English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/state/all-a11_milk.6138311nov14,0,6667511.story

2007-11-24 08:21:19 · 2 answers · asked by hwinnum 7 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

Richard,
Using your logic, we shouldn't bother selling organic food either since it is the same food as non organic. Have you considered that as long as the advertising isn't false, that the consumer may want to choose what type of food he prefers and what type of farming he supports? Are you sure that our government knows what is "best" for us, or is it possible they are more concerned with what is best for them?
You should check out these links and see if you still believe the "official" word on the subject.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_Fox:_Partners_in_Censorship
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto

2007-11-24 09:34:09 · update #1

2 answers

Makes sense.

Artificial hormones haven't been detected in ANY milk, so technically it's ALL "artificial hormone free". When a customer goes to the store though and sees one brand of milk sold at a higher price and marked "artificial hormone free", she's likely to ASSUME that that means that the other, cheaper brands are NOT hormone free - which is untrue.

So the Ag Secretary has prohibited milk sellers from advertising something about their product as if it was 'special', when in fact it is true of all milk sold. Rules banning this sort of misleading advertising are common.

Of course, they wouldn't need to be common if consumers would just bother to educate themselves, but that's a different question.

Richard

2007-11-24 08:26:04 · answer #1 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 0 1

Labels must be made under the rules of the Trademark Law and violators can be subject to prosecution for falsification or unfair competition.

2007-11-24 16:25:43 · answer #2 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers