Australia makes cigarette companies paste graphic warnings on packs of cigarettes.

In 2009, Congress gave the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco. The FDA responded with gusto:

The Food and Drug Administration wants large, graphic warning labels to scare smokers, but tobacco companies say that violates their right to free speech.

Diseased lungs, gnarly rotting teeth, even what appears to be the corpse of a smoker are some of the images that accompany the bold new cigarette labels the FDA requires to cover half a pack of cigarettes, front and back. The written warnings include: "Smoking Can Kill You" and "Cigarettes Cause Cancer."

As you might expect, the cigarette companies fiercely oppose this approach, and the federal courts are grappling with this issue. In Australia, the High Court just ruled that the cigarette companies must place gruesome labels on their packs of cigarettes.

The High Court rejected a challenge by tobacco companies who argued the value of their trademarks will be destroyed if they are no longer able to display their distinctive colors, brand designs and logos on packs of cigarettes.

Continue ReadingAustralia makes cigarette companies paste graphic warnings on packs of cigarettes.

How can consumers choose without informed consent?

A summary of California's Proposition 37:

"Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.” Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."
Essentially, it requires a label on foods that are genetically modified.  That's it.  A label indicating whether or not the food one is considering buying has been tampered with at the genetic level.  It doesn't ban or tax such products, it just offers you, the consumer, the chance to know what is in the food you are purchasing. Here is a list of the companies opposed to this Proposition, and the amount they have spent just this week to defeat it:

Continue ReadingHow can consumers choose without informed consent?

How doctors contribute to the high cost of health care

At Better Medicine, Negoba points out how doctors contribute to the high cost of health care. Even though some doctors make high salaries (some specialists making extremely high salaries), the salaries are not the biggest part of the problem.

A doctor can be just as valuable as a controller of loss as a source of profit. In either case, the amount of money flow a doctor controls is easily 5-10 times the amount he or she makes in salary. Many larger systems with interests both at the office and hospital level will take losses on salary to retain a physician whose orders then net a profit in orders.

Continue ReadingHow doctors contribute to the high cost of health care

Let them eat insects

According to the BBC: The price of meat will skyrocket and we might all be getting much of our protein from eating insects.

"Things like crickets and grasshoppers will be ground down and used as an ingredient in things like burgers." . . . But insects will need an image overhaul if they are to become more palatable to the squeamish Europeans and North Americans, says Gaye. "They will become popular when we get away from the word insects and use something like mini-livestock."

Continue ReadingLet them eat insects