[pbhjpbhj]

>Efficient markets, I suppose. //

Isn't the Capitalist notion of efficiency bound with perfect information - we'd have to legislate to make sure that consumers know the product is 'laced with poison for the appearance of freshness; packaging contains carbon monoxide (CO) a deadly gas' and then see if the customers buy more of that product.

You're accusing consumers of optimising towards products _looking_ fresh, but the market isn't providing the information needed to also move away from 'purposefully laced with poison'.

I have an idea for a sort of reverse-trademark, an Origin Mark that allows a consumer to view all the inputs into a product and their geographic and legal origins. Then you can see 'this meat maker buys carbon monoxide', at least.

[perihelions]

No comment on economic theory, but on the carbon monoxide thing, the issue here isn't its toxicity, but that vendors use it to mask the color appearance of non-fresh, unhygienic meat. Naive visual assessment is wrong.

[AlexandrB]

I thought meat was more tasty/tender when it's "aged" for a while anyways.

[kadoban]

It has to be aged correctly to be safe.

[amrocha]

The point is that perfect information isn't real. Perfect information is the spherical cow in a vacuum of economics.

The incentives are such that vendors that lie and cheat do better than the ones that don't.