Church - A place for quiet reflection ...

[flacaltenn]

MerryLander:

Agreed about corporate subsidies, govt USDA advertising on the behalf of "big farms" and all that..

My argument goes like this. The more detailed the regulation card is played, the more you FORCE industry to "participate". That participation can take a benign form of informing the Feds where they are wrong or mistaken on regs. OR it can be willful attempts to gain market advantage and kill their competition. The left abhors the corporate entity. They treat it as the enemy of the collective. What is the purpose of all this regulation. Is it to PROMOTE efficiency and economic success? Or is to restrain uncontrolled market innovation and growth? Or is it seen simply as just consumer protection? Everyone has a different view of these 3 possibilities. And like I said, I really don't want the reg writers to essentially make law WITHOUT participation from the industry they are regulating..

But in reality, the USDA and the Commerce Dept is there to PROMOTE markets, economic success, and competition. There's a conflict of interest right there with the folks who see these "market regulators" as the last hope of consumer protection.

No wonder -- it's out of control eh????

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

MerryLander:

Agreed about corporate subsidies, govt USDA advertising on the behalf of "big farms" and all that..

My argument goes like this. The more detailed the regulation card is played, the more you FORCE industry to "participate". That participation can take a benign form of informing the Feds where they are wrong or mistaken on regs. OR it can be willful attempts to gain market advantage and kill their competition. The left abhors the corporate entity. They treat it as the enemy of the collective. What is the purpose of all this regulation. Is it to PROMOTE efficiency and economic success? Or is to restrain uncontrolled market innovation and growth? Or is it seen simply as just consumer protection? Everyone has a different view of these 3 possibilities. And like I said, I really don't want the reg writers to essentially make law WITHOUT participation from the industry they are regulating..

But in reality, the USDA and the Commerce Dept is there to PROMOTE markets, economic success, and competition. There's a conflict of interest right there with the folks who see these "market regulators" as the last hope of consumer protection.

No wonder -- it's out of control eh????

The FDA inspectors are more strict and inspect more frequently than their private counterparts. The FDA doesn't buy any coffee from us, ever, and therefore has nothing to lose in fining us, which they rarely do, because we keep our stuff straight. Our customers, who hire independent inspection firms, do have something to lose, changing suppliers is neither cheap nor easy. The things they find to complain about are very small and easily corrected. Their inspections are always very brief and superficial.

It is a much bigger deal, if we know the FDA inspectors are coming. I see it with my own eyes.

As a consumer; Which model makes you feel safer?

Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

MerryLander:

Agreed about corporate subsidies, govt USDA advertising on the behalf of "big farms" and all that..

<snip>But in reality, the USDA and the Commerce Dept is there to PROMOTE markets, economic success, and competition. There's a conflict of interest right there with the folks who see these "market regulators" as the last hope of consumer protection.

No wonder -- it's out of control eh????

Having the USDA and Commerce promoting US farm products is corporate welfare, but we can't seem to kill it because of the lobbyists. We shop at specialty food shops because the produce shipped in from CA at the big supermarkets will go rotten if you don't eat it in the parking lot.