3 ms·

> an illegal impurity What makes an impurity illegal in the first place? What is the difference between a legal and illegal impurity?

chrisseaton 6y ago
Normally there are regulations about what you can and can't put in a food product. For example chocolate often has to contain a certain percentage of cocoa solids. But again this isn't what this article is about. This article is about food products being smaller than he'd like and in some cases less pure than he'd like. Not illegal small or illegally impure. He should just pick another product if they don't meet his requirements. He thinks he's exposing some kind of conspiracy, when really it's market prices and tastes changing.
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  > Normally there are regulations about what you can and can't put in a food product. For example chocolate often has to contain a certain percentage of cocoa solids. I hear you, but that's not exactly what I'm asking. I'm asking a more specific question: how does a thing, previously legal, comes to be illegal? What happens at a societal and legislative level for such a change to transpire?
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Are you asking me how legislation works? I'm not an expert on how it works in your country but you can often look up YouTube videos online if you want.
    - yowlingcat 6y ago
      > Are you asking me how legislation works? No. Laws do not exist a priori. They are constructed by the human society that forms structures and mechanisms to create them. I am asking you _why_ legislation comes into existence. In this specific case, I am asking you _why_ the Pure Food And Drug Act came into existence. Do you know the history?
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        Because of dangerous impurity. But this isn't dangerous impurity. This is a guy angry that he isn't getting as many fruity loops as he used to.
        yowlingcat 6y ago
        > Because of dangerous impurity. Now we are getting somewhere. Yes, dangerous impurity -- that is part of it. But the act also prohibits selling "misbranded or adulterated" food or drugs. For the purpose of food, the act defines "misbranded" as: ``` First. If it be an imitation of or offered,for sale under the distinctive name of another article . Second. If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser, or purport to be a foreign product when not so, or if the contents of the package as originally put up shall have been removed in whole or in part and other contents shall have been placed in such package, or if it fail to bear a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of any morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucane, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or teetanilide, or any derivative or preparation of any of such substances contained therein . ``` Key points here: 1. "If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser" 2. "if the contents of the package as originally put up shall have been removed in whole or in part and other contents shall have been placed in such package" If you did indeed make the assumption that the point of the act was to limit and only limit dangerous impurity, then I think it's important to challenge that, because it seems to be an error by omission. The full text of the act clearly references not just dangerous impurities, but the whole spirit of deceptive dilution of purity with filler. And this is why I think it's important to know the history behind it as well. The act did not fall from the sky. It was not merely a matter of people dropping dead from poisonous adulterated products. There was a broader spectrum of adulteration, from lethal danger to deceptive but unlikely to be dangerous to anything but your pocketbook. And either way, there was a national uproar about it, and people had decided they'd had enough with it and they pressured legislature for redress. There is a reason that said legislature didn't just stop at prohibiting dangerous impurities, and that is because there wasn't just an element of physical grievance, but moral grievance as well. I think that arguments which presume that the market itself is a good enough mechanism end up missing this element of the act. The act was set up not just to protect consumers from physical danger, but to protect society from dishonest, anti-consumer business tactics which are intended to deceive. It is the latter part which I believe your argument misses. [1] http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/PPL_059_384_FoodDrugCosmeticAct.pdf http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/PPL_059_384_F...

chrisseaton 6y ago

Normally there are regulations about what you can and can't put in a food product. For example chocolate often has to contain a certain percentage of cocoa solids. But again this isn't what this article is about. This article is about food products being smaller than he'd like and in some cases less pure than he'd like. Not illegal small or illegally impure. He should just pick another product if they don't meet his requirements. He thinks he's exposing some kind of conspiracy, when really it's market prices and tastes changing.

yowlingcat 6y ago
> Normally there are regulations about what you can and can't put in a food product. For example chocolate often has to contain a certain percentage of cocoa solids. I hear you, but that's not exactly what I'm asking. I'm asking a more specific question: how does a thing, previously legal, comes to be illegal? What happens at a societal and legislative level for such a change to transpire?
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Are you asking me how legislation works? I'm not an expert on how it works in your country but you can often look up YouTube videos online if you want.
  - yowlingcat 6y ago
    > Are you asking me how legislation works? No. Laws do not exist a priori. They are constructed by the human society that forms structures and mechanisms to create them. I am asking you _why_ legislation comes into existence. In this specific case, I am asking you _why_ the Pure Food And Drug Act came into existence. Do you know the history?
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      Because of dangerous impurity. But this isn't dangerous impurity. This is a guy angry that he isn't getting as many fruity loops as he used to.
      - yowlingcat 6y ago
        > Because of dangerous impurity. Now we are getting somewhere. Yes, dangerous impurity -- that is part of it. But the act also prohibits selling "misbranded or adulterated" food or drugs. For the purpose of food, the act defines "misbranded" as: ``` First. If it be an imitation of or offered,for sale under the distinctive name of another article . Second. If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser, or purport to be a foreign product when not so, or if the contents of the package as originally put up shall have been removed in whole or in part and other contents shall have been placed in such package, or if it fail to bear a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of any morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucane, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or teetanilide, or any derivative or preparation of any of such substances contained therein . ``` Key points here: 1. "If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser" 2. "if the contents of the package as originally put up shall have been removed in whole or in part and other contents shall have been placed in such package" If you did indeed make the assumption that the point of the act was to limit and only limit dangerous impurity, then I think it's important to challenge that, because it seems to be an error by omission. The full text of the act clearly references not just dangerous impurities, but the whole spirit of deceptive dilution of purity with filler. And this is why I think it's important to know the history behind it as well. The act did not fall from the sky. It was not merely a matter of people dropping dead from poisonous adulterated products. There was a broader spectrum of adulteration, from lethal danger to deceptive but unlikely to be dangerous to anything but your pocketbook. And either way, there was a national uproar about it, and people had decided they'd had enough with it and they pressured legislature for redress. There is a reason that said legislature didn't just stop at prohibiting dangerous impurities, and that is because there wasn't just an element of physical grievance, but moral grievance as well. I think that arguments which presume that the market itself is a good enough mechanism end up missing this element of the act. The act was set up not just to protect consumers from physical danger, but to protect society from dishonest, anti-consumer business tactics which are intended to deceive. It is the latter part which I believe your argument misses. [1] http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/PPL_059_384_FoodDrugCosmeticAct.pdf http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/PPL_059_384_F...