Unregulated anarchy vs nanny state. There's a wide spectrum in between we can argue about, but let's not get too far toward either extreme.

This would mean they'd be against food safety regulations, would it not?

It would not.

Having traffic laws isn't the same as banning cars, either.

You're talking about two different things.

Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods

This would mean they'd be against food safety regulations, would it not?

It's entirely possible to be in favor of food safety regulations and opposed to the government banning foods outright. In fact, I think one could safely presume that those are the positions most commonly held by most people.

It means that they’re not a nuanced thinker.

There's a big difference between food safety and not eating meat. One is about companies putting dangerous stuff in food that can potentially harm people, the other is about something which humans have been eating ever since they existed. I understand that there are some arguments to be given about why we shouldn't eat meat, but those are definitely not as widely supported as disallowing the companies to inject "poison" into our food. In my opinion banning meat definitely would go way too far, the cost of banning meat far exceeds the benefits for public wellbeing.

I come from a dynasty of educators. I cannot emphasize that enough. At Christmas I had to explain what a molecule was. Amongst them were several teachers and administrative individuals.

Most people who say that do so for dogmatic reasons, not because they arrived at this conclusion after careful analysis. It's the political point of small government.

These are the same people who will probably be first in line shouting for government intervention when their drinking water is full of chemical waste.

You can try to reason with folks like that but you probably won't change their mind. Just try not to shout at them.

I'd like the government to suggest things, and point to the science on things, but to leave the informed choice ultimately up to me.

Yes. People who oppose science-backed food regulations are dumb or selfish or both

I don't think they thought about it very much. It's like that spongebob meme where patrick has the wallet. Or the Friends one that I don't know the name of the template. You could go point by point building up a case for why there should be government regulations, but as soon as you say like "regulation" they go "Nope bad"

Though some people really do believe they as a rugged individual will be able to research and test all of their food without an FDA or whatever. If they buy bread that has sawdust in it, they'll be able to tell, and somehow get a refund, or buy some other bread that doesn't have sawdust. That seems like a lot of work and optimism compared to regulations and inspections by qualified professionals earlier in the process.

i feel like there's a lot of astroturfing in the comments here, how depressing

I think it's more like government can ban what can be sold as food and make advice. They can't really stop you from drinking bleach or eating the grass in your yard or whatever. They can only prevent you from feeding it to someone else or selling it as food.

Meat isn't a food that could be banned in the same way as, say, Red Dye #4 or force-hydrogenated fats or high fructose corn syrup. They could make farmers cull whole herds of cows if mad cow broke out i guess, but there are wild hogs, backyard chickens and goats, it's just not a controllable food.

Yum tasty cardboard is back on the menu. /s

Hyperbole-loving drama queens.