Yeah, More Nannyism

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
So, if we're above banning and we're all about consumer choices, why not allow foods with some ecstasy in it. That will only make the food taste better and now there are more consumer choices. Yay. Who cares if ecstasy can cause health problems, the informed consumer would know better. Both directions of the issues can be easily exemplified with extreme examples.

By the way, if propaganda did not have an effect on you because you're an informed adult, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The internet is just as filled with propaganda as the billboards and commercials are. This topic is becoming trite. You will have your beliefs, we will have ours. The only person that has been somewhat convincing is Boberfett whereas everyone else is merely arguing with extreme examples of what could possibly happen, which gets us nowhere but more examples.

Or Arsenic for that matter. Add Arsenic into foods in low enough doses that the Customer base won't die off quickly enough to hurt Sales. Extreme example, but if Freedom to add anything and only the Consumer has the ability to "Regulate", why not?

 

[Narmer]

Wow, I can't believe some of the people in this thread. The government exists for the welfare of its citizens, and that doesn't stop at national defense. It includes the wellbeing of the society. If companies impose a negative externality on society, government should minimize that as much as possible, including destroying it (the negative externality) if there are clear benefits. People here that are criticizing government regulation forget that it goes hand in hand with basic research (such as the internet) and other services that it provides. If not, our life expectancy would be in the 40s. If people don't like regulation, then go live in the woods with the other extreme anti-gov't fanatics.

Stop whining and take the good with the "bad." It's good for you.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Your comments are an example of the cult-like thinking that forms a large part of the right-wing political culture.

You are unable to distinguish between the baby steps on a principle and going far further to abuse, incapable of weighing the tradeoffs, of avoiding fantasized extremism.

You should really read 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics' from nearly 50 years ago. It describes this mindset well and is free from Google sources.

You can make almost anything sound radical and extreme.

What are some of the most common things going on around us? I'll pick a few examples.

Police - if they didn't exist, how would it sound for every city in America to force the taxpayers to create 'modern day legionarres' who have the exclusive rights to patrol the citienry bearing arms - the same people who are in a position to vote them pay raises and such? You can make up dcary scenarios of abuse of power that 'might happen'.

Newspapers - when the Supreme Court ruled the government has no power of prior restraint of publication in the Nixon era, you could imagine all kinds of scenarios of the US being defeated by her enemies because the government was unable to prevent the newspapers from printing all of our nuclear secrets. Could happen.

Seat belt laws - what's next, thousands of laws so you get a ticket if you don't look both ways before crossing the street or don't wear a coat on a cool day?

Traffic signals - what if the government gave out special devices to the 'privilieged' to let them control the signals? Why should you be FORCED to sit at a red light with no other traffic around, or to come to a full stop at a stop sign when there's clear visibility what oppression is next? Stop signs with 60 second waits at every intersection in America?

You really need to do more than make up some extremist imagined scenario.

It's not that there aren't legitimate reasons to hold firm on some principles, not to allow even minor exceptions which really do become open doors to abuse.

But each one needs to be judged by its own merits, and you provide nothing but paranoia.

Boy, I sure remember the left crying like little girls because privacy had been violated with phone taps.
That act was started in the 60's.

As usual, you liberals show your incredibly short memory.

"The Repubs spied on us! They took our rights!"
NEXT EFFIN DAY
"We banned that to make you healthier! Good for us!"

You wonder why people look at liberals as if their completely clueless and utter fools? Your post is proof positive. Its ok for the D's to steal our rights way, but God forbid the R's do it for any reason right?

Dumocrats, you've held true to the name!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Craig234
Your comments are an example of the cult-like thinking that forms a large part of the right-wing political culture.

You are unable to distinguish between the baby steps on a principle and going far further to abuse, incapable of weighing the tradeoffs, of avoiding fantasized extremism.

You should really read 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics' from nearly 50 years ago. It describes this mindset well and is free from Google sources.

You can make almost anything sound radical and extreme.

What are some of the most common things going on around us? I'll pick a few examples.

Police - if they didn't exist, how would it sound for every city in America to force the taxpayers to create 'modern day legionarres' who have the exclusive rights to patrol the citienry bearing arms - the same people who are in a position to vote them pay raises and such? You can make up dcary scenarios of abuse of power that 'might happen'.

Newspapers - when the Supreme Court ruled the government has no power of prior restraint of publication in the Nixon era, you could imagine all kinds of scenarios of the US being defeated by her enemies because the government was unable to prevent the newspapers from printing all of our nuclear secrets. Could happen.

Seat belt laws - what's next, thousands of laws so you get a ticket if you don't look both ways before crossing the street or don't wear a coat on a cool day?

Traffic signals - what if the government gave out special devices to the 'privilieged' to let them control the signals? Why should you be FORCED to sit at a red light with no other traffic around, or to come to a full stop at a stop sign when there's clear visibility what oppression is next? Stop signs with 60 second waits at every intersection in America?

You really need to do more than make up some extremist imagined scenario.

It's not that there aren't legitimate reasons to hold firm on some principles, not to allow even minor exceptions which really do become open doors to abuse.

But each one needs to be judged by its own merits, and you provide nothing but paranoia.

Boy, I sure remember the left crying like little girls because privacy had been violated with phone taps.
That act was started in the 60's.

As usual, you liberals show your incredibly short memory.

"The Repubs spied on us! They took our rights!"
NEXT EFFIN DAY
"We banned that to make you healthier! Good for us!"

You wonder why people look at liberals as if their completely clueless and utter fools? Your post is proof positive. Its ok for the D's to steal our rights way, but God forbid the R's do it for any reason right?

Dumocrats, you've held true to the name!

huh? How can you even equate the 2?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: glutenberg
So, if we're above banning and we're all about consumer choices, why not allow foods with some ecstasy in it. That will only make the food taste better and now there are more consumer choices. Yay. Who cares if ecstasy can cause health problems, the informed consumer would know better. Both directions of the issues can be easily exemplified with extreme examples.

By the way, if propaganda did not have an effect on you because you're an informed adult, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The internet is just as filled with propaganda as the billboards and commercials are. This topic is becoming trite. You will have your beliefs, we will have ours. The only person that has been somewhat convincing is Boberfett whereas everyone else is merely arguing with extreme examples of what could possibly happen, which gets us nowhere but more examples.

Or Arsenic for that matter. Add Arsenic into foods in low enough doses that the Customer base won't die off quickly enough to hurt Sales. Extreme example, but if Freedom to add anything and only the Consumer has the ability to "Regulate", why not?

As long as consumer understands that he is infact buying food that contains Arsenic I don't see a problem.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: glutenberg
So, if we're above banning and we're all about consumer choices, why not allow foods with some ecstasy in it. That will only make the food taste better and now there are more consumer choices. Yay. Who cares if ecstasy can cause health problems, the informed consumer would know better. Both directions of the issues can be easily exemplified with extreme examples.

By the way, if propaganda did not have an effect on you because you're an informed adult, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The internet is just as filled with propaganda as the billboards and commercials are. This topic is becoming trite. You will have your beliefs, we will have ours. The only person that has been somewhat convincing is Boberfett whereas everyone else is merely arguing with extreme examples of what could possibly happen, which gets us nowhere but more examples.

Or Arsenic for that matter. Add Arsenic into foods in low enough doses that the Customer base won't die off quickly enough to hurt Sales. Extreme example, but if Freedom to add anything and only the Consumer has the ability to "Regulate", why not?

As long as consumer understands that he is infact buying food that contains Arsenic I don't see a problem.

Well, I do see a problem.

 

[Legend]

The argument to keep trans fats seems to be roughly that the government shouldn't tell us how to eat healthy. But that's not the issue. The issue is banning a substance that food manufactures synthetically create to save themselves some money, and this food substance has severe consequences on human health.

There are plenty of alternatives. For heavy cooking, use coconut and palm oil. For light cooking/raw, use EVOO.

I'd rather have a longer shelf life than some damn munchies.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: glutenberg
So, if we're above banning and we're all about consumer choices, why not allow foods with some ecstasy in it. That will only make the food taste better and now there are more consumer choices. Yay. Who cares if ecstasy can cause health problems, the informed consumer would know better. Both directions of the issues can be easily exemplified with extreme examples.

By the way, if propaganda did not have an effect on you because you're an informed adult, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The internet is just as filled with propaganda as the billboards and commercials are. This topic is becoming trite. You will have your beliefs, we will have ours. The only person that has been somewhat convincing is Boberfett whereas everyone else is merely arguing with extreme examples of what could possibly happen, which gets us nowhere but more examples.

Or Arsenic for that matter. Add Arsenic into foods in low enough doses that the Customer base won't die off quickly enough to hurt Sales. Extreme example, but if Freedom to add anything and only the Consumer has the ability to "Regulate", why not?

As long as consumer understands that he is infact buying food that contains Arsenic I don't see a problem.

Well, I do see a problem.

Okay, what?

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: CPA

There is a huge difference between pollution and food consumption.

Transfats are not food. Completely foreign to the human body.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: glutenberg
So, if we're above banning and we're all about consumer choices, why not allow foods with some ecstasy in it. That will only make the food taste better and now there are more consumer choices. Yay. Who cares if ecstasy can cause health problems, the informed consumer would know better. Both directions of the issues can be easily exemplified with extreme examples.

By the way, if propaganda did not have an effect on you because you're an informed adult, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The internet is just as filled with propaganda as the billboards and commercials are. This topic is becoming trite. You will have your beliefs, we will have ours. The only person that has been somewhat convincing is Boberfett whereas everyone else is merely arguing with extreme examples of what could possibly happen, which gets us nowhere but more examples.

Or Arsenic for that matter. Add Arsenic into foods in low enough doses that the Customer base won't die off quickly enough to hurt Sales. Extreme example, but if Freedom to add anything and only the Consumer has the ability to "Regulate", why not?

As long as consumer understands that he is infact buying food that contains Arsenic I don't see a problem.

Now toss in conflicting scientific results where one side says it's fine and the other side says it's bad for you. Now what do you do? Play it safe and not eat it or eat it anyway and exercise this extraordinary freedom you have to poison yourself from misinformation?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: glutenberg
So, if we're above banning and we're all about consumer choices, why not allow foods with some ecstasy in it. That will only make the food taste better and now there are more consumer choices. Yay. Who cares if ecstasy can cause health problems, the informed consumer would know better. Both directions of the issues can be easily exemplified with extreme examples.

By the way, if propaganda did not have an effect on you because you're an informed adult, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The internet is just as filled with propaganda as the billboards and commercials are. This topic is becoming trite. You will have your beliefs, we will have ours. The only person that has been somewhat convincing is Boberfett whereas everyone else is merely arguing with extreme examples of what could possibly happen, which gets us nowhere but more examples.

Or Arsenic for that matter. Add Arsenic into foods in low enough doses that the Customer base won't die off quickly enough to hurt Sales. Extreme example, but if Freedom to add anything and only the Consumer has the ability to "Regulate", why not?

As long as consumer understands that he is infact buying food that contains Arsenic I don't see a problem.

Well, I do see a problem.

Okay, what?

Whether the Consumer is notified or not, Arsenic is still a poison unfit for Consumption.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I don't want the FDA to protect me. Where's the opt out?

Stick any unapproved by the FDA chemical additives down your cake-hole...enjoy!

Or:

Self prescribe any FDA banned prscription medications you can get your hands on.


Don't forget to give your pregnant wife some Thalidamide; who the hell is the EPA to tell you what causes birth defects?



another alternative:


Eat, sniff and be merry with all the lead paint you want...you'll soon be opted out.

Dammed EPA, grumble, grumble

Why would I take medications I don't need? And unless I'm licking the walls, lead paint won't be a problem.

There's a difference between being an informed, intelligent adult who can make their own choices and one who has to be told what he can and can't do like a child. I do my best to be the former. You must be quite happy to be a naive, ignorant child; dumb and happy, content to have mommy to tell him to look both ways every time he crosses the street. Oh, and little boy, don't eat the paint chips.

I have no problem with the government doing research to enable people to become informed. I do have a problem with the government telling me what I can and can't do, assuming my actions only affect me.

So before you make yourself like an even bigger ass, stop with the red herrings and address the actual argument.

Hey, you asked where the opt out was.

Also, I don't think you are qualified to use the term "red herring".

 

[bsobel]

So what is next on the list to ban? What else are you and your ilk going to save us from?

High fruitcose corn syrup.

Look I'm typically on the right (especially regarding economics) and I honestly can't see (other than principal) why anyone is upset about this. When we banned sarcharine, would you have made the same posts? The reasoning is very similar for the move to ban, so was that decisiion wrong too?

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: bsobel

So what is next on the list to ban? What else are you and your ilk going to save us from?

High fruitcose corn syrup.

Look I'm typically on the right (especially regarding economics) and I honestly can't see (other than principal) why anyone is upset about this. When we banned sarcharine, would you have made the same posts? The reasoning is very similar for the move to ban, so was that decisiion wrong too?

Adding to my examples of food additives we've banned, are you all also up in arms over:

Agene
Aritifical colorings (butter yellow, green 1-2, orange 1-2 and B, Red 1-2, 4 and 32, Sudan 1, Violet 1, Yellow 1-4)
Cinnamyl anthranilate
cobalt salts
courmarin
cylcamate
diethyl pyrocabornate
dulcin
ethylene glycol
monochloraecetic acid
nordihydroguaiaretic acid
oil of calamus
polyoxyethylene-8-sterate
safriole
thiourea

We often ban additives when they turn out to be dangerous or a health risk. I'd love to see the letters of protests you've written for items on the above list....

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Craig234
Your comments are an example of the cult-like thinking that forms a large part of the right-wing political culture.

You are unable to distinguish between the baby steps on a principle and going far further to abuse, incapable of weighing the tradeoffs, of avoiding fantasized extremism.

You should really read 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics' from nearly 50 years ago. It describes this mindset well and is free from Google sources.

You can make almost anything sound radical and extreme.

What are some of the most common things going on around us? I'll pick a few examples.

Police - if they didn't exist, how would it sound for every city in America to force the taxpayers to create 'modern day legionarres' who have the exclusive rights to patrol the citienry bearing arms - the same people who are in a position to vote them pay raises and such? You can make up dcary scenarios of abuse of power that 'might happen'.

Newspapers - when the Supreme Court ruled the government has no power of prior restraint of publication in the Nixon era, you could imagine all kinds of scenarios of the US being defeated by her enemies because the government was unable to prevent the newspapers from printing all of our nuclear secrets. Could happen.

Seat belt laws - what's next, thousands of laws so you get a ticket if you don't look both ways before crossing the street or don't wear a coat on a cool day?

Traffic signals - what if the government gave out special devices to the 'privilieged' to let them control the signals? Why should you be FORCED to sit at a red light with no other traffic around, or to come to a full stop at a stop sign when there's clear visibility what oppression is next? Stop signs with 60 second waits at every intersection in America?

You really need to do more than make up some extremist imagined scenario.

It's not that there aren't legitimate reasons to hold firm on some principles, not to allow even minor exceptions which really do become open doors to abuse.

But each one needs to be judged by its own merits, and you provide nothing but paranoia.

Boy, I sure remember the left crying like little girls because privacy had been violated with phone taps.
That act was started in the 60's.

As usual, you liberals show your incredibly short memory.

"The Repubs spied on us! They took our rights!"
NEXT EFFIN DAY
"We banned that to make you healthier! Good for us!"

You wonder why people look at liberals as if their completely clueless and utter fools? Your post is proof positive. Its ok for the D's to steal our rights way, but God forbid the R's do it for any reason right?

Dumocrats, you've held true to the name!

So, let me get this straight...The New York City Board of Health = "you liberals".

interesting.....

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: glutenberg
So, if we're above banning and we're all about consumer choices, why not allow foods with some ecstasy in it. That will only make the food taste better and now there are more consumer choices. Yay. Who cares if ecstasy can cause health problems, the informed consumer would know better. Both directions of the issues can be easily exemplified with extreme examples.

By the way, if propaganda did not have an effect on you because you're an informed adult, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The internet is just as filled with propaganda as the billboards and commercials are. This topic is becoming trite. You will have your beliefs, we will have ours. The only person that has been somewhat convincing is Boberfett whereas everyone else is merely arguing with extreme examples of what could possibly happen, which gets us nowhere but more examples.

Or Arsenic for that matter. Add Arsenic into foods in low enough doses that the Customer base won't die off quickly enough to hurt Sales. Extreme example, but if Freedom to add anything and only the Consumer has the ability to "Regulate", why not?

As long as consumer understands that he is infact buying food that contains Arsenic I don't see a problem.

Now toss in conflicting scientific results where one side says it's fine and the other side says it's bad for you. Now what do you do? Play it safe and not eat it or eat it anyway and exercise this extraordinary freedom you have to poison yourself from misinformation?

I think the best choice would be to leave it up to the consumer.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: glutenberg
So, if we're above banning and we're all about consumer choices, why not allow foods with some ecstasy in it. That will only make the food taste better and now there are more consumer choices. Yay. Who cares if ecstasy can cause health problems, the informed consumer would know better. Both directions of the issues can be easily exemplified with extreme examples.

By the way, if propaganda did not have an effect on you because you're an informed adult, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The internet is just as filled with propaganda as the billboards and commercials are. This topic is becoming trite. You will have your beliefs, we will have ours. The only person that has been somewhat convincing is Boberfett whereas everyone else is merely arguing with extreme examples of what could possibly happen, which gets us nowhere but more examples.

Or Arsenic for that matter. Add Arsenic into foods in low enough doses that the Customer base won't die off quickly enough to hurt Sales. Extreme example, but if Freedom to add anything and only the Consumer has the ability to "Regulate", why not?

As long as consumer understands that he is infact buying food that contains Arsenic I don't see a problem.

Well, I do see a problem.

Okay, what?

Whether the Consumer is notified or not, Arsenic is still a poison unfit for Consumption.

Yes, arsenic is a poison and I wouldn't eat it.

So, what's the problem

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: glutenberg
So, if we're above banning and we're all about consumer choices, why not allow foods with some ecstasy in it. That will only make the food taste better and now there are more consumer choices. Yay. Who cares if ecstasy can cause health problems, the informed consumer would know better. Both directions of the issues can be easily exemplified with extreme examples.

By the way, if propaganda did not have an effect on you because you're an informed adult, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The internet is just as filled with propaganda as the billboards and commercials are. This topic is becoming trite. You will have your beliefs, we will have ours. The only person that has been somewhat convincing is Boberfett whereas everyone else is merely arguing with extreme examples of what could possibly happen, which gets us nowhere but more examples.

Or Arsenic for that matter. Add Arsenic into foods in low enough doses that the Customer base won't die off quickly enough to hurt Sales. Extreme example, but if Freedom to add anything and only the Consumer has the ability to "Regulate", why not?

As long as consumer understands that he is infact buying food that contains Arsenic I don't see a problem.

Well, I do see a problem.

Okay, what?

Whether the Consumer is notified or not, Arsenic is still a poison unfit for Consumption.

Yes, arsenic is a poison and I wouldn't eat it.

So, what's the problem

You!!!

 

[theeedude]

They should ban transfats, unless the restaurant agrees to notify the customer that the food being sold contains transfats that are dangerous to your health.
If there is no notification, then the food should not contain transfats.

 

[blackllotus]

I see no reason why restaurants shouldn't be required to meet certain minimum health standards

 

[Termagant]

Someone brought it up earlier, but I'll reiterate. If people should be able to choose willingly to eat trans fats, and we allow self reliance and personal responsibility to be the standard..... why are there illegal drugs? Can someone provide a coherent argument? I'd like to opt out of the war on drugs please.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: glutenberg
So, if we're above banning and we're all about consumer choices, why not allow foods with some ecstasy in it. That will only make the food taste better and now there are more consumer choices. Yay. Who cares if ecstasy can cause health problems, the informed consumer would know better. Both directions of the issues can be easily exemplified with extreme examples.

By the way, if propaganda did not have an effect on you because you're an informed adult, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The internet is just as filled with propaganda as the billboards and commercials are. This topic is becoming trite. You will have your beliefs, we will have ours. The only person that has been somewhat convincing is Boberfett whereas everyone else is merely arguing with extreme examples of what could possibly happen, which gets us nowhere but more examples.

Or Arsenic for that matter. Add Arsenic into foods in low enough doses that the Customer base won't die off quickly enough to hurt Sales. Extreme example, but if Freedom to add anything and only the Consumer has the ability to "Regulate", why not?

As long as consumer understands that he is infact buying food that contains Arsenic I don't see a problem.

Well, I do see a problem.

Okay, what?

Whether the Consumer is notified or not, Arsenic is still a poison unfit for Consumption.

Yes, arsenic is a poison and I wouldn't eat it.

So, what's the problem

You!!!

I win.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Termagant
Someone brought it up earlier, but I'll reiterate. If people should be able to choose willingly to eat trans fats, and we allow self reliance and personal responsibility to be the standard..... why are there illegal drugs? Can someone provide a coherent argument? I'd like to opt out of the war on drugs please.

Feel free to opt out on the war on drugs anytime

 

[Vic]

I haven't read the thread and probably won't. Just want to put my $0.02 in.

What bothers me about this new ban can be understood when you look at why there are trans fats in foods to begin with. Because everyone thought that the saturated fats in butter was bad, really bad, and that margarine was better. If you're over 20, you should remember the "OMG butter is evil!' scares. Now we know better, the trans fats in margarine are worse than the saturated fats in butter, and butter isn't really that bad after all.
However, suppose there had been the same knee-jerking then as now. Butter would have been banned, and we may never have realized our mistake (or more likely, we would have refused to admit it, like we continue to do with both our current "wars," the drug and Iraq).

Make this lesson #96 about why the populist knee-jerk "we need to pass a law for everything" mentality is bad: it assumes that we are infallible, and that the current thought fad (whatever that is) is never wrong. How could it be? We are willing to use whatever force of law is necessary in order to defend our sense of rightness.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: glutenberg
So, if we're above banning and we're all about consumer choices, why not allow foods with some ecstasy in it. That will only make the food taste better and now there are more consumer choices. Yay. Who cares if ecstasy can cause health problems, the informed consumer would know better. Both directions of the issues can be easily exemplified with extreme examples.

By the way, if propaganda did not have an effect on you because you're an informed adult, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The internet is just as filled with propaganda as the billboards and commercials are. This topic is becoming trite. You will have your beliefs, we will have ours. The only person that has been somewhat convincing is Boberfett whereas everyone else is merely arguing with extreme examples of what could possibly happen, which gets us nowhere but more examples.

Or Arsenic for that matter. Add Arsenic into foods in low enough doses that the Customer base won't die off quickly enough to hurt Sales. Extreme example, but if Freedom to add anything and only the Consumer has the ability to "Regulate", why not?

As long as consumer understands that he is infact buying food that contains Arsenic I don't see a problem.

Well, I do see a problem.

Okay, what?

Do restaurants inform their customers of the meals ingredients? Thats one thing thats always kind of bothered me about eating out, I have no idea how much butter, sugar or whatever the cook is preparing my meal with.