16 ms·

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 everythi

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.
      - djur 3y ago
        > Like boiled cow bone and skin derivatives in yoghurt. Yogurt is already made out of bovine bodily fluids. Why is it so shocking and disgusting for another bovine product to be used in it as well?
- Retric 3y ago
  > You're assuming that people would disregard the labels. People do disregard labels including those with allergies. > 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. Ahh, but the risks are high enough that companies will still put that label on everything unless companies where required to only put such a label on products with significant risk which then gets back to regulators.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > People do disregard labels including those with allergies. Exception that proves the rule. The purpose of the law is to protect people who act within reason. If you have an allergy and don't read the label, that's on you, not the company or the government. > Ahh, but the risks are such companies will still put that label on everything unless companies where required to only put such a label on products with significant risk which then gets back to regulators. The entire point is that "regulators say you have to label this" and "regulators say you cannot buy this even with informed consent" are two different things.
    - riversflow 3y ago
      > The purpose of the law is to protect people who act within reason. This is just flat out wrong, and pretty gross. The purpose of the law is to protect people. Not white people, not land-owning people, not smart people, not literate people, not able-bodied people, not "reasonable" people. People. Full stop. Assuming people are reasonable is a recipe for disaster, and ablest. Perhaps one day someone you know will get dementia, or have a stroke, or get macular degeneration, or any of the number of ailments that can relieve you of your ability to read and comprehend long texts, lists, and warnings, then maybe you will understand how ridiculous this view is.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        I hope your argument isn't that only white people can exercise reason. If you have a mental illness you can go to the store and buy rat poison and eat it. The law doesn't address this by prohibiting rodenticides. If you think you can fly and jump off the roof of a parking structure, the government can't disable gravity. Acting within reason in that context is getting treatment, which is a whole different set of laws.
- lmm 3y ago
  > But people with allergies don't disregard the labels, they buy a different product. I have a nut-allergic friend who has given up on reading the labels and relies on his own common sense, because the labels are on everything now. (Worse, if you look at what's happened with sesame, manufacturers now deliberately incorporate sesame into their recipes so that they can put the warning labels on, because that's cheaper than the risk of selling a product that doesn't contain sesame). > 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. How do you imagine that this might be accomplished? If manufacturers have the choice of a) go through an approvals process b) put a warning label on their product, they're going to pick b, every time. > We didn't ban cigarettes, we informed people of the risk: And the result is that smoking has fallen a lot more slowly than predicted and millions of people have died.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > I have a nut-allergic friend who has given up on reading the labels and relies on his own common sense, because the labels are on everything now. There is a difference between containing nuts and being processed on equipment that also processed nuts. The difference matters more for some people than others. > Worse, if you look at what's happened with sesame, manufacturers now deliberately incorporate sesame into their recipes so that they can put the warning labels on, because that's cheaper than the risk of selling a product that doesn't contain sesame This is what happens when you have bad rules. They have a machine which has processed nuts in the past, it isn't cost effective to remove every trace of nuts from it, so they accurately labeled their product as one processed on equipment that has processed nuts. Maybe the trace amounts aren't enough to matter, but the consequences can be dire so they're cautious. Isn't this supposed to be about safety? They only added nuts to the product after you prohibited them from being conservative. And they're being atypically conservative because the "dangerous" label isn't applicable to most of their customers who they then don't have to worry about being deterred. > How do you imagine that this might be accomplished? If manufacturers have the choice of a) go through an approvals process b) put a warning label on their product, they're going to pick b, every time. Why is the company even involved in the process? They produce a new product and it initially gets a label that says it hasn't been tested, which will rightfully deter customers when most existing products don't have that label. The government performs its testing to check if it's harmful, prioritizing based on which new products are expected to be popular, and once published their results go on the label one way or the other. If the company wants to get rid of the untested label or not have it present at release they can pay for expedited evaluation and go to the front of the line, but all popular products get tested relatively quickly and so untested products are suspect, and products evaluated as unsafe then have to be labeled as unsafe. > And the result is that smoking has fallen a lot more slowly than predicted and millions of people have died. As compared to the times when we've prohibited other substances and people all stopped using them immediately?

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.
    - djur 3y ago
      > Like boiled cow bone and skin derivatives in yoghurt. Yogurt is already made out of bovine bodily fluids. Why is it so shocking and disgusting for another bovine product to be used in it as well?
Retric 3y ago
> You're assuming that people would disregard the labels. People do disregard labels including those with allergies. > 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. Ahh, but the risks are high enough that companies will still put that label on everything unless companies where required to only put such a label on products with significant risk which then gets back to regulators.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > People do disregard labels including those with allergies. Exception that proves the rule. The purpose of the law is to protect people who act within reason. If you have an allergy and don't read the label, that's on you, not the company or the government. > Ahh, but the risks are such companies will still put that label on everything unless companies where required to only put such a label on products with significant risk which then gets back to regulators. The entire point is that "regulators say you have to label this" and "regulators say you cannot buy this even with informed consent" are two different things.
  - riversflow 3y ago
    > The purpose of the law is to protect people who act within reason. This is just flat out wrong, and pretty gross. The purpose of the law is to protect people. Not white people, not land-owning people, not smart people, not literate people, not able-bodied people, not "reasonable" people. People. Full stop. Assuming people are reasonable is a recipe for disaster, and ablest. Perhaps one day someone you know will get dementia, or have a stroke, or get macular degeneration, or any of the number of ailments that can relieve you of your ability to read and comprehend long texts, lists, and warnings, then maybe you will understand how ridiculous this view is.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      I hope your argument isn't that only white people can exercise reason. If you have a mental illness you can go to the store and buy rat poison and eat it. The law doesn't address this by prohibiting rodenticides. If you think you can fly and jump off the roof of a parking structure, the government can't disable gravity. Acting within reason in that context is getting treatment, which is a whole different set of laws.
lmm 3y ago
> But people with allergies don't disregard the labels, they buy a different product. I have a nut-allergic friend who has given up on reading the labels and relies on his own common sense, because the labels are on everything now. (Worse, if you look at what's happened with sesame, manufacturers now deliberately incorporate sesame into their recipes so that they can put the warning labels on, because that's cheaper than the risk of selling a product that doesn't contain sesame). > 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. How do you imagine that this might be accomplished? If manufacturers have the choice of a) go through an approvals process b) put a warning label on their product, they're going to pick b, every time. > We didn't ban cigarettes, we informed people of the risk: And the result is that smoking has fallen a lot more slowly than predicted and millions of people have died.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > I have a nut-allergic friend who has given up on reading the labels and relies on his own common sense, because the labels are on everything now. There is a difference between containing nuts and being processed on equipment that also processed nuts. The difference matters more for some people than others. > Worse, if you look at what's happened with sesame, manufacturers now deliberately incorporate sesame into their recipes so that they can put the warning labels on, because that's cheaper than the risk of selling a product that doesn't contain sesame This is what happens when you have bad rules. They have a machine which has processed nuts in the past, it isn't cost effective to remove every trace of nuts from it, so they accurately labeled their product as one processed on equipment that has processed nuts. Maybe the trace amounts aren't enough to matter, but the consequences can be dire so they're cautious. Isn't this supposed to be about safety? They only added nuts to the product after you prohibited them from being conservative. And they're being atypically conservative because the "dangerous" label isn't applicable to most of their customers who they then don't have to worry about being deterred. > How do you imagine that this might be accomplished? If manufacturers have the choice of a) go through an approvals process b) put a warning label on their product, they're going to pick b, every time. Why is the company even involved in the process? They produce a new product and it initially gets a label that says it hasn't been tested, which will rightfully deter customers when most existing products don't have that label. The government performs its testing to check if it's harmful, prioritizing based on which new products are expected to be popular, and once published their results go on the label one way or the other. If the company wants to get rid of the untested label or not have it present at release they can pay for expedited evaluation and go to the front of the line, but all popular products get tested relatively quickly and so untested products are suspect, and products evaluated as unsafe then have to be labeled as unsafe. > And the result is that smoking has fallen a lot more slowly than predicted and millions of people have died. As compared to the times when we've prohibited other substances and people all stopped using them immediately?