Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: scientific method

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rick Williams" <mrfarm AT frontiernet.net>
  • To: "Market Farming" <market-farming AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: scientific method
  • Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:11:54 -0500


Jay Gee wrote:
> This is erroneous thinking Rick. One example should suffice:
>
> Had tobacco companies come clean to the public and their
> customers when their research demonstrated with certainty
> that smoking was dangerous to the health, they would have
> negated their future liability to their then present customers
> by invoking the implied consent rule.

The U.S. Government has required warning labels on cigarettes for decades.
In fact, shortly after the time that I started smoking in the early to mid
60's. Although some argued that the data was flawed, it has proven to be
quite accurate. You might recall the tobacco executives testifying in
congress that they did not believe that nicotine was addictive. When I quite
cigarettes on June 28, 1980, 6:15 pm, I honestly did not find it that
difficult to quit so maybe they were right at some level. But I agree that
if I had been the executive I would have agreed with the governments
position and gotten my companies liability off the hook. It would have been
the easy way out but would have some risk.

> That waiver of liability
> would have been reinforced had the tobacco companies
> voluntarily labeled their products with a statement such as
> "Scientific studies demonstrate conclusively that smoking
> these cigarettes over an extended period of time causes
> numerous health problems, including but not limited to
> cancer. Smoking is dangerous to your health. Do it
> at your own risk."

It was basically done for them by the government decades before. Kind of a
moot point. I am sure they feared the rath of the stockholders if they came
right out and ageed with the government. But it would have been the best
course of action for them in the long run.
>
> Had that been done, those who wanted to smoke would
> have had no excuse, no "conflicting research," etc. The
> only question remaining would have been the morality of
> selling cigarettes -- a question that still exists.

Uh-oh, now you shown your agenda:) This is exactly the fear they had about
tobacco products being made illegal. A large number of people do want to
smoke and even with no advertising (and it is severely restricted) it would
still be something that would be used by too many to even consider making it
an illegal substance. Alcohol would have to be illegal before tobacco and it
will never happen after the last experience.

There seems to be quite an agenda in the U.S. to keep removing freedoms, a
little here and a little there. Bad things like tobacco, and who knows the
next thing some crazies will go after the right to bear arms, and then if it
got really crazy they would go after fattening foods. Naw, never happen
here.

> I am not familiar with a single instance of a U.S. auto maker initiating
> a nationwide product recall voluntarily. All that I am aware of have come
> as a result of warnings from the NHTSA telling auto makers to recall
> or be ordered to recall.

Recalls have to be a joint effort since it would otherwise be necessary to
bring a suit against the companies or charge them with a crime. We do have
due process in the U.S. ... yet ... but I know that there are those on the
fringes who would do away with it.

> Congress, in its infinite wisdom, specifically denied the USDA the power
> to order tainted meat recalls. Meat recalls are voluntary and come months
> after the meat has been sold, generally too late to do any good. See the
> PBS Frontline program "Modern Meat" for more info on this
> particular subject.

Don't wish for things that you might get and find out that there are
unintended consequences. Government can exert some considerable pressure but
the biggest pressure is the marketplace. If you have tainted food, and
people get sick, your company is toast. Or did you miss the destruction of
companies in past years who had this happen to them ... and no longer exist?

> Where do you get your 99% + figure Rick?
>
> I think it is entirely too optimistic.

I have asked for some suggestions about a percent and no one offered any. If
we have more than 1% unethical, evil, or unscrupulous people running our
companies, imagine what must be running the government?

> I'm going to shut up on this subject now.

OK

Sincerely,

Rick Williams
Misty Ridge Farm
Dairy heifers and dairy beef graziers
Viroqua, WI

www.mistyridgefarm.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page