OT Lawyers amuck?

firkin

firkin

Joined
Jan 26, 2002
Messages
2,737
You'd think with all the corporate scandals and whatnot, lawyers could find something better than this to do in the way of looking out for consumers and "ordinary people".

Does this logic dictate that vegetables grown with the use of man-made fertilizer like ammonium nitrate should be labeled as "artificially augmented"?

(Emphasis mine)

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_773825.html?menu=news.l...

US law firm is suing the country's three largest grocery chains, contending they should tell shoppers that the farm-raised salmon they sell has been dyed[sic] pink.

The three lawsuits, proposed as class actions, have been filed against the Kroger Co, Safeway Inc and Albertsons Inc.

The flesh of farmed salmon is naturally grey. Wild salmon's brightly coloured flesh is the result of the fish eating krill or other small crustaceans, according to trade group the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association.

Lawyer Paul Kampmeier of Smith & Lowney of Seattle, said: "Pink sells salmon.

"To artificially colour salmon without giving that information to consumers, we believe that's unfair and deceptive, and it's also against federal law.

The trade group says pigments added to farmed fish food are synthetic versions of naturally occurring ones in the diet of wild fish, and are added at levels that meet government standards.

Representatives of Cincinnati-based Kroger, Boise, Idaho-based Albertsons and California-based Safeway say they have not seen the lawsuits and could not comment on specifics, but added that the salmon they sell are safe and comply with all federal rules.

Safeway spokeswoman Cherie Myers said: "We want to assure our customers that we buy our salmon from well-regarded, reputable suppliers who are known for their high quality standards and who guarantee that they comply with all federal, state and local laws."

The lawsuits, filed in King County Superior Court, Seattle, on behalf of supermarket shoppers, seek unspecified damages and a court order requiring the chains to inform shoppers that the salmon are artificially coloured.

Looks to me like the salmon colored their own flesh when fed a diet formulated to more closely resemble the one they find in the wild. Does that qualify as artificial?

Maybe it is the salmon that should be sued?
 
The seafood industry has always done benign deceptions, usually renaming fish with more pleasant sounding names. Examples- Patagonian Toothfish becomes Chilean Sea Bass, Atlantic Dolphin = mahi mahi, goosefish = monkfish, dogfish shark = dover sole, sometimes "plugs" of shark meat are sold as scallops, etc.
But yeah, this looks totally blown out of proportion.

But putting all that aside...
mmmm.... salmon....
:)
 
Sue the salmon for being factory farmed rather than caught in a wild river?
There's a Roe vs. Wade joke in here somewhere, but durned if I can figure it out...:footinmou
 
Ever seen a goosefish/monkfish?

After that, most any name will seem "pleasant sounding".

"Jabba-the-Hut-fish" might fit though.

But they are quite tasty, from the few times I've coughed up the $ for a bit.
 
I do want to know if there has been any genetic or chemical manipulation of my food other than by such natural means as could be certified organic under well accepted standards, and there are some. Artificially colouring fish would qualify. Why not let the consumer know?
As far as this being a suitable subject for litigation, feed the lawyers to the fishes. But then you'd have to disclose that the fishes were fed highly toxic feed :)
 
Yeah, monkfish are like sea monsters. But they're so sweet and tasty!
HJK, that's a good idea, but would you want to eat a fish that ate those lawyers?!
Then the EPA would be after us.
 
"I do want to know if there has been any genetic or chemical manipulation of my food other than by such natural means as could be certified organic under well accepted standards, and there are some. Artificially colouring fish would qualify. Why not let the consumer know?"

They should know the FACTS.

The shells of krill contain pigments. Salmon process the krill and the pigments or derivatives of them made by the salmon color the flesh.

Farm fed fish eat fish chow, not krill. They are deprived of pigments that occur in their natural diet.

The pigments naturally found in krill are synthesized and added to the fish chow. The salmon's flesh is now colored.

Is this artificial coloring? And it wouldn't be if the same pigments from actual shellfish were added to the feed instead?

Would it be better to add a different pigment that has the same coloring effect that has been extracted from organically grown terrestrial plants that would never occur in the diet of wild salmon? This would appear to be a higher degree of "manipulation".

Is synthetic vitamin C different than that extracted and purified from rose hips? Vitamin C from either source is not rose hips, the rose hips contain a myriad of other substances that may be either benficial or detrimental. But the vitamin C is the same.

The farmed fish are already identified as such.
If one wants to distinguish between "organically" raised fish and others, OK. It appears for legal or regulatory purposes, one may define a word to mean whatever one wants, unless it already has a legal definition. Perhaps in time, organically grown fish with grey flesh could even command a premium. But to describe the addition of a pigment to the diet of farmed fish that occurs in the diet of wild fish as "artificial coloring" is absurd.

What about feeding beef certified organic corn?
Beef do not naturally eat corn, and it actually leads to gastrointestinal problems and infections, which is of one of reasons for the heavy use of antibiotics. Beef aren't made to eat corn, doesn't matter how it was grown.

"Natural" and "organic" as applied to food place limitations on the origin of feeds and materials used for raising crops and animals. They don't guarantee that the right or best feeds and materials were used.

Remember that a plant does not want to be eaten except for nectar in return for pollination, or ripe fruit in return for seed dispersal. The rest of the plant is protected by a host of chemicals that the plant evolved make it toxic or indigestable to something. The fruit may be protected by toxins against cunsmption by animals other than a co-evolved seed distributor. Some of these chemicals are no problem for people, and some are even sought after as flavorings or drugs. Others are just as nasty as anything people can make. "Natural" toxins are no less toxic because a plant or animal made them. I think ricin is still the most toxic substance known.

Identity of a substance determines it's effects, not the source.


In general, I find that wild fish do taste better--the difference is greater for trout than salmon. That's probably due to a higher degree of fitness of the fish.

I prefer genuine vanilla extract over vanilla favoring as well. Undoubtably the extract has many more substances present in small amounts which contribute the flavor. Synthetic vanilla flavor is a much simpler mixture of substances known to occur in fermented vanilla pods dominated by the compound vanillin, which is readily available by synthesis. However, it's much more likely one will get a small exposure to potentially carcinogenic or toxic substances from the natural vanilla extract which contains many minor constituents which have never been tested. Not to mention products produced by microbes during the fermentation. In contrast all of the constituents of the synthetic vanilla flavoring have been rigorously tested. None the less, I will still prefer the extract for the taste. I know that animals and humans have kept up with plant's chemical defenses (in most cases) and have evolved the ability to deal with small doses of carcinogens and mutagens since many are produced in Nature.

Enough. Yeah, that particular button is easy to push.
 
It's like some other companies calling their curved knives "khukuris".

Somewhere there are a lot of kami spirits getting really p.o.'d
 
Yup, feed the lawyers to the fish and give me the real thing. It's always better in my book. Generic is just that...generic! Real may cost more, so just don't eat as much. The whole country has a weight problem. Well, maybe with the exception of Mr.H.:rolleyes: Most are either too big or too small. :footinmou
Oh, well!!
 
Indeed we bring this kind of judgement on ourselves. Laws schools crank out lawyers out like crazy and they need work. So they create work. Of course we hand them a fair bit. This fish business is just one example. Take divorce for instance. The only ones who benefit(in most, not all cases) are the attorneys! It's business to them.
So are they the big "watchdog" group to help save us from the unscruplus merchants or are they just in it for themselves?
 
Laws schools crank out lawyers out like crazy and they need work. So they create work.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, does that work in reverse?

Like maybe stop cranking out CPAs, and our taxes would get simpler?

Or is it like entropy, which is always increasing?
 
Originally posted by donutsrule
Sue the salmon for being factory farmed rather than caught in a wild river?
There's a Roe vs. Wade joke in here somewhere, but durned if I can figure it out...:footinmou
Click to expand...

Sorry, donutsrule, you're thinking of a sturgeon joke.
 
Firkin wrote: "In general, I find that wild fish do taste better--the difference is greater for trout than salmon. That's probably due to a higher degree of fitness of the fish."

That's right. Same thing with the "regular" chickens and eggs we buy at the grocery, as opposed to so-called "free range" chickens and egss.

Chickens are supposed to walk around, scratch the ground, eat bugs, little rocks, blades of grass and stuff. They're not supposed to be kept in tiny cages, fed unnatural food, while crapping on each other, until they lay eggs or get fat enough for Foster Farms (Tyson? Whatever). If they are allowed to do what chickens do, their eggs taste better (way better) and so do they. Chickens aren't supposed to be that fat.:p
 
My momma says that the chickens back home that you had to chase and kill yourself were tastier than the ones you buy at the grocery store here. Though aside from how the chickens were raised, Im sure freshness has a good deal to do with taste. Who knows how long that chicken really sits there in the frozen meats aisle. Especially with the big stores like Walmart, who buy from big distributors often very far from the actual store.
 
What this country needs is a legal system whereby the loser pays the legal costs!

A lot of frivolous lawsuits would stop if the loser had to pay the winner's legal costs.

As it stands now, one lawyer in a town will starve but two lawyers in town end up owning the place after they sue each other and milk their clients life savings away! :mad:
 
I've only known two decent lawyers in my life -- one of them hangs out on this forum and the other is dead.

There is no resemblance between the trout caught fresh out of a stream in the Black Hills and those imitations I buy at the supermarket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top