Society/Culture New York City - home of the 'nanny state'

[Niximus]

Doesn't mean its a benefit, as I pointed out, it is actually a net energy loss (emphasis added)

I put emphasis added so that you didn't come back at me and accuse me of editing the quotes as the bolding wasn't part of the original post.

 

[bit_pattern]

lulwut? I have better arguments than having to resort to that kind of diversionary tactic!

 

[Niximus]

Doesn't mean its a benefit, as I pointed out, it is actually a net energy loss (emphasis added).

And people choose to use cocaine, because it makes them feel good, nobody chooses to eat transfats because they provide energy. For the most part, they are foisted on an unsuspecting public who don't need them and don't want them. You were desperately grasping at straws to cover the fact that you your market self regulation argument had collapsed.

In what way, nobody will address it.

I make the claim that even if nutritional information was voluntary that companies would still print it because people want it.

Then others try to talk about trans fat, asbestos and lead.

So hazardous substances comparing with information that the consumer would be free to access anyway and you have said a few times in this thread - apples and oranges.

 

[Niximus]

lulwut? I have better arguments than having to resort to that kind of diversionary tactic!

The energy argument would say otherwise.

 

[Niximus]

This morning I even conceded that my original point had nothing to do with trans fat and that I really only took up the argument you put in my mouth and you still came back arguing about it.

I conceded that you could very well make a case for banning certain additives and substances and I tried to steer it back to the original post I made that set you all off but that wasn't enough either.

It's as if you believe that if I somehow right now said, yes BP you are right - trans fat should be banned - that what I was talking about before that would suddenly be invalidated.

 

[bit_pattern]

In what way, nobody will address it.

I make the claim that even if nutritional information was voluntary that companies would still print it because people want it.

Then others try to talk about trans fat, asbestos and lead.

So hazardous substances comparing with information that the consumer would be free to access anyway and you have said a few times in this thread - apples and oranges.

I believe we were talking about transfat, you ignored all my comments on labeling and only bit once you had started talking about whether transfat should or shouldn't be banned, that's the only reason poisons came into the discussion.

And why doesn't my local pizza place print nutritional information on their boxes then? You were complaining that they would have to "squeeze" the information on the boxes so the poor things shouldn't have to, and that having nutritional information upon request would be good enough, even though that would lead to fewer consumers making informed choices.

 

[Niximus]

We've gotten way off topic. My fault, sometimes I can't help continuing to debate all the side tracks the people try to throw in when their point fails, just for the hell of it I guess.

The truth is you can probably make an argument for banning certain substances and if you take either argument to the extremes the both can look rediculous (i.e. allowing people to use toxic substances in food at one end or banning anything that has negative health impacts at the other end).

The fact is that the original conversation was about legal ingredients and labels, not about illegal substances.

It is like when debating an R18+ rating for video games rather than them being Refused Classification (effectively banned). Bringing up child pr0n and having the supporter of an R18+ agree that it should be illegal does not make an argument that the government should determine what games are suitable (healthy) for an adult Australian.

My post from this morning

 

[bit_pattern]

You're the one who brought up illegal substances! Lead was once perfectly legal, indeed, the fact that it took government regulation to remove lead from food production completely undermines your self regulation argument.

The energy argument would say otherwise.

You're the one who brought up the energy argument too!

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

I will never willingly accept the label of argumentative bastard ever again.

 

[1jasonoz]

The Government shouldn't force the tabacco companies to put warnings on their products-they (the government) should just run an ad if the tobacco companies refuse to volutarily place the warnings on their products!!!

 

[Niximus]

The Government shouldn't force the tabacco companies to put warnings on their products-they (the government) should just run an ad if the tobacco companies refuse to volutarily place the warnings on their products!!!

They already run ads, do they not?

 

[1jasonoz]

They already run ads, do they not?

You don't believe the government should force tobacco companies to place compulsory warnings on their products do you-you believe it should be voluntary on the producers behalf!

 

[Niximus]

You don't believe the government should force tobacco companies to place compulsory warnings on their products do you-you believe it should be voluntary on the producers behalf!

Right, if the cut open brain on the TV on the TV or the paper isn't enough to get you to quit that's your problem.

What's next? Pictures of fat people on hamburger packets? Poor people on the entrance ot the casino? A pimply face on bars of chocolate?

How about a picture of an ugly bogan on HSV shirts?

 

[1jasonoz]

Right, if the cut open brain on the TV on the TV or the paper isn't enough to get you to quit that's your problem.

What's next? Pictures of fat people on hamburger packets? Poor people on the entrance ot the casino? A pimply face on bars of chocolate?

How about a picture of an ugly bogan on HSV shirts?

You didn't answer my question did you, i will ask it again for you;

"You don't believe the government should force tobacco companies to place compulsory warnings on their products do you-you believe it should be voluntary on the producers behalf".

 

[Niximus]

You didn't answer my question did you, i will ask it again for you;

"You don't believe the government should force tobacco companies to place compulsory warnings on their products do you-you believe it should be voluntary on the producers behalf".

Learn comprehension. I did answer and the answer is yes I do.If you need little pictures on everything that you know is bad for you to stop you buying it then get some bloody willpower.

 

[1jasonoz]

Learn comprehension. I did answer and the answer is yes I do.

Yes you do, wow great to hear you finally beleive the government should force tobacco producers to place warnings on their products-great about time you admitted it!!

 

[bit_pattern]

A). You didn't answer the question until now, you skirted around it, as you are want to do.

B). I'm still confused as to what you support? Is that a 'yes' the government should force tobacco companies tc, or, 'yes' you don't support government forcing tobacco etc

 

[Niximus]

For the record, I find smokers disgusting and personally have never smoked a cigarette, cigar or pipe in my life.

And for most of that time there were no pictures on the packets. It's not that hard.

 

[bit_pattern]

For the record, I find smokers disgusting and personally have never smoked a cigarette, cigar or pipe in my life.

And for most of that time there were no pictures on the packets. It's not that hard.

Uh, what?

Non sequiter much?

 

[1jasonoz]

For the record, I find smokers disgusting and personally have never smoked a cigarette, cigar or pipe in my life.

And for most of that time there were no pictures on the packets. It's not that hard.

Op's hold on, are you now against the government forcing tobacco producers to place the warnings on their products???

 

[Niximus]

Yes you do, wow great to hear you finally beleive the government should force tobacco producers to place warnings on their products-great about time you admitted it!!

A). You didn't answer the question until now, you skirted around it, as you are want to do.

B). I'm still confused as to what you support? Is that a 'yes' the government should force tobacco companies tc, or, 'yes' you don't support government forcing tobacco etc

Um this was the question

"You don't believe the government should force tobacco companies to place compulsory warnings on their products do you-you believe it should be voluntary on the producers behalf".

To which I replied that yes I do.

A). You didn't answer the question until now, you skirted around it, as you are want to do.

"You don't believe the government should force tobacco companies to place compulsory warnings on their products do you-you believe it should be voluntary on the producers behalf".

Right, if the cut open brain on the TV on the TV or the paper isn't enough to get you to quit that's your problem.

How did I not answer it?

Come on guys, keep up.

 

[1jasonoz]

Um this was the question

"You don't believe the government should force tobacco companies to place compulsory warnings on their products do you-you believe it should be voluntary on the producers behalf".

To which I replied that yes I do.



"You don't believe the government should force tobacco companies to place compulsory warnings on their products do you-you believe it should be voluntary on the producers behalf".



How did I not answer it?

So you think the warnings and graphic pictures on packets of cigarettes should be voluntary on the tobbaco companies behalf!!!!

 

[Niximus]

So you think the warnings and graphic pictures on packets of cigarettes should be voluntary on the tobbaco companies behalf!!!!

Seriously???? Again???

Wait, I didn't repeat myself again, I guess I'm skirting the issue.

 

[Mr Q]

Ok, so you'd buy the brand that did label right?

I don't think you realise just how few of the available brands are actually ones I can use. Quite often I'm lucky if I can find one - and even then I have to check ones I've used before to ensure they haven't changed.

If they really want to buy a brand that hasn't put a label on they can ask.

Ask who?

Right, an inconvenience. Surely you'd buy one of the many brands that keep their labels to retain your business?

Do you really think that many companies would keep labelling things if it were optional? I don't. They're not going to want to mention the preservatives and colourings they put in if they don't have to (and if they do partial labelling that would be worse than none at all). They don't want to mention a bunch of chemical names if they can avoid it.

Why are you all arguing as if I have proposed a ban on labeling? There is obviously a demand for them, I use them all the time, they are very helpful.

No one's arguing that - everyone's questioning why you'd remove the regulations *requiring* labelling. After all, it's unreasonable to expect anyone to be able to research all their basic groceries to that level, and be able to make an informed choice. It's not like groceries are big ticket items you spend a whole pile of time researching.

Labels would still be on the vast majority of products. In fact if the requirement was removed tomorrow I doubt you'd even notice.

No, they really wouldn't. Many items contain traces of things that the companies would rather you didn't know about, and they'd pull the labelling just for that reason. Why would they tell you that three Coco Pops gives you 400% of your daily RDI of sugar if they don't have to? Why would they tell you about preservatives, flavourings and colouring if they don't have to?

There is no requirement to label things as 'Gluten Free', 'Kosher', 'Halal', 'Sugar Free'.

No. Though the only reason they advertise these things is because there are specific market segments for them. If something advertises itself as sugar free, then I want to look at the ingredients and see what additive they've used in its place. I can tell you right now that wouldn't be there.

These terms are not included on the info as it is but companies still put them on. Why? Because it's what the consumer wants. That's why you will still have your labeled deodorant.

You really think they're going to care about someone who has a rather idiosyncratic allergy to a particular chemical? Hell, the fact that one brand that I could use hid the list of ingredients behind another label says that they wouldn't. And I'd have to either (1) spend time researching brands before I go to the shops or (2) stop wearing deodorant (which I'm sure that other people on the train would love on a hot day like today).

 

[Niximus]

I don't think you realise just how few of the available brands are actually ones I can use. Quite often I'm lucky if I can find one - and even then I have to check ones I've used before to ensure they haven't changed.



Ask who?



Do you really think that many companies would keep labelling things if it were optional? I don't. They're not going to want to mention the preservatives and colourings they put in if they don't have to (and if they do partial labelling that would be worse than none at all). They don't want to mention a bunch of chemical names if they can avoid it.



No one's arguing that - everyone's questioning why you'd remove the regulations *requiring* labelling. After all, it's unreasonable to expect anyone to be able to research all their basic groceries to that level, and be able to make an informed choice. It's not like groceries are big ticket items you spend a whole pile of time researching.



No, they really wouldn't. Many items contain traces of things that the companies would rather you didn't know about, and they'd pull the labelling just for that reason. Why would they tell you that three Coco Pops gives you 400% of your daily RDI of sugar if they don't have to? Why would they tell you about preservatives, flavourings and colouring if they don't have to?



No. Though the only reason they advertise these things is because there are specific market segments for them. If something advertises itself as sugar free, then I want to look at the ingredients and see what additive they've used in its place. I can tell you right now that wouldn't be there.



You really think they're going to care about someone who has a rather idiosyncratic allergy to a particular chemical? Hell, the fact that one brand that I could use hid the list of ingredients behind another label says that they wouldn't. And I'd have to either (1) spend time researching brands before I go to the shops or (2) stop wearing deodorant (which I'm sure that other people on the train would love on a hot day like today).

On whether they would continue listing, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Beyond that we do agree, your option in the event that there isn't a label is to research - an inconvenience.