Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Where do you draw the lines on regulation? MAHA related

Posted on 7/6/26 at 4:48 pm
Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
175019 posts
Posted on 7/6/26 at 4:48 pm
I know more generally speaking most conservatives favor a low regulatory environment. I do believe however that the one area where conservatives might actually want more regulation is with our food. There are thousands of food additives that are permissible in our food supply that are banned by almost all first world nations. HHS is targeting some food dyes to have them removed from the food supply and perhaps more importantly they're challenging the GRAS (Generally regarded as safe) self certification practices. If you're unaware food companies can add something to a food product and have their own "scientists" declare it generally regarded as safe and it goes on the shelf of your grocery store with no real oversight.

I think regulating our food supply is something that probably has bipartisan support.

It's also a good example of why "let the market figure it out" isn't the best answer for everything.
Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
175019 posts
Posted on 7/6/26 at 5:06 pm to
Bump

Another topic where I think "most people" think we need more regulation and oversight is AI development. AI that runs out of our control could be catastrophic for a number of different reasons. I don't think the "alignment problem" can really be solved.
Posted by SquatchDawg
Cohutta Wilderness
Member since Sep 2012
20409 posts
Posted on 7/6/26 at 5:27 pm to
Regulating companies from using chemicals that won’t kill us or give us cancer is a good thing.

If we had serious adults running DC that would weigh the cost and benefits of regulations we’d be fine. But we don’t.

This is why we have asinine restrictions on electricity supply, no new gas refineries since the 60’s and Toyota having to do away with some of the best drive trains ever produced.

In fact, I’d say 50% of the regulations that frick stuff up are environmentally driven to force an agenda. 40% are driven to create an advantage for some donor or lobbiest and 10% are actually for the greater good.
This post was edited on 7/6/26 at 5:29 pm
Posted by Sweep Da Leg
Member since Sep 2013
4202 posts
Posted on 7/6/26 at 5:28 pm to
The problem is corporate capture.
Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
175019 posts
Posted on 7/6/26 at 6:00 pm to
You do bring up a good point. There are at least some regulations that are there to close the door on up and coming competitors. They're there because the corporations want them to be there in at least some cases.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
70847 posts
Posted on 7/6/26 at 6:03 pm to
Regulation is important in all areas where customers cannot make informed decisions with any reasonable certainty. Food safety and drug purity is one of the most obviously necessary regulatory areas.
Posted by stuntman
Florida
Member since Jan 2013
11060 posts
Posted on 7/6/26 at 6:05 pm to
Government getting involved in "health" is a big reason Americans are so fat and unhealthy now. People have been conditioned, by government, to believe that shoving carbs down your neck all day long and keeping your insulin levels jacked through the roof is the "healthy" thing to do.

I am a fan of RFK Jr, but the problem is people trusting government to tell them what's "good" for them in the first place. Not the role of government to be telling people what they should and shouldn't be eating.

It's just more nanny state bullshite that is ubiquitous in society.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram