Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member joneschr
    Some guy
    20 Apr '10 18:49 / 2 edits
    I've been seeing more and more of these signs posted around businesses lately:

    http://www.compliancesigns.com/media/CAWE/CAWE-9796_300.gif

    I've asked clerks/waiters at the stores what food/beverages this specifically is meant to address and what chemicals, and all I get are vague shrugs.

    Anyone know the details on why suddenly virtually every food-selling establishment feels obliged to start posting this? The lack of any more specific information makes this law truly pointless. Are customers realistically just supposed to boycot the entire establishment rather than learn more details on what products they are supposed to avoid?
  2. 20 Apr '10 18:56
    That is pretty useless indeed. If they know that certain chemicals are dangerous for human health, why not ban them?
  3. 20 Apr '10 19:08
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    That is pretty useless indeed. If they know that certain chemicals are dangerous for human health, why not ban them?
    monsanto.
  4. 20 Apr '10 19:08
    interstate commerce laws.
  5. 20 Apr '10 19:08
    lobbyists.
  6. 20 Apr '10 19:09
    greedy (i.e., realistic) politicians.
  7. Standard member joneschr
    Some guy
    20 Apr '10 20:00
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    That is pretty useless indeed. If they know that certain chemicals are dangerous for human health, why not ban them?
    It's one thing to place the responsibility on the consumer. If people choose to knowingly adopt cancer (and ideally forfeit health coverage for it), I guess that's an approach.

    But you have to at least give the consumer the tools to make the decision. Simply telling them to ban all the distributors, without telling them why, is pointless.
  8. 20 Apr '10 20:14 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by joneschr
    It's one thing to place the responsibility on the consumer. If people choose to knowingly adopt cancer (and ideally forfeit health coverage for it), I guess that's an approach.

    But you have to at least give the consumer the tools to make the decision. Simply telling them to ban all the distributors, without telling them why, is pointless.
    I agree - whatever this is about, it's stupid - it would be nice if the consumer had perhaps a wee bit of an idea about what chemicals the sign is specifically referring to. An example of such a chemical would be mercury which can be especially harmful to fetuses and young children.

    http://www.epa.gov/fishadvisories/advice/

    So if an establishment was selling tunafish or swordfish, they would probably have to post that menacing looking sign that would cause many to flee to the hills in terror - even though it would be perfectly safe (and actually healthy) for most people to eat these types of fish, as long as they didn't overdo it.

    Ultimately, everyone will end up ignoring these signs because they're so vague, and the actual risks that these signs are addressing will go unheeded by the people who should be heeding them.
  9. 21 Apr '10 06:40
    Originally posted by joneschr
    It's one thing to place the responsibility on the consumer. If people choose to knowingly adopt cancer (and ideally forfeit health coverage for it), I guess that's an approach.

    But you have to at least give the consumer the tools to make the decision. Simply telling them to ban all the distributors, without telling them why, is pointless.
    Why would any consumer WANT carcinogenic chemicals in their food? How many Randies are there out there?
  10. 21 Apr '10 10:56
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Why would any consumer WANT carcinogenic chemicals in their food? How many Randies are there out there?
    There's a lot of chemicals that can be dangerous if ingested in huge amounts by rats, but are perfectly harmless if you eat only very small amounts of them.