On Food Purveyors

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
621

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Let’s just put a warning label on everything and be done with it. People are apparently too stupid to think for themselves. [/quote]

How can someone think for themselves when they don’t have all the pertinent information?
[/quote]

Eating is a biolocal imperative. Much like sex. It’s Brazzers fault that I’m a porn addict. If only they had led their MFFF videos with a warning of potential harmful effects of the product I voluntarily consumed. [/quote]

If food purveyors are trying to manipulate food ingredients to spur on food addiction to increase sales which in turn has negative side effects it ought to be disclosed.
[/quote]
Operative word: if[/quote]

What do the conclusions of the studies indicate? And do corporations spend millions of dollars to not come up with effective results? Why would a corporation spend money to mix the ingredients in a particular ratio?
[/quote]

First of all, you used the word “if.”

Secondly, to answer your question, to make their products taste as good as possible in order to gain repeat customers. That is not the same things as creating products that are addictive.

Again, Econ 101. [/quote]

But they are creating products that have addictive qualities. This goes far beyond taste and you know it.

See Greed 101
[/quote]

Prove it. You have a blog post and some data. You do not have a consensus.
[/quote]
I have posted 5 articles talking about the mounting evidence. How many studies(not opinions)have you posted showing that is in fact does not occur?[/quote]

I could Google “health value of HFCS” right now and provide article after article on the benefits of HFCS.

You haven’t proven anything.

Besides, reality is proof, I passed a McDonald’s this morning. Did I stop? No, I decided to make eggs for breakfast instead. That’s right, I got up 15 minutes earlier then I had to to make breakfast instead of stopping at the McDonald.

Personal Accountability. [/quote]

You said you are 100% it is not happening so one can infer that the studies are coming to the wrong conclusions. What do you cite as proof? Are we supposed to believe you just because you said it’s true?

Besides addictions don’t effect people in the same way. Just because you may not become addicted does not mean other won’t.

And it has nothing to do with your personal accountability example. You still don’t get it do you? After all this time you don’t understand the original post? Now time to go work on that bouncing ball…

622

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

You still don’t get it do you? Maybe I can find a way to place a little bouncing red ball above all the words so you can follow along. Do the mixture of food ingredients spur on food addiction as concluded by the studies or not?

[/quote]

How ‘Hyperpalatable’ Foods Could Turn You Into A Food Addict

‘Some neuroscientists have suggested that the rise of so-called “hyperpalatable foods” may partially explain the unprecedented rates of obesity.’

“Conditioned hypereating sounds suspiciously similar to what we might call food addiction. And indeed, studies have shown that hyperpalatable foods may be capable of triggering an addictive process Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? one that’s been postulated as a possible cause of the obesity epidemic.”

“Some” scientists have “suggested” and “postulated” that food “may possibly” etc.[/quote]

Where does the majority of the evidence fall that is the point. Scientists didn’t believe in Newtonian physics at first but hey…

I don’t see why “may possibly” is a reason not to inform the consumers as to what may happen.
[/quote]

“Some scientists” have “speculated” that “maybe” it’s a “possibility” that fluoridation of water is a mind control plot - an infamy so black and a conspiracy so large as to dwarf all others in the history of mankind. I say the evidence is mounting. A “consensus” is clearly apparent. The fact that you are “denying” that this consensus exists demonstrates that you are a shill for the fluoride overlords or a victim of mind control.
[/quote]

Does the majority of the evidence show this?
[/quote]

I say it does. How do we determine whether I’m right or wrong about what “the majority of evidence” shows? And since when is science based on majoritarian opinion? Science proves itself to the public via results - ie, I have a car therefore I believe in the science of the internal combustion engine. Or, I took these antibiotics and they cured my infection therefore I believe in their efficacy.[/quote]

What about the results of the studies? They have been reproducible you know.

623

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Let’s just put a warning label on everything and be done with it. People are apparently too stupid to think for themselves. [/quote]

How can someone think for themselves when they don’t have all the pertinent information?
[/quote]

Eating is a biolocal imperative. Much like sex. It’s Brazzers fault that I’m a porn addict. If only they had led their MFFF videos with a warning of potential harmful effects of the product I voluntarily consumed. [/quote]

If food purveyors are trying to manipulate food ingredients to spur on food addiction to increase sales which in turn has negative side effects it ought to be disclosed.
[/quote]
Operative word: if[/quote]

What do the conclusions of the studies indicate? And do corporations spend millions of dollars to not come up with effective results? Why would a corporation spend money to mix the ingredients in a particular ratio?
[/quote]

First of all, you used the word “if.”

Secondly, to answer your question, to make their products taste as good as possible in order to gain repeat customers. That is not the same things as creating products that are addictive.

Again, Econ 101. [/quote]

But they are creating products that have addictive qualities. This goes far beyond taste and you know it.

See Greed 101
[/quote]

Prove it. You have a blog post and some data. You do not have a consensus.
[/quote]
I have posted 5 articles talking about the mounting evidence. How many studies(not opinions)have you posted showing that is in fact does not occur?[/quote]

I could Google “health value of HFCS” right now and provide article after article on the benefits of HFCS.

You haven’t proven anything.

Besides, reality is proof, I passed a McDonald’s this morning. Did I stop? No, I decided to make eggs for breakfast instead. That’s right, I got up 15 minutes earlier then I had to to make breakfast instead of stopping at the McDonald.

Personal Accountability. [/quote]

You said you are 100% it is not happening so one can infer that the studies are coming to the wrong conclusions. What do you cite as proof? Are we supposed to believe you just because you said it’s true?

Besides addictions don’t effect people in the same way. Just because you may not become addicted does not mean other won’t.

And it has nothing to do with your personal accountability example. You still don’t get it do you? After all this time you don’t understand the original post? Now time to go work on that bouncing ball…

[/quote] [quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Maybe I can find a way to place a little bouncing red ball above all the words so you can follow along.
[/quote]

Go fuck yourself, follow those words asshole. [/quote]

624

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

You still don’t get it do you? Maybe I can find a way to place a little bouncing red ball above all the words so you can follow along. Do the mixture of food ingredients spur on food addiction as concluded by the studies or not?

[/quote]

How ‘Hyperpalatable’ Foods Could Turn You Into A Food Addict

‘Some neuroscientists have suggested that the rise of so-called “hyperpalatable foods” may partially explain the unprecedented rates of obesity.’

“Conditioned hypereating sounds suspiciously similar to what we might call food addiction. And indeed, studies have shown that hyperpalatable foods may be capable of triggering an addictive process Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? one that’s been postulated as a possible cause of the obesity epidemic.”

“Some” scientists have “suggested” and “postulated” that food “may possibly” etc.[/quote]

Where does the majority of the evidence fall that is the point. Scientists didn’t believe in Newtonian physics at first but hey…

I don’t see why “may possibly” is a reason not to inform the consumers as to what may happen.
[/quote]

“Some scientists” have “speculated” that “maybe” it’s a “possibility” that fluoridation of water is a mind control plot - an infamy so black and a conspiracy so large as to dwarf all others in the history of mankind. I say the evidence is mounting. A “consensus” is clearly apparent. The fact that you are “denying” that this consensus exists demonstrates that you are a shill for the fluoride overlords or a victim of mind control.
[/quote]

Does the majority of the evidence show this?
[/quote]

I say it does. How do we determine whether I’m right or wrong about what “the majority of evidence” shows? And since when is science based on majoritarian opinion? Science proves itself to the public via results - ie, I have a car therefore I believe in the science of the internal combustion engine. Or, I took these antibiotics and they cured my infection therefore I believe in their efficacy.[/quote]

What about the results of the studies? They have been reproducible you know.
[/quote]

We’ve been through this before. I told you, I’m getting off this merry-go-round now. For the last time, the results depend on interpretation. That’s why the article in your OP predicated everything with “some” “think” “may” “possibly” etc. one of the reasons is due to the argument over how to interpret the results.

“Some” have argued that music and water activate the same reward centres which demonstrates the need to be cautious about using the word “addiction.” It also demonstrates that there is not a “consensus.” I went further and stated that even if there was a “consensus” - which there is not - that would not mean that it was the best science and even if it was that doesn’t necessarily mean government intervention in the form of labelling food “addictive” is a suitable means of dealing with it. None of this have you even attempted to address. You just keep coming back with something like “so you agree the corporations should be allowed to get away with hiding the truth from the people?” It’s infantile. If that’s your idea of a discussion then there’s not really any point in having one with you.

625

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

You still don’t get it do you? Maybe I can find a way to place a little bouncing red ball above all the words so you can follow along. Do the mixture of food ingredients spur on food addiction as concluded by the studies or not?

[/quote]

How ‘Hyperpalatable’ Foods Could Turn You Into A Food Addict

‘Some neuroscientists have suggested that the rise of so-called “hyperpalatable foods” may partially explain the unprecedented rates of obesity.’

“Conditioned hypereating sounds suspiciously similar to what we might call food addiction. And indeed, studies have shown that hyperpalatable foods may be capable of triggering an addictive process Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? one that’s been postulated as a possible cause of the obesity epidemic.”

“Some” scientists have “suggested” and “postulated” that food “may possibly” etc.[/quote]

Where does the majority of the evidence fall that is the point. Scientists didn’t believe in Newtonian physics at first but hey…

I don’t see why “may possibly” is a reason not to inform the consumers as to what may happen.
[/quote]

“Some scientists” have “speculated” that “maybe” it’s a “possibility” that fluoridation of water is a mind control plot - an infamy so black and a conspiracy so large as to dwarf all others in the history of mankind. I say the evidence is mounting. A “consensus” is clearly apparent. The fact that you are “denying” that this consensus exists demonstrates that you are a shill for the fluoride overlords or a victim of mind control.
[/quote]

Does the majority of the evidence show this?
[/quote]

I say it does. How do we determine whether I’m right or wrong about what “the majority of evidence” shows? And since when is science based on majoritarian opinion? Science proves itself to the public via results - ie, I have a car therefore I believe in the science of the internal combustion engine. Or, I took these antibiotics and they cured my infection therefore I believe in their efficacy.[/quote]

What about the results of the studies? They have been reproducible you know.
[/quote]

We’ve been through this before. I told you, I’m getting off this merry-go-round now. For the last time, the results depend on interpretation. That’s why the article in your OP predicated everything with “some” “think” “may” “possibly” etc. one of the reasons is due to the argument over how to interpret the results.

“Some” have argued that music and water activate the same reward centres which demonstrates the need to be cautious about using the word “addiction.” It also demonstrates that there is not a “consensus.” I went further and stated that even if there was a “consensus” - which there is not - that would not mean that it was the best science and even if it was that doesn’t necessarily mean government intervention in the form of labelling food “addictive” is a suitable means of dealing with it. None of this have you even attempted to address. You just keep coming back with something like “so you agree the corporations should be allowed to get away with hiding the truth from the people?” It’s infantile. If that’s your idea of a discussion then there’s not really any point in having one with you.
[/quote]

Where are the studies that come to the conclusions that water and music reward the same brain centers? The results of the food studies have been reproducible. Your idea of consensus is that everyone agrees you even mentioned it in a previous post. Your idea that a free press is the watchdog is laughable. So the government mandating that corporations disclose this information to the consumer is not viable because why? It is your personal bogeyman and goes against your infantile ideology. I have addressed this before and your unwillingness to admit it goes to show your inability or unwillingness to engage. You don’t want to have a discussion because you don’t have any answers. So please go away because you have nothing more to add.

626

Not a great article as neither side references studies but I love one of the excuses used by a representative of a food manufacture" we don’t want to confuse the consumer". Gimmie a break! They don’t want it to happen for fear of decreased sales. If the public finds out how truly shitty these products are for them they may decide not to purchase them.

627

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If the public finds out how truly shitty these products are for them they may decide not to purchase them.

[/quote]

RIIIIIGGGGGHHHT

That’s why no one drinks beer, smokes, eats until they are 600lbs, drives fast, jumps out of airplanes, or any other host of activities people do on a day to day basis.

Hence our point the entire time. You are deluded and just looking for reasons for government intrusions where they aren’t needed for the sake of them.

628

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If the public finds out how truly shitty these products are for them they may decide not to purchase them.

Lo fucking l

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Shocked you missed this post Zep.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

"AdAge recently reported on American per capita beverage consumption for 2010. Perhaps it comes as no surprise that carbonated soft drinks are the most-consumed beverages, with an average of 44.7 gallons consumed per person, per year. "

45 gallons of soda a year. That’s 5,760 oz = 720 servings of Pepsi = 19,440 grams of sugar from soda alone a year (assuming Pepsi is the drink of choice). That’s about 288 sodas a year. I mean my God.

“Fast Food Still Major Part of U.S. Diet
Most Americans believe fast food is not “good for you”
by Andrew Dugan
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Eight in 10 Americans report eating at fast-food restaurants at least monthly, with almost half saying they eat fast food at least weekly. Only 4% say they never eat at fast-food restaurants. But slightly fewer Americans eat fast food weekly now than did so in 2006, when Gallup last asked about it.”

80% eat fast food monthly with 76% responding that the food itself was not too good or not good at all for them. YET THEY EAT IT ANYWAY

How the fuck can you possibly sit here and say it’s Corporate Americas fault people are fat. They put out a product or products that people clearly want. [/quote]
[/quote]

This does absolutely nothing to refute the studies I’ve posted. If anything it only makes the point of the studies.
[/quote]
Jesus, nevermind. [/quote]

629

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If the public finds out how truly shitty these products are for them they may decide not to purchase them.

[/quote]

RIIIIIGGGGGHHHT

That’s why no one drinks beer, smokes, eats until they are 600lbs, drives fast, jumps out of airplanes, or any other host of activities people do on a day to day basis.

Hence our point the entire time. You are deluded and just looking for reasons for government intrusions where they aren’t needed for the sake of them. [/quote]

No I’m not looking for excuses for government intrusions. I want the corporations to fully disclose what they are selling and how the effects may attribute to addiction by design. If you are so sure this will not curtail the purchasing of these products then what is the big deal? I’m sure the corporations don’t feel the same way which is why they fight it. But you know better.

You are just looking for excuses to justify your limp ideology so you can feel all smug with confidence that you are on the right side. Keep praying to the God called “free market” because that is what matters above ALL else.

And smoking in this country is down after the purposeful lies of the tobacco industry were exposed. Why did they fight the evidence and truth for so long?

630

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If the public finds out how truly shitty these products are for them they may decide not to purchase them.

Lo fucking l

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Shocked you missed this post Zep.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

"AdAge recently reported on American per capita beverage consumption for 2010. Perhaps it comes as no surprise that carbonated soft drinks are the most-consumed beverages, with an average of 44.7 gallons consumed per person, per year. "

45 gallons of soda a year. That’s 5,760 oz = 720 servings of Pepsi = 19,440 grams of sugar from soda alone a year (assuming Pepsi is the drink of choice). That’s about 288 sodas a year. I mean my God.

“Fast Food Still Major Part of U.S. Diet
Most Americans believe fast food is not “good for you”
by Andrew Dugan
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Eight in 10 Americans report eating at fast-food restaurants at least monthly, with almost half saying they eat fast food at least weekly. Only 4% say they never eat at fast-food restaurants. But slightly fewer Americans eat fast food weekly now than did so in 2006, when Gallup last asked about it.”

80% eat fast food monthly with 76% responding that the food itself was not too good or not good at all for them. YET THEY EAT IT ANYWAY

How the fuck can you possibly sit here and say it’s Corporate Americas fault people are fat. They put out a product or products that people clearly want. [/quote]
[/quote]

This does absolutely nothing to refute the studies I’ve posted. If anything it only makes the point of the studies.
[/quote]
Jesus, nevermind. [/quote]
[/quote]
What happened to the tobacco industry sales in this country when light was exposed on their purposeful lies?

631

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
No I’m not looking for excuses for government intrusions. [/quote]

sure.

I’ve already stated I don’t have an issue with the food label changing, you’ve repeat ignored the lawsuit question though…

You obviously don’t have the slightest fucking idea how expensive it is to change the label on a mass produced product.

No, your a fucking moronic statist who can’t rebut a single point without insulting the person you’re talking to because you can’t have a mature conversation if your life depended on it. You are so vulnerable to anything remotely close to populous sentiment that there is absolutely no way on earth you have completed a quality education past a high school level.

Yes I know I’m making personal attacks here, but I’m so sick of you not being able to NOT make them, in 95% of your posts, I can’t be polite anymore.

You are the PeeWee Herman of PWI.

[quote]And smoking in this country is down after the purposeful lies of the tobacco industry were exposed. Why did they fight the evidence and truth for so long?
[/quote]

Went down? Didn’t go away, hence the fucking point I made, and note you ignored each and every other instance where people took risks to cherry pick one you thought helped your cause, but doesn’t.

edit: their v there

632

If a socialist came out tomorrow and said that ass raping goats and sniffing horse farts redistributed wealth you’d be buying a farm by Friday.

633

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
No I’m not looking for excuses for government intrusions. [/quote]

sure.

I’ve already stated I don’t have an issue with the food label changing, you’ve repeat ignored the lawsuit question though…

You obviously don’t have the slightest fucking idea how expensive it is to change the label on a mass produced product.

No, your a fucking moronic statist who can’t rebut a single point without insulting the person you’re talking to because you can’t have a mature conversation if your life depended on it. You are so vulnerable to anything remotely close to populous sentiment that there is absolutely no way on earth you have completed a quality education past a high school level.

Yes I know I’m making personal attacks here, but I’m so sick of you not being able to NOT make them, in 95% of your posts, I can’t be polite anymore.

You are the PeeWee Herman of PWI.

[quote]And smoking in this country is down after the purposeful lies of the tobacco industry were exposed. Why did they fight the evidence and truth for so long?
[/quote]

Went down? Didn’t go away, hence the fucking point I made, and note you ignored each and every other instance where people took risks to cherry pick one you thought helped your cause, but doesn’t.

edit: their v there[/quote]

It may have not dropped like a rock but it continues to go down every year. The point is not whether no one purchases the goods but that they ought to be made aware of what the food purveyors are trying to sell them. Just like what happened to big tobacco. The food corporations are very alarmed by this and it is the reason they would fight it.

I didn’t see your law question but I’m sure it is an issue to be tackled not a wall to use as an excuse not to mandate full disclosure. And speaking of the law how was it handled with big tobacco?

So you can say I want government intervention and I point out that you are protecting corporations by using your ideology’s favorite boogeyman - the government(gasp!) and your upset because of the words I used or the overall argument? If it is the words I apologize but I do not apologize for the overall point.

Time and time again I have said I want full disclosure from the corporations and since they can’t be trusted to police themselves it must be within the law so they can be held accountable. Who writes the law? Oh the government and we can’t have that because it’s automatically bad. So we do … nothing! Just let corporations do what they want no matter what, after all profit is the most important thing.

634

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The point is not whether no one purchases the goods but that they ought to be made aware of what the food purveyors are trying to sell them. Just like what happened to big tobacco. The food corporations are very alarmed by this and it is the reason they would fight it.[/quote]

I’ve said it a couple times now, but if all you want is to change the food label, I don’t have an issue with that. I don’t care what a food label says to be honest with you, but you have to understand that it is very, very cost prohibitive to change the label on a mass produced product.

And, this regulation would have to be very, very narrowly defined, because given the broad brush you’ve used in this thread I think you’d end up including foods that would have to be labeled that you, yes you personally, didn’t intend to originally. NOt because a lack of anything, but because it would be an unintended consequence.

You’re making my point for me with the tobacco.

You’d have to define “food addiction”
Define the results of that addiction, and determine if they are harmful.
Then you have to deal with lawsuits.

Because I’ll be honest, this entire thread all I’ve though of is millions of fatties suing every food company on Earth because they are fat. This would have disastrous results.

[quote]So you can say I want government intervention and I point out that you are protecting corporations by using your ideology’s favorite boogeyman - the government(gasp!) and your upset because of the words I used or the overall argument? If it is the words I apologize but I do not apologize for the overall point.

Time and time again I have said I want full disclosure from the corporations and since they can’t be trusted to police themselves it must be within the law so they can be held accountable. Who writes the law? Oh the government and we can’t have that because it’s automatically bad. So we do … nothing! Just let corporations do what they want no matter what, after all profit is the most important thing.[/quote]

You’re overall point is noted. However, corporations are just groups of people looking to make a buck. Government is just groups of people looking to make a buck. For every reason you can sit back and claim corps can’t be trusted to police themselves, the same rationale can be used to say government can’t be trusted ot police itself.

635

Zepp,

You really think government writes laws ? Are you truly this naive ? LOBBYISTS write laws.

And it’s all for the reasons Beans mentioned above, it’s about those green backs going to both the corporations and the politicians. Corporations make their money, in exchange for a campaign donation to the shill who sponsored the law that allowed them to profit.

Government is a corporation, the nastiest kind there is.

636

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Zepp,

You really think government writes laws ? Are you truly this naive ? LOBBYISTS write laws.

And it’s all for the reasons Beans mentioned above, it’s about those green backs going to both the corporations and the politicians. Corporations make their money, in exchange for a campaign donation to the shill who sponsored the law that allowed them to profit.

Government is a corporation, the nastiest kind there is.[/quote]

Yes, mostly what you point out is true. However, it’s not monolithic. Not every law is written by lobbyists and it is not a reason to stop from righting a wrong.

637

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The point is not whether no one purchases the goods but that they ought to be made aware of what the food purveyors are trying to sell them. Just like what happened to big tobacco. The food corporations are very alarmed by this and it is the reason they would fight it.[/quote]

I’ve said it a couple times now, but if all you want is to change the food label, I don’t have an issue with that. I don’t care what a food label says to be honest with you, but you have to understand that it is very, very cost prohibitive to change the label on a mass produced product.

And, this regulation would have to be very, very narrowly defined, because given the broad brush you’ve used in this thread I think you’d end up including foods that would have to be labeled that you, yes you personally, didn’t intend to originally. NOt because a lack of anything, but because it would be an unintended consequence.

You’re making my point for me with the tobacco.

You’d have to define “food addiction”
Define the results of that addiction, and determine if they are harmful.
Then you have to deal with lawsuits.

Because I’ll be honest, this entire thread all I’ve though of is millions of fatties suing every food company on Earth because they are fat. This would have disastrous results.

[quote]So you can say I want government intervention and I point out that you are protecting corporations by using your ideology’s favorite boogeyman - the government(gasp!) and your upset because of the words I used or the overall argument? If it is the words I apologize but I do not apologize for the overall point.

Time and time again I have said I want full disclosure from the corporations and since they can’t be trusted to police themselves it must be within the law so they can be held accountable. Who writes the law? Oh the government and we can’t have that because it’s automatically bad. So we do … nothing! Just let corporations do what they want no matter what, after all profit is the most important thing.[/quote]

You’re overall point is noted. However, corporations are just groups of people looking to make a buck. Government is just groups of people looking to make a buck. For every reason you can sit back and claim corps can’t be trusted to police themselves, the same rationale can be used to say government can’t be trusted ot police itself. [/quote]

Food can be defined as addictive according to studies. Not food that isn’t being manipulated as such.

What am I to infer by your “making my point for me” in regards to tobacco?

Don’t care if it costs money to change the wordings on a label. The food manufactures brought it on themselves. This shouldn’t have been done in the first place. But in order to increase sales and fatten the bottom line it was done. And it helped to destroy the health of Americans. Wow, how patriotic these companies are.

Lawsuits could be curtailed by the free choice of the consumer. If the food was labeled properly and they still decided to buy it then the company’s responsibility is drastically if not fully reduced. How is it handled by companies that sell alcohol?

638

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Obesity could be curtailed by the free choice of the consumer.[/quote]

Fixed that for you.

639