26 Apr '14 22:24>
Originally posted by finneganWhen you said 'independent' I thought you meant independent.
Bizarre interpretation. If people can choose to consume drugs ruled unsafe it follows that the producers can persist in selling drugs that have been ruled unsafe. So how will that work? They could just as well remove all regulation in which case, as we know from the track record, the drug companies will cheerfully push poisons and call them health foods. Th ...[text shortened]... armed. They already do.
Just try switching on your head some time. It might surprise us all.
How would it work? Companies could choose to have their product certified and pay for that to happen. People could then choose to purchase certified products and as part of the price pay for the certification. It's called User Pays, I know this is going to be mind blowing for you but this is when you use something and you pay for it, and when you don't use something you don't pay for it, radical I know. It's probably pretty much diametrically opposite to what you prefer i.e. don't use it but forced to pay for it, or use it but force someone else to pay.
Of course both certified and uncertified companies cannot make false claims about their products that's a type of fraud. Calling something a health food could be a bit grey, the term is open to interpretation, but call it, for example, health food certified by The Heart Foundation, ok, that has got to achieve a standard and the term would be protected by copyright or trademark.