the problems of politics explained by public choice theorists, etc.

I'm not sure there is a government monopoly on regulation. Why do you think there is?

If there's one regulatory food agency which is funded by the national government, then this is a monopoly. If companies cannot compete directly with the monopoly--by offering similar services--then this is a monopoly. Since this is the case for government regulatory agencies, then they are monopolies (i.e. they have monopolies on regulation over their respective markets that they monitor).


Why do you support regulation from the national government--given the numerous problems mentioned?

There is not one agency, there are two, as I stated. I would like them to go back to being one, like the Irish system that caught this.

[Funkyterrance]

You know, just because they found "horse and pig DNA" in the burgers doesn't nescessarily mean there was horse/pig meat in the burgers. It could just be that the beef was processed on the same equipment or something to that matter; sort of like how some food is labelled "made with machinery used to process peanuts". This whole thing could be a total exaggeration.

[2dimes]

There is not one agency, there are two, as I stated. I would like them to go back to being one, like the Irish system that caught this.

At some point your system was better in ways than in North America.
Hence the term "beef burger" here it's hamburger. You couldn't use that since it used to contain only beef.

Only one agency seems too easy to defeat now days. In a way there needs to be two easily replaceable agencies. Someone needs to "Watch the watchers" as it were.

[Symmetry]

You know, just because they found "horse and pig DNA" in the burgers doesn't nescessarily mean there was horse/pig meat in the burgers. It could just be that the beef was processed on the same equipment or something to that matter; sort of like how some food is labelled "made with machinery used to process peanuts". This whole thing could be a total exaggeration.

But that, of course is not what happened. You are welcome to read the link in the OP.

[Funkyterrance]

But that, of course is not what happened. You are welcome to read the link in the OP.

Yeah, in Ireland it looks like it's definite eh? 30% horsemeat, that's borderline hilarious.

[Gillipig]

You know, just because they found "horse and pig DNA" in the burgers doesn't nescessarily mean there was horse/pig meat in the burgers. It could just be that the beef was processed on the same equipment or something to that matter; sort of like how some food is labelled "made with machinery used to process peanuts". This whole thing could be a total exaggeration.

But that, of course is not what happened. You are welcome to read the link in the OP.

Are you asking funky to read? Funky doesn't read, he just writes!

[Symmetry]

You know, just because they found "horse and pig DNA" in the burgers doesn't nescessarily mean there was horse/pig meat in the burgers. It could just be that the beef was processed on the same equipment or something to that matter; sort of like how some food is labelled "made with machinery used to process peanuts". This whole thing could be a total exaggeration.

But that, of course is not what happened. You are welcome to read the link in the OP.

Are you asking funky to read? Funky doesn't read, he just writes!

He read, and understood, in the post just above. It's about the best I think anybody can get.

[jonesthecurl]

Because when it comes to things like food, what you don't know won't hurt you?

Each year in the U.S. 31 major food borne pathogens cause 9.4 million cases of food borne illness, 55,961 hospitalizations, and 2612 deaths.[43]

In 2001, the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the United States Department of Agriculture to require meat packers to remove spinal cords before processing cattle carcasses for human consumption, a measure designed to lessen the risk of infection by variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The petition was supported by the American Public Health Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the Government Accountability Project, the National Consumers League, and Safe Tables Our Priority. This was opposed by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Renderers Association, the National Meat Association, the Pork Producers Council, sheep raisers, milk producers, the Turkey Federation, and eight other organizations from the animal-derived food industry. This was part of a larger controversy regarding the United States' violation of World Health Organization proscriptions to lessen the risk of infection by variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.[citation needed]

None of the US Department of Health and Human Services targets[49] regarding incidence of foodborne infections was reached in 2007.[50]

[Gillipig]

You know, just because they found "horse and pig DNA" in the burgers doesn't nescessarily mean there was horse/pig meat in the burgers. It could just be that the beef was processed on the same equipment or something to that matter; sort of like how some food is labelled "made with machinery used to process peanuts". This whole thing could be a total exaggeration.

But that, of course is not what happened. You are welcome to read the link in the OP.

Are you asking funky to read? Funky doesn't read, he just writes!

He read, and understood, in the post just above.

Why so serious? Let's put a smile on that face!

[_sabotage_]

It's interesting that when a system is supposed to promote efficiency in getting a product to market, in this case beef, all available suggestions to improve the result are to promote inefficiency in the system.