My impression of this thread is that people are seeing what may be the thin end of another government wedge. I've seen the same old routine many times in the UK. A member of government makes some vague reference to the need to protect, say, the public against some problem that no-one knew existed. Often, that is preceded by some innocent seeming tv news report or documentary. Experience shows that such things are often the start of a campaign to prepare us for some more restrictions in liberty and choice. It may take years to reach fruition, by which time people may be demanding the change that has become essential only because of the period of conditioning.
Liberty and freedom has to be tempered in a civilised society. For example, I don't want the freedom to live next door to some loony drunk with a gun as one BYC member mentioned a week or so ago. But I would like to keep the freedom to produce eggs that are fresher and healthier than the old supermarket rubbish. On the other hand, I have lunch with politicians less often than might the CEO of the supermarket chain so my wish may not so easily reach his ear.