pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined 5 Jun \ on: Lab-Grown Meat Protectionism econ
I think that's the right kind of idea, but not the right direction. Particularly with GRAS, they're never going to require those be disclosed, since that's basically the point of the category. Also, the farm lobby will never allow requiring disclosures of all the unsavory standard practices.
Rather than labelling laws, 3rd party certifying agencies can attest to various production standards being met (organic, kosher, vegan, etc.) and they have the incentive to maintain their reputation for honesty. There's also just too much stuff for consumers to keep track of, especially with new shenanigans being developed constantly. The certifying agency approach outsources that difficult information work to another party that can do it well.
Ok, i can see your point. The state is just too vulnerable to being captured by the industry, whereas a private certified has to be very careful about reputation. I think that is more trustworthy, however, the state has to be cut out of the process completely. I still think making the labels explicit is a good remedy though. The problem with GRAS is that the state is just taking the company’s word for it being safe. Lately, how’s that been working out?
reply
Labeling has to be driven by demand for it to matter. If no one cares, then no one cares and disclosure doesn’t matter.
reply
I think people who know are people who care. There are more and more people waking up into knowing and caring. Many people are tired of being poisoned and eating food that is cardboard and not much more. This may apply to chemtrails and 5G, too.
reply
Love the concept. Who funds the certifying agencies? The consumer? Will they pay a buck more for an lb of certified meat?
I'd love to make this transparent though! Labels like
MSC got a really bad rep because they basically just charge for membership and then laugh all their way to the bank.reply
I was thinking more along the lines of UL or Consumer Reports, which, I think, are industry supported or consumer supported.
reply
Yeah. UL is producer funded - you pay for certification, but this is just priced in. In the past when I did large bespoke hardware deliveries, we'd simply price the certification costs (plus margin!!!) into the product price; i.e. the client would ultimately pay for it - so in this case, the consumer.
reply
In this case, aren’t they receiving the certification because they wanted it? They might not have known that they were going to pay for it, but how many times have you looked for the ULtm markings on electric or electronic goods? I do all the time and am hesitant to buy those things without the marking. I just don’t want to burn my house down!!
reply
If consumers won't pay more, then they shouldn't have to pay for it (the difference between voluntaryism and state regulation).
Many consumers already do pay more for various certifications, though, so I think the answer is that some will.
reply