Nutella could carry warning...

Originally posted by Wajoma
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.

It seems we have found some common ground here. The unregulated sale of blatantly fraudulent products such as anti-wrinkle cream or homeopathic medicine has annoyed me for quite some time. These sort of products, which advertise some kind of effect which has not been scientifically established should come with a warning label at the very least.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It seems we have found some common ground here. The unregulated sale of blatantly fraudulent products such as anti-wrinkle cream or homeopathic medicine has annoyed me for quite some time. These sort of products, which advertise some kind of effect which has not been scientifically established should come with a warning label at the very least.

There's no common ground on compulsory warnings.

If the claims are false take em to court, you don't allow the false claims to carry on with a mandatory warning.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
These sort of products, which advertise some kind of effect which has not been scientifically established should come with a warning label at the very least.

Like religion - "It works only if you believe in it."

Originally posted by Wajoma
There's no common ground on compulsory warnings.

If the claims are false take em to court, you don't allow the false claims to carry on with a mandatory warning.

But then what you are suggesting goes much further than a warning label - anti-wrinkle cream is not illegal, so going to court won't make any difference. You are suggesting a ban on anti-wrinkle cream? Or are you saying claims that a cream works against wrinkles should be illegal? That could work, though it also goes further than a warning label.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But then what you are suggesting goes much further than a warning label - anti-wrinkle cream is not illegal, so going to court won't make any difference. You are suggesting a ban on anti-wrinkle cream? Or are you saying claims that a cream works against wrinkles should be illegal? That could work, though it also goes further than a warning label.

If the claims are specific enough to be blatantly false that is fraud. But I think you'll find those products come with all sorts of disclaimers. Buyer beware.

Originally posted by Wajoma
If the claims are specific enough to be blatantly false that is fraud. But I think you'll find those products come with all sorts of disclaimers. Buyer beware.

So, in your view, what should such a disclaimer have to say?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So, in your view, what should such a disclaimer have to say?

If the claim is so general, which they often are, no disclaimer is necessary. Calling your product anti-wrinkle cream is such a claim. Even scientifically proven is open to many definitions. But if they were to say something like scientifically proven to reduce wrinkles by %25 by such and such organisation.

This is when private independant testing and consumer groups come in. A manufacturer might like to have their product certified by a well known organisation. The cost of testing would be passed on to the consumers of that product. Those who want to risk buying an unknown, untested, cheap product are free to. That's not your business.

Originally posted by Wajoma
If the claim is so general, which they often are, no disclaimer is necessary. Calling your product anti-wrinkle cream is such a claim. Even scientifically proven is open to many definitions. But if they were to say something like scientifically proven to reduce wrinkles by %25 by such and such organisation.

This is when private independant testing and ...[text shortened]... want to risk buying an unknown, untested, cheap product are free to. That's not your business.

First you argue that manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to make false claims about their products to mislead consumers. Then you realize you are arguing for more government control, and now you're backpeddling. Highly amusing.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
First you argue that manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to make false claims about their products to mislead consumers. Then you realize you are arguing for more government control, and now you're backpeddling. Highly amusing.

I didn't really expect to have a coherent discussion with you. You've already expressed your belief that your fellow man is unable to make decisions for himself, he needs...what...other men to do that for him, you see yourself as one more qualified.

Wajoma always stumbles and starts pouting at exactly the same point whenever this kind of thing is discussed.

In previous debates with Wajoma, he did state that he was NOT an anarchist - that he agrees that government does have some role to play - just that it be limited to things like protecting life, liberty, and property -- and this would include fraud since fraud is essentially an attempt to steal someone else's property.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
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 sc ...[text shortened]... they might buy a different snack that is less unhealthy if they can very easily verify this.

The overlap is almost total -- the only way to make the most money is to provide the consumer exactly what he wants.

You say, "people are lazy" but again I disagree. People are seldom lazy in pursuing their own self-interest. Where they become lazy is in doing things they are told to do that they don't really WANT to do (e.g. the government says you should read this information and calculate your MDR compliance and caloric intake.) People expend their energy on the tasks that will give them the most benefit.

I guess Melanerpes is not lazy, but as for the rest of us...!

Nutella is a food product. The implied contract when a company sells a food product is that they expect you to consume it and therefore they know that doing so is at least harmless. So selling something they know will harm you when you consume it is a violation of that contract -- and companies should be punished for that if they do it.

My issue with labeling is not that it is harmful -- just that it does little good. And because it is a "legal requirement" companies have no way to replace it with something better.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It seems we have found some common ground here. The unregulated sale of blatantly fraudulent products such as anti-wrinkle cream or homeopathic medicine has annoyed me for quite some time. These sort of products, which advertise some kind of effect which has not been scientifically established should come with a warning label at the very least.

You say homeopathic medicines annoy you, but to do the sort of research required to generate FDA-approved labels for safety and efficacy costs hundreds of millions of dollars -- which means that only companies with huge bankrolls can participate. I assume that annoys you, too?

It certainly drives up costs because it limits competition among medications -- and incidentally ensures that only "Big Market" diseases get attention. Heck, companies stopped producing vaccines a few years ago because they were not profitable enough. and medical services had to ration tetanus boosters.

Patients have very individualized responses to medications. Some people get huge benefits from sugar pills (i.e. placebo effect). And for EVERY medication I guarantee there is someone out there who will take it and keel over. There is no such thing as a "universally safe" medication. As an example, there was a girl -- I forget where -- who was allergic to water!* So if you test a large enough population, you will determine that every drug ever produced is unsafe.

And by the way, food products like table sugar or anything alcoholic? If you were going for approval today -- forget it. You'd never be allowed to sell them.

So what I want is for companies to go after that sort of information. Greater understanding of what their customers want -- who benefits, who doesn't. I don't want companies to waste time standing around waiting for the government to tell them what to do -- because they government is notoriously inept at this sort of investigation.

Let the free market do what it does best -- give people what they want.

*aquagenic pruritis

Originally posted by spruce112358
In defense of lard, it makes one heckuva nice pie crust.

there's a homer_ism....l.a.a.r.r.r.d.d.d!!! 🙂

Originally posted by spruce112358
You say homeopathic medicines annoy you, but to do the sort of research required to generate FDA-approved labels for safety and efficacy costs hundreds of millions of dollars -- which means that only companies with huge bankrolls can participate. I assume that annoys you, too?

It certainly drives up costs because it limits competition among medicatio ...[text shortened]... he free market do what it does best -- give people what they want.

*aquagenic pruritis

Well, it takes some effort to establish whether or not something is effective and/or it has some dangerous side effects. Many such efforts have been spent trying to establish the efficacy of homeopathic medicine. All failed. Ironically, all the problems you cite disappear when the government funds medical research, but I suppose that wasn't your point.

I could probably make a sugary food or alcoholic drink today and have it approved. Why do you believe otherwise?

Why do you believe companies are interested in how their consumer benefits? Again, the interests of the consumer and the interests of the company are not the same - or do you genuinely believe it's in the consumer's interests to buy anti wrinkle cream with zero effectiveness for an absurdly high price?