If the government has already intervened in the public diet, the effects of compulsory food labeling on GDP should be much lesser or completely negated, since there will be very low consumption of the sorts of foods whose consumption is deterred by compulsory labeling.
1 Like
I think that the GDP penalty of CFL represents increased bureaucracy cost in food production, which can negatively affect the output, instead of reduced consumption. In that sense, it is okay not to be affected by these policies.
1 Like