Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Food roundup

  • Tufts doc who wants to “eliminate” sweetened drinks is senior author on flawed new study on their health effects [Gil Ross, ACSH]
  • Nick Gillespie interviews celebrity chef Geoffrey Zakarian (“In Praise of Free Enterprise Food”) and Whole Foods’ John Mackey. “Despite the strength of our local food movement, Kentucky joins Delaware and Rhode Island as the three most restrictive states in the country for cottage food sales.” [LEO Weekly, Louisville]
  • Fears of toast-spread homebrew in remote communities: “Australia suggests Vegemite sales limit amid ‘alcohol abuse'” [BBC] More: less-sensational followup coverage h/t reader Mark N. in comments;
  • You really ought to give Iowa-defiance a try: Rand Paul is latest candidate to oppose ethanol mandate [Rare]
  • “Next Time Government Gives You Dietary Advice, Consider Doing the Opposite” [David Harsanyi] Multiple topping combinations + steep penalties add up to vexation for pizza makers under FDA menu labeling mandate [Savannah Saunders, Economics21; Veronique de Rugy, Reason] “Health Canada Gets it Right, While FDA Goes Further Astray, on ‘Added Sugars’ Labeling” [Glenn Lammi, WLF]
  • “Federal Judge, Referencing FDA Order on Trans Fat, Permits State-Law Class Action to Proceed” [Glenn Lammi, WLF]
  • Plaintiff says he bit into someone else’s gold tooth in his biscuit [Nick Farr]

Filed under: , , , , , , , ,

5 Comments

  • How about the less sensational follow-up story on Vegemite and alcohol: BBC

    • By Mark N

    • So the original story (run by the BBC as well as other outlets) was either:
      1) based on bad and borderline dishonest reporting
      2) based on faulty science
      3) based on a government official’s false understanding of science
      4) based on a government official wanting to take over and or restrict the sale and marketing of a product.
      5) all of the above.

      Gee, color me surprised.

  • As a resident of southeast Wisconsin, I’ve had to deal with the ethanol mandate before much of the rest of the country (the pollution from Chicago triggering one sensor near the state line caused the EPA to mandate it here years earlier.) There are some small engines which simply cannot handle even 10% ethanol, let alone the increased amounts that are being proposed.

    Let the market decide. Ethanol in fuel has been around for decades; there’s no more “establishing a market” to be done. It can stand or fall on its own merits.

    Scott Walker was also a resident of southeast Wisconsin, and his flop on this issue is one reason I may not support him in the primary. I don’t think I want someone who is willing to support something like this for political gain. But who knows; he may end up being the best remaining candidate when next year rolls along.

    • By David C

    • David,

      I am also a resident of southeast Wisconsin (Pleasant Prairie).

      We have been dealing with ethanol in Gasoline a lot longer than you think. Ethanol was first mandated to be added to gasoline (5%) in the 1970s, nation wide.

      This was not done because of the oil embargo, but rather to reduce tailpipe emissions of highly toxic Volatile Organic Compounds.

      When the EPA first mandated reformulated gas for SE Wisconsin, the mandated additive was not ethanol. The original reformulation required Methyl tert-butyl ether. which is toxic and was very unpopular with the general public. Boosting Ethanol content to 10% was offered as a safer alternative to MBTE.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE_controversy

      • By MattS

  • Hey I predicted the Pizza labeling problem back when this labeling thing was first proposed and was told that they obviously wouldn’t write the regulations that way.