This is true of a lot of our food. Trump, now and in 2016, has been trying to force the UK to buy US chicken and the Brits are NOT having it because US food standards are below that of the UK.
The UK has very strict requirements around certain foods that their farmers have to meet. Allowing US farmers to bypass those requirements will undercut those domestic farmers and while individual consumers may still opt for the more expensive domestic option, restaurants and takeout businesses will usually opt for the cheapest option which introduces it to the country even if the consumers don't want it. It's not like McDonalds has a sign that says "Made with US Chicken!" on your nuggets. Secondly, allowing cheap US chicken just penalizes the poorest in your country that will go for the cheapest option to survive. Some people don't have choice and food standards help bring the bottom up.
> It's not like McDonalds has a sign that says "Made with US Chicken!" on your nuggets.
I'm not sure whether this is still the case, but the cardboard boxes that McDonald's packages its burgers in in Australia used to have '100% Aussie beef' printed on them, but the beef was actually imported from South America by a wholly-McDonald's-owned subsidiary called '100% Aussie'.
>restaurants and takeout businesses will usually opt for the cheapest option which introduces it to the country even if the consumers don't want it
Restaurants are free to advertise that they use domestic chicken. You can even legislate mandatory labeling if you're so inclined. The fact that you think consumers need to be actively prevented from getting US chicken, because they don't have the capacity to decide for themselves contradicts your claim that "Brits are NOT having it".
This is the silliness of the pure free-market libertarianism, with its stray man of "oh, you're being paternal and saying they can't decide for themselves!".
No. A society, which has chosen its government, has decided that it would like to outsource the individual work of tracking food provenance and safety in the form of ensuring that the only food available is food that meets the standards that the society has decided to set.
This is specialization at work, which is in fact one of the primary drivers of civilization and progress.
No one is saying that people can't make these decisions by themselves. People are saying they do not want to, especially in an environment that is heavily information-asymmetric.
I'm a well-educated, intelligent software engineer. Sure, I could go looking into the details of the production facility for all of the meat that I buy, maybe, at the grocery store - but I certainly don't want to. And if I go to a restaurant, I absolutely do not want to have to spend hours researching their supply chain first.
This is not incapacity. This is intelligent division of labor.
While we’re at it, why not let manufacturers reintroduce lead into paint and toys and let consumers choose what they want there too? The problem is that “consumer choice” is frequently a shield for amoral companies to take advantage of information asymmetry to externalize problems onto individuals. Individual consumers do not have time to deeply research every purchase they make and so it is not reasonable to expect them to handle these things themselves. Instead we have the Hobbesian contract where it is much more efficient to empower a government to centralize the handling of these common goals. It’s not smart or edgy to argue for the “free hand of the market” in these one-off topics, because none of these decisions are made in a vacuum but rather are part of a continuum of choices that the governed are mostly happy with (no such safety regime can ever be perfect).
Because we know the implications of poor quality food, and we also know those who would buy it have no choice but to buy the cheapest. So, no thanks. I'd much rather the state intervene here and keep this crap out. This "let consumers choose" argument is tiring when consumers don't have the ability to choose. They are just trying to survive
>and we also know those who would buy it have no choice but to buy the cheapest. So, no thanks. I'd much rather the state intervene here and keep this crap out.
Having "the state intervene here and keep this crap out" isn't going to magically make the domestic chicken cheaper for those people who "have no choice". You're not improving the chicken quality for them, you're preventing them from buying chicken at all.
Why do you suppose that chicken quality would be tied to price? Do you know where your chicken comes from? If you buy expensive, high quality chicken, do you know it's actually high quality and not just a fancier package with a higher price tag? Do you want to research every single product you eat to make sure it's safe?
They’ve decided as a group that they would rather people eat less better quality food than more poorer quality food. I don’t understand the hang up. Is it the idea that people can collectively decide something? Presumably if it’s such a big problem people in the UK can elect a different government.
even poor people are able to manage and prioritize their spending.
in america, you could just sell the ultra poor people a piece of dirt you picked off the ground for a couple cents. theyre still buying "chicken" but its not at all what people want when theyre wanting to buy chicken.
I'm not claiming such food safety laws are illegitimate, I'm only claiming that the idea that British consumers have rejected chicken is laughable, as evidenced by the government feeling the need to ban them.
And the problem of concentrated benefits (for domestic chicken farmers) and diffuse costs (for everyone else) is a well known problem for democracy. If you're going to invoke this, you might as well also argue that Americans are "are not having trade imbalances", because they elected Trump.
Domestic farmers are not all in the same company. They compete amongst each other under the same set of rules they must all abide by. I have no idea why they would agree to sell an inferior product that doesn't have to abide by the same set of rules.
The whole idea of "race to the bottom" implies at least some portion consumers are going to choose the inferior product, which directly contradicts the original claim that British consumers have rejected US chicken, and the US needs to force them to buy it.
You're one of these people that get off on being technically correct even though it has no value to the discussion at large. No, 100% of Brits were not surveyed and all said no and as I said in another comment, the poorest of the country would likely buy it because it would be the cheapest option.
This kind of bunk is why I outgrew being a libertarian four decades ago. Transparency, anti-fraud laws, and standards make markets work. Fantasies about "network states" do not.
