Gyroscopic Investing

2. I am not against a gov't, or some gov't regulation, HOWEVER I believe that your extreme example is just an excuse to impose a system where the only things that can be sold are those deemed safe and effective by the gov't.  Given the track record of gov't how well do you think this will work out?  Put another way, find me some omniscient altruistic martians and I'll be glad to let them decide what can and can't be sold.  In reality you'll get the same people who decided on solyandra, who'll still be pushing global warming as the glaciers are migrating south who will make the decisions for everyone.

doodle wrote: I don't think that a company should be able to market a product and make claims that are completely unsubstantiated by science.

Pointedstick wrote:...In other words, when I see some people being oppressed by other people, I think it makes more sense to help the oppressed resist the oppression far more than it makes sense to try to beat down the oppressors....

MangoMan wrote:Just can't figure out who/what to trust anymore; so much conflicting information. 

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: I don't think that a company should be able to market a product and make claims that are completely unsubstantiated by science.

This is the problem.  "unsubstantiated by science"

What do those words mean?  Who decides?  is the first article showing a supplement may be useful for something enough?  are 50?  Is hundreds of years traditional use of a supplement/herb for something enough?

And safety is one thing, but who made you god to stop anyone from taking anything they wish?  By what right do you do this?  For their own good?  Forget labels, but this impulse is the one that determines all the labels that you and others don't like--the urge to do things for other people's own good. 

Reub wrote: "A government agency that does consumer advocacy or tests for purity or safety is simply acting as a balance to the claims being made by industry."

Doodle, a govt agency has direct ties to these "evil" businesses you speak of. They are influenced by their lobbyists, also by the enticement of cushy post-govt employment, and they help to get the govt's leaders elected. They also have the additional agenda of becoming bigger and more ingrained in our lives every day.

Simonjester wrote: if only there was a government agency to prevent them having this influence....... then all we would need is a government agency to oversee the first one and prevent it from being corrupted by money...... and when everybody is employed as a government overseer of other overseers then we will have full employment...

doodle wrote: What I find so surprising is that you side so heavily with big corporations lying and manipulating people into buying things yet you are so against consumer advocacy groups that represent the people's interest countering that. A government agency that does consumer advocacy or tests for purity or safety is simply acting as a balance to the claims being made by industry.

doodle wrote: So remove the influence that lobbyists and corporations have over politicians.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: What I find so surprising is that you side so heavily with big corporations lying and manipulating people into buying things yet you are so against consumer advocacy groups that represent the people's interest countering that. A government agency that does consumer advocacy or tests for purity or safety is simply acting as a balance to the claims being made by industry.

There's a big difference between a government agency that determines what cannot be bought and sold and an agency (government or otherwise) that simply publishes information. I'm in favor of the latter, but not the former.

We purchased 15 protein powders and drinks mainly in the New York metro area or online and tested multiple samples of each for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. The results showed a considerable range, but levels in three products were of particular concern because consuming three servings a day could result in daily exposure to arsenic, cadmium, or lead exceeding the limits proposed by USP.

We found that three daily servings of the ready-to-drink liquid EAS Myoplex Original Rich Dark Chocolate Shake provides an average of 16.9 micrograms (µg) of arsenic, exceeding the proposed USP limit of 15 µg per day, and an average of 5.1 µg of cadmium, which is just above the USP limit of 5 µg per day. Concentrations in most products were relatively low, but when taking into account the large serving size suggested, the number of micrograms per day for a few of the products was high compared with most others tested.

The samples of Muscle Milk Chocolate powder we tested contained all four heavy metals, and levels of three metals in the product were among the highest of all in our tests. Average cadmium levels of 5.6 µg in three daily servings slightly exceeded the USP limit of 5 µg per day, and the average lead level of 13.5 µg also topped the USP limit of 10 µg per day. The average arsenic level of 12.2 µg was approaching the USP limit of 15 µg per day, and the average for mercury was 0.7 µg, well below the USP's 15 µg-per-day limit. Three daily servings of Muscle Milk Vanilla Crème contained 12.2 µg of lead, exceeding lead limits, and 11.2 µg of arsenic. A fourth product, Muscle Milk Nutritional Shake Chocolate (liquid), provided an average of 14.3 µg of arsenic per day from three servings, approaching the proposed USP limit.

Cadmium raises special concern because it accumulates in and can damage the kidneys, the same organs that can be damaged by excessive protein consumption. And it can take 20 years for the body to eliminate even half the cadmium absorbed today.

"This is a highly toxic metal, and while there are some cases where decisions have to be weighed against relative risks, accepting that you have to be exposed to any cadmium at all in your protein drink after your workout is definitely not one of them," says Michael Harbut, M.D., director of the Environmental Cancer Initiative at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Royal Oak, Mich.

"When these toxic heavy metals are combined in a product that is marketed for daily use, that raises serious public health concerns, especially for pregnant women, children, and young adults," says Burns, who has been a toxicology consultant to state and federal government agencies.

Pointedstick wrote: I don't think we do agree. You want the government to keep products off the market if they don't pass certain tests. In theory this sounds great, but in practice, I think you and I both know that the regulatory agency will simply become a pawn of the industry. Think about the food pyramid. For decades, the FDA told people to load up on processed carbs and avoid fats as much as possible. Think of the damage that was done by putting an official stamp of approval on such bad information. What's to prevent the same thing from happening here?

I think the government's Energy Star program is actually a good example of what a well-run government consumer protection program might look like. Companies can submit their products for testing and get a coveted Energy Star label, but not doing so doesn't mean their product can't be brought to market. It seems to work pretty well even without the kind of regulatory bite you might prefer.

doodle wrote: I also don't think that companies should be able to make false claims. I think that advertising in other words should be bland and more fact based. If

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: I also don't think that companies should be able to make false claims. I think that advertising in other words should be bland and more fact based. If

Who decideds what is a true claim vs a false one?  What criteria should they use?

doodle wrote:

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: I also don't think that companies should be able to make false claims. I think that advertising in other words should be bland and more fact based. If

Who decideds what is a true claim vs a false one?  What criteria should they use?

Should companies marketing a diet pill be able to photoshop models to make them look skinnier than they actually are after claiming (falsely) that they achieved this physique by taking this pill once a day at breakfast?

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote:

Benko wrote: Who decideds what is a true claim vs a false one?  What criteria should they use?

Should companies marketing a diet pill be able to photoshop models to make them look skinnier than they actually are after claiming (falsely) that they achieved this physique by taking this pill once a day at breakfast?

Now we're just arguing silly extremes. The truth is that nobody wants that kind of false advertising, but the devil is in the details when you try to prevent it. Let's not pretend the world is a nice simple place where a bunch of experts can get together and make the right decisions and determine what's good and what's bad.

Your arguments would be a lot stronger, doodle, if you would admit the challenges and pitfalls to the kind of technocratic committees you advocate.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote:

Benko wrote: Who decideds what is a true claim vs a false one?  What criteria should they use?

Should companies marketing a diet pill be able to photoshop models to make them look skinnier than they actually are after claiming (falsely) that they achieved this physique by taking this pill once a day at breakfast?

Now we're just arguing silly extremes. The truth is that nobody wants that kind of false advertising, but the devil is in the details when you try to prevent it. Let's not pretend the world is a nice simple place where a bunch of experts can get together and make the right decisions and determine what's good and what's bad.

Your arguments would be a lot stronger, doodle, if you would admit the challenges and pitfalls to the kind of technocratic committees you advocate.

doodle wrote: Is it not true that the profit motivated corporations are the most powerful source of social engineering in existence today?

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: Is it not true that the profit motivated corporations are the most powerful source of social engineering in existence today?

No.  it is anti-capitalist minded university professors who brainwash a large percentage of the population e.g. you.