My additional comments at Karol's blog
Casca, call me an idealist, but I'm pointing the way that works. Like Abraham, the high improbability of people listening to me doesn't mean I won't give up seeking the righteous.
Guess what, Tanya: it's the fact of government regulations that allows "low fat" and similar claims to mean zilch. If a law doesn't protect a particular claim, then you have no reason to trust anyone implicitly. I don't expect you to understand this, but here we go. Because there's a law defining "low fat," you have an illogically implicit trust that such a food genuinely is. Without such assurance, you would certainly read the label to see how bad something is. There already is truth in advertising, because if manufacturers don't accurately list the ingredients, that's fraudulent misrepresentation.
If government defined "low fat" to mean 10 grams of fat per serving, would that make it so?
By the way, Tanya, I didn't reply before about something you said: "These are foods that (a) don't taste salty and (b) are supposed to be good for you."
Who said these are supposed to be good for you? Do they have "THIS IS HEALTHY STUFF, YOU MUST EAT IT!" on the label? Or are you merely like most people and tend to assume things without justification? I never once thought of salsa as healthy, principally because of what you tend to eat it with (i.e. do you really eat salsa on its own?). Anyone with more than a few working neural synapses should know that "veggie" does not automatically mean something is healthy. "Light" refers to caloric content, nothing more.
I personally eat very little salt. About ten years ago, when my father was still alive, he had a stroke and lost much of his sense of taste after a stroke. He added far too much salt when he did the cooking at home. But that's my own situation. I don't believe in infringing upon others' freedom to do with their bodies as they will, when they harm no one else.
Labels: Big government, State worshippers