7 ms·

Unfortunately all this would result in is everything being labeled unsafe. See California and cancer.

by kayodelycaon 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Label the things unsafe that are currently banned. Not everything is currently banned, is it?
- VBprogrammer 3y ago
  I don't think you've understood the, very valid arguement in my opinion, that everything would end up with an unsafe label. In the same way that almost everything you buy either may contain nuts or is made in a factory which might process nuts - a practise which provides exactly zero useful input for the people it's intended to protect. Why would this happen for things which aren't currently banned? An abundance of caution - better to claim it's potentially unsafe than pay the claims later. Or economics - why pay more for a safe sweetener when you can use the cheap and cheerful one and just label it unsafe.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    You're assuming that people would disregard the labels. But people with allergies don't disregard the labels, they buy a different product. Most others don't care if it has traces of nuts or not because nuts aren't going to kill them, so those products find a wide market of people who are perfectly safe eating them. California says that everything causes cancer because everything kind of causes cancer and their labeling rules are stupid. If the label was only on products with a significant risk of causing cancer from ordinary use, it would be rare and people wouldn't ignore it. In other words, if it was only on the products that would otherwise be banned. This would only be a problem if you would otherwise have banned lots of things people would still want to buy given a free and informed choice, in which case actually banning them is even worse. We didn't ban cigarettes, we informed people of the risk: https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/tobacco-trends-brief/overall-tobacco-trends https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/tobacco... And that's one of the most addictive products known. Around the same percentage of adults smoke cigarettes and use illegal drugs. So what good is the ban?
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > But people with allergies don't disregard the labels, they buy a different product. And sometimes you get people like me, who eat yoghurt without checking the ingredients because you shouldn't need to, only to then find out that for some crazy reason American food companies put beef gelatine into theirs. For me vegetarian is a choice rather than mandatory, but if you rely on "common sense" people will die, and have died. It's happened with surprise nuts, despite that one being well known.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > And sometimes you get people like me, who eat yoghurt without checking the ingredients because you shouldn't need to, only to then find out that for some crazy reason American food companies put beef gelatine into theirs. They made a product and told you what was in it. You're not required to read the ingredients first but you have the opportunity to. Are you proposing that we ban beef gelatin? > if you rely on "common sense" people will die, and have died. It's happened with surprise nuts, despite that one being well known. But what are you even suggesting here? That you can't make a product with nuts if someone might not expect it, even if you labeled it?
        ben_w 3y ago
        > Are you proposing that we ban beef gelatin? Although I would in general, that wasn't the point being made in that comment. The point was: nobody expects surprises. People mostly don't read lists to confirm the absence of things they think would be crazy to find. Like boiled cow bone and skin derivatives in yoghurt. > But what are you even suggesting here? The specific thing that I actually said, with no extra hidden implications between the lines: common sense gets people killed.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > common sense gets people killed. That isn't a policy proposal. If you're in a cornfield next to a farm road that only sees one truck every six months, common sense says you're not at a busy intersection, but if you step into the road without looking and there is a truck, that's not the truck's fault. You can be cautious all the time or you can take a risk once in a while; it's your choice because it's your life. It's also not clear how it applies to the topic. If you went to the store and asked for some MDMA and they gave you some MDMA, you are not going to be surprised that the contents is MDMA. That's not why it's banned.

Unfortunately all this would result in is everything being labeled unsafe. See California and cancer.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

Label the things unsafe that are currently banned. Not everything is currently banned, is it?

VBprogrammer 3y ago
I don't think you've understood the, very valid arguement in my opinion, that everything would end up with an unsafe label. In the same way that almost everything you buy either may contain nuts or is made in a factory which might process nuts - a practise which provides exactly zero useful input for the people it's intended to protect. Why would this happen for things which aren't currently banned? An abundance of caution - better to claim it's potentially unsafe than pay the claims later. Or economics - why pay more for a safe sweetener when you can use the cheap and cheerful one and just label it unsafe.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  You're assuming that people would disregard the labels. But people with allergies don't disregard the labels, they buy a different product. Most others don't care if it has traces of nuts or not because nuts aren't going to kill them, so those products find a wide market of people who are perfectly safe eating them. California says that everything causes cancer because everything kind of causes cancer and their labeling rules are stupid. If the label was only on products with a significant risk of causing cancer from ordinary use, it would be rare and people wouldn't ignore it. In other words, if it was only on the products that would otherwise be banned. This would only be a problem if you would otherwise have banned lots of things people would still want to buy given a free and informed choice, in which case actually banning them is even worse. We didn't ban cigarettes, we informed people of the risk: https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/tobacco-trends-brief/overall-tobacco-trends https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/tobacco... And that's one of the most addictive products known. Around the same percentage of adults smoke cigarettes and use illegal drugs. So what good is the ban?
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > But people with allergies don't disregard the labels, they buy a different product. And sometimes you get people like me, who eat yoghurt without checking the ingredients because you shouldn't need to, only to then find out that for some crazy reason American food companies put beef gelatine into theirs. For me vegetarian is a choice rather than mandatory, but if you rely on "common sense" people will die, and have died. It's happened with surprise nuts, despite that one being well known.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > And sometimes you get people like me, who eat yoghurt without checking the ingredients because you shouldn't need to, only to then find out that for some crazy reason American food companies put beef gelatine into theirs. They made a product and told you what was in it. You're not required to read the ingredients first but you have the opportunity to. Are you proposing that we ban beef gelatin? > if you rely on "common sense" people will die, and have died. It's happened with surprise nuts, despite that one being well known. But what are you even suggesting here? That you can't make a product with nuts if someone might not expect it, even if you labeled it?
      - ben_w 3y ago
        > Are you proposing that we ban beef gelatin? Although I would in general, that wasn't the point being made in that comment. The point was: nobody expects surprises. People mostly don't read lists to confirm the absence of things they think would be crazy to find. Like boiled cow bone and skin derivatives in yoghurt. > But what are you even suggesting here? The specific thing that I actually said, with no extra hidden implications between the lines: common sense gets people killed.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > common sense gets people killed. That isn't a policy proposal. If you're in a cornfield next to a farm road that only sees one truck every six months, common sense says you're not at a busy intersection, but if you step into the road without looking and there is a truck, that's not the truck's fault. You can be cautious all the time or you can take a risk once in a while; it's your choice because it's your life. It's also not clear how it applies to the topic. If you went to the store and asked for some MDMA and they gave you some MDMA, you are not going to be surprised that the contents is MDMA. That's not why it's banned.