[EnKopVand]

Well… The farmer used sewage water to grow the apples. Then the processing factory hollowed out the apples to make juice. The sales company filled the hole with lead. The restaurant bought the cheap lead apples and then painted them red because red apples get eaten faster.

Then someone died and the outraged public demanded regulation.

[mensetmanusman]

That is against the law, you shouldn’t have to prove you aren’t selling poison apples to start a business. Let investigators arrest/fine those breaking the law.

[bestcoder69]

I love eating non-poisoned apples. If you want to try your system where apples are a gamble (buyer beware! it’s your responsibility to test your apples for poison before consuming them!), then please try that social experiment somewhere far away from me. I’ve got enough shit to deal with.

[briandear]

Then how about someone else starting a company that tests apples. Demand for “clean” apples would result in demand for independent testing companies to certify that the apples are good. Without the seal, consumers would choose competitors that have tested their apples. The testing company has an incentive to be accurate because if one of their certified apple producers gets people sick, then that certification becomes useless and thus causing the company to lose all their business.

This isn’t that hard.

And besides, what’s the incentive for a government agency to care about apple safety? Tons of examples over the years when regulators approved dubious things (a long list of pharmaceuticals that turned out to be deadly for instance.) Rather than being shut down, those regulators get even bigger budgets. And the myth that the bureaucracy is accountable to the people needs to stop. Ever been to the DMV? Despite being universally hated for inefficiency, that place is still inefficient. How is the DMV accountable to anyone?

[bestcoder69]

> Then how about someone else starting a company that tests apples. Demand for “clean” apples would result in demand for independent testing companies to certify that the apples are good. Without the seal, consumers would choose competitors that have tested their apples. The testing company has an incentive to be accurate because if one of their certified apple producers gets people sick, then that certification becomes useless and thus causing the company to lose all their business.

1. Unless these independent companies are themselves regulated, they can just exist to give rubber-stamp approval to companies that pay them for this. There are plenty of examples of this: Yelp, the Better Business Bureau, those "Hacker Safe" badges you used to see online. Just google one of these, "$certification_company extortion", to understand the business model.

2. Consumers, really, really don't care. Richer consumers will buy the clean apples and poorer consumers will take a risk on the gamble apples. Again, just look at the actual market -- there are tons products stratified along the lines of regular version vs safe/ethical version.

3. The certification company has many more levers to pull than less or more accuracy. Just do a thought experiment where you're an evil CEO of one of these companies - what moves would you pull, and then look at the market... they do them. Example: Name yourself something that sounds like a govt agency to trick consumers.

What your saying makes sense if you are trying to prove a counter-factual about safety in a world of un-FDA-regulated apples. But there are also plenty of un-FDA-regulated products on the market right now that you can use to test your theory.

My favorite one right now is delta-8 THC. The companies that sell it are fly-by-night sketchy companies that often are multiple brands by the same people. All of their websites are littered with badges about how safe and certified they are.

So with your predictions in mind, please read about this journalist's attempt to track the chain of authenticity on their Delta-8, in practice: https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2021/08/10519251/what-is-de...

tl;dr: your idea is currently failing.

--- edit, Here's my own funny example I found while adding to my comment: Podcasts are advertising this one online THC company "Diet Smoke". I clicked a delta-9 product (https://www.dietsmoke.com/product/diet-smoke-extra-mango-gum...). Click "Lab Tests", then open the linked PDF. You'll notice that the lab test is for a completely different product, since the test shows delta-8, not delta-9. According to your theory, this should degrade consumer confidence and harm the business, so I should not be hearing ads every week for this company, and I shouldn't be hearing the podcast hosts talking about taking their products. When I click on their Instagram I should see a consumer revolt instead of guys going "sheeesh this got me faded". ---

And, the main point you're missing is that the government has the freedom to actually execute on regulations decided on by the public. You need an actual enforcement mechanism, e.g. "I'm visiting your business unannounced, spot-checking it, and if you store your apples in a vat of poison then we're shutting you down." The private equivalents can't do that.

> And besides, what’s the incentive for a government agency to care about apple safety? Tons of examples over the years when regulators approved dubious things (a long list of pharmaceuticals that turned out to be deadly for instance.) Rather than being shut down, those regulators get even bigger budgets. And the myth that the bureaucracy is accountable to the people needs to stop. Ever been to the DMV? Despite being universally hated for inefficiency, that place is still inefficient. How is the DMV accountable to anyone?

Where's the private DMV? Anyone could start it. If the DMV is so terrible, why hasn't anyone?

Also, DMVs are maximally accountable. I don't know what else you could want besides being able to democratically control its budget and policies. People tend to not want to fund it (counter-examples welcome) so they tend to be underfunded and understaffed -- not great, but that's definitely a form accountability. Also, see the IRS. Hated, has no budget.

And if that's the whole hang-up is around insufficient democracy, then that's the real root issue here.

[gms]

This comment cracks me up. Outside of North America (or perhaps Western countries in general) this is how most of the world consumes apples. Somehow said social experiment has been fine for us :)

[bestcoder69]

I mean, it's funny if we stick to the apple stand analogy, but when I say "apples", what I'm really thinking about is this: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/opinion/factory-farming-c... , and it's definitely not fine.

[Spivak]

Gotta be honest I’m pretty lax about government regulation in general but I think in the case of food safety I’m gonna say it’s worth it to make people prove upfront what they’re selling is safe rather than waiting for someone to be hurt and then going after them.

How could a grocery store buyer even avoid evil apples inc? Individually demand to see their factory and process?

[heretogetout]

Death and injury from poison apples are a small price to pay to ensure that restaurant entrepreneurs have a chance to move fast, take risks, and innovate in the business of ... apple selling.

[hobs]

The amount of mass poisonings you are advocating for is not acceptable in a decentralized society - catching people like this takes an enormous amount of effort and deaths.

[vegardx]

But me, as a consumer, want you to have to prove to someone that you're not selling me poisonous apples. That it gets investigated and people are punished or fined doesn't make me any less dead.