EVERYWHERE A SIGN22:33 Feb 22 2010
Times Read: 772
I hate being in a position to defend big corporations, but it's hard for me to NOT feel a little sympathy for a company like Oscar Mayer.
I think we've all seen the recent news articles about THE NEED to put WARNING LABELS on KILLER HOT DOGS.
No, really.
Hot dogs.
I'll admit to you, dear reader, that I am unashamedly biased. I love hot dogs. I've eaten them all my life. Never ONCE have I even come CLOSE to choking on a delicious Oscar Mayer all-beef frank. Not. Once.
My parents were ANYTHING but neglectful; they didn't need warning labels and signs to be good parents. They had this thing called "common sense" that seems to be in short supply these days. I don't recall them cutting up my hot dogs for me, they just told me to chew my food. Or I would die. It seemed reasonable to me.
So, just how SERIOUS is the choking threat imposed by hot dogs?
Let's take a look-see.
From CBS:
---- snip ----
Choking kills more than 100 U.S. children 14 years or younger each year, and thousands more - 15,000 in 2001 - are treated in emergency rooms. Food, including candy and gum, is among the leading culprits, along with items such as coins and balloons. Of the 141 choking deaths in kids in 2006, 61 were food-related.
--- snip ----
For starters, how urgent is this threat if they're pulling up data that is almost TEN YEARS OLD? Isn't someone monitoring this annually? After all, they (The American Academy of Pediatrics) are pressuring lawmakers to alter packaging to include warning labels on food that ALL of us consume. These activities have an adverse affect on the sales of these products. Products that I like.
Again, I'm biased. Stubbornly so. I'm in the pro-hot dog camp. I don't want them to change. I don't want to see them become pre-chopped or sliced or compressed into an un-hot doggish shape. Not even for safety's sake. So already, the invisible-to-everyone-but-me little red warning light is blinking in the corner of my eye.
How many "more" than a hundred are we talking about? 104? 129? I like solid concrete numbers, especially when we're talking about important statistics that intend to sway my opinion on something, like deaths.
Here's more...
---- snip ----
Surveillance systems lack detailed information about food choking incidents, which are thought to be underreported but remain a significant and under-appreciated problem, said Dr. Gary Smith, director of the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.
---- snip ----
*little red warning light flashes faster*
Did you catch that? He's a doctor so I'll rely on his authority here. That's what I'm supposed to think, right? But. Still. Perhaps it's underreported. Perhaps it's under-appreciated. Maybe no one really keeps track of it. Sometimes it's gum, or candy, or hot dogs. Might be chicken fingers. The point is: they DON'T REALLY KNOW. Is it too much to ask for some data to back this shit up? I see more supporting evidence provided by users in a random thread on Fark.com.
Still more...
---- snip ----
Smith is lead author of a new policy report from the pediatrics academy that seeks to make choking prevention a priority for government and food makers. The report was released Monday in the journal Pediatrics. [emphasis mine]
---- snip ----
*little red warning light flashes faster still*
Whoa! See what they did there? Even though choking deaths of children are relatively rare; (remember: Of the 141 choking deaths in kids in 2006, 61 were food-related) they need to be elevated to the level of A PRIORITY. And they will do so by prompting lawmakers to change policy to force companies to alter their food-packaging. They'll add warning labels. We know how well THAT works. EVERYone reads warning labels.
I know, I know, you're going to say to me "but Thoth, dude, what's your problem? What's the harm in making things SAFER for kids? That seems like a good idea. Better safe than sorry, right?"
Yeah. Riiiiiiight.
I don't want to seem callous; one child who dies choking on a hot dog is one too many. It's not that I think children should choke their way to an early grave, but the choking threat of hot dogs needs to be put into perspective.... 'Better safe than sorry' IS a good idea when it comes to seat-belts, thunderstorms, and live snakes. But we're talking about hot dogs, dude.
Again, the relative risk factor is pretty low. Just because these people say that they're a "high risk" food doesn't necessarily make it so.
For example, did you know that MORE people choke to death each year on ball-point pens, than choke on hot dogs?
It's true, according to the little amount of data available online. Naturally, one doesn't expect to put a pen in their mouths, much less choke on one. PaperMate includes a choking hazard warning on all their packaging. And yet, people still manage to choke to death on pens.
As an important side-note: going to the website for the Center for Injury Research and Policy in hopes of finding data to back up their assertion is pointless. The available "factsheet" contains NO facts, and merely restates the foods they declare as choking hazards. It makes me suspicious of the quality of research they conduct at the Center for Injury Research and Policy.
Some perspective:
20 billion (with a B) hot dogs are consumed each year in the US. So, assuming that all of the food-related choking deaths of children were caused by hot dogs alone (and they're not, remember: we don't know what that number is, but we'll estimate this on the high side); it would mean that 1 of every 327 million hot dogs was a lethal choking hazard. Statistically speaking, eating hot dogs is safer than riding a bike by a factor of THREE (at least). Incidentally, you are more likely to be bitten by a shark than killed by a hot dog.
Again, if this were a serious threat -- one that rises to the level of A PRIORITY for government and food makers -- shouldn't we demand better information and actual statistics that AREN'T 6 or 9 years old? The fact that we're taking these people seriously is disheartening. Instead of accepting this as a serious "news story" we should be laughing at them. We should be heaping scorn and mockery upon their heads.
Besides, if it's such an urgent PRIORITY, is a warning label sufficient? Do people READ warning labels anyway?
Pointless, is what it is. So what's the harm?
The real harm is that, by needlessly changing laws & crafting new policy -- even if well-intentioned by a vocal minority -- the government gradually becomes the bothersome parents we neither wanted nor needed. How do I know this?
Here's the moment of Zen:
---- snip ----
Doctors say high-risk foods, including hot dogs, raw carrots, grapes and apples - should be cut into pea-sized pieces for small children to reduce chances of choking. Some say other risky foods, including hard candies, popcorn, peanuts and marshmallows, shouldn't be given to young children at all.
---- snip ----
*little red light explodes*
Seems innocuous, right? What's the harm there, you say? They're just giving us advice, aren't they? ARE THEY? Read it again.
Just what do they mean, "young children"? How young? When do I know if a child is old enough for popcorn, but not old enough for grapes? The fact-sheet tells me NOTHING. I suppose the warning label will offer such information for me. How will you label GRAPES? WTF?
Maybe I'll just grind up my child's food into a relish or maybe a paste-like substance that they can suck in with a straw. Hell, I'll just serve them baby food until they're 18 years old. Better safe than sorry.
And what do they mean by "peanuts and marshmallows... shouldn't be given to young children at all"? Half the cereal I ate as a child contained marshmallows. The other half had peanuts. I suppose they'll force the marshamllowsmiths to forge smaller mallows from their mighty corporate factories.
And how will it be enforced? If I give a child a marshmallow that is deemed "hazardous" for a small child, will I be accused of neglect? Battery? Attempted murder? These people really don't understand how fucking CREEPY they sound. And that's what bothers me the most.
See, that's a lot of "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" coming from unnamed doctors in a relatively unknown "policy center" no one ever heard of. And they do intend to influence policy. That means LAWS. Who are they? They're not consumer advocates, so why do they have the power to influence public policy at all?
Oh, I know... It's FOR THE KIDS. I mean, who would OPPOSE such legislation aimed at PROTECTING KIDS??
Me, that's who. I don't want the government to step in and assume the role of parent, beating me over the head with warning labels, shoulds, and shouldn'ts. I don't want to see us become a nation of helpless buffoons, dependent on the All Knowing All Caring Mother Government for child-rearing advice. Protecting us from ourselves, from our parents, FROM OUR FOOD. It's all so fucking condescending.
And they don't even notice it.
I used to think the image below was just an example of ridiculous satire; now I see it as the prescient omen that it is.
Sign, sign.
Everywhere a sign.
Blockin' out the scenery.
Breakin' my mind.
Do this. Don't do that.
Can't you read the sign?
If they insist on putting warning labels on food, it should say what my parents told me:
CHEW YOUR DAMN FOOD.
(or you may die)
COMMENTS
-
Morrigon
23:26 Feb 22 2010
Who knew that sticking things in your mouth for consumption could result in choking?
MY GOD MAN! We have to go public with this! THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW!!!!
WildChild
00:42 Feb 23 2010
SAVE THE WEINER... Now the best part is, once the warning labels are in place the people who should read them won't.
CarnelianMyst
01:01 Feb 23 2010
My favorite sign is at the Long John Silver's drive up window: ATTENTION CONSUMERS WITH FISH ALLERGIES...FISH PRODUCTS ARE USED ON THIS PREMESIS.
Geez.
ThothLestat
01:56 Feb 23 2010
I know, right? Warning labels are ridiculous.
They becomes a mockery of themselves INSTANTLY.
My car has this little faux-velvet-lined tray in the console which looks NOTHING like an ashtray -- and it has a little sign that says "THIS IS NOT AN ASHTRAY".
Duh. Thanks, Honda.
Vampirewitch39
02:15 Feb 23 2010
I choke on cornbread. I don't know why or how- but I do. Love the stuff, just expect me to start choking, cry, gasping for air before I get a corn muffin down. Does it come with a warning? Noooo.
Now...now... the Corn Dog is a double choke threat for me. Damn them!! And just in case you wanted to know (lol- I know you don't) I have never choked on a corn dog. :)
ThothLestat
04:04 Feb 23 2010
You know, I bet if you threw a corndog hard enough, it could be considered a weapon. Plus, corndogs have the additional hazard of a sharpened stick that could cause puncture wounds. Perhaps, we should leave that out... in fact, let's just chop that corndog into a coarse salsa. Mmkay?
Super.
One could make an inappropriate joke about "choking hazards" and the need for warning labels on certain parts of human anatomy... but decency and time constraints prevented me from adding it to this journal entry.
WildChild
06:22 Feb 23 2010
And don't forget the feds my tax it if it has a warning..
birra
15:29 Feb 23 2010
You've convinced me...
...we need to kill all the sharks.
Honestly, my kids do fine with such foods. Sure I've cut their grapes in quarters when they were toddlers. Yes, I've cut a zipper down the length of their hot dogs... but when they were that age I also PAID ATTENTION to them when they were eating, and still do for most meals.
But I think they've gotten the hang of it for the most part.
Our government's duty shouldn't be to protect us from ourselves. You want to ride that old 3-wheeled ATV without a helmet - go nuts. Drive without a seat-belt? Have at it - see you on the other side of the windshield.
It is called natural selection - and my tax dollars shouldn't be spent in the creation and debate of legislation to force stupid people to be safe. It also shouldn't spent on the debate and hearing of lawsuits brought up by those same stupid people who failed to use common sense.
I really don't give two shits if you burned yourself on McDonald's coffee. Coffee is hot. If you didn't realize this you shouldn't be awarded $2M, you should be euthanized. I don't need to be told that a package of Mixed Nuts contains nuts or was processed in a facility that processes nuts. If I were a judge, I would laugh in the faces of any lawyer who brought a case like thisin front of me, then I would motion he or she be disbarred.
Our society is decaying into this padded-wall cell where no one will be allowed to be responsible for themselves. It is sickening.
PhoenicianDream
16:32 Feb 23 2010
Hahaha All knowing government? Would that be the same all knowing government that actually pays stupid people for breeding?
Theban
10:59 Mar 04 2010
I cut grapes in half for my children....lol
ThothLestat
13:55 Mar 04 2010
I'm okay with that, really.
I don't want to be treated like a criminal if I DON'T do that for my children. And I don't want to see warning labels on grapes or hot dogs. That's the foolishness we're heading towards in the USA.
dabbler
18:31 Mar 08 2010
you should put a warning label at the beginning of this.. I almost choked on fruit juice, I gulped so hard..
I would bet that these " doctors" have received grant money to " research" this " Serious Threat".