• About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives
Angry Bear
Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
« Back

Mike Kimel | January 29, 2017 7:34 pm

To cite myself:

lawsuit reform

Tags: lawsuits, mixed nuts Comments (13) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
13 Comments
  • Jack says:
    January 29, 2017 at 8:30 pm

    Excellent. I’ll be looking forward to more from your Twitter feed and less here on Angry Bear.

  • Mike Kimel says:
    January 29, 2017 at 8:47 pm

    Jack,

    I am not sure I know what you mean. Also, I have had a twitter account for seven years but finally posted my first tweet (the standard: “this is my first tweet”) the other day. Perhaps I can learn to be less verbose.

  • rjs says:
    January 30, 2017 at 11:07 am

    maybe i’m a little dense this AM, but i have no idea what the connection between the label and your tweeted statement is…

  • JDM says:
    January 30, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    Why just think of all that ink used to repeat the words on that package! Without them we’d save at least 1/10,000th of a cent on our mixed nuts from Costco! And if it means people who are harmed by corporate actions can’t get their medical bills paid, can’t get lawyers to represent them, and companies are able – even more than they do now – just factor millions of people’s suffering into an ever smaller cost of doing business, well, that’s just the price of greatness. Why, they’ll do the right thing even without any threat hanging over them, cause that’s what corporations have always done.

    Mike, you’re so far off base on this one you can’t even see the parking lot.

  • BillB says:
    January 30, 2017 at 1:27 pm

    Kimel as usual is taking the Trump position regarding regulations.

    There is a simple reason for this safety regulation. The ingredients is one regulation. The safety warning is another regulation.

    Consumers for whom this is a life threatening issue are trained to look for the warning “Contains nuts” on the label. This is necessary because for many food products the ingredients list can be dozens of items long and the nuts may be buried in the text. The “Contains” safety warning sticks out on its own and can save lives.

    Of course these parallel regulations may seem redundant on a package of nuts, but while declaiming regulations, Kimel seems to imply we should have even more regulations to provide cover all the silly exceptions that Kimel dreams up. Simpler to treat all food items the same regarding labeling.

    Kimel just gets dumber and dumber and more Trumpian every day.

  • Joel says:
    January 30, 2017 at 3:43 pm

    Is Mike Kimel angling for the CoRev Endowed Keyboard at Angry Bear?

  • Mike Kimel says:
    January 30, 2017 at 8:31 pm

    My wife is allergic to nuts. But we aren’t concerned, in my house, that she might have an allergic reaction to the nuts that I buy. The container has 14 (fourteen – yes, fourteen) mentions of the word nuts or of a specific type of nut (not counting peanut oil) on one of two labels, plus an admonition to read the ingredient list if one has allergies. The container is also see through. If someone inadvertently ends up with a handful of nuts, there is still the expedient of not popping it in their mouth. So this is clearly CYA overkill, or would be, in a less litigious society.

    And to the comment that – hey, 14 written warnings are not a big deal, well, note that the container fails to suggest that people should avoid consuming the lid, which would also be dangerous, and not just to people with food allergies. Ditto cutting the package with a scissors and then poking oneself in the eye with it a jagged edge.

  • sammy says:
    January 30, 2017 at 9:18 pm

    Mike,

    I own a restaurant and the warnings I am required to post are absolutely ridiculous. On a package of eggs I am supposed to post “allergic to eggs” Well duh. People who have food allergens know what they are allergic to, but I have to post labels on everything under any sort of food allergy, just in case, at considerable paper and labor cost. As a result you see labelling mentioning any sort of allery, which makes labelling useless. It is is typical of the useless costly regulations that Trump is going to eliminate.

    BTW, the labelling requirements just came into place about 2 years ago. What were allegric people doing for the past 30 years doing? Dying by the thousands?

  • sammy says:
    January 30, 2017 at 9:26 pm

    Whatever happened to personal accountability snowflakes?

  • BillB says:
    January 31, 2017 at 12:10 am

    “Whatever happened to personal accountability snowflakes?”

    It’s amusing that the people demanding personal accountability are always the ones saying they are accountable to no one and responsible for no harm that they do.

  • Mike Kimel says:
    January 31, 2017 at 7:15 am

    Actually, it isn’t a matter of accountability. There are three ways a person who who is allergic to nuts might end up eating them:

    1. she/he is unaware they are in food prepared by someone else – in this case the label won’t help
    2. she/he is unaware of the allergy – in this case the label won’t help
    3. she/he is aware of the allergy and eats the nuts anyway. Even in this case, I don’t see how the label can help. A person who is allergic to tree nuts can recognize a cashew. When in doubt, they can tell from the words “Mixed Nuts” displayed prominently on the product problem for them. Or from the ingredient list. As I noted, there are 14 instances in which the person should have been tipped off, not counting actually looking at the items in question prior to putting them in their mouth. A person who consumes such a product even after, say, the third warning is not going to be deterred by warnings 4 through 14.

  • Joel says:
    January 31, 2017 at 7:17 am

    “It’s amusing that the people demanding personal accountability are always the ones saying they are accountable to no one and responsible for no harm that they do.”

    This is called “projection.”

  • BillB says:
    January 31, 2017 at 3:12 pm

    Kimel. The safety regulation says that all products must have the warning “Contains” nuts. This simple regulation applies to all products, including jars of nuts.

    You say there should be another (more complicated) regulation that specifies that certain classes of products (arbitrarily decided by der Kimel) should be exempted from this very simple rule.

    So it seems that you are in favor of more complicated regulations. Your dear leader would be disappointed.

Featured Stories

Index of leading indicators says recession almost certain; so what of the coincident indicators?

NewDealdemocrat

Extending Capital to Nature, Reducing Nature to Capital

Peter Dorman

Trump and the debt ceiling

Eric Kramer

And the King of Coincident Indicators rolls over

NewDealdemocrat

Contributors

Dan Crawford
Robert Waldmann
Barkley Rosser
Eric Kramer
ProGrowth Liberal
Daniel Becker
Ken Houghton
Linda Beale
Mike Kimel
Steve Roth
Michael Smith
Bill Haskell
NewDealdemocrat
Ken Melvin
Sandwichman
Peter Dorman
Kenneth Thomas
Bruce Webb
Rebecca Wilder
Spencer England
Beverly Mann
Joel Eissenberg

Subscribe

Blogs of note

    • Naked Capitalism
    • Atrios (Eschaton)
    • Crooks and Liars
    • Wash. Monthly
    • CEPR
    • Econospeak
    • EPI
    • Hullabaloo
    • Talking Points
    • Calculated Risk
    • Infidel753
    • ACA Signups
    • The one-handed economist
Angry Bear
Copyright © 2023 Angry Bear Blog

Topics

  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics

Pages

  • About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives