Originally posted by WajomaWhere is the false claim in my example? The manufacturer exercises his "freedom of speech" and has put no claims on the package. It is neither claimed that there is arsenic in the baby food, nor that it is not present. There is no conceivable "fraud" or crime here, unless the government specifically forbids the use of arsenic in baby food or requires manufacturers to clearly label its presence.
...and it bores the doodoo out of me but it better be done to preempt the intellectuals from being too clever.
They are not allowed to make false claims about their product. This would be a type of fraud.
GE free manufacturers are free to label their product as GE free if they wish.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDid they claim it to be "Baby Food"
Where is the false claim in my example? The manufacturer exercises his "freedom of speech" and has put no claims on the package. It is neither claimed that there is arsenic in the baby food, nor that it is not present. There is no conceivable "fraud" or crime here, unless the government specifically forbids the use of arsenic in baby food or requires manufacturers to clearly label its presence.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI prefer to figure what is right, and what is wrong, than to see what happens to be the latest fashion or whim.
[bFortunately, we have developed a nifty tool called "democracy" to reach a compromise about what we consider to be essential information and what is not essential information.
[/b]
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAwww jeez, that's kinda cute, you thought you were being tricky with the 'trace elements', don't recall saying anything about amounts, great or small, so there has been no 1 degree, 37 degree or 180 degree turns.
Most foods available in supermarkets today contain trace amounts of various toxins. According to you and your bizarre 180 degree turn, the producers of these foodstuffs are all fraudsters?
Fact is millions of people consume hundreds of tons of food everyday with out goobermint oversight. And millions of people are grateful for that, because all that regulation costs money. Money for compliance costs and money for an army of non-productive, busybody, hurdle erecting, bureaurats.
Originally posted by WajomaSo... can toxic substances be sold as food or not?
Awww jeez, that's kinda cute, you thought you were being tricky with the 'trace elements', don't recall saying anything about amounts, great or small, so there has been no 1 degree, 37 degree or 180 degree turns.
Fact is millions of people consume hundreds of tons of food everyday with out goobermint oversight. And millions of people are grateful for tha ...[text shortened]... compliance costs and money for an army of non-productive, busybody, hurdle erecting, bureaurats.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPerhaps we could address this question to Finnegan, isn't sugar allowed by the guvamint, but here in this statement Finnegan asserts that sugar is a poison. A guvamint permitted poison?
So... can toxic substances be sold as food or not?
Finnegan: " ...while failing to explain the use of sugar and other poisons as a substitute for fat..."
Originally posted by WajomaCorrect and (American) food industry lobbies have ensured it stayed that way. You forget too conveniently that America has sold its democracy to the highest bidder. I am not an advocate of corporately run government - I am an advocate of democracy and accountable government.
Perhaps we could address this question to Finnegan, isn't sugar allowed by the guvamint, but here in this statement Finnegan asserts that sugar is a poison. A guvamint permitted poison?
Finnegan: " ...while failing to explain the use of sugar and other poisons as a substitute for fat..."
Originally posted by WajomaNestle has sold baby milk as a suitable food for babies in the face of evidence that their product was far less appropriate than natural mother's milk. When they got pushed back in the developed economies they expanded into the less developed countries where ineffective government gave consumers little protection. They still use confusing promotions that leave mothers unsure how best to feed their babies.
But it does by definition say that it is suitable to be consumed as baby food.
Originally posted by WajomaCan toxic substances be sold as food? Yes or no?
Perhaps we could address this question to Finnegan, isn't sugar allowed by the guvamint, but here in this statement Finnegan asserts that sugar is a poison. A guvamint permitted poison?
Finnegan: " ...while failing to explain the use of sugar and other poisons as a substitute for fat..."
