Hi, Morlock,m0rl0ck wrote:I didnt intend to be patronizing but if you choose to interpret it that way its up to you. The point im making is that every day people make life and death choices based on awareness of consequences. As long as a vendor of any particular product isnt hiding anything, people should have the right to make free choices. Would you ban buses because people occasionally step in front of them? Cars kill people everyday, lets ban them. Too much time on the internet can have adverse effects. Lets monitor computer use and send exercise police to every dwelling where someone is online more than three hours at a time.Ben wrote: That's a rather patronising thing to say, morlock.
If we follow the logical conclusion of your line of argument then we can absolve tobacco companies from responsibility of manufacturing and selling a product that causes addiction and shortens the lifespan of its users. You will find framed in legislation and case law in most developed countries the notions of 'duty of care' and 'negligence' aimed at corporations to ensure that they do not produce and/or sell goods that harm their customers.
I'd much rather live in a society where there are effective legal controls on corporate greed than a society that doesn't.
Seriously, there really are much bigger things to worry about than junk food and those who are worried about it can take one simple step, dont eat it.
The three phrases I have bolded are crucial to your argument but in fact the corporations are hiding the facts, so the average consumer has no awareness of the consequences. Then, because they won't be worried about it (because they don't know about it), they won't take the one simple step.
For those reasons, I'm with Ben: corporations which behave unethically need to be regulated.