Are you suggesting that it might be just coincidental that companies stopped putting chalk dust in milk at about the same time that doing so became illegal?
What? Do you have some specific argument that you want to make against food industry regulations, or are you just trying to point out logical fallacies?
As people get richer, they can and will afford better food, including from suppliers with better reputation.
As people get richer, they also often tend to demand stricter regulation, but that doesn't necessarily mean the regulation is the driving factor.
The Chinese market for eg baby formula might be a good example. On average, baby formula consumed in China today is less dodgy than it was in the past.
A big part of that is because everyone in China who can afford to will use imported baby formula. Places like Australia haven't really changed their regulation much, but their products made up a larger share of the Chinese market over time, just because more Chinese became rich enough.
In parallel, driven by the same public sentiment that drives the import business, Chinese authorities have enacted stricter and stricter regulation for local baby formula.
In this case, consumer preference is driving a move towards higher quality. Competition from overseas suppliers is a key factor in helping consumers vote their preferences with their wallets. Regulation plays a trailing role at best.
Of course, when you look back in a few decades and compare the quality of baby formula in 1990 vs 2050 in China you will both notice an enormous increase in quality and increasingly strict regulation.
It will be very easy to spin the story that the regulation drove the increase in quality.
It might seem as if regulations did the change because the gov cares about its people, but it might be just the market working. There were alternatives, the economy suffered from people choosing Australian imports and losing trust in local products (and the gov, to a degree). Companies may have realized they shot themselves in the foot and already stopped putting asbestos in baby formula, but someone had to take the fall to restore optics.
Well yeah, laws are supposed to generally follow the will of the people as much as possible without seriously harming minority groups.
But without the regulation, the trust wouldn't be there, and people would use imported formula, and likely occasionally get contaminated stuff from fly by night vendors.
Grocery stores would probably refuse to stock the poison in some cases, but there might be more subtle contamination that went unnoticed.
Regulations are written in blood and there still seems to be cases of doing the legal minimum even when it's not enough to be safe. As far as I know there are plenty of coin cells with no bitter coating or childproof packaging.
> [...] there still seems to be cases of doing the legal minimum even when it's not enough to be safe.
But even more cases of companies going above and beyond the legal minimum, and customers who care will buy from those companies.
Eg it's perfectly legal to sell furniture with drawers that can catch and hurt the fingers of toddlers. But it's also perfectly possible to buy furniture that doesn't have this problem. (You can also buy kits to retrofit some of that protection.) Similarly for sharp corners on tables.
Are you suggesting that the wide availability of tables with sharp corners is a problem? That we need regulation to ban sharp corners on furniture?
Is the availability of tables that go beyond the legal minimum safety a problem for your world view?
The availability of tables that go beyond the minimum doesn't mean much to those who can't afford them.
I would imagine that at least kids furniture does have some fairly heavy regulations, and all furniture probably has some fire resistance laws or something.
Availability of tables with sharp corners becomes an issue when it starts affecting economies of scale. If some safety thing costs a few cents but for whatever reason is not available on the cheapest version, the market might or might not solve that, and the safer versions could be expensive for years to come.
Regulations aren't there to protect middle class people doing their research. They're to protect the weakest and most vulnerable who don't have time to research or money to buy anything better.
They're also to protect people who didn't choose furniture, like guests. It's about making an overall safer world.
Some level of balance is needed, but there are some things that most people are probably better off if they just don't exist, like a lamp that catches fire or baby formula that is made without strict controls, or cars without whatever the current modern safety assistance standard is based on the best evidence available.
A quick google shows that childrens products are in fact regulated by CSPC and can't have sharp stuff, among other requirements.
No, I'm saying if we ban seriously dangerous products, everything cheap and mediocre will become good enough and nobody(Or at least fewer people) will need the good products.
Sounds like 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' to me.