Sometimes there are too many bad choices for consumers to shift through and having a regulator eliminate, discourage or label them is a good thing actually.
Yes I do want a bureaucrat back by the best nutritional science available to nudge the market to provide me with better, healthier options.
The danger is, of course, that the agency gets captured by the AG industry. Such as the old "food pyramid" that suggested a quarter of your diet should be straight carbs. Or the "fat free" movement that was really just replacing fats with sugars.
> The danger is, of course, that the agency gets captured by the AG industry
While I wouldn’t dispute the undue influence of corporate interests on lawmakers, I would bet that the bigger factor is the tax revenue that the government collects from increased corporate profits. It is int eg government’s interest for companies to thrive because then it gets more funds via taxation.
The trouble is that most nutritional "science" is bunk, or at least rather low quality. We would be better off without the government making nutritional recommendations or food pyramids or anything like that. There is zero reliable scientific evidence that that stuff produces better public health outcomes. It's a huge waste of tax dollars.
Yes I do want a bureaucrat back by the best nutritional science available to nudge the market to provide me with better, healthier options.
The danger is, of course, that the agency gets captured by the AG industry. Such as the old "food pyramid" that suggested a quarter of your diet should be straight carbs. Or the "fat free" movement that was really just replacing fats with sugars.