Originally posted by KazetNagorra No, they would choose to get no certification because it costs money and doesn't give them any competitive advantage because not all producers are forced to use the same system so the consumer can compare.
They have a superior i.e. more healthy product but they wouldn't want anyone to know about it?
It is only right that people that want (for eg) GE free products pay for that certification and labeling they do this when manufacturers pass the certification cost onto them. It is wrong to force other producers to comply or pay for that system. Isn't this how the ISO 9001 system is currently working.
Originally posted by Wajoma They have a superior i.e. more healthy product but they wouldn't want anyone to know about it?
It is only right that people that want (for eg) GE free products pay for that certification and labeling they do this when manufacturers pass the certification cost onto them. It is wrong to force other producers to comply or pay for that system. Isn't this how the ISO 9001 system is currently working.
Food producers advertise all the time that their product is healthy. The problem is no one is checking these claims, so it's meaningless to the consumer and just another example of misleading.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra So cartels should just be left alone and freely defraud costumers, because... well, why exactly?
By the way, there are plenty of industries where there are intrinsic entry barriers for new players in the market, e.g. steel manufacturing.
Not if they have defrauded someone.
But before we get around to putting cartels in jail, what fraud is that? Whose rights have a cartel stomped upon such that the deserve to be prosecuted?
When companies band together and set production quotas, a lot of us don't like that. OK. A lot of us don't like advertising feminine hygene products -- but we don't prosecute companies for doing that.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Food producers advertise all the time that their product is healthy. The problem is no one is checking these claims, so it's meaningless to the consumer and just another example of misleading.
So ban advertising. After all, we wouldn't someone to exercise their right to free speech when they might mislead someone thereby.
Originally posted by spruce112358 Not if they have defrauded someone.
But before we get around to putting cartels in jail, what fraud is that? Whose rights have a cartel stomped upon such that the deserve to be prosecuted?
When companies band together and set production quotas, a lot of us don't like that. OK. A lot of us don't like advertising feminine hygene products -- but we don't prosecute companies for doing that.
Aren't all laws and regulations basically nothing more than efforts to prevent stuff that "a lot of us don't like"?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Food producers advertise all the time that their product is healthy. The problem is no one is checking these claims, so it's meaningless to the consumer and just another example of misleading.
You didn't read my post? It wasn't long or complicated.
They may both make claims to being healthy, and like anti-wrinkle creams that is a very broad claim that may in some circumstances be correct. But it is only the manufacturer that opts for, and pays for the independant testing that can advertise that their product has been tested and certified. The consumer before purchasing checks for the independent certifiers stamp of approval.
Originally posted by Wajoma You didn't read my post? It wasn't long or complicated.
They may both make claims to being healthy, and like anti-wrinkle creams that is a very broad claim that may in some circumstances be correct. But it is only the manufacturer that opts for, and pays for the independant testing that can advertise that their product has been tested and certified. The consumer before purchasing checks for the independent certifiers stamp of approval.
How many consumers do you know who explicitly verify the scientific credentials of certification institutions?!
Originally posted by spruce112358 So ban advertising. After all, we wouldn't someone to exercise their right to free speech when they might mislead someone thereby.
Well, I would certainly be in favour of drastically limiting the lying producers are allowed to do in advertising - but remember there is also a productive purpose of advertising: to make consumers aware of products they genuinely want. So, ideally, producers should be able to inform, but not mislead. For starters, it would be a good idea if producers are forced to provide scientific backup for every factual claim they make.
Originally posted by Wajoma Any that think it is important.
Most consumers value knowing the healthiness of food, but most also don't want to spend several weeks researching scientific journals and various institutions in order to adequately decide what meal they are going to have tonight.
Originally posted by spruce112358 Not if they have defrauded someone.
But before we get around to putting cartels in jail, what fraud is that? Whose rights have a cartel stomped upon such that the deserve to be prosecuted?
When companies band together and set production quotas, a lot of us don't like that. OK. A lot of us don't like advertising feminine hygene products -- but we don't prosecute companies for doing that.
Why are you asking these questions? A cartel is a distortion of the true market price, surely this is something you should oppose without a second though?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Most consumers value knowing the healthiness of food, but most also don't want to spend several weeks researching scientific journals and various institutions in order to adequately decide what meal they are going to have tonight.
Deaths - should they occur - might be reported in the newspapers, so - over time - it might be possible for consumers to make an informed choice without spending several weeks researching scientific journals and various institutions.
Nutella could carry warning...
02 Jul '10 12:14
Back to Top