Where you buy your food is your business, just as where I buy mine is my business.

Nonsense. That is not what you are advocating.

Your point was and remains that I should pay for your business. Also, your point was and remains that bureaucrats are the best people to over-see your business.

Do NOT put words in my mouth. I am not advocating the removal of choice. I am arguing that businesses can, and in the case of food, must, be accountable for their practices.

Errors in handling food result in DEAD PEOPLE. Didn’t you get anything from the recent screw-up at Maple Leaf Foods? Or is 18 dead people simply “acceptable risk” in your mind?

Where you buy your food is your business, just as where I buy mine is my business. However, both of us have a reasonable expectation that the food from a given source is basically safe for us to consume.

Perhaps when you, or someone you care about, develops a serious food sensitivity (the kind that can kill them), you’ll wrap your brain around the concept that just maybe there’s a value to these things. (Unless, of course, you happen to enjoy attending the funerals of people you love)

BTW – Insurance does no good if the insured is DEAD.

Gee, I have been ripped off all of these years! Thanks for letting me know! I will go cancel my life insurance policy right away!

Sheesh.

I will certainly lecture you on being responsible for yourself because you are advocating taking that responsibility away from other people without giving them choice. Your point was and remains that choice should be eliminated from some people for the betterment of everybody else. You may as well advocate outright theft. When you speak of transparency, you speak as if it can only be assured by bureaucrats — faceless unelected people with no accountability and no profit motive.

I will not deny that bureaucrats can provide a service. Any service that the government provides will be at the loss of other things that people want and the government can not possibly know whether it is pleasing people in its delivery.

Do not presume to lecture me on being responsible for myself. I take steps every day that go far beyond what you and others do to ensure that the food I eat is safe for me to eat.

My point was, and remains, that there is a place for enforced standards – and while they might not benefit you directly, that does not reduce their value for others.

When I spoke of transparency, it has been a long, uphill battle in this country to get food packaging to a point that allergens are declared – so that consumers can make informed decisions – and exercise that very responsible decisions that you seem to value so highly.

BTW – Insurance does no good if the insured is DEAD.

Carl,
You and people like you have to answer the following questions: What right do YOU have to force everybody else to pay for your luxury? and What right do YOU have to deny others who may disagree with you the free choice to accept a different level of risk?

If you want extra security in a select sub-market of the food industry, you should pay for it yourself. You can get that extra security without relying on the government: form your own standards board. Take a look at the market for “fair” trade coffee if you want to learn more about non-governmental solutions to quality assurance.

Alternatively, you can get insurance. Insurance companies should be in this field — not the government. Alas, the more socialists who reflexively run to the government, the more private business is crowded out.

But there is a requirement for a degree of transparency and visibility. I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel qualified to judge food processing and the equipment on a day to day basis.

There are very good reasons why complete ingredients lists must be on foods – I can hardly make an informed choice about the risks I am taking without adequate information. (e.g. Is this food processed on the same equipment as the tree nuts I’m allergic to ? – I have a very real need to know that information)

Yes, it does work for me. Therefore, I am right: Canadians do not need national food safety standards.

No, I would argue that you are in fact quite mistaken. Sadly, in your little world, the odds are very good that you would end up quite deceased before you realize the value of those kinds of standards.

I think some additional regulation or standard could not hurt in the long run.

How do you know that your favourite farmer is in fact maintaining his equipment and preparation areas in a manner that minimizes the risk of disease or allergen contamination?

As well as you would know that your favorite Maple Leaf factory is maintaining the equipment and preparation areas in a manner that minimizes the risk of disease or allergen contamination.

Everything we do involves risk. I am glad that you mentioned “minimizes the risk” in your question because that is a choice for the individual to make. Socialists can not determine the level of risk that an individual wishes to take and the price at which he wants to take it. All that you can observe is the exchanges that occur.

Works for you, that’s cool.

Yes, it does work for me. Therefore, I am right: Canadians do not need national food safety standards.
The truth is that some Canadians demand national food safety standards and those Canadians will force all Canadians to pay for their demands.

BUT

What about people who don’t know a “farmer Joe”? What of people who have serious food allergies (the kind that can be fatal)?

How do you know that your favourite farmer is in fact maintaining his equipment and preparation areas in a manner that minimizes the risk of disease or allergen contamination? (I don’t buy a lot of processed food for this very reason, and restaurants are not my idea of fun either – cross contamination is an enormous risk, and undeclared ingredients are all too common)

Frankly, a uniform, meaningful set of standards that apply across the country wouldn’t be a bad thing for a lot of people.

It is impossible to know the motives of another person.