[ocharles]

Because we know the implications of poor quality food, and we also know those who would buy it have no choice but to buy the cheapest. So, no thanks. I'd much rather the state intervene here and keep this crap out. This "let consumers choose" argument is tiring when consumers don't have the ability to choose. They are just trying to survive

[gruez]

>and we also know those who would buy it have no choice but to buy the cheapest. So, no thanks. I'd much rather the state intervene here and keep this crap out.

Having "the state intervene here and keep this crap out" isn't going to magically make the domestic chicken cheaper for those people who "have no choice". You're not improving the chicken quality for them, you're preventing them from buying chicken at all.

[spauldo]

Why do you suppose that chicken quality would be tied to price? Do you know where your chicken comes from? If you buy expensive, high quality chicken, do you know it's actually high quality and not just a fancier package with a higher price tag? Do you want to research every single product you eat to make sure it's safe?

I sure don't.

[throwaway173738]

They’ve decided as a group that they would rather people eat less better quality food than more poorer quality food. I don’t understand the hang up. Is it the idea that people can collectively decide something? Presumably if it’s such a big problem people in the UK can elect a different government.

[8note]

even poor people are able to manage and prioritize their spending.

in america, you could just sell the ultra poor people a piece of dirt you picked off the ground for a couple cents. theyre still buying "chicken" but its not at all what people want when theyre wanting to buy chicken.