Nutella could carry warning...

Originally posted by spruce112358
So you would agree that labelling Nutella is less urgent, I guess.

I'm not sure if the rest of the world has gone the very dramatic pictures of ulcerated mouth disease/close ups of cancerous lung/ as warning labels on cigarette packets, but it would be a hoot if nutella et al were forced to put pictures of morbidly obese people on their packaging.

Or that old jenny craig favorite of extra pounds as slabs of lard. I think that's the solution. Food should be lard rated, little bars of lard on the side to let you know, you know, so you could compare things and say well this only has 2 lard bars, it should be okay(...if you were a family of 4 and you needed a weeks supply of calories that is...)

Really fat people will eventually be confused for being very snobbish or pretentious because people would be constantly sniggering at how la de dah they were............

Originally posted by FMF
As a matter of interest, do you think that, say, a TV news item talking about tobacco killing 500,000 Americans every year, and other detrimental effects of smoking, encroaches on Big Tobacco's liberty in some way? If the TV report took pains to mention every single brand of cigarette, would that stifle competition between the producers of those brands?

No and no -- although I didn't understand the point of the second statement.

Originally posted by spruce112358
So you would agree that labelling Nutella is less urgent, I guess.

Well I don't hold the view that Nutella kills countless millions people every year, if that's what you mean. Still, it sounds like common sense to label food that have potential dangers. I certainly find the arch-rhetoric about labelling being a danger to liberty totally baffling. People around the world struggling and even risking their lives for rights and liberty would surely just laugh at you, no?

Originally posted by FMF
Well I don't hold the view that Nutella kills countless millions people every year, if that's what you mean. Still, it sounds like common sense to label food that have potential dangers. I certainly find the arch-rhetoric about labelling being a danger to liberty totally baffling. People around the world struggling and even risking their lives for rights and liberty would surely just laugh at you, no?

but the price of liberty is eternal vigilence. Its not just about the big picture, as important as that is, its also about preventing a critical mass of anti-liberty forming among the munitiae

Originally posted by FMF
Well I don't hold the view that Nutella kills countless millions people every year, if that's what you mean. Still, it sounds like common sense to label food that have potential dangers. I certainly find the arch-rhetoric about labelling being a danger to liberty totally baffling. People around the world struggling and even risking their lives for rights and liberty would surely just laugh at you, no?

I want manufacturers to be at liberty to give me what I want. I don't want them spending time giving me what I don't want (but which the government says I really should want. Even though I don't want it.)

If everybody wanted it but me, that would be one thing. But nobody really wants it. The government THINKS we should want it.

I don't see this as a danger to my personal liberty -- just needless interference and laughable in that the government is proposing to give people even MORE things they don't want.

But you seem to be on board with the whole 'Nutella is a biohazard' thing -- you don't find that silly?

Originally posted by spruce112358
I want manufacturers to be at liberty to give me what I want. I don't want them spending time giving me what I don't want (but which the government says I really should want. Even though I don't want it.)

Just ignore the health warnings then. You are at liberty to do so.

Originally posted by kmax87
I'm not sure if the rest of the world has gone the very dramatic pictures of ulcerated mouth disease/close ups of cancerous lung/ as warning labels on cigarette packets, but it would be a hoot if nutella et al were forced to put pictures of morbidly obese people on their packaging.

Or that old jenny craig favorite of extra pounds as slabs of lard. I thi ...[text shortened]... etentious because people would be constantly sniggering at how la de dah they were............

In defense of lard, it makes one heckuva nice pie crust.

Originally posted by FMF
Just ignore the health warnings then. You are at liberty to do so.

Yes, I am.

But that doesn't address the point of the government forcing companies to take time away from ME the customer and MY needs/desires which the company would otherwise be trying to fulfill.

I think the Nutella scheme fits the bill of something the government should cease and desist on.

Originally posted by spruce112358
I want manufacturers to be at liberty to give me what I want. I don't want them spending time giving me what I don't want (but which the government says I really should want. Even though I don't want it.)

If everybody wanted it but me, that would be one thing. But nobody really wants it. The government THINKS we should want it.

I don't see this as be on board with the whole 'Nutella is a biohazard' thing -- you don't find that silly?

In the US (at least), all food is required to include a standardized label providing information on things like the amount of fat, protein, carbohydrates, fiber, sugar, sodium, etc. I find these labels to be immensely helpful when deciding what items to buy. I don't buy anything because "the government is telling me to buy it" and I would NEVER buy anything that I don't want.

As for Nutella - I've never heard of it (I guess it's not that popular in the US, or at least in the northeastern part of the US). But from Wikipedia, it seems to be the rough equivalent of chocolate ice cream with hazel nuts. I don't understand why there should be a special warning label for this particular food item that wouldn't apply to ice cream in general.

Those who are interested in their health would be able to read the label on Nutella and see that it undoubtedly includes large amounts of sugar and fat and decide accordingly -- as for those who don't care about this stuff, they don't care about this stuff

Originally posted by spruce112358
But that doesn't address the point of the government forcing companies to take time away from ME the customer and MY needs/desires which the company would otherwise be trying to fulfill.

I think the Nutella scheme fits the bill of something the government should cease and desist on.

If Nutella changed their ingredients and their product became a significantly greater potential threat to customers' health, should Nutella be free to keep it secret?

Originally posted by spruce112358
I didn't say the information shouldn't be available. I said putting it on the label is putting it in a place and format few care about.

We don't know what companies might put there instead that might be more interesting to us because it isn't allowed.

Probably, companies would start competing with each other to post information that is more releva ...[text shortened]...
That's the rich potential of alllowing competition instead of stifling it as you suggest.

Why is it so hard to understand that it's not in the food industry's interests to inform consumers about their products? That's why they are not going to do it - at least not voluntarily - even if consumers want it. Your argument is equivalent to saying no one will ever be conned, because people don't like being conned and conmen will have to close business because of lack of costumers.

Originally posted by FMF
If Nutella changed their ingredients and their product became a significantly greater potential threat to customers' health, should Nutella be free to keep it secret?

That's a moot point. If they did do that, today's labeling wouldn't catch it. Still, it would be strange for a company to knowingly commit such a crime which would surely put them out of business once it was discovered, sooner or later.

But no labeling scheme short of FDA's could protect against that sort of thing. Are you in favor of a similar sort of "food approval process" so that we can generate "proper" labels outlining the risk/benefit for foods? Roughly 10 years of trials and studies before a new food product can be launched?

If we do that, a 32 oz jar of Nutella will cost you $750 dollars. But never fear! With Universal Food Care -- things like cost don't matter. You just have insurance companies pay for your food.

Yes, that sounds like another plan that has been kicking around lately.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Why is it so hard to understand that it's not in the food industry's interests to inform consumers about their products? That's why they are not going to do it - at least not voluntarily - even if consumers want it. Your argument is equivalent to saying no one will ever be conned, because people don't like being conned and conmen will have to close business because of lack of costumers.

Sure it is, if customers decide they want to know. Once that occurs, companies will bend over backwards to give customers the sort of information that will make people buy THEIR product instead of a competitors' product. Or, if they are inferior, they improve their product somehow.

And since all the companies check each other's statements, being exposed as a cheat puts you out of business in nothing flat.

Competition makes cons a lot harder to work. Besides -- con men have to stay anonymous which is not possible for corporations.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Sure it is, if customers decide they want to know. Once that occurs, companies will bend over backwards to give customers the sort of information that will make people buy THEIR product instead of a competitors' product. Or, if they are inferior, they improve their product somehow.

And since all the companies check each other's statements, being expo ...[text shortened]... der to work. Besides -- con men have to stay anonymous which is not possible for corporations.

Businesses don't provide what the consumer wants. They provide what makes them the most money. There is some overlap, but they are not the same.

Consumers want, generally speaking, food that is both tasty and healthy, or some compromise between the two depending on preference. If consumers don't know how healthy food is, they aren't going to study scientific literature to find out because people are lazy. So if the food industry does not need to provide any information, they're not going to. But if the information is easily available on the label, consumers will adapt their decisions in the supermarket. For example, they might buy a different snack that is less unhealthy if they can very easily verify this.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Why is it so hard to understand that it's not in the food industry's interests to inform consumers about their products? That's why they are not going to do it - at least not voluntarily - even if consumers want it. Your argument is equivalent to saying no one will ever be conned, because people don't like being conned and conmen will have to close business because of lack of costumers.

The only regulation there should be is against making false claims. A type of fraud. If a product has no list of ingredients and you only eat products that do list their ingredients, go a find products that do so. NO ONE OWES you that. You under estimate the power of consumers in the two way voluntary exchange of value for value that is the trade between two parties.

Not listing ingredients does not amount to a con or conmen.

You can probably google the author.


“The consumers patronize those shops in which they can buy what they want at the cheapest price. Their buying and their abstention from buying decides who should own and run the plants and the farms. They make poor people rich and rich people poor. They determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantities. They are merciless bosses, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction. They do not care a whit for past merit and vested interests. If something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors. In their capacity as buyers and consumers they are hard-hearted and callous, without consideration for other people.”