You have no right to know.

[jts]

You have no right to know what is in the food you eat, if that implies an obligation to tell you.

Don't matter the food contains something that if you knew what it is you wouldn't buy it. That's your tough luck. Why should a rational food producer who is motivated by self-interest lose customers by telling them what is in the food with the result that they don't buy it? That would be altruism.

Making a law requiring food labelling is a violation of the rights of food producers.

http://www.naturalne...fundraiser.html

If they pass such a law, fortunately there is a way around it.

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #239: Never be afraid to mislabel a product.

There are ways to mislabel products, truthfully and within the law. Products can easily be labelled in such a way that the label is misleading and worse than useless, and this has already been abundantly demonstrated.

So in more ways than one, the law is an ass.

[anthony]

Who needs more law? Let the consumer be self-responsible. And the producer

would have his reputation in the market place to uphold. And independent consumer

watch dogs organizations would publish product reviews, at a nominal cost.

Liberal law assumes people are stupid children.

[william.scherk]

Stupid children drink tainted milk. Rise and shine.

[william.scherk]

Poisoning foodstock is a crime. Like all crimes in Objectivish Wonderland, prevention is left to seek its own level. And the universe is unfolding as it should, benevolently.

[william.scherk]

"Products can easily be labelled in such a way that the label is misleading and worse than useless, and this has already been abundantly demonstrated."

Oh. I guess this abundant demonstration is so abundant that it would be redundant for you to provide some of same? No? Yes?

Argument by unsupported blurt/opinion. Why I love OL ...

Edited May 6, 2012 by william.scherk

[anthony]

Stupid children drink tainted milk. Rise and shine.

Me, I'd taste anything new before the kid got to it.

There's nothing that a government can do, that private, for-profit, competing consumer

organizations and labs - lending their stamp of approval to product labels - can't do better,

faster, and more impartially. All without encouraging the addiction of dependency on the State.

[jts]

"Products can easily be labelled in such a way that the label is misleading and worse than useless, and this has already been abundantly demonstrated.

Oh. I guess this abundant demonstration is so abundant that it would be redundant for you to provide some of same? No? Yes?

Argument by unsupported blurt/opinion. Why I love OL ...

Products can easily be labelled in such a way that the label is misleading and worse than useless. This has been discussed other places so many times and at such length that it seems unnecessary to discuss it again, and besides that it would take us too far off topic.

There is a law that says that if msg is in a food, it must be clearly listed on the label. But one of the loopholes in the law is that if an ingredient is listed and it consists of 90% msg, then that ingredient can be listed and msg does not need to be listed. Most people reading the list of ingredients will not know that the food contains msg, even tho it does. Then they go their way, assured that the food does not contain msg, because if it did it would be listed. People such as myself who know how to read dishonest labels know that avoiding msg is a major restriction in diet. People who don't know how to read dishonest labels (most people) seldom see msg.

But all that is beside the point. My point is you don't have a right to know what is in the food that you eat.

[william.scherk]

Stupid children drink tainted milk. Rise and shine.

Me, I'd taste anything new before the kid got to it.

There's nothing that a government can do, that private, for-profit, competing consumer

organizations and labs - lending their stamp of approval to product labels - can't do better,

faster, and more impartially. All without encouraging the addiction of dependency on the State.

I love you Tony, you know that, but your four statements are simply claims hanging like laundry in the wind.

If any or all of your claims are true, demonstrating the truth should be easy. Otherwise this is ipse dixit and not convincing ...

Perhaps you meant to suggest a private solution to tainted milk, one that you can suggest is better, faster and more impartial?

Edited May 6, 2012 by william.scherk

[anthony]

Stupid children drink tainted milk. Rise and shine.

Me, I'd taste anything new before the kid got to it. There's nothing that a government can do, that private, for-profit, competing consumer organizations and labs - lending their stamp of approval to product labels - can't do better, faster, and more impartially. All without encouraging the addiction of dependency on the State.

I love you Tony, you know that, but your four statements are simply claims hanging like laundry in the wind. If any or all of your claims are true, demonstrating the truth should be easy. Otherwise this is ipse dixit and not convincing ... Perhaps you meant to suggest a private solution to tainted milk, one that you can suggest is better, faster and more impartial?

[sigh] Really, William, you should put more trust in your fellow man -

and his self-interest, too, of course.

I don't know if I recall any tainted milk scandal, if that's what you have in mind? In which case, I'm guessing the gallant State rescued the people from a plot to poison them by evil Business, or something.

Is life ever going to be risk-free? Government would have us believe that - but I say g-ment aggravates all the risks, while facilitating our dependency on it, and should keep out of the way.

Predictable reply, eh? and more ipse dixit.

And I love you too.

Tony

[Xray]

Making a law requiring food labelling is a violation of the rights of food producers.

http://www.naturalne...fundraiser.html

If they pass such a law, fortunately there is a way around it.

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #239: Never be afraid to mislabel a product.

There are ways to mislabel products, truthfully and within the law. Products can easily be labelled in such a way that the label is misleading and worse than useless, and this has already been abundantly demonstrated.

Suppose a buyer asked a food producer directly if his product contains a specific substance, do you think telling the truth would violate the producer's rights?

[jts]

Making a law requiring food labelling is a violation of the rights of food producers.

http://www.naturalne...fundraiser.html

If they pass such a law, fortunately there is a way around it.

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #239: Never be afraid to mislabel a product.

There are ways to mislabel products, truthfully and within the law. Products can easily be labelled in such a way that the label is misleading and worse than useless, and this has already been abundantly demonstrated.

Suppose a buyer asked a food producer directly if his product contains a specific substance, do you think telling the truth would violate the producer's rights?

Read the label. The label has a complete list of ingredients. None of them is the substance in question. Does that answer your question?

_{For example one of the ingredients is modified starch, which contains the substance in question.}

[jts]

There's nothing that a government can do, that private, for-profit, competing consumer

organizations and labs - lending their stamp of approval to product labels - can't do better,

faster, and more impartially. All without encouraging the addiction of dependency on the State.

There is the case of Rawesome Foods. Both Alex Jones of infowars and Mike Adams of naturalnews were on that case like ugly on an ape. Rawesome Foods sold raw milk, which is illegal. Nobody complained. Everybody knew they were getting raw milk, so there was no deception. Some people prefer raw milk. Rawesome Foods passed all the tests for cleanliness. Nobody got sick. The only problem was raw milk was illegal. The government came with guns drawn and dumped all the milk and most of the other food and shut down Rawesome Foods and put the Rawesome Foods guy in jail.

Do you really think private, for-profit, competing consumer organizations and labs would have dunnit better, faster, and more impartially than government dunnit?

[anthony]

There's nothing that a government can do, that private, for-profit, competing consumer organizations and labs - lending their stamp of approval to product labels - can't do better, faster, and more impartially. All without encouraging the addiction of dependency on the State.

There is the case of Rawesome Foods. Both Alex Jones of infowars and Mike Adams of naturalnews were on that case like ugly on an ape. Rawesome Foods sold raw milk, which is illegal. Nobody complained. Everybody knew they were getting raw milk, so there was no deception. Some people prefer raw milk. Rawesome Foods passed all the tests for cleanliness. Nobody got sick. The only problem was raw milk was illegal. The government came with guns drawn and dumped all the milk and most of the other food and shut down Rawesome Foods and put the Rawesome Foods guy in jail. Do you really think private, for-profit, competing consumer organizations and labs would have dunnit better, faster, and more impartially than government dunnit?

I don't get you. I am talking about information and knowledge for people to make up their

own minds what they take into their own bodies - and you're talking about intervention and force.

Where do they meet?

.

[caroljane]

Indeed, Tony, communication is fitful with this poster. He can only pass on samizdats from his self-built Lubyanka cell in a malevolent universe.

[anthony]

Indeed, Tony, communication is fitful with this poster. He can only pass on samizdats from his self-built Lubyanka cell in a malevolent universe.

For me, jts is an enigma, maybe a skeptic. Evidently a bright fellow; like my dad used to say

"Too clever, by half". Has it ever seemed to you that sustaining a bleak universal view

requires hugely more work, and high mental prowess? Convoluted and complicated.

Though Einstein differed:

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Simplicity is a pleasant relief.

Tony the Lazy.

[jts]

There's nothing that a government can do, that private, for-profit, competing consumer organizations and labs - lending their stamp of approval to product labels - can't do better, faster, and more impartially. All without encouraging the addiction of dependency on the State.

There is the case of Rawesome Foods. Both Alex Jones of infowars and Mike Adams of naturalnews were on that case like ugly on an ape. Rawesome Foods sold raw milk, which is illegal. Nobody complained. Everybody knew they were getting raw milk, so there was no deception. Some people prefer raw milk. Rawesome Foods passed all the tests for cleanliness. Nobody got sick. The only problem was raw milk was illegal. The government came with guns drawn and dumped all the milk and most of the other food and shut down Rawesome Foods and put the Rawesome Foods guy in jail. Do you really think private, for-profit, competing consumer organizations and labs would have dunnit better, faster, and more impartially than government dunnit?

I don't get you. I am talking about information and knowledge for people to make up their

own minds what they take into their own bodies - and you're talking about intervention and force.

Where do they meet?

.

I was trying to be funny. Raiding a raw milk establishment with guns drawn is ridiculous.

If anyone is really concerned about the safety of raw milk, it is sufficient to inform people of the dangers and let people decide for themselves.

I do not believe government was concerned about the safety of raw milk.

[Xray]

Suppose a buyer asked a food producer directly if his product contains a specific substance, do you think telling the truth would violate the producer's rights?

Read the label. The label has a complete list of ingredients. None of them is the substance in question. Does that answer your question?

No. For I was going by your above-mentioned scenario of mislabeling products. Let's say a potentially harmful substance X is 'camouflaged' by mislabeling it on the product package. A consumer has become suspicious, contacts the food producer and asks him the direct question "Does this specific label mean that your product contains substance X?" Would telling the the customer the truth violate the producer's rights?

[anthony]

I was trying to be funny. Raiding a raw milk establishment with guns drawn is ridiculous.

Ah - understood. Can't you find a sardonic/sarcastic/ironic Smiley?

[Selene]

I was trying to be funny. Raiding a raw milk establishment with guns drawn is ridiculous.

If anyone is really concerned about the safety of raw milk, it is sufficient to inform people of the dangers and let people decide for themselves.

I do not believe government was concerned about the safety of raw milk.

Researchers have long observed the so-called "farm effect" -- the low allergy and asthma rates found among kids raised on farms -- in central Europe, but less is known about the influence of growing up on North American farms.

Holbreich, an allergist in Indianapolis, has been treating Amish communities in Indiana for two decades, but he noticed that very few Amish actually had any allergies.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/05/07/amish-farm-kids-remarkably-immune-to-allergies-study-finds/#ixzz1uDXFQPRt

[jts]

Suppose a buyer asked a food producer directly if his product contains a specific substance, do you think telling the truth would violate the producer's rights?

Read the label. The label has a complete list of ingredients. None of them is the substance in question. Does that answer your question?

No. For I was going by your above-mentioned scenario of mislabeling products. Let's say a potentially harmful substance X is 'camouflaged' by mislabeling it on the product package. A consumer has become suspicious, contacts the food producer and asks him the direct question "Does this specific label mean that your product contains substance X?" Would telling the the customer the truth violate the producer's rights?

So far as I know, there is no such thing as violating one's own rights. But I have been accused of not knowing anything about Objectivism, so you should not take my word on that.

In the MSG Myth discussion site, people have asked food producers the direct question. So far as I recall nobody got a straight answer.

Fortunately asking them the direct question is not necessary. It is sufficient to know how to read dishonest labels. I usually avoid things that need a list of ingredients. Get yourself a list of ingredients to avoid and maybe memorize it. If a food has a list of ingredients and it is a long one, I don't bother reading it because if it's that long it has something bad in it.

[caroljane]

Indeed, Tony, communication is fitful with this poster. He can only pass on samizdats from his self-built Lubyanka cell in a malevolent universe.

For me, jts is an enigma, maybe a skeptic. Evidently a bright fellow; like my dad used to say

"Too clever, by half". Has it ever seemed to you that sustaining a bleak universal view

requires hugely more work, and high mental prowess? Convoluted and complicated.

Though Einstein differed:

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Simplicity is a pleasant relief.

Tony the Lazy.

Indeed, Tony, communication is fitful with this poster. He can only pass on samizdats from his self-built Lubyanka cell in a malevolent universe.

For me, jts is an enigma, maybe a skeptic. Evidently a bright fellow; like my dad used to say

"Too clever, by half". Has it ever seemed to you that sustaining a bleak universal view

requires hugely more work, and high mental prowess? Convoluted and complicated.

Though Einstein differed:

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Simplicity is a pleasant relief.

Tony the Lazy.

I am sure that maintaining skepticism (much less total rejection) of most information input from the universe around us is beyond tiring, more so than mere critical thinking. I remember a poster on Oonline saying that thinking was "exhausting"; and consistently negative thinking must be unrelenting effort. It goes against the tendency of normal human psychology, which is to be slightly, irrationally optiimistic.

And crusaders who are driven by hatred of their opponents, more than by love of their own cause, I believe harm themselves as much as they do their ideological enemies. They may be happy warriors but righteous anger can be intoxocating, and unleavened as a constant diet can be lethal, Look at Andrew Breitbart.

Carol the Lazier

[Dan Haggerty]

Do you really think private, for-profit, competing consumer organizations and labs would have dunnit better, faster, and more impartially than government dunnit?

Actually yes as it already happens daily. AIB is a for profit program instituted by and used for commercial food companies in a similar way other industries use United Laboratories. Most of the big food companies (like Green Giant) require food producers who use their brand name to use them for self-auditing. They require standards that are above Government minimum standards and getting a superior rating is considered a marketable achievement for food manufacturers.

I developed the trucking division for a food manufacturer (up until two years ago) and they used them. I had to make sure the truck cleaning schedules and training was documented for the AIB tests. The government requires no such thing and the Department of Agriculture *may* inspect a truck during an inspection but doesn’t make it a priority (in ten years they checked one truck once and only because it happened to be at the dock during an inspection).

Several years ago when the Peanut Butter scare happened that was an AIB plant. They knew about the problem as it was announced, got the company to track and recall its product, and had people inspect all other companies nationally that week to insure that if the problem was an inspection or process error no other food producer had the same issue. Literally weeks after the AIB team handled it promptly, not only to save lives but as a company to show the food industry it was still the premiere outfit for food safety, the Government inspectors started to go to food companies do their own inspection. I cringe to think what weeks of delay would have done if it was a real crisis. Good thing it wasn’t one but if it was it’s great to know that a competent private sector for-profit company was involved to handle the issue.

[Xray]

You have no right to know what is in the food you eat

Was that the philosophical background from which the two old dears in the hilarious comedy Arsenic and Old Lace were operating when they spiked their homemade elderberry wine with "arsenic, strychnine and just pinch of cyanide" and served it to their guests?

[Selene]

You have no right to know what is in the food you eat

Was that the philosophical background from which the two old dears in the hilarious comedy Arsenic and Old Lace were operating when they spiked their homemade elderberry wine with  "arsenic, strychnine and just pinch of cyanide" and served it to their guests?

Angela:

One of my top two hundred films!Helen Hayes is amazing in the film as is Cary Grant...his turns and takes are brilliant!Adam

[caroljane]

Is that the one where he shouts jubilantly "And I'm the son of a sea cook!"? Gorgeous comedy.