Statement wise “I don’t want the government to tell me what to eat” or variations could mean basically anything. Most of the time it’s posturing on behalf of the idea that a lack of government regulation is a good thing which ignores a rather bloody history of food suppliers adulterating food with harmful substances in the name of preservation / cheapening production cost or using production practices that cause the likelihood of contamination of food.

Once you scratch the surface of the argument you can usually figure out more exactly what they mean and it often isn’t things like government subsidy programs publishing food pyramids based on shady science and economics rather than in the interest of health.

Often it’s based out of perceived personal inconvenience or the appearance of moral judgement such as when there’s some sort of health labelling initiative.

In Canada there are a lot of things that are not considered legal additives for food that are used in the US and the difference in strictness is in part because the Health care system in Canada is funded publicly. Producers of foodstuffs cost the government money directly if whatever they put in it has no nutritional value and causes known health problems. Rather than let companies create messes and tragedies which the government is on the hook to clean up when people’s health fails they remove the issue at it’s source. In the US there’s less incentive as these costs become scattered in the form of individual medical bills and oftentimes the savings are from food being shelf stable for longer. Shrugging one’s shoulders at the fallout or claiming its an exercise of “freedom” is in service to those who make money hand over fist.

I think it’s more like government can ban what can be sold as food and make advice. They can’t really stop you from drinking bleach or eating the grass in your yard or whatever. They can only prevent you from feeding it to someone else or selling it as food.

Meat isn’t a food that could be banned in the same way as, say, Red Dye #4 or force-hydrogenated fats or high fructose corn syrup. They could make farmers cull whole herds of cows if mad cow broke out i guess, but there are wild hogs, backyard chickens and goats, it’s just not a controllable food.

I come from a dynasty of educators. I cannot emphasize that enough. At Christmas I had to explain what a molecule was. Amongst them were several teachers and administrative individuals.

Hyperbole-loving drama queens.

Yes. People who oppose science-backed food regulations are dumb or selfish or both

I don’t support a ban on eating meat, but I support a ban on making it. Charge the supplier, not the user. Raising a pet so you can kill it is obviously animal abuse, it should have been made illegal a long time ago.

i feel like there’s a lot of astroturfing in the comments here, how depressing

This would mean they’d be against food safety regulations, would it not?

It would not.

Having traffic laws isn’t the same as banning cars, either.

There’s a big difference between food safety and not eating meat. One is about companies putting dangerous stuff in food that can potentially harm people, the other is about something which humans have been eating ever since they existed. I understand that there are some arguments to be given about why we shouldn’t eat meat, but those are definitely not as widely supported as disallowing the companies to inject “poison” into our food. In my opinion banning meat definitely would go way too far, the cost of banning meat far exceeds the benefits for public wellbeing.

Two farmers live next to each other. One raises cows, the other pigs.

The cow farmer can get milk from their cows and drink it, but some governments say they can’t give that milk to their neighbors.

That’s where the government should have no business between private parties.

The Amish run into this problem alot.

Now the pig farmer can’t give a whole hog to their neighbor, some governments say it must go through an approved butcher.

That’s also a problem.

Setting rules about what can and can’t be done for retail sale between strangers, makes sense thats a good place for regulation. Rules between private people not so much.

In the case of banning meat, there better be real human studies with metabolic wards and hard outcomes. Using epidemiology and low risk associations to push a political or religious agenda is exactly what government regulation should NOT do.

I don’t think they thought about it very much. It’s like that spongebob meme where patrick has the wallet. Or the Friends one that I don’t know the name of the template. You could go point by point building up a case for why there should be government regulations, but as soon as you say like “regulation” they go “Nope bad”

Though some people really do believe they as a rugged individual will be able to research and test all of their food without an FDA or whatever. If they buy bread that has sawdust in it, they’ll be able to tell, and somehow get a refund, or buy some other bread that doesn’t have sawdust. That seems like a lot of work and optimism compared to regulations and inspections by qualified professionals earlier in the process.

Most people who say that do so for dogmatic reasons, not because they arrived at this conclusion after careful analysis. It’s the political point of small government.

These are the same people who will probably be first in line shouting for government intervention when their drinking water is full of chemical waste.

You can try to reason with folks like that but you probably won’t change their mind. Just try not to shout at them.

“The government shouldn’t dictate what I eat“ is a misrepresentation of the government’s role in food regulation. They are setting minimum quality and safety standards so that you can make informed decisions among things that aren’t likely to kill or otherwise hurt you. They aren’t dictating your diet. They’re putting up guardrails around the groups making what goes into your diet.

While we are on the subject, this is one of the great ironies of the “MAHA” movement (cringe). They all talk about how the food in Europe is so much fresher and better for you and not processed yada yada. Do you know why Europe has better food than we do? Mountains and mountains of regulations. Which as we all know is anathema to conservatism.

Dictating what you eat and banning things you shouldn’t eat are very different things.

You’re talking about two different things.

Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods

This would mean they’d be against food safety regulations, would it not?

It’s entirely possible to be in favor of food safety regulations and opposed to the government banning foods outright. In fact, I think one could safely presume that those are the positions most commonly held by most people.