I feel like I repeat this more and more, but this is why the way the US treats food safety is mental to me. Most other countries with a functioning food safety structure use the "precautionary principle": you have to prove beyond doubt that the food is safe to eat, that it will not harm anyone eating or producing it. Otherwise you don't get to sell it.

In the US they turn it on its head and say: you have to prove harm before we move to remove this item from the market, before that, go ahead and sell it. That's why so many horrible additives and shit are allowed in the US and not in many other places.

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Doesn't the US run on what amounts to a self-certifying process? I.e. there's standards, but adherence to it is the manufacturers job on the risk of being giga-sued by a customer or something.

The whole cancer-proven-additive thing seems to exists at the level of standards. It's more regulatory capture - I mean what point is the FDA or whatever looking at your giant vat of Red 40 and going "perfect!" because it's legal?

I ask this because I always get the feeling the difference between the US and like the EU boils down not so much in the approach - the EU loves themselves some self-certifying - it boils down as to whether the consequence is you can get theoretically sued for 8 gajillion dollars (US) or the European Federation Bureau of Commerce Standards and Neoliberalism shuts down your shit.

[–] TraschcanOfIdeology@hexbear.net 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Doesn't the US run on what amounts to a self-certifying process? I.e. there's standards, but adherence to it is the manufacturers job on the risk of being giga-sued by a customer or something.

Yeah, but good luck proving liability in a civil case against the Pepsico-Walmart-Starbucks-Tyson Chicken-Coca-Cola megacorp. And besides, by the time you get a verdict the damage to public health was already done. The EU won't let you approach a sales point without your shit in order. It is instrumentalized for neoliberalism purposes, of course, but again, what in the EU isn't.

the EU loves themselves some self-certifying

It really depends, though. When it comes to novel foods or additives, it's a pain in the ass to get a product to market in the EU because you have to prove it's safe and blah blah blah. You won't get sued for 910319098023810923 euros, but you will get fined 9480123802193012 euros if you are found to not comply the long and bureaucratic safety certification. For other things like labor practices, or sourcing? not so much.

[–] Speaker@hexbear.net 4 points 1 day ago

Yeah, but good luck proving liability in a civil case against the Pepsico-Walmart-Starbucks-Tyson Chicken-Coca-Cola megacorp.

We here at PeWaStaTyChiColaCorp have always stood up for the little guy! The little guy lives at our campus in Omelas and legal has advised us to make no further comments on the little guy.

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago

Yeah, but good luck proving liability in a civil case against the Pepsico-Walmart-Starbucks-Tyson Chicken-Coca-Cola megacorp. And besides, by the time you get a verdict the damage to public health was already done. The EU won't let you approach a sales point without your shit in order.

I'd be fairly confident to say food standards are in the EU are better than the US, my point is mostly it's not because of the approach - which in both cases is self-cert, it is what you put forth, the European Federation Bureau of Commerce Standards and Neoliberalism will actually shut you down for good instead of there being a 2% chance somebody gets 8 gajillion dollars out of Pepsico-Walmart, bankrupting them.

It really depends, though. When it comes to novel foods or additives, it's a pain in the ass to get a product to market in the EU because you have to prove it's safe and blah blah blah. You won't get sued for 910319098023810923 euros, but you will get fined 9480123802193012 euros if you are found to not comply the long and bureaucratic safety certification.

I agree on that front.