I wouldn't say these two posts are downright contradictory, but they are very different in tone and content, so it's hard to reconcile them without some help.
Do you think it's okay for people to have a real choice as to what kinds of foods they can buy, but just don't want people to get tricked into thinking they're buying something safe when they're really not?
Because that makes sense to me, and I'd guess that Don would be onboard with that, too.
I would like people who advocate for a risky activity not to pretend it's not risky.
In regards to sale of home-made foods in general, yes, I'd like people to be properly informed so they can make their own decisions, but that would still require some kind of enforceable regulation to make sure that sellers do inform buyers of just what they are buying and eating.
But in regards to advocates against government food regulation, I take exception to what I see as a pollyanna assumption of goodness and purity in foods on sale in an open marketplace, as if the mere absence of government from the picture is enough to ensure the food will be safe to eat. I personally consider that attitude reckless with people's safety and health.
Further, when advocates against government food regulation say flippant things like how they'd be willing to put up with a few dead kids on their road to freedom, or how deaths from food-borne pathogens are nothing compared to the historical totals of deaths from war, so meh, who cares, I do get kind of prickly. I guess I don't find it charming or witty -- and certainly not persuasive -- to cop an attitude of not caring about the lives of other human beings even when it's just meant to show utter disdain for one's opponent's concern for food quality and safety. I think it undermines debate on the topic, and I think it makes the advocates against regulation seem un-serious.