• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No One is responsible for what you put in Your Mouth

No one besides yourself is responsible for what you put in your mouth?


  • Total voters
    43
Dioxins. Lead. Mercury. Arsenic. VOCs. That is stuff that does NOT belong in my food. Should I be required to bring a chemical test kit with me every time I eat out or go grocery shopping? Hell no. There's a reason we need regulations--it's so that what we put in our bodies won't literally kill us. Oh, and Big Agriculture is fighting those regulations tooth and nail.

Seriously? What would happen without the regulation? Every company would be going around throwing arsenic in there food? Wouldnt be making much money for long with all your customers dying.
 
Once again, removing responsibility from some for their actions. This seems odd for anyone who believes in all being held responsibile for their actions.

Oh the producer is responsible as well, just not in the way most of the arguments i see being made. Such as having sugar in food... Lol, like I said earlier, if glass winds up in my food you bet your bottom, the producer is responsible. Lying about what is in a product is also a big no no, as i said earlier. But you should still show vigilance when it comes to educating yourself about how much sugar or other unhealthy substances that are clearly labelled on the food but, if it has nothing on there, are you going to buy it or find out what is in the product?
 
Seriously? What would happen without the regulation? Every company would be going around throwing arsenic in there food? Wouldnt be making much money for long with all your customers dying.

History tells us they would cut corners and people would get ill. It has happened and still does on occasion.
 
Oh the producer is responsible as well, just not in the way most of the arguments i see being made. Such as having sugar in food... Lol, like I said earlier, if glass winds up in my food you bet your bottom, the producer is responsible. Lying about what is in a product is also a big no no, as i said earlier. But you should still show vigilance when it comes to educating yourself about how much sugar or other unhealthy substances that are clearly labelled on the food but, if it has nothing on there, are you going to buy it or find out what is in the product?

I've tried to be fairly specific, and I've never said just putting sugar in the food. However, no matter how specific I am, people keep removing responsibility from the producer, and with no specific exceptions.

That said, if I was a producer, and I knew huges amounts of sugar were having an adverse effect on children, what should I do? Market to children? They love sugar, as do many adults.
 
I agree standards for food production should be set and inspected regularly. However, there's a thin line when you institute bans into the food production process. Sugar, especially white sugar, is a good example. There are many who would ban it outright, not allowing it in our food at all - that's historical and those folks have some pretty good arguments. But I like white sugar in my coffee, none of the substitutes, including algae sugar, taste near the same. I'm not overweight, I'm not obese. I'm a pretty healthy 61 year old. Do I have to make it myself?

What it really comes down to are our children. And let's get this out of the way, poverty is not the cause. The cause is wanting convenience and parents' inability to teach their children that easy does not equal good. No amount of government intervention will reverse that.

When I was little the average candy bar was damn near the size of my head. But my parents wouldn't let me eat the whole thing in one sitting and they were always explaining the whys and wherefores of good nutition to me. Sure, when we were at the store, it would have been easy to buy a soda, and the big long-neck bottles were cheap. But my mom always made me wait until we got home where I could have orange juice or some other drink that was nutritious.

This current problem is at the feet of the parents, who, with age, chase convenience and instant gratification and teach that to their children. No amount of government nannyism is going to change that.
 
Once again, removing responsibility from some for their actions. This seems odd for anyone who believes in all being held responsibile for their actions.

Removing responsibility from what? It's the consumers responsibility to know what it is that they are consuming. If they don't bother to find out, they still assume all risks involved by consuming the product. The information is available. The ignorance of some is no excuse to waive personal responsibility.
 
Removing responsibility from what? It's the consumers responsibility to know what it is that they are consuming. If they don't bother to find out, they still assume all risks involved by consuming the product. The information is available. The ignorance of some is no excuse to waive personal responsibility.

I'll remeber that when I sell you some poison you didn't knwo was there. I have no responsibility. It's all your fault.
 
I agree standards for food production should be set and inspected regularly. However, there's a thin line when you institute bans into the food production process. Sugar, especially white sugar, is a good example. There are many who would ban it outright, not allowing it in our food at all - that's historical and those folks have some pretty good arguments. But I like white sugar in my coffee, none of the substitutes, including algae sugar, taste near the same. I'm not overweight, I'm not obese. I'm a pretty healthy 61 year old. Do I have to make it myself?

What it really comes down to are our children. And let's get this out of the way, poverty is not the cause. The cause is wanting convenience and parents' inability to teach their children that easy does not equal good. No amount of government intervention will reverse that.

When I was little the average candy bar was damn near the size of my head. But my parents wouldn't let me eat the whole thing in one sitting and they were always explaining the whys and wherefores of good nutition to me. Sure, when we were at the store, it would have been easy to buy a soda, and the big long-neck bottles were cheap. But my mom always made me wait until we got home where I could have orange juice or some other drink that was nutritious.

This current problem is at the feet of the parents, who, with age, chase convenience and instant gratification and teach that to their children. No amount of government nannyism is going to change that.

As I understand the thread question, it isn't where is the line (I agree there is a line). The question is where does the responibility always lay. Depending on circumstances, I would argue there is likely some responibility in both directions.
 
History tells us they would cut corners and people would get ill. It has happened and still does on occasion.

Oh so imposing regulations doesnt cause them to try to cut more corners? A company tried to cut a corner, so regulation is slapped on that whole industry but, it was 1 out of 10 doing it. Then another company has to try to cut a corner because of that regulation, bam they get caught, more regs now :(... What are the different effects on that industry now? We have a safer industry right!!! Regulations worked with the bp oil spill right? Oh wait, it wouldnt be a spill then... Regulations make it hard to start small businesses, but even when big companies like BP mess up, its really not a big deal, they have money, lawyers, and political pull. Regulations do nothing but destroy the dream of free market capitalism and replace it with crony capitalism/corporatism.
 
Oh so imposing regulations doesnt cause them to try to cut more corners? A company tried to cut a corner, so regulation is slapped on that whole industry but, it was 1 out of 10 doing it. Then another company has to try to cut a corner because of that regulation, bam they get caught, more regs now :(... What are the different effects on that industry now? We have a safer industry right!!! Regulations worked with the bp oil spill right? Oh wait, it wouldnt be a spill then... Regulations make it hard to start small businesses, but even when big companies like BP mess up, its really not a big deal, they have money, lawyers, and political pull. Regulations do nothing but destroy the dream of free market capitalism and replace it with crony capitalism/corporatism.

Before regulations, we had a lot more problems, so I'm not sure where you're getting this hypothetical. We had this: In 1906, Upton Sinclair's novel "The Jungle" uncovered harrowing conditions inside America's meat packing plants and initiated a period of transformation in the nation's meat industry.

Meatpacking in America: Still a Jungle Out There? . NOW | PBS

Of course beyond food we ahd this as well:

The Cuyahoga River[6] ( /ˌkaɪ.əˈhɒɡə/ KY-ə-HOG-ə, or /ˌkaɪ.əˈhoʊɡə/ KY-ə-HOH-gə)[7][8][9][10] is located in Northeast Ohio in the United States. Outside of Ohio, the river is most famous for being "the river that caught fire", helping to spur the environmental movement in the late 1960s. Native Americans called this winding water "Cuyahoga," which means "crooked river" in the Iroquois language.

Cuyahoga River - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this:

The Los Angeles Times reported that a pall of smoke and fumes descended on downtown, cutting visibility to three blocks. Striking in the midst of a heat wave, the "gas attack" was nearly unbearable, gripping workers and residents with an eye-stinging, throat-scraping sensation. It also left them with a realization that something had gone terribly wrong in their city, prized for its sunny climate.

50th Anniversary of Smog War
 
Before regulations, we had a lot more problems, so I'm not sure where you're getting this hypothetical. We had this: In 1906, Upton Sinclair's novel "The Jungle" uncovered harrowing conditions inside America's meat packing plants and initiated a period of transformation in the nation's meat industry.

Meatpacking in America: Still a Jungle Out There? . NOW | PBS

Of course beyond food we ahd this as well:

The Cuyahoga River[6] ( /ˌkaɪ.əˈhɒɡə/ KY-ə-HOG-ə, or /ˌkaɪ.əˈhoʊɡə/ KY-ə-HOH-gə)[7][8][9][10] is located in Northeast Ohio in the United States. Outside of Ohio, the river is most famous for being "the river that caught fire", helping to spur the environmental movement in the late 1960s. Native Americans called this winding water "Cuyahoga," which means "crooked river" in the Iroquois language.

Cuyahoga River - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this:

The Los Angeles Times reported that a pall of smoke and fumes descended on downtown, cutting visibility to three blocks. Striking in the midst of a heat wave, the "gas attack" was nearly unbearable, gripping workers and residents with an eye-stinging, throat-scraping sensation. It also left them with a realization that something had gone terribly wrong in their city, prized for its sunny climate.

50th Anniversary of Smog War

And, there is not one iota of doubbt that there are cases of mal and uber regulation....
We need better reg-writers not a return to the days of no-regulations...those were some horrible times, for those who live outside their ivory towers.
 
And, there is not one iota of doubbt that there are cases of mal and uber regulation....
We need better reg-writers not a return to the days of no-regulations...those were some horrible times, for those who live outside their ivory towers.

Or people can take it upon themselves to research the vast abundance of information pertaining to the foods they eat. It's not difficult at all. You people act like the information isn't present.
 
Is this true?

I disagree, because food corporations are notorius for deliberately enticing and addicting its client base. This thread isn't calling for any sort of regulation. It's pointing out that food corporations, the food industry, does have some culpability and responsibility in the obesity/unhealthiness epidemic. They're a part of the problem whether they want to admit it or not imo.

WTH? You ask us: No one besides yourself is responsible for what you put in your mouth? Then go on about the food industry? Dont you think that the poll is just a tad bit misleading?


No matter who made the food you still have to feed it to yourself. If you are opposed to certain foods do not make the choice to eat them. That being said there is many reasons to regulate the food industry but none of them have to do with the types of food only the safety of producing them. Which also includes harmful chemicals and ingredients.
 
Or people can take it upon themselves to research the vast abundance of information pertaining to the foods they eat. It's not difficult at all. You people act like the information isn't present.

It's never been more accessible. Hell we can research it on our phones in the aisles of grocery stores nowadays.

But no. We're all stupid victims, aren't we? Someone take care of us dammit.
 
It is the consumers job to educate themselves and the consumers choice as to what to do with that information. There is, and always has been, folks that want to sell us something that someone else thinks is bad for us. However, it the ones that hide or lie about what is in what they're selling that we need protection from. No amount of education on our part can prepare us for poisons introduced without our knowledge.

Don't like the hormones they put in factory beef, or how they're raised? Shop local beef from local farms you trust. Don't like E Coli in your lettuce? Shop local from local farmers you trust. Even in the cities there is food source information available.

Good local example of government interference. We have an Alpenlite Dairy that has been here for well over a hundred years. Up until recently I could go there and buy raw milk and raw cottage cheese (the best!). But the government has decided there's too much possibility of an E Coli outbreak, so they made them stop selling it. I've been buying from this dairy for over 30 years. I know these folks, I also know how careful they are, how clean they are.
 
Last edited:
Before regulations, we had a lot more problems, so I'm not sure where you're getting this hypothetical. We had this: In 1906, Upton Sinclair's novel "The Jungle" uncovered harrowing conditions inside America's meat packing plants and initiated a period of transformation in the nation's meat industry.

Meatpacking in America: Still a Jungle Out There? . NOW | PBS

Of course beyond food we ahd this as well:

The Cuyahoga River[6] ( /ˌkaɪ.əˈhɒɡə/ KY-ə-HOG-ə, or /ˌkaɪ.əˈhoʊɡə/ KY-ə-HOH-gə)[7][8][9][10] is located in Northeast Ohio in the United States. Outside of Ohio, the river is most famous for being "the river that caught fire", helping to spur the environmental movement in the late 1960s. Native Americans called this winding water "Cuyahoga," which means "crooked river" in the Iroquois language.

Cuyahoga River - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this:

The Los Angeles Times reported that a pall of smoke and fumes descended on downtown, cutting visibility to three blocks. Striking in the midst of a heat wave, the "gas attack" was nearly unbearable, gripping workers and residents with an eye-stinging, throat-scraping sensation. It also left them with a realization that something had gone terribly wrong in their city, prized for its sunny climate.

50th Anniversary of Smog War

Ummm, the first link is pointless, and the other two are valid But, with a capital B, regulation is not needed, because there was a gross violation of property rights.

You might enjoy this video, it shows how right you are on regulation, whoops I mean wrong.

[video]http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ[/video]
 
As to the first link, are you suggesting there were no meat issues? I think that flies in the face of history. As to the others, they bred regulations.
 
As to the first link, are you suggesting there were no meat issues? I think that flies in the face of history. As to the others, they bred regulations.

Were there? You tell me ;)

I dont think your making any points. Posting a PBS article where it starts off talking about a novel that said how bad things were in 1906 does not make your case for regulations, ummm btw it was 1906 geez what do you expect. Really all it talks about is a century worth of advancement, im sure you accredit all this to regulation lol...

And as i said before strict property rights should have been enforced by government in both cases of the latter two. Your argument is that they bred regulation? Im not arguing against that im arguing against the regulations.

You understand right?
 
Were there? You tell me ;)

I dont think your making any points. Posting a PBS article where it starts off talking about a novel that said how bad things were in 1906 does not make your case for regulations, ummm btw it was 1906 geez what do you expect. Really all it talks about is a century worth of advancement, im sure you accredit all this to regulation lol...

And as i said before strict property rights should have been enforced by government in both cases of the latter two. Your argument is that they bred regulation? Im not arguing against that im arguing against the regulations.

You understand right?

I actually thought you would be familiar with the book. It is historical and let to reforms.

Regulations came about due to a reason. We have food regulations because business did mess up with our food. We have pollution regulations because business did pollute rivers and air. We have history showing that without regulations, business will do things that harm us.
 
I actually thought you would be familiar with the book. It is historical and let to reforms.

Regulations came about due to a reason. We have food regulations because business did mess up with our food. We have pollution regulations because business did pollute rivers and air. We have history showing that without regulations, business will do things that harm us.

Lol its not historical, its fiction, written by, most likely, a socialist. Ugh you are still spurting the same nonsense and not countering my arguement... Did you not read what i had just wrote? About property rights being able to counter pollution without a need for regulation? If i owned property on a river, then a bunch of sludge comes down destroying my beautiful property and killing all my little fishies, i would be livid. And within my rights to sue and easily win, because strict property rights would be enforced, this in itself would be a good deterrent against water pollution without the need for regulation. Regulation in my opinion forces people to do the right thing instead of what good morals should be doing. I think thats why we are seeing a degradation of good morals.
 
Lol its not historical, its fiction, written by, most likely, a socialist. Ugh you are still spurting the same nonsense and not countering my arguement... Did you not read what i had just wrote? About property rights being able to counter pollution without a need for regulation? If i owned property on a river, then a bunch of sludge comes down destroying my beautiful property and killing all my little fishies, i would be livid. And within my rights to sue and easily win, because strict property rights would be enforced, this in itself would be a good deterrent against water pollution without the need for regulation. Regulation in my opinion forces people to do the right thing instead of what good morals should be doing. I think thats why we are seeing a degradation of good morals.
I think it's ironic that a Libertarian would want regulations let alone the government to intervene on his behalf. So I guess it's okay for Libertarians but not for everyone else, eh?

As a side, there is a case going on right now in my neck of the woods where developers are trying to buy up property next to a river that people have been fishing for as long as I can remember. If they succeed, this would have the effect of not only making the river inaccessible to sport fishing but will likely pollute the river with fertilizers from yard runoffs and God knows what else destroying the natural flora and fauna that live along the river. And I can almost guarentee that someone like you would be fighting tooth and nail not to pay for the pollution cleanup that came from your property.

If there is a break down in morality, look no further than the people who claim to have morals and do everything they can to prevent others from having quality of life.
 
Lol its not historical, its fiction, written by, most likely, a socialist. Ugh you are still spurting the same nonsense and not countering my arguement... Did you not read what i had just wrote? About property rights being able to counter pollution without a need for regulation? If i owned property on a river, then a bunch of sludge comes down destroying my beautiful property and killing all my little fishies, i would be livid. And within my rights to sue and easily win, because strict property rights would be enforced, this in itself would be a good deterrent against water pollution without the need for regulation. Regulation in my opinion forces people to do the right thing instead of what good morals should be doing. I think thats why we are seeing a degradation of good morals.

The fiction put a light on the companies. Some fiction is root in truth. Historically, this novel led to refrom, regulation. How can you not know this?

No, I read your response. It doesn't really make sense to me. We had those rights then. And yet, we still had the problems. Home and land owners complained, but nothing changed until there was regulation. This is history.
 
As the history of The Jungle seems to be forgotten or not known:

The President was leery of aligning himself with Sinclair's politics and conclusions in The Jungle, so he sent Labor Commissioner Charles P. Neill and social worker James Bronson Reynolds, men whose honesty and reliability he trusted, to Chicago to make surprise visits to meat packing facilities. Despite betrayal of the secret to the meat packers, who worked three shifts a day for three weeks to clean the factories prior to the inspection, Neill and Reynolds were still revolted by the conditions at the factories and at the lack of concern by plant managers. Their oral report to Roosevelt tentatively supported Sinclair, failing only to substantiate the claim of workers falling into rendering vats and being left to be sold as lard.

The Jungle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I think it's ironic that a Libertarian would want regulations let alone the government to intervene on his behalf. So I guess it's okay for Libertarians but not for everyone else, eh?

As a side, there is a case going on right now in my neck of the woods where developers are trying to buy up property next to a river that people have been fishing for as long as I can remember. If they succeed, this would have the effect of not only making the river inaccessible to sport fishing but will likely pollute the river with fertilizers from yard runoffs and God knows what else destroying the natural flora and fauna that live along the river. And I can almost guarentee that someone like you would be fighting tooth and nail not to pay for the pollution cleanup that came from your property.

If there is a break down in morality, look no further than the people who claim to have morals and do everything they can to prevent others from having quality of life.

We also see a lot of water pollution here from Factory Farms. Come to any local state legislator meeting and you will find a lot of angry people. But they have not be able to stop it.
 
Back
Top Bottom