Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We had to heavily regulate the food industry to prevent bad actors from causing negative effects, [...] Sounds like 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' to me.
What? Do you have some specific argument that you want to make against food industry regulations, or are you just trying to point out logical fallacies?
As people get richer, they also often tend to demand stricter regulation, but that doesn't necessarily mean the regulation is the driving factor.
The Chinese market for eg baby formula might be a good example. On average, baby formula consumed in China today is less dodgy than it was in the past.
A big part of that is because everyone in China who can afford to will use imported baby formula. Places like Australia haven't really changed their regulation much, but their products made up a larger share of the Chinese market over time, just because more Chinese became rich enough.
In parallel, driven by the same public sentiment that drives the import business, Chinese authorities have enacted stricter and stricter regulation for local baby formula.
In this case, consumer preference is driving a move towards higher quality. Competition from overseas suppliers is a key factor in helping consumers vote their preferences with their wallets. Regulation plays a trailing role at best.
Of course, when you look back in a few decades and compare the quality of baby formula in 1990 vs 2050 in China you will both notice an enormous increase in quality and increasingly strict regulation.
It will be very easy to spin the story that the regulation drove the increase in quality.
P.S. For a similar example, have a look at https://www.econlib.org/find-the-date-of-osha/