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.
Of course it is. Part of traffic legislation literally involves banning certain types of vehicles, either in certain areas or on any kind of public road in general.
Exaclty … certain types in certain areas with a reason. That’s regulation.
Which is just what I wrote, yes. Excising every unmaintained or outdated vehicle from traffic everywhere for example is just as valid a regulation as excising a certain type of food - any food - from general consumption. There’d simply have to be a good reason. And once there is, yep, what can and can be eaten gets dictated.
Again, that’s already how it works, in traffic and in cuisine.
Banning foods is the same regulation as banning golf carts from being licensed.
Nobody’s gonna stop you from buying a golf cart and driving one (growing your own meat and eating it) but it’s deemed unsafe for you and society to drive one on the highway so you legally cant. (No right to food that’s bad for society)
You can’t access golf carts on the highway (can’t access bad food in the grocery store)
Food regulations are (mostly) about restricting food producers in ways that I already want/approve. Food safety, so I know there isn’t mercury in my baby’s formula.
It’s necessary especially because companies want their profits, more than they want to produce good food.
“Government dictating what I can eat” is restricting me about my own body, in ways perhaps I disagree with.
It would not.
Having traffic laws isn’t the same as banning cars, either.
Of course it is. Part of traffic legislation literally involves banning certain types of vehicles, either in certain areas or on any kind of public road in general.
Exaclty … certain types in certain areas with a reason. That’s regulation. You wouldn’t just ban all vehicles. Do I really have to spell this out?
Which is just what I wrote, yes. Excising every unmaintained or outdated vehicle from traffic everywhere for example is just as valid a regulation as excising a certain type of food - any food - from general consumption. There’d simply have to be a good reason. And once there is, yep, what can and can be eaten gets dictated.
Again, that’s already how it works, in traffic and in cuisine.
Most cities do ban many cars, because they harm air quality.
Buying meat supports an industry that also causes immense climate destruction, so it’s the same idea
Banning foods is the same regulation as banning golf carts from being licensed.
Nobody’s gonna stop you from buying a golf cart and driving one (growing your own meat and eating it) but it’s deemed unsafe for you and society to drive one on the highway so you legally cant. (No right to food that’s bad for society)
You can’t access golf carts on the highway (can’t access bad food in the grocery store)
Food regulations are (mostly) about restricting food producers in ways that I already want/approve. Food safety, so I know there isn’t mercury in my baby’s formula.
It’s necessary especially because companies want their profits, more than they want to produce good food.
“Government dictating what I can eat” is restricting me about my own body, in ways perhaps I disagree with.