Hot dogs should carry a warning label...

Hot dogs should carry a warning label, lawsuit says

There are 139 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jul 23, 2009, titled Hot dogs should carry a warning label, lawsuit says. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

Americans paid $3.4 billion for 730 million packages of hot dogs and sausages in supermarkets last year, according to the National Hot Dog & Sausage Council.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
John Galt

Pittsburgh, PA

#132 Jul 23, 2009
Wow wrote:
Reading these comments is depressing. Someone tries to educate the public on something that could improve or save their lives and people are complaining about it?!?!? I guess the bottom line is they care so you don't have to. Sad social commentary on unhealthy, fat, uneducated, and apathetic Americans. Although you may not care about your own health, the human and animal rights violations and the ensuing environmental damage are other reasons why people should be warned not to eat this garbage. Now go eat your processed meat flavored with MSG with your genetically modified vegetables and wash it down with your high-fructose corn syrup drink. Repeat often as it will weed out the ignorant and apathetics in our society. Sad sad sad.
Hmmm... your post made me hungry.

By the way, where exactly are "animals' rights" codified? Don't get me wrong, I love animals. But "animals' rights violations"?
Re John Galt

Chicago, IL

#133 Jul 23, 2009
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
You got it, "The Scientist". I'd like to know a guy/gal on the inside of the USDA. Please let me know when some bad beer is on the shelves;-)
No, cancer is obviously not an old person's disease. However, the little empirical evidence I have (I am not a medical doctor or a food "scientist") seems to show that cancer is more prevalent as people age. Specifically, it appears that the increase in cancer rates have paralleled the increase in life expectancies. However, I'm sure someone else can tell me if I'm wrong and, if so, please do.
My argument is also NOT that chemicals in our food do or do not cause cancer. I think it's probably a lot more complicated than that, including amounts and lengths of exposure and maybe even times of exposure, the types of "chemicals", the sensitivity of the individual, the genetic make-up and/or predisposition of the individual, countless other environmental factors, previous disease and or a compromised immune system, concurrent chemical exposures, etc.
My argument? Everything in moderation, especially the old hot dog. I was merely pointing out in your previous post that correlation is not always causation.
Have a good day, "The Scientist"!
So, you agree with me? My job is not based on guessing. I see chemical X. Chemical X has been shown to cause cancer. Chemical X is found in food Z. Consumers should know that. I also agree, everything in moderation. But, I also believe that you have a right to know what is in the food you and your family consumes. You shouldn't have to accept that giant corporations, private interests, and lobbying groups control what goes in your body. To me it is a fundamental right, and why I pursued this line of work. That choice has been taken away in the name of commerce. It also doesn't just effect the things we know are unhealthy. There are several brands of apples I wouldn't touch without gloves. But, I can find them in most grocery stores. Oh well, maybe I am super-sensitive to the subject because of what I see. It just baffles me when anyone argues against information that is for their own well being. Oh, and don't worry about beer... if the world goes down in flames, I am stockpiling as much beer as possible. I'll injest some pesticides for the sake of a cold one. Now, the bottle could make you sick, but I will save that for another day.
Ziggidy

Elmhurst, IL

#134 Jul 23, 2009
Re John Galt wrote:
<quoted text> So, you agree with me? My job is not based on guessing. I see chemical X. Chemical X has been shown to cause cancer. Chemical X is found in food Z. Consumers should know that. I also agree, everything in moderation. But, I also believe that you have a right to know what is in the food you and your family consumes. You shouldn't have to accept that giant corporations, private interests, and lobbying groups control what goes in your body. To me it is a fundamental right, and why I pursued this line of work. That choice has been taken away in the name of commerce. It also doesn't just effect the things we know are unhealthy. There are several brands of apples I wouldn't touch without gloves. But, I can find them in most grocery stores. Oh well, maybe I am super-sensitive to the subject because of what I see. It just baffles me when anyone argues against information that is for their own well being. Oh, and don't worry about beer... if the world goes down in flames, I am stockpiling as much beer as possible. I'll injest some pesticides for the sake of a cold one. Now, the bottle could make you sick, but I will save that for another day.
I almost feel sorry for you. Sounds like you live in a plastic bubble.
TimP

Chicago, IL

#135 Jul 23, 2009
I don't care what label is on them, I'm still not going to eat one. They are vile and foul. For me, they rank right up there with raisins. Never to pass these lips while I live.
Tom

Milwaukee, WI

#137 Jul 23, 2009
Ziggidy wrote:
Are some of you REALLY turning this into a political agenda? Party politics is the problem with America.
Ziggidy, this is really about party politics (masked in a hot dog discussion). People on the left feel its OK to attack and prohibit anything they dont approve of. Minor things such as eating hot dogs cause them to foam at the mouth telling us we are all going to die if we eat them. What next, liquor, candy? Enough Already!
Thundermug

Elmhurst, IL

#138 Jul 23, 2009
Do trolls eat hot dogs?

“You're off!”

Since: Jan 08

Quito, Ecuador

#139 Jul 23, 2009
Re Byron wrote:
<quoted text>Well, anyone with at least a third grade education would notice that the repetition of the re: in the post name may be from the same person. Especially when I am saying the same thing, as well as identifying myself (and profession) over and over again in each post.
There you go being condescending again. You wrote something highly inflammatory, and people have neither need nor reason to review 100 posts before firing back. There is no threading on Topix, so it's impossible to follow.
Re Byron wrote:
And I kind of feel like you should attempt to read the posts. It's sort of an evolving conversation that happens on these boards. Popping in to use words like prig, and saying things that are completely wrong make you look... well.. guess. Your right! Priggish!
So it's perfectly fine for you to call everyone else names, but when someone does it to you, they are out of line? Tell me, are you a fundamentalist christian?
Re Byron wrote:
Do you have anything to add to the conversation or do you want to just keep stopping by with inane spastic comments. Love, Prig.
Just keeping you in line, dearheart.
ZZMike

Bellflower, CA

#140 Jul 23, 2009
If this trend keeps up, every single thing we buy will have a 200-page manual of things we shouldn't do with it (don't run your electric power saw while you're taking a bath), things it might do to us (it you eat 100 of these a day, you'll probably gain weight), and a list of the side-effects of all the ingredients (who knows what "enzyme modified butterfat" is?), and the countries of origin, and whether we or they are in compliance with several international treaties.

An it'll add $25 to the cost of everything.

Why do these morons from the PCRM assume that the American public is stupider than a stale turnip.

Or maybe it's just that they realize than public schools are churning out legions of kids with little or no education.

“You're off!”

Since: Jan 08

Quito, Ecuador

#141 Jul 23, 2009
Re John Galt wrote:
<quoted text> So, you agree with me? My job is not based on guessing. I see chemical X. Chemical X has been shown to cause cancer. Chemical X is found in food Z. Consumers should know that. I also agree, everything in moderation. But, I also believe that you have a right to know what is in the food you and your family consumes. You shouldn't have to accept that giant corporations, private interests, and lobbying groups control what goes in your body. To me it is a fundamental right, and why I pursued this line of work. That choice has been taken away in the name of commerce. It also doesn't just effect the things we know are unhealthy. There are several brands of apples I wouldn't touch without gloves. But, I can find them in most grocery stores. Oh well, maybe I am super-sensitive to the subject because of what I see. It just baffles me when anyone argues against information that is for their own well being. Oh, and don't worry about beer... if the world goes down in flames, I am stockpiling as much beer as possible. I'll injest some pesticides for the sake of a cold one. Now, the bottle could make you sick, but I will save that for another day.
If you wrote more posts like this, maybe people would actually pay attention to your message, rather than your attitude.
re ziggidy

Woodridge, IL

#142 Jul 23, 2009
Ziggidy wrote:
<quoted text>
I almost feel sorry for you. Sounds like you live in a plastic bubble.
what exactly about my posts sounds like I live in a bubble? Sadly, I probably feel like I have more freedom than you because I know what to look for. I feel bad for you that greed and profit keep you from knowing the truth about your food.
re Byron

Woodridge, IL

#143 Jul 23, 2009
ByronMoreno wrote:
<quoted text>
If you wrote more posts like this, maybe people would actually pay attention to your message, rather than your attitude.
If you would have bothered to read all of my post, you'de have seen I have written many this already. Sorry you've decided to ignore the just to get your own point out. You've also failed in almost all of your posts to actually follow the conversation... so why are you still posting? I'm not interested in your opinion of my posting habits. Have a nice day.. dearheart. I hope you get those outbursts under control.
John Galt

Pittsburgh, PA

#144 Jul 24, 2009
Re John Galt wrote:
<quoted text> So, you agree with me? My job is not based on guessing. I see chemical X. Chemical X has been shown to cause cancer. Chemical X is found in food Z. Consumers should know that. I also agree, everything in moderation. But, I also believe that you have a right to know what is in the food you and your family consumes. You shouldn't have to accept that giant corporations, private interests, and lobbying groups control what goes in your body. To me it is a fundamental right, and why I pursued this line of work. That choice has been taken away in the name of commerce. It also doesn't just effect the things we know are unhealthy. There are several brands of apples I wouldn't touch without gloves. But, I can find them in most grocery stores. Oh well, maybe I am super-sensitive to the subject because of what I see. It just baffles me when anyone argues against information that is for their own well being. Oh, and don't worry about beer... if the world goes down in flames, I am stockpiling as much beer as possible. I'll injest some pesticides for the sake of a cold one. Now, the bottle could make you sick, but I will save that for another day.
Fair enough, "The Scientist".

A suggestion: Can you disseminate some of this knowledge (anonymously, of course) without getting into legal trouble? If so, I'd love to get some particulars on common and popular foods. Of course, I don't want to see you pilloried for it by the government, either.
sailhounds2

Westland, MI

#145 Aug 2, 2009
What idiot deserves a cash settlement for eating hot dogs? We all know they're not the healthiest food in the world. No one puts a gun to our head to eat them and if a person is woefully lacking in nutrition information there's this thing called a search engine on the internet. We seriously need tort reform in this country to stop the waste of our taxpayer dollars. It's like white collar crime. The only ones who benefit are the lawyers.
Nitrate Ned

Altamonte Springs, FL

#146 Aug 3, 2009
Warning:

Posting on this website causes cancer

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#147 Aug 6, 2009
I eat hot dog only at picnics but I would personally feel ashamed and upset if I died from something I could have prevented, but most people do die from something they could prevent. And for those who don't want to live long, remember that it affects the quality of life too and I'm sorry if you hate your life so much that you don't care if you shorten it by doing something unhealthy to have to increase your happiness, because I could be happy either way.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#148 Aug 6, 2009
Nitrate Ned wrote:
Warning:
Posting on this website causes cancer
just because doing something small slightly increases cancer risk, that does not make it a good idea to do something that greatly increases your risk of cancer! That is like a person eating gasoline saying "Well, too much of anything is not good". The risk is real!

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#149 Aug 6, 2009
sailhounds2 wrote:
What idiot deserves a cash settlement for eating hot dogs? We all know they're not the healthiest food in the world. No one puts a gun to our head to eat them and if a person is woefully lacking in nutrition information there's this thing called a search engine on the internet. We seriously need tort reform in this country to stop the waste of our taxpayer dollars. It's like white collar crime. The only ones who benefit are the lawyers.
Only stupid people think education is a waste of time!
You would not say that if your daughter died from stomach cancer, would you?
who is going to look up something as spontaneous as hot dogs and cancer? There is tons of information on the internet not looked up!
Not all people know they are unhealthy, especially this much so.
It's not going to cost as many tax dollars as treating all the people who have cancer from the outrageous amounts of nitrates they eat in food. Millions of people are sick from what they eat in food and you would rather than they be sick than be more intelligent.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#150 Aug 6, 2009
re ziggidy wrote:
<quoted text> what exactly about my posts sounds like I live in a bubble? Sadly, I probably feel like I have more freedom than you because I know what to look for. I feel bad for you that greed and profit keep you from knowing the truth about your food.
You don't need to live his unhealthy life to be happy! Men with low cholesterol are less likely to have erectile dysfunction!

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#151 Aug 6, 2009
Susan wrote:
I love how conservatives can take something like this, an article about hotdogs, and somehow link it to being part of the liberal agenda and OF COURSE it has to be some form of communisim.
This is why you're party is having some issues right now, people. The rest of America isn't buying all the bs anymore.
haha thats true, funny enough, the conservative party would not survive in any other country

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kraft Foods International Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Kraft Foods increases prices, marketing in 3Q (Nov '10) Jul '16 food 3
Cheese Jul '16 Robinbadalucco 1
News Kraft's salad dressing fix: Shake up well (Feb '08) May '16 KarenLJB 53
Poll How do you feel about no more Garlic Cheese? (Nov '08) Jan '16 David 29
News Wall Street Movers, 01/20: New York Times,... (Jan '10) Mar '14 Eddi 2
Clam Dip (Nov '09) Nov '13 Agreed 7
Kraft Foods to merge Nabisco with Hershey & Pla... (Dec '07) Aug '13 Michelle Gustin-A... 11
More from around the web