that it’s not made in a log cabin. Log Cabin Syrup, that is.
Seems the good state of Vermont is afraid consumers will confuse Log Cabin All Natural syrup with 100% maple syrup.
“The FDA said it does not have a definition for ‘natural.’”
At issue is the “natural” claim. Reminds me of an exchange I heard during a session of my local zoning appeals board. The board members demanded that the developer before the board use natural exteriors as defined in the code. In particular, the board members did not want the developer to use composite wood. They suggested stucco as a “natural” alternative. The developer stood his ground and calmly noted, “Stucco is no more natural than composite wood.”
We do not need a federal definition of natural. We can all read the ingredients listed on the label and decide for ourselves what satisfies our subjective definitions of natural.
While Log Cabin All Natural Syrup is made from “natural” ingredients, it is not 100% maple syrup — it’s not made in a log cabin either.
And we do not need the state to tell us the obvious.
{ 60 comments }
for many, the übermensch’s boot in the face is but a sweet caress. go figure.
The author is right, of course. Those reading this article, those who would come to this site, are in no need of the government to tell them about what is natural, and which syrups are made where. We know such companies lie. We know it so thoroughly that it doesn’t even seem wrong to us. How sad, when you think about it.
But one wonders, does the author truly feel that all 300,000,000 U.S. consumers are at his intellectual level? I need only turn on Fox News (or CNN for that matter) to know they are not.
Perhaps there could be some mechanism in place – a free market one, by all means – that would prevent companies from lying to those who’s IQs are only average, and who have not developed the skepticism of those of us who enjoy reading sites like this for fun. And perhaps, even before such a mechanism is developed, government or otherwise, we could all be a little more concerned about some of the more blatant “half truths”, “deceptions”, “exaggerations” and such that are in actuality simply lies.
Dean,
Let’s assume that you are correct about the intellectual level of the masses (I don’t hold your view, by the way). Then the real purveyor of “half truths”, “deceptions”, “exaggerations” is the state — it claims its education system leaves no children behind. Huh!
So any proposition that claims the state needs to protect the masses from being dupped must be rejected out of hand.
Oh the irony. But really, when you think of yourself as one of the elite, conceit is inevitable.
The free market method is learning from prior experience.
I’m sure even an adult the IQ of 80 can understand, if it doesn’t say maple syrup, it isn’t maple syrup. Maybe some people will be duped, even though log cabin is a brand most people know, but they shouldn’t be duped more then once at that. Sure maybe there will develop some company like a private regulatory company that stamps “Accurate according to ASFWEFSD” but right now I don’t think there is much of a problem here.
100% maple syrup is not natural by any means: you have to actually distill the tree juice to get 100% of the consumer product. it does not naturally form anywhere.
Jim,I refered to the fact that not all of the 300,000,000 people were at the writer’s level, and cited the popularity of some news sources that would tend to support that. I also refered to those masses as having average IQs, which by definition, most of them would have that.Also, I agree that the state dupes people. I am an anarcho-capitalist myself. However, that the state does wrong, or that our public schools are shams, does not change the fact that companies lie.Finally, I did not call for the state to protect us, simply said that some mechanism – preferably free market – should be in place, and that we should be less casual about this routine lying in the meanwhile.Dean
Dean,
“I also refered to those masses as having average IQs, which by definition, most of them would have that.” Certainly 1/2 are above and 1/2 are below average by definition, assuming the standard bell curve (of course, bell curves can be assumed since IQ tests are normed to create bell curves).
Reminds me of a teacher’s comment regarding Ohio’s standard for homeschooling: homeschooled students must be at or above the 20th percentile on a standardized test in order to be allowed to be homeschooled without state intervention. The teacher thought that such a standard was too low, ignoring the fact that, by definition, 1/5 of all students must be below the 20th percentile. And that’s a lot of students.
The makers of Log Cabin are not lying. Their label lists exactly what is found in the syrup (no one is contending this).
BTW. Log Cabin syrup is to maple syrup what Sunny-D is to orange juice. Both have their place — though at least Log Cabin dropped high fructose corn syrup as an ingredient.
And the state requires the label. Make a good product that people like (and is cost-effective enough that people buy it), and be done with it. I’m a little concerned when people who sound and imply like Dean, and then claim to be anarcho-capitalists.
Also, Jim, don’t fall into the high fructose corn syrup trap (although I don’t think you meant that HFCS shouldn’t be around, just that you don’t prefer it?). I know that subsidized corn, and research on corn to figure out what to do with the surplus, resulted in HFCS, but that’s not to say that the free market would not have produced it. I know, the sugar tariff….. HFCS, as a product by itself, is fine in moderation……And it’s my (our) choice.
Dean Albin,
I have fallen into the HFCS trap, so to speak. And thanks to Mountain Dew Throwback (made with real sugar), I see no way out.
But, of course, to each his own (after taking into account all of your correct caveats on subsidies, tariffs, etc.).
Dean, give it up.
I’m pleased you’re not asking for a government solution, but, in the end, there is no solution for low IQ’s (I admittedly take Thomas Sowell’s tragic view).
And, when you think about it, if we try to always accommodate the stupid, aren’t we just encouraging stupidity? Let’s make them think a little.
I think some fake maple syrup might just do the trick.
“I also refered to those masses as having average IQs, which by definition, most of them would have that.”
Actually, Dean, almost the opposite is true. It could “by definition” be that only one person has an average IQ , or even no one one person does at all. Remember: once we begin speaking about ‘averaging’, we are required to abandon common sense in favor of mathematics.
Let us propose (for the heck of it) a system in which, by some weird quirk of either evolutionary genetics or God’s developing a weird sense of humor, of the 300,000,000 people in our sample exactly 150,000,000 just happen to have IQs of exactly 110, and 150,000,000 of them have IQs of exactly 90. The average IQ of the 300,000,000 would be (by definition) 100, despite the fact that not one person had that score.
Just remember the three statistics professors from the big city who decided to go hunting for the very first time. They bought the requisite high-powered rifles and funny clothes, got into the SUV and drove up to Vermont, where they paid for their hunting licenses and headed out into the woods. And, by purest chance (or God’s developing a weird sense of humor– it couldn’t be evolutionary genetics as it runs counter to species survival), they’re in the woods all of an hour when they come upon a meadow, and there, 100 feet away, is a magnificent 14-point buck. The first statistician takes aim and fires, whacking a tree 30 yards to the left of the buck, Almost immediately the second statistician takes aim and fires, hitting a tree 30 yards to the buck’s rght. And the third statistician drops his rifle and shouts gleefully, “We got him!!!”
[Another point worth remembering is that the only thing IQ tests actually measure with any accuracy is the ability to take IQ tests...]
Average can refer to a range, as in normal, or within one standard deviation, not just the mean. Come on man, you knew that.
It is a good idea to understand how IQ is calculated before commenting on it. It’s not a simple test score.
Dean,
Understanding ‘average’.
Everyone in my family of 10 has an IQ of 150.
Everyone in your family of 10 has an IQ of 50.
The average, including both families, is 100.
Are most of the people in the families average?
Mary has two melons.
Johnny has two nuts.
Nevermind – we will get back to that lesson tomorrow. Gotta go – my meds are wearing off.
The problem I have, is my bottle of “original” Log Cabin has no maple syrup, and I distinctly remember that it used to have 10% MS. So, it’s not really “original”, is it? Splitting hairs, or misrepresentation? Fraud is fraud, and we have far too much fraud in the consumer products sector of the economy.
If consumers are led to believe that “all natural” refers to maple syrup, it is misrepresentation. If not, then it is not. To play it safe, if the label is clear (and no, not in print that requires a microscope to read) and truthful, then there should be no problem.
Rubbish …. the STATE should prevent big multinational FOOD companies from deceptive marketing practices …. plain and simple.
The FDA SHOULD have a definition of ‘Natural’ … and they DON’T because of the legions of LOBBYIST that the FOOD industry sends to Washington to keep that definition purposely vague. If it was NOT as vague as it is then the almost 1000 different CHEMICALS that the food companies are LEGALLY permitted to HIDE under the guise of Artificial and Natural Flavors would be REQUIRED to be disclosed …. and that wouldn’t be good for profits at all now would it …. especially since many of those directly cause you to be sick and fat.
Imagine that ….
Always confounded me that a company would want to make their customers “sick”, risking their health and ultimately their lives, which would in turn shrink the company’s market and profits.
It’s hardly likely that they “want to make their customers “sick”, risking their health and ultimately their lives”, unless you are referring to the manufacturers of cigarettes, alcohol, guns, automobiles, and foods containing excessive amounts of sugar, etc.
This naive assumption that if I produce a cheap or toxic product, I’ll be out of business, is almost laughable. Maybe not LOL, but amusing in its own way.
Imagine this: I make a loaf of bread called Joe’s Yummy Bread. I claim it has oodles of protein to help your kids grow strong and tall. I sell millions of loaves of bread before it’s determined the results in the test for high-protein content were produced by melamine, not real protein (which, by the way, was discovered by a governement agency). I’ve already made millions of dollars before you have the chance to run around the world warning the three and a half billion other customers. Even if you devote your life to telling the world about your discovery, my solution is simple: Next week I’ll stock the shelves with brightly-colored loaves of Fred’s Bread. I just won’t feed it to my kids.
Dave said it neatly below.
Could you kindly desist from these statist hypothetical strawmen that defy reality — yes, sure, millions of loaves are going to be consumed before I am warned that the producer is fraudulent. Day after day I, and millions like me, are going to stroll down to Joe’s Yummy factory with its barbed wire and blocked windows, armed guards refusing to allow me (or anyone!) to investigate the operation or ask questions, and once I see this mafioso set-up, I’m going to gleefully start shoving slices down my throat because the sign said, “Yummy.” And once the cat is out of the bag, we’re all going to have a big yuck about it and say, “Ha, the joke’s on me and my dead kid, ain’t it!! Haa!!!” such that Fred’s Yummy factory can take the next step and start confidently injecting cyanide into my Twinkie.
This is the great dilemma and conundrum of the establishment-leftist — individuals are too stupid to watch over themselves and their families, but they are not too stupid to watch over other taxpayers.
Further — government does not discover a damn thing. Individuals discover.
Now the construct of that “discoverer-mechanism” is at the heart of the non-coercion principle. Are you going to force me, at point of gun (to use the libertarian cliche) to pay for kelley’s bread-content discovers, or are you going to leave me alone since I might not eat bread at all?
Further — government does not discover a damn thing. Individuals discover
Excellent point. The only real question is which individuals are going to be best about discovering these problems? Are government regulators and investigators magically-endowed with powers and abilities that private investigators and certifiers don’t have? Sure, government agents have the power to apply threats of force to non-complying companies, but don’t have the incentives that private agents may have to check properly and frequently enough. And, as everyone should know, force or the threat of force is also likely to have various unintended consequences, consequences that would not have occurred under the voluntary compliance of certification.
Last, but not least, is the ever-present assumption of sinister evil-doing on the part of companies–the greater health threats usually come about unintentionally, by accidents of some kind, not evil conspiracies. You know, cross-contamination, faulty equipment, employee error, that kind of thing. Those things are much harder to “regulate”, being unexpected as they are.
What are the almost 1000 different chemicals that directly cause us to be sick and fat?
What the state SHOULD do and what they USUALLY do are often at odds–any idea how to fix that? The problem is that the more power you give the government, the more likely the rich and powerful will use government for their own purposes…
This article could be clearer. It should mention that the term “natural flavor” which appears in the syrup’s ingredients is defined by the FDA. See http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.22 for the definition.
“And we do not need the state to tell us the obvious.”
It’s not even obvious what you consider to be obvious. In the name of decency, I’ll say you have your head buried in the sand, although I actually suspect it’s somewhere else.
The only obvious thing is that companies spend billions doing research to figure out how to manipulate the language in ways to cause money to move from your wallet to theirs. Isn’t it obvious that is the ultimate goal? They work tirelessly to accomplish that by working around the rules that have already been established. Will eliminating all the rules and oversight suddenly make these companies rise to a whole new level of ethical disclosure? As if their behavior isn’t about manipulation and accummulation of wealth, it’s just a game they like to play regarding rules?
The beauty of a common definition is its usefulness in communication. In this particular instance, contrary to what you consider ideal, it’s obvious that the syrup industry can’t or won’t regulate itself for the consumer’s benefit. They, like most industries, will strive to manipulate you.
Here’s the statement on the homepage of Log Cabin:
“Authentic Maple Flavored Syrup for over 120 years”
The caps and quotes are theirs. Do you think it’s obvious what this message states? It’s not. Do the quotes mean they are quoting someone else’s statement? Does it indicate this is simply a slogan? Or are they being used to denote sarcasm, as in, she’s a “dancer”?
Is capitalizing the first four words indicating some sort of formal distinction or just a label? Does it say the syrup is maple-flavored or flavored-syrup? There’s no hyphen, so there’s no way to know which words are intended to be grouped. It could just as legitimately be some sort of syrup that is flavored to taste like maple, or it could be maple syrup that is flavored to taste like apricots.
Obviously, this company has no qualms about abusing and ignoring rules, including grammar, to get what they want: your money. What would they also say if there was no oversight at all? If there was no official, legal definition of syrup, how would you know what is in the container? What would “a delicious, all-natural product” mean? Rabbits leave raisin-like, all natural products in my back yard, and the dogs think they are delicious. Wanna come by tomorrow for some pancakes covered with what I could legitimately call a delicious, all-natural food product?
The point is, some degree of oversight is absolutely necessary for a level playing field. But ranting about this kind of silliness completely dilutes and derails the argument against real abuse for anyone other than the lunatic fringe.
kelley,
You said it yourself, “They work tirelessly to accomplish that by working around the rules that have already been established”, companies hire people (big ones that can afford it, the small ones can’t, and die off) to work around the rules, plain and simple. Small companies die off, and we are left with what we have now – a few large multi-nationals who control everything. Suppose the maple syrup company is actually trying to commit fraud against its customers – wouldn’t it be better to have a bunch of competitors who point this out, maybe in ads, and offer a better product? Isn’t this the way to do it, rather than more and more layers of regulation that will be used to exclude the competition?
God help us – another blind adherent to Ayn Rand. Let me guess, Dave, I suppose you actually believe our economy is a free market where the producers of the best products are the winners?
You seriously are suggesting that consumers can rely on advertising for factual information on products? To add insult to injury, I love that you imply that consumers can rely on corporations to rat out other corporations for committing “fraud against [their] customers,” and thus, we don’t need governmental organizations like the FDA to create and enforce rules.
Are you consciously trying to be a provocateur, or are you really this obtuse?
“….suggesting that consumers can rely on advertising for factual information on products?…
“Yes, that’s what Dave is suggesting. As well as poisoning all water supplies. (sigh)You are embarrassing yourself because you equate free market with “crony-capitalist market.” Many statists rely on this to justify their sacrifice of individual liberty. Problem is, you want to sacrifice everyone’s liberty, not just yours and your family’s, and do it through guns.
Why are you so afraid of independence? Why do you prefer enslavement to the so-called enlightened majority, the followers of authoritarian rule, that wonderful voting bloc who regularly give us wars and intrusion into our personal lives. And please refrain from the rubbish that economic activity is distinct from personal activity.
What makes you, and so many socialist/Democratic/Marxist/Republican/communist/imperialist/fascist/mercantilist just like you, so happy to embrace the slave mentality? And to the point of fallacious reasoning and straw men?
It’s quite a pity really.
Franklin said it well, but here is some more – our economy is not a free market, far from it. That’s the problem. In a truly free market, it would be incredibly simple to start a business – you wouldn’t need a team of people to understand all the stupid rules forced on us by the feds, state, and local governments. The threat of increased competition and loss of business would make everyone in the marketplace make the highest quality product or service that others would be willing to purchase. With all of the vague and complex regulations (some of which were instituted with guidance from corporations to limit their competition) and the tax code, we simply don’t have enough competition (in many cases).
As an employee at a smaller company, I have worked within the framework of FDA rules and regulations, as well as some in the EU, and I can tell you 100% that these succeed only in limiting what individuals have available to them in the marketplace. It is pure fantasy to say that we are safer when we have fewer options to help solve our problems. Trust me – I have no desire to make a product that would harm anyone. Why would I? I want to satisfy the needs of my customers so that they will be long-term customers. Anyone who harms their customers won’t be in business long. This notion that we need government agencies to protect us is an uninformed view.
Kelley,
To use the current cliche, you are just kicking the can down the road.
You claim that government oversight is “absolutely necessary.” Fair enough. So you kick the “natural” definition down the road to the doors of some government agency. And you have them define “natural” in an altruistic manner. Is this really your solution?
Do you really believe government can define “natural?” Do you believe government’s definition of “natural” will level playing fields? And that this definition will align with yours? Mine? The markets?
Keep in mind that when you argue for state in mundane things, you lose the ability to ethically argue against the state in all things.
Jim,
To clarify, my position is that SOME government oversight is necessary. I’m not a fan of any extremes.
In this instance, my point was that a legal definition would be useful to the consumer. It’s not that I think a particular government agency understands the term ‘natural’ better than someone else, but if you and I went to the store and saw that on a label, we would immediately be able to make certain assumptions about the product and decide what to do based on an specific term.
Should one producer be allowed to print ‘Natural’ on the label, based solely on how they choose to define it? If it is my belief that the color brown occurs naturally, therefore, since my highly refined blend of petrochemicals and exotic compounds is brown, it’s legitimately called natural? And next to it on the shelf is your product that consists only of ingredients found occurring in the natural state, without any manmade modifications, so you call it natural. Not really what I would consider a level playing field.
I know I said I don’t like extremes, and that argument is both extreme and perhaps a little weak, but the point is that using a common definition for anything makes it possible to make intelligent and intentional choices, if someone wants to. With one ruling that states, for example, your definition of ‘natural’ is the mandated use of the term, millions of people can comfortably and reasonably expect a certain quality or characteristic a product labelled as such. WIthout that, those same millions of people would be required to do their own research on each product, or be forced to decide based on an onslaught of poorly regulated ads by competitors.
If there was no legal definition of oat, for example, you might consider it to be just the grain, and I might consider it to be the entire plant. You make some oatmeal, using the grain. I go to your trash, pull out the roots from the plant, and also make oatmeal. Both products are a meal that came from the same plant, but my profit margins are better, especially after, to justify your higher prices, you are now forced to run ads telling people my oatmeal is made from roots, not grain.
I’m not lobbying for a definition that specifcally aligns with either mine, yours, or the industry’s, or a blend of each at this point, it’s just that I favor one definition, not 3 or more.
Yawn.
Speaking of mundane. Sounds like someone read a few too many books by Derrida.
So now there’s an “altruistic” definition of the word natural? And you somehow seem to be inferring that it is inferior to your “malevolent” definition…
The problem is that thinking like yours truly is mundane. At one point in time it would have been termed evil, or at the very least, disingenuous.
kelley and Dean West,
Here’s a homework assignment for both of you. Take a trip to your local grocery store. Find the aisle that contains syrup (most likely next to the pancake and waffle batter), stop and take a look around. You will probably see the Log Cabin brand along with probably between 4 and 12 others. Notice the smaller, more expensive bottle that says “100% maple syrup” on the label? Does this mean anything at all to you? Do you really believe that anyone except for perhaps a small minority of the most severely mentally handicapped individuals is not going to realize the significance?
Pure maple syrup is more expensive than Log Cabin syrup. Even the stupidest people grasp that higher quality items cost more. To some people, that extra cost is worth it. For others, it is not. What you (and the government) are suggesting here is one of the following:
1) Consumers will suffer from the “deception” and buy syrup that is sub-optimal to their true preferences, never having the spark of intelligence it takes to actually try the more expensive “100% pure” brand with the unambiguous language regarding its contents. We are then all doomed to a fake syrup existence while the “100% pure” brand disappears from the shelves.
2) Consumers may sample both, but upon returning to the store, forget what they have learned and mistakenly buy the Log Cabin brand again, to their detriment.
I’m not entirely certain what benefit there is to a person’s position in the use of insults and name-calling.
But moving past that, what you state is wrong, with regard to my alledged suggestions. I simply recognize the value in having, and using, specific terms to mean specific things. If a product claims to be natural, wouldn’t it be convenient if we all knew what that means? You’ve made the value of that abundantly clear with your reference to “100% Pure”. It’s a specific term with a specific meaning and we all agree what it means. It would be quite a different situation if 100% meant “all” to you, “a lot” to me, and “some” to the next person. Fortunately, regulations require it to mean exactly what we agree it means. The fact that they can only put that on the label because it meets the mandated criteria is exactly what makes it unambiguous.
Without the statutes in place, I could simply water down some corn syrup, color it, and add an artificial flavor and print a label that says it’s “100% Pure”. And to make sure it was convincing, I would make it the most expensive brand on the shelf, just so you would know you were getting the absolute best quality product an unregulated, government-free country could offer. And then only the “most severely mentally handicapped” would be buying the real maple syrup, assuming we can agree on what “real” means.
Where did I call you names? Sure, I was being flippant by my suggestion of a “homework assignment”, but that was primarily to ram home the point that this is an observable phenomenon. My “small minority of the most severely mentally handicapped individuals” quite means that your suggestion that the average person won’t recognize the difference between “all natural maple-flavored” and “100% pure maple” becomes a non-issue when you add price into it. I was saying that you and the vast majority of people will not be fooled.
Not really. As a person who shops, I do not routinely access the FDA’s databases of defined terms to help me decide what to buy. Instead, I rely on the general usage of language and my own preferences. My reasons for buying something are not all that likely to coincide with FDA mandates concerning the words on the label. If I buy a product and do not like it, I don’t buy that product again. If I find a product I like that is too expensive for my tastes, I use less or don’t buy it at all.
Often, language is used to differentiate an item from other, very similar items. For example, without the label “organic” on a product, it would be difficult to tell the difference from fruit grown with or without pesticides just by looking. You suggest that without the FDA, “organic” would start to appear on products that have been grown with pesticides, maybe with a marked-up price–and that no one would blame them for doing so or have the means to discover the fraud! Such trickery is not a good long-term strategy for survival in the marketplace. People don’t like being fooled and are all to happy to share with the world when it happens.
And your market share would plummet in short order and your business would probably go under. The market strikes again!
Are you trying to be a troll?
“Authentic Maple Flavored Syrup for over 120 years”
Maple Syrup is a noun, so if you wanted to say an apricot flavored syrup, you would say Authentic Apricot Flavored Maple Syrup. It seem you ignore the rules of grammar, if you can’t tell what “Authentic Maple Flavored Syrup for over 120 years” means. Maple Flavored syrup is as much of an american tradition as American Cheese. There isn’t even ambiguity, it’s clearly syrup, with maple flavorings.
As for you and natural, there is no reasonable definition to adopt, it’s vague and meaningless. Maybe you should ask for no added chemicals, instead of natural.
If by american (sic), you mean North America, and more specifically, the region that is now Canada, you are correct. Generally, the native Americans in that area are credited with developing the process of converting tree sap to maple syrup via heating. My guess, however, is that your correctness is purely accidental.
As far as being an “american tradition (sic)”, American Cheese is a term that legally refers to pasteurized, process cheese. It’s not even a specific type of cheese, but a combination of two or more cheeses, plus additives. The same process-driven cheese is produced in other countries. Cheese, in general, predates that food class a bit – by roughly 5,000 years. I’m not too clear how this constitutes a tradition comparable to one that was in North America even before it was called North America.
A belief in the efficacy of the free market and the immorality of all governments does not mean that I must therefore believe that lying is good. I happen to believe that the free market – if we ever have one – might well lead to more honesty in advertising.
But as things stand, it is undeniable that advertisers lie. If they did not, we’d not have to worry about this “issue”.
My original comment stands. No matter how much Jim or others may wish to quibble, the truth is that most people are not of a level as to be reading articles on this site. Sad, but true. And so while the author does not need to be told, others sure do.
Should the government tell? No. I don’t believe there should be such a thing as government. I simply expressed two things – One, that a free market mechanism could be in place that would stop such things. And two, that we be less casually accepting about these type of lies.
Just curious: How would the absence of a government suddenly make businesses or people stop lying? Isn’t the motivation to lie an attempt to create a personal gain or advantage of some sort? Would that desire also go away when government ceased to operate? That’s a less antagonistic question than it might sound – I am genuinely interested to know how that belief exists.
Firstly, businesses don’t lie.
The people who represent some businesses definitely lie.
Lying will continue.
And I will choose to support the people who do the least lying.
If someone wishes to support an habitual liar, that is their prerogative.
I am forced to support the governmental liars every day of my life. (They, in turn, force me to support the corporate liars as well. The fraudulent monster investment bankers thank you, by the way).
Not that any of them give a damn, because if I don’t like it, I’m SOL. I still have to cut them a check on April 15. If I don’t, they arrive with weapons, and they stick me in a jail cell and take my property.
Nice system, isn’t it.
Kelley,
First off, wow, this was really Michaelesque: in your posts in which you suggest how stupid so many consumers are you also suggest a number of choice slurs for us:
“head buried in the sand, although I actually suspect it’s somewhere else”
“ranting about this kind of silliness”
“lunatic fringe”
“naive assumption”
“almost laughable”
Then, when Scott D, uses the word “stupid” in describing the hypothetical idiots *you* created, you say:
“I’m not entirely certain what benefit there is to a person’s position in the use of insults and name-calling.”
The mind reels.
Now you employ an incredibly hammer-handed strawman that’s almost too boring to respond to, but what the hell: The absence of armed nannies won’t magically make people stop lying. More people being more wary of buying crap because they realize they are responsible for themselves would *probably* lead to more honesty in advertising when dishonesty is punished more effectively with low sales. I think that’s what Dean might have been suggesting.
And why, oh why do you all (State defenders) never consider how it benefits and how much easier it is for the government to lie?
And what if we’re looking at the tip of the iceberg… What are the chances, given this precedent, that the RNC will sue the Log Cabin Republicans for misrepresenting themselves as being 100% pure, and demand they stop calling themselves “Republicans” and take the Log Cabin off their label?
“We do not need a federal definition of natural. We can all read the ingredients listed on the label and decide for ourselves what satisfies our subjective definitions of natural.
“While Log Cabin All Natural Syrup is made from “natural” ingredients, it is not 100% maple syrup — it’s not made in a log cabin either.
“And we do not need the state to tell us the obvious.”
If the State made no truth-in-labeling laws it would be the way it was in the 19th century. Anyone could bottle dog urine and label it “100% Pure Maple Syrup”.
Truth in labeling is redundant. Misrepresenting the contents of a product as you describe is fraud. Using language that might be implied to mean something that could mislead someone is not.
Fraud, when not illegal, can be hard for the untrained consumer to detect. Before the FDA was created adulterated, watered and unsanitary meats were more common than good meat. The only guarantee anyone ever had was to know their butcher to the point where they felt he was not cheating them. Naturally, that’s the point all con artists hope to achieve: the trust of their victim.
I like a world where we have good inspections and strict penalties. The meat’s better here.
These problem(s) would be trivial if we nurtured young people decently. We lie (in all modes) to our children. We even lie to ourselves that the reason we lie to vulnerable, credible children (and older) is that it is for THEIR own good! This may be true in the short term but is seldom true taken on the long term. (For example, Santa Claus, the inherent moral superiority of the particular nation/government/people/religion that the speaker has the “good” fortune to be born in).
Trust should be engendered/learned and not taught. Skepticism should be taught. Skepticism/suspicion in itself has never harmed anyone. People have harmed skeptics!
English (language) as it is taught in most nations is usually done (predominantly) from a “humanities” aspect. (“How does this statement/sentence/story make you FEEL?” Not “Exactly what does this statement mean? What does is it include, exclude, leave undefined?”) OK now we can talk about connotations!
In “classical” education this was learned via ancient “Latin and Greek” etc which (being “dead” languages) are taught as a science (Learn rules, definitions and apply them)
But the “authorities” (including teachers) hate this because it might undermine their “authority.” It is also more difficult to do.
Why is there no subject/course in schools called “Your Body” (which would include “mind”) Is it too carnal (sic), too blood and guts, too life and death, too sexy, too animal, too “real”?) Certainly it is interesting and most relevant! Meanwhile at schools we promote competitive team sports (diluted warfare)(gang forming)(the “football team” fulfills all definitions of a street gang, (wear gang colors, use gang specific signs, hit one and the rest will hit you, gain territory, gang leaders/coaches, break the rules if you can get away with it…..)
Music and the arts (aesthetics)(fashion) are usually taught as though they are absolutes (as opposed to primarily culturally learned.) Admittedly a tiny amount of aesthetics is universally biologically based, usually to assess the “health” of a prospective mate, companion, prey etc. There is also some “form follows function” appreciation.
The art of politics is too keep your population alarmed so that they look to their authorities only to save them!
Wow.
I’ve never made the connection between maple syrup, Santa Claus, and diluted warfare.
What do you think of when I say “peach tree”?
Government is evil.
Corporations are blameless divine entities.
If corporations deceive us, it is for our own good.
Government is evil.
The same sort of people that run corporations are the same sort of people that run the government. They are both groups of selfish people that work in their own best interest and are often flawed and make huge mistakes and lapses in judgement.
The difference between the two groups is that governments reserve the exclusive right to use force to push their agenda and passes laws to maintain their monopolies. That is, for example, if Walmart wants your money they have to figure out a way to convince you to give it to them…. if Government wants your money they simply have to demand it, and if you resist, they will eventually send gangs of armed men to your house to put you in a cage and seize your properties. If you resist the seizure of yourself and your property too strongly then they will simply kill you.
I’d even say that the same people who run the corporations and governements are as the same people as us, corrupted by power. Thus, don’t give anyone massive power, period. If everyone has relatively equal power, attempts to use it over others will be countered by others’ relatively equal power.
Xanthum Gum, omg, that’s clearly not natural. Ohh wait it is the by product of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthomonas_campestris a common bacteria the ferments sugars, how is that not natural, it’s on your plants.
Disguised behind this labeling issue…is the fear of losing market share. They (the pure syrup guys) complain not only of the labeling but the shape of the bottle. On top that, the Log Cabin brand is 50% cheaper. If the pricing was reversed in favor of pure maple syrup, I doubt any complaint would be filed.
In the end, consumers are going to decide not only by price but mainly by taste. Since syrup is nothing more than liquid sugar with some flavoring, there is the possibility that the Log Cabin brand may actually taste better (for half the price).
This issue is nothing more than business using gov’t to hinder competition.
Note: The motivation for Log Cabin to use the words “All Natural” is most likely in response to Green propaganda where consumers have been misled into believing that something natural or pure is better regardless of other factors-with syrup it’s taste and price. In order to get people to try their product, Log Cabin has to resort to the words “All Natural” with the belief that taste and price will win consumers over.
It’s clear that a phrase like authentic maple syrup flavor is meant to cause someone in a rush to think it’s maple syrup, not just corn syrup with maple flavor. But anyone reading carefully will understand what it is, and can always consult the ingredients. Trying to make laws against misleading (but factually correct) labeling just opens the ways for things like the FTC, judging for/against things on a whim. There’s no clear line on what’s misleading or what’s intended to mislead, while there is on what the words actually mean. If it claims it contains maple syrup and it doesn’t, then it’s fraud. If it claims it contains 100% natural authentic Oregon maple syrup flavor and it contains no maple syrup, then there is no fraud.
You seem to believe that everything in life can be clearly defined down to the smallest detail. We wouldn’t have disputes or need judges if that were the case. In ALL of life judgement is needed. If we accept that statements (and advertising) can be misleading, and if we want to prohibit them, then a panel of judges (or the FTC …effectively a panel of judges) is the right way to do it.
I do like your example:”100% natural authentic Oregon maple syrup flavor”. A perfect intentionally misleading statement.
This blog has been overrun. What happened?!?
The internet happened.
I’ve found this blog and apparently so has many other people. If you challenge closely held beliefs you have to expect people to react in a strongly negative manner and also you can expect them to throw the same tired arguments and ignorant sophisms at you because this is the first time they may actually be thinking and writing along these lines in their life.
Also the recent libertarianism movement is a victim of it’s own success. People have been using simplistic terms and arguments to support libertarianism in order to ‘get the word out’. Unless you boil arguments down and provide them in a easy to understand manner then your message is not going to reach a wide audience, however there is a significant side effect to this. The side effect is that is that people who have a vested interest in the state has managed to portray libertarians as ignorant and overly simplistic as if these arguments meant to be populist in nature are all there is to this school of thought.
Most everybody here knows that there is a significant amount of thought and effort that has gone into our thinking that has lead to the conclusions espoused in this blog. That there is actually relatively little knee-jerk reaction going on when the author comments on articles, yet because of the reputation for being overly simplistic that libertarians have garnered your going to have a significant number of people simply expecting you to be ignorant of the basic facts behind their arguments.
Besides people that are earnestly wish to engage in worthwhile conversations you have what is known as ‘trolls’.
These are people that want to argue simply for amusement and will take whatever contrarian stance that will most likely piss people off. Often they will engage in high levels of sophistication. A favorite technique is the creation of multiple accounts to take both sides of a argument in order to get people riled up. The longer the threads they spawn the more amusement they get. The more stupid or petty they get people to act the more amusement they get.
Many times these people will be very young, but yet have a very high sophistication in their approach since they have never existed except during a time when internet forums have existed. They grew up on them.
The most effective way I’ve seen at controlling trolls online is to have premium services for discussion. It does not have to be expensive…. like a forum that costs 10 or 15 dollars to join for life, or 5 bucks a month, and stuff like that. Or news that is premium, but that can be read by the public a week later. Of course the administrator or organization has full judgement on who is allowed in and who is allowed to stay. For example if a person breaks the rules they get kicked out and no refund is available. They can come back, but they have to buy another account. Temporary bans and stuff like that for head-strong people that engage discussions that refuse to calm down. Also free invitations and accounts for noted individuals that have alternative viewpoints that wish to engage in more formal online debates. The possibilities are endless and can be quite fun.
This ‘premium fee’ has a two-fold effect. They cover the overhead of maintaining the forums or collecting news to create higher quality experience for end users. Also the majority of trolls are around 15 year old and 15 year olds don’t generally have credit cards and even if they do they are not going to throw away 10 bucks to harass you only to be kicked out after a couple hours of fun.
I am not saying that this is the only way to do things or is what the Mises blog or anybody else should do. This is just what I’ve seen that works in the past.
Nate, I sympathize, but there should be no fee. All that means is that a variety of new people, with questions or contrary views, will go elsewhere to ask or express them.
Surely suffering a few “trolls”, which can be selectively barred when discovered, is a small price to pay to make sure that we aren’t just keeping a place a select club of “me too-ers”. Besides, sometimes “trolls” encourage others to develop better, more reasoned and more succinct arguments in response. Surely a good thing.
“We can all read the ingredients listed on the label and decide for ourselves what satisfies our subjective definitions of natural.”
1) I can’t read all the ingredients listed on many labels: the print is too small
2) Frequently, the terminology used is difficult to understand. I doubt whether most people are able to determine from a label whether it meets their expectation for being natural
3) What would something not natural be?
Comments on this entry are closed.