Feds Tell Court They Can Decide What You Eat

[Rupert Pupkin]

There is a case going on right now where attorneys for the federal government have argued that citizens have no "fundamental right" to obtain what food they choose. I don't make this stuff up. Here is the quote from the US Attorney representing the government: "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds."

They go on to say, "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."

These words speak for themselves. There is no way to spin this.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=153133

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There is a case going on right now where attorneys for the federal government have argued that citizens have no "fundamental right" to obtain what food they choose. I don't make this stuff up. Here is the quote from the US Attorney representing the government: "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds."

They go on to say, "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."

These words speak for themselves. There is no way to spin this.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=153133

So you think the public should have unfettered access to any "food"..and this can be a very broad category...that anyone wants to sell to them? I don't.

[Danzig]

the spin is already on, by the 'natural news' or whatever they call themselves. a suit over milk. another example of the litigious society we live in.


as for obtaining any food we wish-absinthe, anyone?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the spin is already on, by the 'natural news' or whatever they call themselves. a suit over milk. another example of the litigious society we live in.


as for obtaining any food we wish-absinthe, anyone?

I'm down.

[dellinger63]

It's already been done locally. The Chicago city council outlawed foie gras last year.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

It's already been done locally. The Chicago city council outlawed foie gras last year.

That, I disagreed with..but in general, I think the FDA does need to have some regulatory power

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

It's already been done locally. The Chicago city council outlawed foie gras last year.

But smoking is still OK in all 50 states. Go figure.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the spin is already on, by the 'natural news' or whatever they call themselves. a suit over milk. another example of the litigious society we live in.


as for obtaining any food we wish-absinthe, anyone?

just an ounce,please!

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by joeydb

But smoking is still OK in all 50 states. Go figure.

Better lobbyists than the geese have

[Sightseek]

Is fois gras duck or goose, I tried it, but can't remember?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Is fois gras duck or goose, I tried it, but can't remember?

think its duck fatty liver... there's an article on CNN about it today..

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

think its duck fatty liver... there's an article on CNN about it today..

It can be duck or goose...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GBBob

That, I disagreed with..but in general, I think the FDA does need to have some regulatory power

Don't get me wrong. I do think we need the FDA. I do think the FDA should have some regulatory power. If a drug is killing people, the FDA obviously needs to take it off the market.

The question is how much power should the FDA have. I personally would rather that they have less power than more power. I don't think they need to regulate everything out there. I have no problem with some type of FDA seal of approval. That seems like it would be the best idea in most of these cases.

Why not have a simple label on all of these products? For things that are approved by the FDA, there could be a seal of approval that says "the FDA has approved this product". For products that are not approved by the FDA, you could have a warning label that says, "This product has not been approved by the "FDA".

I would be more comfortable with something like that.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

It's already been done locally. The Chicago city council outlawed foie gras last year.

I think that when it comes to animal cruelty, the government needs to get involved. The making of foie gras is very cruel. They force feed these animals with a tube down their throat to make their liver the size of a grape-fruit.

Here is some information about how foie gras is made:

"Foie gras, French for "fatty liver," is made from the grotesquely enlarged livers of male ducks and geese. The birds are kept in tiny wire cages or packed into sheds. Pipes are repeatedly shoved down the birds' throats, and up to 4 pounds of grain and fat are pumped into their stomachs two or three times every day. The pipes puncture many birds' throats, sometimes causing the animals to bleed to death. This cruel procedure causes the birds' livers to become diseased and swell to up to 10 times their normal size. Many birds become too sick to stand up. The birds who survive the force-feeding are killed, and their livers are sold for foie gras."

That is cruelty to animals. That should be illegal. IMO.

http://www.goveg.com/feat/foie/

[Antitrust32]

I have read that, while what they do to the ducks / geese to make the Foie gras SOUNDS very cruel to humans.. it does not actually cause the animal any pain.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I have read that, while what they do to the ducks / geese to make the Foie gras SOUNDS very cruel to humans.. it does not actually cause the animal any pain.

How do you know that it doesn't cause them pain? I find that very hard to believe. Having a tube shoved down their throat can't feel good.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

How do you know that it doesn't cause them pain? I find that very hard to believe. Having a tube shoved down their throat can't feel good.

it said they have no gag reflex's and that the esphogus or whatever has something coating it and they dont feel any pain.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

it said they have no gag reflex's and that the esphogus or whatever has something coating it and they dont feel any pain.

Even if that is true and it doesn't really hurt their throat, that still does not sound like humane treatment to be stuck in a tiny cage, and force-fed through a tube until their liver swells up to 10x bigger than it should be.

Do you how many of these animals are sickly and die from this? I don't know the number but I'm sure it is astronomically higher than for geese that are cared for in a normal way.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Even if that is true and it doesn't really hurt their throat, that still does not sound like humane treatment to be stuck in a tiny cage, and force-fed through a tube until their liver swells up to 10x bigger than it should be.

Do you how many of these animals are sickly and die from this? I don't know the number but I'm sure it is astronomically higher than for geese that are cared for in a normal way.

Have you seen factory farmed chickens?

Their breasts are ridiculously bigger than natural, thanks to the way they're raised.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Their breasts are ridiculously bigger than natural, thanks to the way they're raised.

hey it works for strippers...