Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (9581)	1/23/2006 7:52:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541674

I wouldn't call the existence of cats a restriction of liberty on people allergic to cats any more than I would call the existence of gravity or of the oceans restrictions on liberty because they reduce my ability to move about in particular ways (I could not "swim through the air" to DC, or walk to London). But that doesn't appear to be a major disagreement, we are just applying the word liberty differently. And by some definitions of the word liberty you could say gravity or the Atlantic Ocean do provide a restriction on my liberty. I would normally only use the term in opposition to political or physical control, or just maybe to stifling social control, rather than to the physical, and chemical properties of your environment. If I was massively allergic to cats, and someone moved cats around my house in great numbers to try and keep me in my house I would call that a restriction on my liberty but that would be a deliberate act to restrict me. Yes, the particulars have to be considered. If your hotel and restaurant offer the only accommodations in the area and you exclude people based on race, you endanger their health and safety. Do you think people have an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to keep others from death or damage, even if they did not in any way contribute to that damage? Should you have a legal duty to allow someone stuck in a blizzard to rest and warm themselves in your house? If someone has tried to commit suicide and taken pills, and than changed there mind and asked you for help do you have a duty to help them either directly or by calling 911? Should you face punishment if you do not? There are things that are known to cause allergic reactions. Smoke, cats, peanuts, perfume, monosodium glutimate. Enterprises serving the public should warn patrons of any of these hazards. If I serve food with MSG and peanuts, and put a prominent warning label in from of my place of business, and on the food containers, and I limiting someone's liberty? Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (9581)	1/24/2006 12:01:20 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 541674

It's the law- you HAVE to warn of allergens: "We have issued a document called a Compliance Policy Guide. It articulates very simple rules on food allergens for industry. If you have an ingredient that may cause a food allergy in your product, you have to label it. And, if you don't label it, it should not be in there. By issuing this policy statement, we're telling the industry very clearly that we're going to be out there inspecting establishments to make sure that these rules are followed. We've also issued clear instructions to our field inspectors on what to look for from an allergen standpoint at food processing plants. The industry has followed suit and has developed their own code of practices for preventing cross-contamination with food allergens. In conjunction with patient advocacy groups, the food industry has developed guidelines to simplify allergen labeling in the food ingredient statement. The idea behind this effort is to speak to consumers in "plain English." If it is a milk-derived ingredient, for example, the ingredient statement will very clearly say "milk" ingredient rather than something like "casein" or "whey." This tells a consumer allergic to milk not to eat it. Clearer labeling is a significant step up for consumers. As soon as this issue emerged, everyone--whether on the industry side, the consumer side or the government side--agreed that food allergens are a real problem and that the problem needs to be addressed today. There really has been a lot of positive response and that's good for consumers with food allergies." fda.gov