From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 14:27:46 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 5, 2002, at 08:45 pm, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Free markets require that the consumer make the effort to keep
> > themselves informed. They do not require that producers of said produces
> > be the informers. If a producer uses a process, method, or ingredient
> > which the consumer does not like or want, it is the consumer's 'caveat
> > emptor' responsibility to divine that fact, either by the honest
> > voluntary disclosures of the producer, or via trusted third parties who
> > do product testing (i.e. Consumer Reports, etc).
>
> Really? So you are against nutrient labeling on food also? And against
> ingredient lists? You just want "meat loaf" on the label with no clue
> as to what kind of meat, how much meat versus how much filler, or even
> if it contains any meat at all? What if you had a whole store shelf
> full of 50 brands of "meat loaf" with no details? How do you tell what
> to buy? I don't see how less information on the label helps anybody
> except people who want to push unwanted products.
You obviously didn't read a damn thing I wrote.
> > Caveat Emptor, as you
> > are likely aware, means 'buyer beware', thus implying that it is the
> > consumers responsibility to do due diligence to become and remain
> > informed.
>
> How do you become informed if the company doesn't want you to know? If
> they don't put it on their label, why would they put it on their
> website? If their meat loaf was really soy dog food with gravy, they
> would never mention it in any company literature. How would a person
> find out? Do a lab test on every product after they opened it?
The company can't control what independent testers like Consumer Reports
finds in its own testing. Consumers need to be responsible about keeping
informed so long as they are not producing their own food.
>
> > If GM content is so important to consumers, then they will not buy
> > products which do not promote themselves as GM free, and are verified as
> > such by a third party testing agency. Any consumer who claims to not
> > want GM but doesn't take the responsibility to do their own due
> > diligence is an idiot who deserves to munch on GM.
>
> Oh, yeah. When Food Lion put chlorine bleach into their white fish to
> make it look better, it was the consumer's fault. They didn't test the
> fish for chlorine bleach before eating it. Food Lion had no incentive
> to mention that their fish wasn't like other fish or might contain new
> stuff that consumers didn't want. According to you, everyone who ate
> bleached fish from Food Lion deserved what they got and were idiots.
>
> Seriously, Mike, have you ever had a lab test done on any of your food
> to see if it contained what you thought it did? Haven't you just read
> the label and assumed that it meant the same thing it always meant?
> This seems like an unreasonable requirement.
I read consumers reports, and I am also experienced in product testing
(albeit in the field of commercial lighting). There is no legal mandate
that the lighting products I invented and sold be tested. There is a
mandate by certain jurisdictions that such products conform with UL
Standard 924 (a privately formulated standard, mind you, no government
money went into developing it), and you can say that you conform to that
standard all you want. Smart consumers who buy such products know that
it is a requirement and ask for the product to be listed with one or
more private testing labortories (UL, ETL, etc) to the above standard.
Similarly, a person who does not take responsibility for their own food
production is surrendering their rights to those who sell food to such
people. Said consumer can say "I'll only buy products whose labels tell
me what is in the product". But how do you know that they are telling
you the truth when they say how much in vitamins, minerals, protein,
fat, etc is in their food?
The fact is that large food producers tend to be far more accurate in
this area than smaller mom and pop producers (i.e. the vast majority of
so-called 'organic' producers). Large food processors tend to have
standardized product that in many cases meets pharmaceutical standards
of consistency and cleanliness. Large food producers also can afford to
have independent food testers verify their declared values as well as in
house quality control testers. Small mom and pop (i.e. most all
'organic' types) are generally hit and miss with broad variances in
quality and content.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:11 MST