What about in instances where the consumer may not be fully aware of what they are purchasing?

Would a decent compromise be to require disclosure of ingredients, production process, and any possible health effects, so people may be informed about their decision before actually making it?

Standards should be set. Without a doubt people have the right to know what it is they are buying. However, that being said, the government does NOT have the right to tell a company WHAT they can produce and sell. If I want to sell something that is known to be unhealthy (like cigarettes) then I should be allowed to do so without the government even being allowed to go so far as condemning it.

It is not the government's job to tell the people whether they should or should not buy something. That is for the media and citizens to decide on their own.

No, because we ought to be smart enough to leave alone the discussion of drugs.

The point I am making is the government sets double standards first off. They allow items like cigarettes and alcohol which do more harm than good but then turn around and want to ban items that are considered to be either just as healthy or very close to the original product.

Now, I would prefer to never eat an item I found out was "pink slime" because of the way it is produced. But that is my personal opinion on the matter. It does not mean they should not produce it.

Its not a matter of what is right and wrong Simon. You see, you are basing right and wrong off of your own moral or personal belief system.

In the end, it is the majority that determines what is right and what is wrong (hence why slavery was once considered right).

Food safety laws are beneficial, but only to the point of letting people know what they are buying (ingredients, everything). Not deciding if it can or can not be sold. Now, obviously if it is diseased that is something of an entirely different nature and should be protected against. But this situation we are discussing is found to be as healthy by most doctors as the original product.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/03/its-100-percent-beef-company-on-defensive-as-it-closes-plants/

That was just the starter for me. there are many others that go into more backstory on it

"Simon, while people undoubtedly make terrible decisions, they make terrible decisions for themselves."

I agree, for the most part. But is it really true? Let's assume the average economic output of a person in the United States in their lifetime is 2 million dollars (45k * 45 years). Now take the worst methamphetamine abuser. Presumably the economic output of such a person would drop from 2M to say...0. That's money that could have otherwise been spent at your favorite mom and pop shop. Granted this is an extreme example, but it should be clear that any bad decision could potentially decrease the potential maximum economic output of a person.

"When they surrender decision-making power to government, government makes much worse decisions and makes them for everybody."

That depends. Banning lead from a lot of products (paint, gasoline, etc) was probably one of the more beneficial laws. Banning drinking and driving is also sound. Even if you don't care about the drunk guy, you certainly don't want to randomly get hit by one. Take this to another extreme: the Constitution. The Constitution is obviously decided by the government and I am very glad that my rights are guaranteed by the constitution. I certainly wouldn't trust the guy down the street with it.

"That people often make bad decisions is no justification for letting anybody else make decisions for them."

If my child (should I have one), wants to play with a cobra, I'd say no. I hope you do too.

"Everything The Riddler has said here is right. If you disagree, you are wrong."

Please, this type of statement really says nothing.

*Back to topic*

Now, after looking into this pink slime, it seems to just be processed, lower-quality beef. The link you (Riddler) provided didn't say anything about the government stopping production. In fact, the company blames the media for consumer backlash, which then prompted the grocery stores to drop the product. Sounds exactly like what you wanted to happen??

Yes, so far in this case I was posting what should have happened and it has. That is not to say the government does not have its eye on this and might look for a moment to step in. I am saying they shouldn't. In so many cases they interfere in situations they do not have any rights to do so and negatively effect what would have worked itself out in the end.

Also, that article has nothing on government intervention...that is nothing more than corporations following consumer trends (which you point out is how it should be)...the USDA approved it, so I do not see how the government is interferring unless the USDA has changed their decision...

EDIT: Ooops, I see this was already pointed out (my mistake...left the topic open awhile before reading )

It's a hit peice by anti-meat types.

It's a product hundreds of millions have eaten trillions of times.

Beef, it's what's for dinner!