Monday, May 24, 2010

Food Labels for Morons

File this one under "More Unnecessary Government Regulation":

According to a New York Times article, the American Academy of Pediatrics is urging the FDA to require labels on foods that are choking hazards for small children.

I realize that I'm going to come across looking like I'm not interested in protecting kids because what harm could there possibly be in alerting people to potential dangers? If it saves only a handful or even just one child's life, isn't it worth it?

Perhaps not. With the growing list of required food labels we're slowly approaching the point where companies won't have any space on their packaging for their brand. Ingredients listings and nutritional content have been there my whole life and I see the necessity of those two things. But then you throw in the allergy warnings that have to be plastered onto any food that might have been handled by a person who eats nuts because our society has become so ridiculously paranoid about food allergies and you begin to see the absurdity.


Now they want to push for a choking hazard label? The problem with excess labeling is that it becomes a bunch of white noise to the consumer. With so much information, more people are less likely to read anything on the package.

So a choking hazard label will become just another piece of information ignored by parents. Isn't it kind of self-evident that foods such as carrots, grapes, popcorn, gumballs are potential choking hazards for toddlers? The same is true for any object of about those sizes. Should pennies be minted with a choking hazard label? "E Pluribus Unum. In God We Trust. One Cent. May Be Hazardous to Small Children".

I believe government should stay as far out of people's lives as possible. I believe that every time the government hands down another law it leaves a little bit less freedom for everyone. Government should be there to keep things operating smoothly and people should be expected to have a sense of personal responsibility. And therein lies the biggest consequence of excess labeling: the creation of a society of individuals who think nothing is their fault if they weren't specifically told. This is the reason every hot coffee or hot chocolate you purchase comes with the stupidly obvious warning: "Contents may be hot." Because without that warning, a woman almost successfully sued McDonald's for burning herself with a coffee she purchased there (actually that lawsuit was more complex than most people remember, but the point stands - the hot coffee labels followed). It is not the government's job to save people from their own stupidity or ignorance.

The article trudges out the sad tale of a Patrick Hale who gave his two small children popcorn while watching a video and his 2 year old daughter choked to death as a result. This is a tragedy. Could it have been avoided if the microwave popcorn package carried a warning? Possibly, but I don't see that as reason enough for a government mandate. The Hales sued the popcorn company and settled out of court.

Think about that. The Hales passed the blame for their child's death onto a company that didn't label something as a choking hazard. Maybe it's because my mother runs a daycare at home so I've always been around children, but it's pretty obvious to me that popcorn is a choking hazard - not least of all because I've almost choked on popcorn several times!

The money quote comes at the end of the article. Okay, I can't possibly understand what it must feel like to lose a child. I am fairly certain that just about anyone in such a situation would be looking for an explanation, a scapegoat, a method of shifting blame to someone else if the fault ostensibly lies with one of the parents. But I'm stunned at the cowardice of the Times reporter who closed the article with this:
"Not a day goes by,” Ms. Hale said, “where my husband doesn’t feel like it’s his fault and he did something wrong."
Well, it is his fault because he gave his two year old daughter popcorn. That's not the manufacturer's fault. But maybe that settlement will help ease their pain.


1 comment:

  1. The real problem is stupid jurors 'feeling sorry' about bad things that have happened to decent people and it must be somebody else's fault and accidents never happen. No cancel that. The real problem is generally painfully stupid humanity, from which the jury pool is selected.

    ReplyDelete

How'd I Do? 93rd Academy Awards Nominations Edition

I got 36 out of 43 in the top eight categories. That's 83.7%. Getting 19/20 in the acting categories made up for the fact that I went on...