CDZ Do We Have A Right To Know What's In Our Food?

[Moonglow]

A Constitutional right? No.

Let me push back a little.

Doesn't knowing what food the government allows to be sold in the open market fall under them looking out for our general wellfare? Which is a constitutional right if I'm not mistaken.

The federal government has no power over what food is 'allowed' to be sold. General Welfare is perhaps the most abused clause in the document, at least by those that seek to reject the notion of a federal government with limited powers. After all, ANYTHING could be considered controllable by the central planners if it was the fed's job to provide welfare, which was not the original intent. Not even close. In fact, it meant the opposite of what you're implying. General welfare is not giving the government the authority over every area of life, but only those specific powers listed or enumerated in the Constitution.

Let's see what Jame Madison had to say about it:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”

Why so many support the notion of every increasing central control is beyond baffling to me. Are you just naturally inclined to want to be told what to do? I don't get that.

It's not about control, it's about disclosure...

 

[Moonglow]

Food manufacturers are already required to put the ingredients on the package, so all one has to do is read the list. And if you don't trust a restaurant or a butcher to provide quality items as described on the menu or in the butcher case, then don't patronize their businesses.

So according to you, we already have all the ingredients on every food product available to us in the open market via the package/product itself. Is that correct?

That would depend on how detailed you define information. I don't need to know that the corn in a tortilla came from Farmer Jones cornfield at such and such latitude and longitude in Kansas.

Would you want to know what chemicals are used to grow that food?

 

[eflatminor]

A Constitutional right? No.

Let me push back a little.

Doesn't knowing what food the government allows to be sold in the open market fall under them looking out for our general wellfare? Which is a constitutional right if I'm not mistaken.

The federal government has no power over what food is 'allowed' to be sold. General Welfare is perhaps the most abused clause in the document, at least by those that seek to reject the notion of a federal government with limited powers. After all, ANYTHING could be considered controllable by the central planners if it was the fed's job to provide welfare, which was not the original intent. Not even close. In fact, it meant the opposite of what you're implying. General welfare is not giving the government the authority over every area of life, but only those specific powers listed or enumerated in the Constitution.

Let's see what Jame Madison had to say about it:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”

Why so many support the notion of every increasing central control is beyond baffling to me. Are you just naturally inclined to want to be told what to do? I don't get that.

It's not about control, it's about disclosure...

Horse hockey. If I choose to not to follow your rules for disclose, you'll send men with guns to fine and/or incarcerate me. Just like every Progressive idea, it must be instituted by force. You don't get more controlling than that.

 

[Moonglow]

A Constitutional right? No.

Let me push back a little.

Doesn't knowing what food the government allows to be sold in the open market fall under them looking out for our general wellfare? Which is a constitutional right if I'm not mistaken.

The federal government has no power over what food is 'allowed' to be sold. General Welfare is perhaps the most abused clause in the document, at least by those that seek to reject the notion of a federal government with limited powers. After all, ANYTHING could be considered controllable by the central planners if it was the fed's job to provide welfare, which was not the original intent. Not even close. In fact, it meant the opposite of what you're implying. General welfare is not giving the government the authority over every area of life, but only those specific powers listed or enumerated in the Constitution.

Let's see what Jame Madison had to say about it:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”

Why so many support the notion of every increasing central control is beyond baffling to me. Are you just naturally inclined to want to be told what to do? I don't get that.

It's not about control, it's about disclosure...

Horse hockey. If I choose to not to follow your rules for disclose, you'll send men with guns to fine and/or incarcerate me. Just like every Progressive idea, it must be instituted by force. You don't get more controlling than that.

Men with guns, why there is nothing to fear over that, just carry your own gun......if we could trust business not to sell rotten or contaminated foodstuffs I'd be all for no disclosure, but since that has not been the case prior to food product safety laws were passed over 100 years ago. And yet still today we still have food products that are unhealthy and dangerous for human consumption, even with tighter controls....

 

[Eaglewings]

A Constitutional right? No.

Let me push back a little.

Doesn't knowing what food the government allows to be sold in the open market fall under them looking out for our general wellfare? Which is a constitutional right if I'm not mistaken.

The federal government has no power over what food is 'allowed' to be sold. General Welfare is perhaps the most abused clause in the document, at least by those that seek to reject the notion of a federal government with limited powers. After all, ANYTHING could be considered controllable by the central planners if it was the fed's job to provide welfare, which was not the original intent. Not even close. In fact, it meant the opposite of what you're implying. General welfare is not giving the government the authority over every area of life, but only those specific powers listed or enumerated in the Constitution.

Let's see what Jame Madison had to say about it:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”

Why so many support the notion of every increasing central control is beyond baffling to me. Are you just naturally inclined to want to be told what to do? I don't get that.

But it is the FDA's job to alert us to what is going into our food supply..drug supply. Otherwise what am I paying them for except for sleeping in bed with the politicians?

.

 

[Harry Dresden]

A Constitutional right? No.

Let me push back a little.

Doesn't knowing what food the government allows to be sold in the open market fall under them looking out for our general wellfare? Which is a constitutional right if I'm not mistaken.

The federal government has no power over what food is 'allowed' to be sold. General Welfare is perhaps the most abused clause in the document, at least by those that seek to reject the notion of a federal government with limited powers. After all, ANYTHING could be considered controllable by the central planners if it was the fed's job to provide welfare, which was not the original intent. Not even close. In fact, it meant the opposite of what you're implying. General welfare is not giving the government the authority over every area of life, but only those specific powers listed or enumerated in the Constitution.

Let's see what Jame Madison had to say about it:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”

Why so many support the notion of every increasing central control is beyond baffling to me. Are you just naturally inclined to want to be told what to do? I don't get that.

It's not about control, it's about disclosure...

Horse hockey. If I choose to not to follow your rules for disclose, you'll send men with guns to fine and/or incarcerate me. Just like every Progressive idea, it must be instituted by force. You don't get more controlling than that.

Men with guns, why there is nothing to fear over that, just carry your own gun......if we could trust business not to sell rotten or contaminated foodstuffs I'd be all for no disclosure, but since that has not been the case prior to food product safety laws were passed over 100 years ago. And yet still today we still have food products that are unhealthy and dangerous for human consumption, even with tighter controls....

thats the key for me right here....if we could trust business not to sell rotten or contaminated foodstuffs....i dont trust the greedy basterds...some people have no morals or respect for others....its all about how much money we can make,and if someone gets fucked over?.....we will deal with that when we get caught...thats what our lawyers are for....

 

[eflatminor]

A Constitutional right? No.

Let me push back a little.

Doesn't knowing what food the government allows to be sold in the open market fall under them looking out for our general wellfare? Which is a constitutional right if I'm not mistaken.

The federal government has no power over what food is 'allowed' to be sold. General Welfare is perhaps the most abused clause in the document, at least by those that seek to reject the notion of a federal government with limited powers. After all, ANYTHING could be considered controllable by the central planners if it was the fed's job to provide welfare, which was not the original intent. Not even close. In fact, it meant the opposite of what you're implying. General welfare is not giving the government the authority over every area of life, but only those specific powers listed or enumerated in the Constitution.

Let's see what Jame Madison had to say about it:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”

Why so many support the notion of every increasing central control is beyond baffling to me. Are you just naturally inclined to want to be told what to do? I don't get that.

It's not about control, it's about disclosure...

Horse hockey. If I choose to not to follow your rules for disclose, you'll send men with guns to fine and/or incarcerate me. Just like every Progressive idea, it must be instituted by force. You don't get more controlling than that.

Men with guns, why there is nothing to fear over that, just carry your own gun......if we could trust business not to sell rotten or contaminated foodstuffs I'd be all for no disclosure, but since that has not been the case prior to food product safety laws were passed over 100 years ago. And yet still today we still have food products that are unhealthy and dangerous for human consumption, even with tighter controls....

Yes, we get it. Your ideas are so darn good, they have to be mandatory, cuz you know what's best for all of us.

Pass.

 

[Eaglewings]

Don't want to ruin your Sunday BBQ so link shows some gross stuff FDA approved to allow in our meat.

Meat from Diseased Animals Approved for Consumers

 

[Moonglow]

Don't want to ruin your Sunday BBQ so link shows some gross stuff FDA approved to allow in our meat.

Meat from Diseased Animals Approved for Consumers

However, that information was very old news, not a description of a recent event. The text was lifted directly from a July 2000 news article describing the implementation of new federal rules for classifying animal carcasses:

 

[320 Years of History]

Do you believe that we have a right to know what's in the food we purchase every day and put into our bodies?

Why/why not?

What kind of food are you buying that you don't know what's in it? What do you think might be in, say, a tomato, butter, eggs, spices and seasonings, cheese, cabbage, liver or chicken? Sugars, proteins and fats. I don't believe I've wondered what more than that is in the food I buy. I know certain fish have mercury in them. I just don't buy that kind of fish. If there are other kinds of fish, or poultry or "whatever" that have harmful and not "normally" found ingredients in them, I would want to know, but absent knowing, I'm not going to have a conniption over my ignorance of such a fact.

To answer you question, I don't know if there we have a right to know what's in food. I know that knowing the ratio of sugars, proteins, and fats in any given food item is conducive to healthy eating, but then I don't need a food producer to tell me those things, for it's widely available on the Internet. I don't have a "beef" to raise about food producers being required to share the ingredients/makeup of the food they sell, but neither do I have a problem with their not being made to do so. I'm certainly not worried that food producers may willfully put harmful ingredients in their products. I am sure they don't aim to do that because doing so goes contrary to their achieving going concern and profit motives.

 

[320 Years of History]

Don't want to ruin your Sunday BBQ so link shows some gross stuff FDA approved to allow in our meat.

Meat from Diseased Animals Approved for Consumers

You know, homo sapiens sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and we are the same physiological creatures now that we were then, at least as far as I know. "Back then," we ate "stuff" that hardly seems palatable to us today. That is how we've changed culturally, not biologically. I'm sure our ancestors ate diseased meat; such meat was far easier to come by. Was doing so fatal at time? I'm sure sometimes it was. Even so, doing so wasn't the "end or the world" for the species, I think we'll be okay with the stuff the FDA allows extant in our food items.

 

[Eaglewings]

You know, homo sapiens sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and we are the same physiological creatures now that we were then, at least as far as I know. "Back then," we ate "stuff" that hardly seems palatable to us today. That is how we've changed culturally, not biologically. I'm sure our ancestors ate diseased meat; such meat was far easier to come by. Was doing so fatal at time? I'm sure sometimes it was. Even so, doing so wasn't the "end or the world" for the species, I think we'll be okay with the stuff the FDA allows extant in our food items.

Good way to think about it , well said.
I already have a hard time eating meat..It is true what you are saying, they didn't have refrigerators , maybe a cooling shed.
I would not survive in those days..but maybe in 100 years from now they will say the same about us.

.

 

[MarcATL]

The federal government has no power over what food is 'allowed' to be sold. General Welfare is perhaps the most abused clause in the document, at least by those that seek to reject the notion of a federal government with limited powers. After all, ANYTHING could be considered controllable by the central planners if it was the fed's job to provide welfare, which was not the original intent. Not even close. In fact, it meant the opposite of what you're implying. General welfare is not giving the government the authority over every area of life, but only those specific powers listed or enumerated in the Constitution.

Let's see what Jame Madison had to say about it:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”

Why so many support the notion of every increasing central control is beyond baffling to me. Are you just naturally inclined to want to be told what to do? I don't get that.

And you're implying this nefarious all-powerful "central govment" with what you're saying.

All I'm suggesting is that it's the government's responsibility to ensure that they regulate the food that is allowed to be sold in the open market. More specifically, to have the producers of the foods being sold to label their ingredients clearly.

Not ban anything, simply label their ingredients.

Do you have a problem with that?

 

[MarcATL]

That would depend on how detailed you define information. I don't need to know that the corn in a tortilla came from Farmer Jones cornfield at such and such latitude and longitude in Kansas.

Since you don't need the latitude and longitude, which is clearly a red herring, what details do you need about the food your purchase on the public/open market to ingest into your body?

 

[MarcATL]

You know, homo sapiens sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and we are the same physiological creatures now that we were then, at least as far as I know. "Back then," we ate "stuff" that hardly seems palatable to us today. That is how we've changed culturally, not biologically. I'm sure our ancestors ate diseased meat; such meat was far easier to come by. Was doing so fatal at time? I'm sure sometimes it was. Even so, doing so wasn't the "end or the world" for the species, I think we'll be okay with the stuff the FDA allows extant in our food items.

Interesting...

Would you say the same thing about the weapons we use to defend ourselves and our country too? In that we should be content w/using the same things homo sapiens used "back then" today?

 

[MarcATL]

Horse hockey. If I choose to not to follow your rules for disclose, you'll send men with guns to fine and/or incarcerate me. Just like every Progressive idea, it must be instituted by force. You don't get more controlling than that.

What would be your reason for refusing to follow the rules for disclosure?

 

[MarcATL]

What kind of food are you buying that you don't know what's in it? What do you think might be in, say, a tomato, butter, eggs, spices and seasonings, cheese, cabbage, liver or chicken? Sugars, proteins and fats. I don't believe I've wondered what more than that is in the food I buy. I know certain fish have mercury in them. I just don't buy that kind of fish. If there are other kinds of fish, or poultry or "whatever" that have harmful and not "normally" found ingredients in them, I would want to know, but absent knowing, I'm not going to have a conniption over my ignorance of such a fact.

To answer you question, I don't know if there we have a right to know what's in food. I know that knowing the ratio of sugars, proteins, and fats in any given food item is conducive to healthy eating, but then I don't need a food producer to tell me those things, for it's widely available on the Internet. I don't have a "beef" to raise about food producers being required to share the ingredients/makeup of the food they sell, but neither do I have a problem with their not being made to do so. I'm certainly not worried that food producers may willfully put harmful ingredients in their products. I am sure they don't aim to do that because doing so goes contrary to their achieving going concern and profit motives.

There are chemicals used in just about every. single. product. you buy at your local supermarket.

I think it's a right to know exactly what the chemicals they put in the food to sell to us.

Don't be so obtuse.

What benefit is loss from knowing? What's the down-side to knowing? Why do you seem to be kicking so hard against this?

 

[Eaglewings]

What kind of food are you buying that you don't know what's in it? What do you think might be in, say, a tomato, butter, eggs, spices and seasonings, cheese, cabbage, liver or chicken? Sugars, proteins and fats. I don't believe I've wondered what more than that is in the food I buy. I know certain fish have mercury in them. I just don't buy that kind of fish. If there are other kinds of fish, or poultry or "whatever" that have harmful and not "normally" found ingredients in them, I would want to know, but absent knowing, I'm not going to have a conniption over my ignorance of such a fact.

To answer you question, I don't know if there we have a right to know what's in food. I know that knowing the ratio of sugars, proteins, and fats in any given food item is conducive to healthy eating, but then I don't need a food producer to tell me those things, for it's widely available on the Internet. I don't have a "beef" to raise about food producers being required to share the ingredients/makeup of the food they sell, but neither do I have a problem with their not being made to do so. I'm certainly not worried that food producers may willfully put harmful ingredients in their products. I am sure they don't aim to do that because doing so goes contrary to their achieving going concern and profit motives.

There are chemicals used in just about every. single. product. you buy at your local supermarket.

I think it's a right to know exactly what the chemicals they put in the food to sell to us.

Don't be so obtuse.

What benefit is loss from knowing? What's the down-side to knowing? Why do you seem to be kicking so hard against this?

There are foods ingredients that people would die if they ate, or has a bad reaction to.

Seriously I ate a bunch of red seeded grapes this afternoon, and I had a really bad reaction with a simple blood thinner .. I almost went to the ER. Really scared me.
Yeah that was on me, but if simple little grapes can do that to people , its dangerous not knowing what the exact ingredients are and make our own choice not them making it for us.


.

 

[MarcATL]

There are foods ingredients that people would die if they ate, or has a bad reaction to.

Seriously I ate a bunch of red seeded grapes this afternoon, and I had a really bad reaction with a simple blood thinner .. I almost went to the ER. Really scared me.
Yeah that was on me, but if simple little grapes can do that to people , its dangerous not knowing what the exact ingredients are and make our own choice not them making it for us.


.

Take care of yourself buddy.

I don't agree with you on just about everything, but I don't want anything bad to happen to you.

Now about those labels...

 

[320 Years of History]

You know, homo sapiens sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and we are the same physiological creatures now that we were then, at least as far as I know. "Back then," we ate "stuff" that hardly seems palatable to us today. That is how we've changed culturally, not biologically. I'm sure our ancestors ate diseased meat; such meat was far easier to come by. Was doing so fatal at time? I'm sure sometimes it was. Even so, doing so wasn't the "end or the world" for the species, I think we'll be okay with the stuff the FDA allows extant in our food items.

Interesting...

Would you say the same thing about the weapons we use to defend ourselves and our country too? In that we should be content w/using the same things homo sapiens used "back then" today?

No, not necessarily, but I wouldn't be opposed to their being a requirement that all weaponry be of the sort we had to use "way back when." The ranged weapons we use these days make the act of war and its realities comparatively antiseptic. Perhaps folks would "think twice" were they faced with the "in your face" harshness and brutality that truly is war. Additionally, I'm not "knocking" progress; I'm merely saying that we need to keep things in perspective, and one part of that perspective is that we didn't get "here" because we "flipped out" over diseased meat. Heck, I suspect there were plenty of diseases we didn't even know existed and just ate the food and went on to bed and woke the next day to hunt and gather again.

Is the FDA allowing pathogens in our food that it knows will kill people all but outright? I don't think so. Am I going to develop the skills of a veterinarian, bacteriologist or virologist in order to recognize the signs of food infection or test every food item I want to eat, to say nothing of obtaining the materials I'd need to actually test it? Hell, no!

The consequence of that is that I have to trust that the FDA/Dept of Agriculture (DoAg) (or whatever other gov't agency/dept plays a role in the food supply) knows what it's doing far more so than I do. I can live with that consequence, or die by it if I must. There's no limit to the nature and extent of things I can allow to disconcert me, but whether the FDA/DoAg is doing as good a job as it can balancing the risks of harm to the populace with needs for an abundant and safe-to-eat food supply, and one that doesn't require consumers to be outright rich to afford to eat, just aren't among those things.