Then it is surely up to you to find out before consuming, or to buy only from vendors you trust who already disclose ingredients to your own standards and satisfaction , no?
Regards, onebornfree.
I consider myself part of the market. Like I said. I’m a big believer in free market solutions for problems like these and I think that consumer watch-dog agencies have been very good at helping you know what’s in restaurant food/processed food/gm, better than the government has. I’m just merely asking a hypothetical. Nothing more, nothing less.
But, the question I’m asking is- what if nothing exists? I guess one would come about spontaneously… if the need for it came up and the need for such government intervention would diminish. I guess awareness is the problem, and, the role the media could play is helping spread the awareness (not propaganda) about the food problems. The government might be able to help a bit… but I guess awareness is the real problem now that I think about it.
I would obviously buy from those that listed their ingredients to me as to those that did not. I think I get the point here.
So, but would any of you ever think that some regulation might be justified here? I’m not FOR the regulation, so, don’t treat me like a statist-utopian here. All I was asking in my original question was if the regulation might be justified- not if it would work or not, or if I thought it was a good thing, or anything like that.
cool.
I remember hearing Lew Rockwell in an interview, and he was asked what should people do. He said, “Get educated.” It was so simple, yet, profound. It’s what we have been doing all along, and will continue to do no matter what. Of course it depends on the fruit of knowledge people eat. The more I learn, the more I realize what’s actually going on. It helps.
Why? Certainly you have the right not to pay for a product if I don’t tell you what’s in it, but I don’t see why this should be extended to a right to know what’s in it, just because I put it up for sale. If you don’t want to buy a food without knowing what’s in it (a good idea) then don’t buy it.
like a space program, or (ironically) the protection of property rights?
You have the right not to buy a good if you’re not happy with the information provided by the supplier and/or if the supplier fails to disclose information they knew about the product being harmful (something courts will define.) You do not have the “right” to demand the supplier tells you what’s in it otherwise. Firms will respond accordingly, whether their consumers demand more or less information.
As a consumer it is your responsibility to consume intelligently. The seller only has the obligation not to lie.
To be clear, I think he does have a right to lie when it comes to advertising his product as the best there is. You probably meant that only in the context of not mislabeling, but I just wanted to be clear that in my understanding it was perfectly legal to lie when trying to persuade a customer to buy one’s product.
What is best is subjective so no lying is possible.
Yep, because the implication is “best… at servicing your needs.”
Makes sense. How about lying that your product is supposed to be the cheapest? Or that it’s supposedly guaranteed to give results? Could that be considered fraud? I don’t think so, but I’m interested in your take on this, since you’ve probably read and thought more about rights theory than me.
I think it’d only matter where for instance you claimed there’s X amount of fat in the product when you know (and it can be proven) that it’s Y amount, or you claim it to be “low” (by the industry standard for the word) when it really isn’t. Prices are ratios of exchange so they’re and subjective in origin so not amenable to this kind of treatment, but if you say “lowest price in the market” then that is measurable… but I doubt any court would sympathise with a consumer taken in by such claims this day and age.
For practical purposes it doesn’t really matter as you can not look into anybodies mind so it could never be proven even if we concluded that it was unethical. The producer could easily say he was convinced that his product was the cheapest on the market or that a study he read about his product saying it works seemed perfectly credible to him. Nobody has an obligation to make sure what he says is 100% correct. Being wrong is not a crime.
I think what’s missing in this discussion is that does the producer/seller have the right to know anything about you in turn? If the answer is no, then clearly you don’t have a right to know much about him/her/them either. All you have a right to do is ask questions, and make sure the seller is answering them truthfully. If he’s stupid enough to mix sand in your mystery cookie rather than just random pieces of scrap goodies then he’s liable for injury (as sand has that effect on people). Or anyone else that attempts to sell you anything and you ask questions as to its function and capacity to function. Any dishonesty in the inquiries are fraud, but the sale itself is not fraud. Understanding that I hope will clarify the issue.