[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We are debating labeling stay current
[/quote]
That is what I said.
[/quote]
I’m sorry I thought you said
“The right of the consumer to know what he is eating is not what is being debated” 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We are debating labeling stay current
[/quote]
That is what I said.
[/quote]
I’m sorry I thought you said
“The right of the consumer to know what he is eating is not what is being debated” :)[/quote]
I did, and that has nothing to do with labeling.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We are debating labeling stay current
[/quote]
That is what I said.
[/quote]
I’m sorry I thought you said
“The right of the consumer to know what he is eating is not what is being debated” :)[/quote]
I did, and that has nothing to do with labeling.[/quote]
How is a consumer to know if there is no label ?
With a mobile application, obviously.
Packaging and labeling should be eliminated and systematically replaced by QR Codes.
Now that i think about it… consumers doesn’t really need a “Each time you eat that, God kills a kitten” picture. They need an animated gif !
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Do you sincerely think the public gives a rats ass how their food is made or what is in it? Newsflash, they don’t. If the public cared one iota about this subject all they would have to do is not buy processed food until the info was provided. There is simply no need to get the government involved. These sorts of problems would work themselves out if lazy people stopped relying on the government for everything and let the free market work the way it should with a non-lazy participatory populace.[/quote]
It is besides the point if the public cares or not. The only way to find this out is to make the information available and then we will know.
Is it part of the free market for food manufacture’s to formulate food by subterfuge with the hopes of no one finding out?
Is it part of the free market to keep GMO labeling off the product listing?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
51% to 48% I can’t understand why 51% of the people feel that the other 48% have no right to know what they are eating
The right of the consumer to know what he is eating is not what is being debated. The right of the producer to sell his product is the issue. If the question was, “Should food producers be allowed to inform consumers of what is in their products?” you would have a valid point about the right of the consumer. Do you want those responsible for the food pyramid to decide for you what you can and can’t purchase to eat?[/quote]
Just goes to show how little you understand the issue.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t see a label doing much to stop people from buying GMO food.
People know cigarettes can kill, but people still buy them. People know McDonald’s is not healthy, yet they still hit their drive-thru.
I prefer a healthier choice to my food, but that is my choice, which is being paid with my dollars. I would not impose that on other people.
[/quote]
Whether or not it changes behavior is not the point. The point is that food manufacture’s have an obligation to tell consumers what ingredients are in their food and how these ingredients are being manipulated. Then let the consumer decide.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
51% to 48% I can’t understand why 51% of the people feel that the other 48% have no right to know what they are eating
The right of the consumer to know what he is eating is not what is being debated. The right of the producer to sell his product is the issue. If the question was, “Should food producers be allowed to inform consumers of what is in their products?” you would have a valid point about the right of the consumer. Do you want those responsible for the food pyramid to decide for you what you can and can’t purchase to eat?[/quote]
Just goes to show how little you understand the issue.[/quote]
Please explain the issue, because it appears that the vote was about requiring foods containing GMO to be labeled as such. I do not live in California, so I have not read the exact wording of the rejected law. Obviously, I could be incorrect, but it seems that the vote was about labeling, not the supposed right of consumers to know what is in food.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Whether or not it changes behavior is not the point. The point is that food manufacture’s have an obligation to tell consumers what ingredients are in their food and how these ingredients are being manipulated. Then let the consumer decide.
[/quote]
Okay, what if Consumer A, a personal trainer and father of three, refuses to cut down on the sugar, fat, and manipulated ingredients in his diet? What if he blows up to an obese 400 pounds from a lean 200? What if his clients stop using his service and he is left unemployed? He now has no income and three children to feed. He then asks for welfare to support his children. His negligence caused him to be unemployed, so can each taxpayer sue him for the money he collects due to his negligence?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Whether or not it changes behavior is not the point. The point is that food manufacture’s have an obligation to tell consumers what ingredients are in their food and how these ingredients are being manipulated. Then let the consumer decide.
[/quote]
Okay, what if Consumer A, a personal trainer and father of three, refuses to cut down on the sugar, fat, and manipulated ingredients in his diet? What if he blows up to an obese 400 pounds from a lean 200? What if his clients stop using his service and he is left unemployed? He now has no income and three children to feed. He then asks for welfare to support his children. His negligence caused him to be unemployed, so can each taxpayer sue him for the money he collects due to his negligence?[/quote]
All of this is besides the point. The point is that food manufacture’s ought to have to tell potential consumers what effect their food may have on them according to the studies, then let the consumer decide. Just like they do in Japan with GMO food sales.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
51% to 48% I can’t understand why 51% of the people feel that the other 48% have no right to know what they are eating
The right of the consumer to know what he is eating is not what is being debated. The right of the producer to sell his product is the issue. If the question was, “Should food producers be allowed to inform consumers of what is in their products?” you would have a valid point about the right of the consumer. Do you want those responsible for the food pyramid to decide for you what you can and can’t purchase to eat?[/quote]
Just goes to show how little you understand the issue.[/quote]
Please explain the issue, because it appears that the vote was about requiring foods containing GMO to be labeled as such. I do not live in California, so I have not read the exact wording of the rejected law. Obviously, I could be incorrect, but it seems that the vote was about labeling, not the supposed right of consumers to know what is in food.[/quote]
I believe the heart of this thread was the manipulation of food ingredients to spur on food addiction. The GMO point was just a sideshow.
And to say that food manufactures should be allowed to tell the public what is in their food is laughable to say the least. To even bring that up as a point is beyond reproach.
No one is saying what can and can’t be sold. If the food purveyors want to sell their products they should be obligated by law to tell potential customers. Then let the consumer decide.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
However the public has the right to know.[/quote]
What do you want, specifically, on the fucking label?[/quote]
Have already answered this. What is it specifically about your beliefs that make it okay for the public to not be informed about the food they buy?
[/quote]
My belief is that all the information needed to make an informed choice is at the consumer’s fingertips already.
Please copy paste where you SPECIFICLY outlined what you want on the food label that isn’t there already. I’m sorry but I missed it.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
However the public has the right to know.[/quote]
What do you want, specifically, on the fucking label?[/quote]
Have already answered this. What is it specifically about your beliefs that make it okay for the public to not be informed about the food they buy?
[/quote]
My belief is that all the information needed to make an informed choice is at the consumer’s fingertips already.
Please copy paste where you SPECIFICLY outlined what you want on the food label that isn’t there already. I’m sorry but I missed it. [/quote]
Because it doesn’t exist.
“These foods are deliberately engineered in such a way that they surpass the reward properties of traditional foods, such as vegetables, fruits, and nuts.”
No shit.
“Food chemists achieve this by suffusing products with increased levels of fat, sugar, flavors, and food additives.”
AKA, we want our products to taste good so people buy our products. However, all of the fat, sugar, flavors, and additives are, get this, right on the label required by the FDA.
I love the chart too. Let’s compare a 1 medium tomato to a pizza. Cause they’re the same thing…
I like the solution too:
1.) Tax “hyperpalatable” foods like Cigarettes.
2.) Reduce availability.
mmmmm smell that freedom.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I like the solution too:
1.) Tax “hyperpalatable” foods like Cigarettes.
2.) Reduce availability.
mmmmm smell that freedom. [/quote]
just curious how do you equate the 2 . Is it the rest of society’s responsibilty to pay higher Health Ins. Premiums because some one eats too many simple carbs
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I like the solution too:
1.) Tax “hyperpalatable” foods like Cigarettes.
2.) Reduce availability.
mmmmm smell that freedom. [/quote]
just curious how do you equate the 2 . Is it the rest of society’s responsibilty to pay higher Health Ins. Premiums because some one eats too many simple carbs
[/quote]
These were the listed solutions in Zep’s article (In the OP). I think they’re garbage.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Is it the rest of society’s responsibilty to pay higher Health Ins. Premiums because some one eats too many simple carbs
[/quote]
Only when people are mandated to buy insurance. Otherwise, it is a choice.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I believe the heart of this thread was the manipulation of food ingredients to spur on food addiction. The GMO point was just a sideshow.[/quote]
The thread had moved to mandatory labeling by the time I responded.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
And to say that food manufactures should be allowed to tell the public what is in their food is laughable to say the least. To even bring that up as a point is beyond reproach.[/quote]
You don’t believe that food producers should be allowed to tell the public what is in the food they produce?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
No one is saying what can and can’t be sold. If the food purveyors want to sell their products they should be obligated by law to tell potential customers. Then let the consumer decide.[/quote]
Actually, that is exactly what is being done. Why should producers of food be forced to label products? Nobody has to consume their products. Why shouldn’t the responsibility of knowing what is in food fall on the consumers, barring a situation involving fraud? Seeing someone who argues for an all-powerful government write, “Then let the consumer decide,” is laughable.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If the food purveyors want to sell their products they should be obligated by law to tell potential customers. Then let the consumer decide.[/quote]
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM265446.pdf