The world depends on a collection of strange items. They're not cheap

You're forgetting the NIST. They operate at a net profit, selling things like Standard Jars of Peanut Butter for equipment calibration ($1,069 per unit). There's a cool Veritasium video on it: [VIDEO]

Probably the one linked above by Tom Scott, or this one by Veritasium: [VIDEO] The Veritasium one mentions NIST peanut butter specifically, even.

Veritasium [1] did a video of exactly this and explains why it exists [at 2m35s]: > An ordinary jar of peanut butter costs less than $5. And on the label you can see the ingredients and the amounts of different nutrients like protein, fats, sugar, and sodium. Those values have been measured by the manufacturer using different machines and analytical techniques. But how do you know those results are accurate? Well, this is where the government's standard jar of peanut butter comes in. It is mixed up so carefully and thoroughly that each jar contains exactly the same substance. > "We take great pains at homogenizing these things. Make sure it's consistent." > Then scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, take years to painstakingly identify the quantities of all the different compounds in the peanut butter with specified uncertainties. This peanut butter is then known as a standard reference material or SRM. They sell these perfectly characterized SRM samples of peanut butter to researchers and manufacturers so they can calibrate their equipment. Essentially, the buyer knows that their equipment is working properly if, when they run the standard peanut butter, they get the values NIST supplies on the certificate. > "We've spent a lot of time to make sure that we're confident and, you know, we can spend years studying the amount of fat in here and trying to figure out exactly what those numbers are." > So what you're paying for is not really the pe

Correct. Veritasium actually did a video on exactly this set of items last year[0]. The tl;dr is that NIST has a large collection of items which are rigorously produced and tested, with detailed documentation about their composition and test results, which allows companies to test their own products to very specific standards. For instance, peanut butter has aflatoxins -- known carcinogens. NIST's standard peanut butter has known levels of aflatoxins. By purchasing this peanut butter and testing it on your own peanut-butter-aflatoxin-sensing machine, you can calibrate your machine to detect aflatoxins in peanut butter to a reasonably high precision. 0. [VIDEO]

Veritasium has a great video[1] on NIST's Standard Reference Materials including their peanut butter. It talks about some of the other aspects of NIST's business in selling these items, their history, why they exist, and some of the other interesting ones like their standard reference cigarettes. [1] [VIDEO]

Assuming this is in reference to the great Veritasium video[0] going over what these reference materials are used for and why they're so expensive. [0] [VIDEO]

I find this to be a close cousin of Tom Scott's "Making an international standard cup of tea" video ( [LINK] ). And very related to Tom Scott's "The US government will sell you freeze-dried urine" ( [LINK] ) and Veritasium's "The world depends on a collection of strange items. They're not cheap" ( [VIDEO] ) They bring forward the idea that standard/pure/repeatable items aren't intrinsically "good" or "enjoyable". But that doesn't make them not useful or valuable in other contexts. It also offers some food for thought when it comes to what metrics we decide to put value in. We may like the idea of a particular metric, or what we think it represents, but that doesn't make it worth optimizing for. A metric without context is useless, and taking a holistic view of what makes something worth doing allows us to make more informed decisions.

You're the one making up the idea - that's not an idea people have. Regulators and middle managers provide me with limited options for each of those thousand choices, and I, without having to think much, can pick one of them safely. For each of my choices, various regulators and managers have all gotten many says already. Some bureaucrat does manage my diet, and your diet too, but they don't micromanage it, and nobody is saying they should micromanage it It's perfectly feasible for regulators to identify when companies are adding sugars - look at the recipe, inspect the factory, put things in bomb calorimeters. Thats not at all absurd, and there's already standards maintained for basically everything, including foods like peanut butter (see: [VIDEO] ) If it was absurd, it would be impossible to do food safety regulation, like ensuring that food doesn't contain toxins or heavy metals