Paul Trusten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > To digress for one moment--what is becoming of America that we > not only do not take responsibility for our own health, but > actually want to legally blame our poor health on others? Gag > me with a spoon and jump start my heart! This is from someone > who just lost 20 kg without suing it off.
You've hit the nail on the head. Kraft's announcement has zero to do with measurement practices, metric or not, honest or not, and everything to do with America's epidemic of greedy attorneys. Now that they have sued the tobacco industry into oblivion, they want to convince us that there's an "obesity epidemic". For those interested, I recommend subscribing to another mailing list, one that tracks these phony-science-based initiatives. Go to www.consumerfreedom.com to subscribe to that list. I apologize for continuing the subject here, since it's off topic for this list. Chris KEENAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3036924.stm > > No doubt the BWMA will be on the lookout in the USA for downsizing? > I'm sure list members will report back ;-) What is the BWMA? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Regulations requiring rational packaging would go a long way > toward ending the practice of manufacturers disguising price > increases by instead downsizing the product. They would have > to be upfront and honest about it. This practice does exist, but is not the reason for Kraft's announcement, and has long been mitigated in the US by laws requiring that prices in some common unit (such as $ per pound) be posted on the store shelf, so consumers can compare costs if they feel so inclined. Myself, I would not want to live under Europe's "rational packaging" laws. If anything, it would be nice to have even more choices of size and quality than we do now. Having fewer just to keep the mentally lazy from getting "deceived" would be a change for the worse. [snip] > There will be the argument of course that the goverment is > "telling us what to do". I don't consider this particularly > onerous because it is a benefit to the consumer. One person's benefit is another's poison.
