Bill: Felony to sell fake maple syrup as real deal

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but you have never had "pure cranberry juice."
Not once. Not ever.
An explanation is necessary. For almost 20 years I dealt
with Ocean Spray as well as a couple dozen cranberry
growers here in Oregon. "Pure cranberry juice" is nasty,
bitter stuff that only becomes palatable by dilution,
which means it is no longer "pure" when it hits the
grocery shelves. In short, cranberry juice is nothing
like orange juice. It has been blended with things other
than cranberry product.
Maple syrup is much the same. I know because I have family
who tap maples in Vermont and send us some every year.
It is nothing like the maple syrup you buy in the store.
Why? Because it is typically so thick it barely comes out
of the jar or container. It is wonderful stuff, but we
found it best use for baking purposes, where a little goes
a long way. Used on pancakes or such it is way more
expensive than the "maple syrup" you typically find on
the shelves at the grocery store ... i.e. Mrs. Butterworth's
or Log Cabin.
Sidebar: We have a quart of "pure maple syrup" in the
fridge right now. It takes about 30 seconds to get a
tablespoon of the stuff out of the container.

I said nothing about pure cranberry juice. More senseless drivel on your part. It is not lost on me that cranberry juice needs to be sweetened or mixed with other fruit juices in order to be palitable. I never claimed to have had pure cranberry juice.

On the other hand, maple syrup does not have to be mixed with anything else to taste sweet and delicious. BTW, the thinckness of maple syrup is dependent on the amount of boiling it goes through. If one wants a less thick pure maple syrup, it can be obtained by boiling it less. And the last I checked, this post was about adulterated maple syrup fraudulently being represented as 100% pure, paying premium prices for a more cheaply made product. Give it up!

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>I never tried to connect fake maple syrup with dangerous except in you out of control imagination. While I mentioned the word dangerous it was in a totally different context than in what you misrepresented.

Uh, exactly who introduced the word "dangerous" into this
silly debate about maple syrup? I sure didn't, so you need
to take the time to not only read other people's posts, but
your own as well.

I'm moving on to other forums in search of an intellect about
70 points higher than yours. You know, something around
85.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>I said nothing about pure cranberry juice. More senseless drivel on your part. It is not lost on me that cranberry juice needs to be sweetened or mixed with other fruit juices in order to be palitable. I never claimed to have had pure cranberry juice.
On the other hand, maple syrup does not have to be mixed with anything else to taste sweet and delicious. BTW, the thinckness of maple syrup is dependent on the amount of boiling it goes through. If one wants a less thick pure maple syrup, it can be obtained by boiling it less. And the last I checked, this post was about adulterated maple syrup fraudulently being represented as 100% pure, paying premium prices for a more cheaply made product. Give it up!

If you are so concerned about staying "on topic," why did you
bring up all this other nonsense?

I was just going with the flow of your remarks. Next time
I'll not waste my time.

Find yourself a life, you silly twit.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh, exactly who introduced the word "dangerous" into this
silly debate about maple syrup? I sure didn't, so you need
to take the time to not only read other people's posts, but
your own as well.
I'm moving on to other forums in search of an intellect about
70 points higher than yours. You know, something around
85.

Will you give up with the immature schoolyard insults? My IQ happens to be considerably higher than 85 by some 50 points or more. Wrong again, Buster. You are the one who lacks the intellect to understand that I was not connecting dangerous with fake maple syrup.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are so concerned about staying "on topic," why did you
bring up all this other nonsense?
I was just going with the flow of your remarks. Next time
I'll not waste my time.
Find yourself a life, you silly twit.

You have your silly twits mixed up. You were the one who tried to deflect the point that nobody should have to pay real maple syrup prices for a fake product and brought up nonsense about how it had to be adulterated in order to be useful on pancakes which did not negate the fact that somebody who was mentioned in the article ended up getting a cheaper substitute for real maple syrup which was certainly not worth what that individual paid for the product.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh, exactly who introduced the word "dangerous" into this
silly debate about maple syrup? I sure didn't, so you need
to take the time to not only read other people's posts, but
your own as well.
I'm moving on to other forums in search of an intellect about
70 points higher than yours. You know, something around
85.

I first made a remark about what is so bad about protecting consumers from fraud. You acted like it was a bad thing to outlaw fraudulent practices with your ranting response to me. My use of dangerous was intended to cover a multitude of potentially dangerous products and not to maple syrup in you response touting needing fewer laws in this country. No matter how I try to explain it to you, it just doesn't sink in.

On the matter of too many laws, I do agree that there are too many laws that serve no useful purpose and/or are antiquated. Protecting consumers from either dangerous and/or misrepresented products is hardly useless legislation. If people were trustwothy and honest at all times, we wouldn't need all these laws. Unfortunately, that is not the case in real life.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>I first made a remark about what is so bad about protecting consumers from fraud. You acted like it was a bad thing to outlaw fraudulent practices with your ranting response to me. My use of dangerous was intended to cover a multitude of potentially dangerous products and not to maple syrup in you response touting needing fewer laws in this country. No matter how I try to explain it to you, it just doesn't sink in.
On the matter of too many laws, I do agree that there are too many laws that serve no useful purpose and/or are antiquated. Protecting consumers from either dangerous and/or misrepresented products is hardly useless legislation. If people were trustwothy and honest at all times, we wouldn't need all these laws. Unfortunately, that is not the case in real life.

I didn't "act like it was a bad thing to outlaw fraudulent
practices." If you'll go back to the beginning my comments
were to question the sensibility of spending time on this sort
of crap rather than spending their time trying to deal with
genuinely serious problems, like the economy ... jobs ... etc.

This type of legislation allows those running as incumbents
to fill out a resume that attempts to create the illusion that
they are "in touch" with their base and actually doing something,
whether it be at the city, county, state, or federal level.
Its pure posturing.

Incidentally, a good example of this is the pathetic photograph
of Obama and his wife passing out "Halloween fruit." It is a
meaningless gesture that attempts to convince us that he is
actually doing something.

BTW, a couple of weeks ago Obama was bragging about how, in an
attempt to eliminate unnecessary regulations, he has gotten rid
of "over 500" regulations. That same week it was announced in
agricultural newspapers that the federal government had introduced
75 NEW regulations for ... I can't kid you about this ... goat
herders.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>You have your silly twits mixed up. You were the one who tried to deflect the point that nobody should have to pay real maple syrup prices for a fake product and brought up nonsense about how it had to be adulterated in order to be useful on pancakes which did not negate the fact that somebody who was mentioned in the article ended up getting a cheaper substitute for real maple syrup which was certainly not worth what that individual paid for the product.

C'mon ... give me a break. That last sentence consisted
of 77 words. I'm just a guy old enough to remember
"diagramming sentences" back in grammar school.

Could you diagram that 77 word sentence so I might be able
to figure it out?

<Just funnin' ya>

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't "act like it was a bad thing to outlaw fraudulent
practices." If you'll go back to the beginning my comments
were to question the sensibility of spending time on this sort
of crap rather than spending their time trying to deal with
genuinely serious problems, like the economy ... jobs ... etc.
This type of legislation allows those running as incumbents
to fill out a resume that attempts to create the illusion that
they are "in touch" with their base and actually doing something,
whether it be at the city, county, state, or federal level.
Its pure posturing.
Incidentally, a good example of this is the pathetic photograph
of Obama and his wife passing out "Halloween fruit." It is a
meaningless gesture that attempts to convince us that he is
actually doing something.
BTW, a couple of weeks ago Obama was bragging about how, in an
attempt to eliminate unnecessary regulations, he has gotten rid
of "over 500" regulations. That same week it was announced in
agricultural newspapers that the federal government had introduced
75 NEW regulations for ... I can't kid you about this ... goat
herders.

Granted, some government regulations are over the top. Many are made for no logical reason. There are some bureaucrats who just continue to make new regulations in order to try and justify the importance of his or her position. On this point, I am inclined to agree with you.

As far as laws against misrepresentation of what is being sold, I am not giving any ground in my support of legislation that would criminalize such acts.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>
Granted, some government regulations are over the top. Many are made for no logical reason. There are some bureaucrats who just continue to make new regulations in order to try and justify the importance of his or her position. On this point, I am inclined to agree with you.
As far as laws against misrepresentation of what is being sold, I am not giving any ground in my support of legislation that would criminalize such acts.

My point has been that such legislation already exists. so
there is no necessary need for additional legislation
specific to maple syrup. How many more such laws would be
necessary to cover the ground?

Finally, I'd suggest we consider more than the case being
brought before us here before endorsing any new law. Do
we know how many other industries and/or products might be
unintentionally affected by "criminalizing" a particular
case that bears reason for punishment? I doubt our legislators
ever took the time to consider the possibility. Frankly, I
doubt they even read the bill and voted merely on "pass" or
"don't pass" recommendations from the top.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
My point has been that such legislation already exists. so
there is no necessary need for additional legislation
specific to maple syrup. How many more such laws would be
necessary to cover the ground?
Finally, I'd suggest we consider more than the case being
brought before us here before endorsing any new law. Do
we know how many other industries and/or products might be
unintentionally affected by "criminalizing" a particular
case that bears reason for punishment? I doubt our legislators
ever took the time to consider the possibility. Frankly, I
doubt they even read the bill and voted merely on "pass" or
"don't pass" recommendations from the top.

Don't falsely state what a product is or contains and there will be nothing to worry about a law designed to prevent a law governing one type of product fraud being applied to another product. Those who deal honestly have nothing to worry about. Being that this law specifically applies to maple syrup, there is little or no chance of it being applied to any other product anyway. May of these "other laws" that supposedly are able to deal with such fraud are often like toothless mountain lions.

Here is source for pure maple syrup http://www.tenonanatche.com/maple-syrup.htm