system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why are price controls considered bad, specifically?

I can understand that it could deteriorate the market with bad products, but can you not just regulate that as well? 

For example, Have a percentage profit based on the cost to produce the product and have modifiers for the quality/safety of said product. And since stores havent produced the product, they can only earn profit on the cost to transport the product, store the product, etc. And since they degrade over time theyre checked again at the point of sale for the nutrient modifiers.

Food for example. Say it cost 1 dollar to produce a banana and the base pricing limit is 100%, then it gets tested for nutrients and found that it has higher/lower nutrients than the set standard so it gets a 1% increase/decrease of profits for each mg of nutrients(thats capable of being absorbed by the human body). Or something along those lines. 

And then for shipping theres something similar for the drop in quality, shipping cost, etc. [I dont know a whole lot for shipping, but I dont see why you couldnt adapt a sinilar approach so they can turn a profit as well] 

And because we already have models for quality testing for virtually every product on the market, we should in theory be able to do this with everything.

On top of all this you could give government incentives for basic necessities and such. Obviously this would need to be ironed out, but I dont see why this couldnt work. 

TL;DR: I dont really know much about economics, so I came up with a scenario for people who know what theyre talking about to poke holes in so I can understand better.
gpt
Because absent market failures the price mechanism results in an equilibrium quantity at a price that maximizes producer and consumer surplus, or economic welfare.

This mechanism is automatic and doesn't require any far fetched expensive government programs to test nutrients in bananas or whatever.