No Stupid Questions

Statement wise "I don't want the government to tell me what to eat" or variations could mean basically anything. Most of the time it's posturing on behalf of the idea that a lack of government regulation is a good thing which ignores a rather bloody history of food suppliers adulterating food with harmful substances in the name of preservation / cheapening production cost or using production practices that cause the likelihood of contamination of food.

Once you scratch the surface of the argument you can usually figure out more exactly what they mean and it often isn't things like government subsidy programs publishing food pyramids based on shady science and economics rather than in the interest of health.

Often it's based out of perceived personal inconvenience or the appearance of moral judgement such as when there's some sort of health labelling initiative.

In Canada there are a lot of things that are not considered legal additives for food that are used in the US and the difference in strictness is in part because the Health care system in Canada is funded publicly. Producers of foodstuffs cost the government money directly if whatever they put in it has no nutritional value and causes known health problems. Rather than let companies create messes and tragedies which the government is on the hook to clean up when people's health fails they remove the issue at it's source. In the US there's less incentive as these costs become scattered in the form of individual medical bills and oftentimes the savings are from food being shelf stable for longer. Shrugging one's shoulders at the fallout or claiming its an exercise of "freedom" is in service to those who make money hand over fist.

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.

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.

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.

Dictating what you eat and banning things you shouldn't eat are very different things.

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.

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

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.

Hyperbole-loving drama queens.

It means that they’re not a nuanced thinker.

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