> but I am sure it's hard to confirm improvements were caused by regulations and not technology, right?

For a good summary of the history of food safety I'd recommend: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221553/

Often the regulation _drives_ the technology. There is no inherent business need to create new technologies that improve the food safety, outside of demand from consumers or regulators.

> In 1909 the American Public Health Association appointed a committee to develop a “standard” bacteriological technique for screening oysters and other shellfish, which recommended use of a tube dilution method for the presence of Escherichia coli. In an effort to gain data on levels of contamination, USDA's Bureau of Chemistry conducted an extensive bacteriological study along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts between 1908 and 1910.

Again, though, consumers can only register there preferences with the existing market. So if they want _safer_ foods than are available on the market, there is no real way for them to register that desire.

> In the absence of government standards, companies willing to spend funds to assure protection of the public health are disadvantaged by the need to compete with companies unwilling to do so, because the latter could sell their products at a lower price. Some consumers might be willing to spend more on a “better” or “safer” product; poorer consumers, of course, would be unable to do so and would bear greater food safety risks than more affluent consumers. Price differentials for safer products would not be possible in many parts of the food marketplace, however, as most foodstuffs are sold as unbranded commodities at the beginning of the food chain, and often (as with most meat, poultry, and produce) at the retail level. Thus, even if society were willing to rely upon the market to encourage food safety, it is unlikely to be an effective producer of safety because of the commodity nature of most food transactions, as well as the difficulty of connecting foodborne illness with particular eating occasions or individual foods. For the same reasons, personal injury litigation provides only a weak incentive for food companies to improve their food safety efforts, because there is a low probability that they will be sued for foodborne illness, the damages they would pay are likely to be small, and there is a low probability that such litigation would have negative public relations consequences (Buzby and Frenzen, 1999).

> Imo existing laws regarding misleading marketing and accuracy are probably all that we need

Many of the food safety laws that exist are exactly to prevent this exact kind of misleading marketing and accuracy. Or, in other cases, to force them to make specific claims that can be later enforced rather than generic claims that can never be enforced.

In my mind, an analog to "put on the box how long security updates will be provided" are "nutrition facts", in that these don't just say: "everything on the box must be true", but also: "you must disclose some specific things about the product".

The introduction of nutrition labeling changed both consumer behavior, and the products being offered to consumers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6340779/

> In pooled analyses (Table 2), food labeling reduced intakes of energy by 6.6% (95% CI= −8.8%, −4.4%. n=31 estimates; Appendix Figures 1 and 2), total fat by 10.6% (95% CI= −17.7%, −3.5%, n=13; Appendix Figures 3 and 4), and other unhealthy options by 13.0% (95% CI= −25.7%, −0.2%, n=16). Food labeling increased vegetable consumption by 13.5% (95% CI=2.4%, 24.6%, n=5; Appendix Figures 13 and 14).

> ...

> Reformulation outcomes were evaluated by six studies (Appendix Table 13, Appendix Figures 20–24). Food labeling significantly reduced the contents of trans fat (−64.3%, 95% CI= −91.1%, −37.5%, n=3) and sodium (−8.9%, 95% CI= −17.3%, −0.6%, n=4). Significant effects were not identified on product contents of total energy, saturated fat, dietary fiber, or other healthy (protein and unsaturated fat) or unhealthy (total fat, sugar, and dietary cholesterol) dietary components.

Bringing it back to this topic that would mean forcing them to make a statement like: "we will provide security updates for 3 months" in small print somewhere on the packaging, rather than _only_ having the phrase "WORLD-BEATING SECURITY" in 45pt font on the front. And, again, all of this is voluntary, and only required if they want to display a specific logo.

I honestly can't see _any_ argument for how this would be objectionable. I don't think existing laws are sufficient, because they don't require a company to make any specific claims. As such, no companies make any specific claims about security, which means as a consumer I have *no* ability to express a preference in the market for products that make stronger claims about security.