[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Fraud is pretty straight forward Fraud wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
[/quote]
I agree. If a food producer falsely labels the food it produces, then it should be punished. Jeez, I can’t believe that’s not already law. You would even think that something like that would fall under common law.
Would the governments claim that eating a diet high in carbs, a la the “food pyramid”, constitute fraud under your definition?
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Would the governments claim that eating a diet high in carbs, a la the “food pyramid”, constitute fraud under your definition? [/quote]
No way, Jose! Corporations are bad…unless we’re talking about the most powerful corporation, then it’s good.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
You boys don’t get your drawers in a not; I’m not in favor of government intervention; I think food manufactures should be honest about their products because that’s what honorable people do. This is damn funny though and pushes all the right buttons.
[/quote]
But they aren’t honorable so they must be forced by law to tell the truth or suffer the consequences.
[/quote]
We’ll Zep that’s where we part ways. Although I’ll agree with you about the problem, we don’t agree about the solution.
[/quote]
Then what is your alternative?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
You boys don’t get your drawers in a not; I’m not in favor of government intervention; I think food manufactures should be honest about their products because that’s what honorable people do. This is damn funny though and pushes all the right buttons.
[/quote]
But they aren’t honorable so they must be forced by law to tell the truth or suffer the consequences.
[/quote]
We’ll Zep that’s where we part ways. Although I’ll agree with you about the problem, we don’t agree about the solution.
[/quote]
Yes, it seems it would be far more efficient to incentivize food manufacturers to produce decent products by only doing business with those who do so than it would be to give the state permission to spend even more money on yet another problem it can never solve.
Scenario A: A law is passed to combat XYZ, money must forever be spent to enforce the law. Because it’s obvious that a market exists for XYZ, a black market is born. An XYZ War can eventually be declared.
Scenario B: Those who care stop doing business with companies that XYZ. Companies that XYZ lose money, while companies that do not XYZ gain. If enough people care about XYZ, the companies that XYZ either go out of business or stop XYZ. If enough people don’t care about XYZ for either of those to happen, those who do can still continue to support the companies that do not XYZ.[/quote]
This thread was not about producing decent products. It is about food manufacture’s manipulating food ingredients to spur on food addiction. And then keeping this info from the public.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
You boys don’t get your drawers in a not; I’m not in favor of government intervention; I think food manufactures should be honest about their products because that’s what honorable people do. This is damn funny though and pushes all the right buttons.
[/quote]
But they aren’t honorable so they must be forced by law to tell the truth or suffer the consequences.
[/quote]
We’ll Zep that’s where we part ways. Although I’ll agree with you about the problem, we don’t agree about the solution.
[/quote]
Yes, it seems it would be far more efficient to incentivize food manufacturers to produce decent products by only doing business with those who do so than it would be to give the state permission to spend even more money on yet another problem it can never solve.
Scenario A: A law is passed to combat XYZ, money must forever be spent to enforce the law. Because it’s obvious that a market exists for XYZ, a black market is born. An XYZ War can eventually be declared.
Scenario B: Those who care stop doing business with companies that XYZ. Companies that XYZ lose money, while companies that do not XYZ gain. If enough people care about XYZ, the companies that XYZ either go out of business or stop XYZ. If enough people don’t care about XYZ for either of those to happen, those who do can still continue to support the companies that do not XYZ.[/quote]
This thread was not about producing decent products. It is about food manufacture’s manipulating food ingredients to spur on food addiction. And then keeping this info from the public.
[/quote]
I’m curious zep:
What do you believe are the legitimate functions of government?
As someone else pointed out, the government adopted and promoted the food pyramid scheme. If we allow the government to be the sole interpreter and disseminator of scientific/nutritional advice, how are we going to prevent bullshit like the food pyramid from being disseminated? In short, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Who will watch the watchmen?
Edit: I think question 1. really deserves its own thread. Feel free to post your answer there.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
You boys don’t get your drawers in a not; I’m not in favor of government intervention; I think food manufactures should be honest about their products because that’s what honorable people do. This is damn funny though and pushes all the right buttons.
[/quote]
But they aren’t honorable so they must be forced by law to tell the truth or suffer the consequences.
[/quote]
We’ll Zep that’s where we part ways. Although I’ll agree with you about the problem, we don’t agree about the solution.
[/quote]
Yes, it seems it would be far more efficient to incentivize food manufacturers to produce decent products by only doing business with those who do so than it would be to give the state permission to spend even more money on yet another problem it can never solve.
Scenario A: A law is passed to combat XYZ, money must forever be spent to enforce the law. Because it’s obvious that a market exists for XYZ, a black market is born. An XYZ War can eventually be declared.
Scenario B: Those who care stop doing business with companies that XYZ. Companies that XYZ lose money, while companies that do not XYZ gain. If enough people care about XYZ, the companies that XYZ either go out of business or stop XYZ. If enough people don’t care about XYZ for either of those to happen, those who do can still continue to support the companies that do not XYZ.[/quote]
This thread was not about producing decent products. It is about food manufacture’s manipulating food ingredients to spur on food addiction. And then keeping this info from the public.
[/quote]
So you’re saying that food ingredients manipulated to spur on food addiction, and then hidden from the public, produce decent products? What’s your problem with food producers again? Or are you saying that the foods produced by such practices are not decent, and therefore, my response was not off topic? If the former, then what’s the point of the thread? If the latter, please answer whether Scenario A or B is preferable(or Scenario C, if you prefer, which you can explain).
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
You boys don’t get your drawers in a not; I’m not in favor of government intervention; I think food manufactures should be honest about their products because that’s what honorable people do. This is damn funny though and pushes all the right buttons.
[/quote]
But they aren’t honorable so they must be forced by law to tell the truth or suffer the consequences.
[/quote]
We’ll Zep that’s where we part ways. Although I’ll agree with you about the problem, we don’t agree about the solution.
[/quote]
Yes, it seems it would be far more efficient to incentivize food manufacturers to produce decent products by only doing business with those who do so than it would be to give the state permission to spend even more money on yet another problem it can never solve.
Scenario A: A law is passed to combat XYZ, money must forever be spent to enforce the law. Because it’s obvious that a market exists for XYZ, a black market is born. An XYZ War can eventually be declared.
Scenario B: Those who care stop doing business with companies that XYZ. Companies that XYZ lose money, while companies that do not XYZ gain. If enough people care about XYZ, the companies that XYZ either go out of business or stop XYZ. If enough people don’t care about XYZ for either of those to happen, those who do can still continue to support the companies that do not XYZ.[/quote]
This thread was not about producing decent products. It is about food manufacture’s manipulating food ingredients to spur on food addiction. And then keeping this info from the public.
[/quote]
So you’re saying that food ingredients manipulated to spur on food addiction, and then hidden from the public, produce decent products? What’s your problem with food producers again? Or are you saying that the foods produced by such practices are not decent, and therefore, my response was not off topic? If the former, then what’s the point of the thread? If the latter, please answer whether Scenario A or B is preferable(or Scenario C, if you prefer, which you can explain).[/quote]
No I’m saying the public has the right to know and it’s up to those who sell their products to inform the public what they are doing to the food stuff they are trying to sell.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
You boys don’t get your drawers in a not; I’m not in favor of government intervention; I think food manufactures should be honest about their products because that’s what honorable people do. This is damn funny though and pushes all the right buttons.
[/quote]
But they aren’t honorable so they must be forced by law to tell the truth or suffer the consequences.
[/quote]
We’ll Zep that’s where we part ways. Although I’ll agree with you about the problem, we don’t agree about the solution.
[/quote]
Yes, it seems it would be far more efficient to incentivize food manufacturers to produce decent products by only doing business with those who do so than it would be to give the state permission to spend even more money on yet another problem it can never solve.
Scenario A: A law is passed to combat XYZ, money must forever be spent to enforce the law. Because it’s obvious that a market exists for XYZ, a black market is born. An XYZ War can eventually be declared.
Scenario B: Those who care stop doing business with companies that XYZ. Companies that XYZ lose money, while companies that do not XYZ gain. If enough people care about XYZ, the companies that XYZ either go out of business or stop XYZ. If enough people don’t care about XYZ for either of those to happen, those who do can still continue to support the companies that do not XYZ.[/quote]
This thread was not about producing decent products. It is about food manufacture’s manipulating food ingredients to spur on food addiction. And then keeping this info from the public.
[/quote]
I’m curious zep:
What do you believe are the legitimate functions of government?
As someone else pointed out, the government adopted and promoted the food pyramid scheme. If we allow the government to be the sole interpreter and disseminator of scientific/nutritional advice, how are we going to prevent bullshit like the food pyramid from being disseminated? In short, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Who will watch the watchmen?
Edit: I think question 1. really deserves its own thread. Feel free to post your answer there.[/quote]
Are the studies that unveil this practice interpreted by the government?
Do you believe that food purveyors ought to police themselves?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Are the studies that unveil this practice interpreted by the government?
[/quote]
There are some scientists who say those studies are nonsense. The government would have to choose which scientists to take advice from. Like when they took advice from nutritionists about the food pyramid and began to promote it. That’s a major problem no? Is the government fit to make decisions like that?
[quote]
Do you believe that food purveyors ought to police themselves? [/quote]
I’ve already answered this. A free press can disseminate information about these studies. It already does, and it’s how you became aware of them.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Are the studies that unveil this practice interpreted by the government?
[/quote]
There are some scientists who say those studies are nonsense. The government would have to choose which scientists to take advice from. Like when they took advice from nutritionists about the food pyramid and began to promote it. That’s a major problem no? Is the government fit to make decisions like that?
[quote]
Do you believe that food purveyors ought to police themselves? [/quote]
I’ve already answered this. A free press can disseminate information about these studies. It already does, and it’s how you became aware of them.[/quote]
where is that free press , it also has to make money
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Are the studies that unveil this practice interpreted by the government?
[/quote]
There are some scientists who say those studies are nonsense. The government would have to choose which scientists to take advice from. Like when they took advice from nutritionists about the food pyramid and began to promote it. That’s a major problem no? Is the government fit to make decisions like that?
Wuh? How would a free press exist then? Government funding like the RTV propaganda crap you watch? What’s a free press then?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Are the studies that unveil this practice interpreted by the government?
[/quote]
There are some scientists who say those studies are nonsense. The government would have to choose which scientists to take advice from. Like when they took advice from nutritionists about the food pyramid and began to promote it. That’s a major problem no? Is the government fit to make decisions like that?
Wuh? How would a free press exist then? Government funding like the RTV propaganda crap you watch? What’s a free press then?
[/quote]
Good point all you can do is make an honest effort
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
It is about food manufacture’s manipulating food ingredients to spur on food addiction. And then keeping this info from the public.
[/quote]
Which is 100% bull shit.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Fraud is pretty straight forward Fraud wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
[/quote]
I agree. If a food producer falsely labels the food it produces, then it should be punished. Jeez, I can’t believe that’s not already law. You would even think that something like that would fall under common law.[/quote/]
Your argument rests on the assertion that just because the ingredients are listed it tells the whole story. It does not as pointed out by the studies. So your argument fails.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
It is about food manufacture’s manipulating food ingredients to spur on food addiction. And then keeping this info from the public.
[/quote]
Which is 100% bull shit. [/quote]
Which part is 100% bullshit? The omission of these facts or the studies themselves?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Are the studies that unveil this practice interpreted by the government?
[/quote]
There are some scientists who say those studies are nonsense. The government would have to choose which scientists to take advice from. Like when they took advice from nutritionists about the food pyramid and began to promote it. That’s a major problem no? Is the government fit to make decisions like that?
[quote]
Do you believe that food purveyors ought to police themselves? [/quote]
I’ve already answered this. A free press can disseminate information about these studies. It already does, and it’s how you became aware of them.[/quote]
Where are the studies by these “scientists” who says this is non-sense?
This goes beyond a few printed studies that show what is being done to the food and the responsibility ought to rest on the shoulders of the producers. It is far beyond “a free press”.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Are the studies that unveil this practice interpreted by the government?
[/quote]
There are some scientists who say those studies are nonsense. The government would have to choose which scientists to take advice from. Like when they took advice from nutritionists about the food pyramid and began to promote it. That’s a major problem no? Is the government fit to make decisions like that?
Author :
Travis Saunders completed his BSc (Hon) in Kinesiology at the University of Calgary, where he was awarded the Gold Medal for the highest academic proficiency in his class. His MSc was performed at Queenâ??s University, and focused on the inter-relationships between physical activity, body fat distribution, and health risk in adults. His PhD studies were completed in the fall of 2013, and focused on the relationship between sedentary behaviour and metabolic risk in children and youth. In late 2013 Travis began post doctoral fellowship at Dalhousie University examining the relationship between sedentary behaviour and health among patients with chronic diseases (cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer).
Throughout his graduate training, Travis has been supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian Diabetes Association. He was also the inaugural recipient of the University of Ottawa Teaching Assistant Excellence Award. His post doctoral fellowship is supported by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.
Travis is a Certified Exercise Physiologist, and a member of the Sedentary Behaviour Research Network, the Canadian Obesity Network, the American College of Sports Medicine and the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology. He is also a former Content Editor at ResearchBlogging.org.
I noticed you ignored my questions. The reason I asked you what you believe are the legitimate functions of government is because I’m wondering why you think the government should be the arbitrator and disseminater of scientific thought. And I also asked who will watch the watcher?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
It is about food manufacture’s manipulating food ingredients to spur on food addiction. And then keeping this info from the public.
[/quote]
Which is 100% bull shit. [/quote]
Which part is 100% bullshit? The omission of these facts or the studies themselves?
[/quote]
The entire statement is junk, but it’s not like you’ll listen to why so I’m not going to bother, again.