|
These can be classified as "other natural ingredients"
If you pulverize the glass into grains, then you can list it as "silicon dioxide" aka "sand". Check out your sweetener packet with your next cup of coffee.
|
|
|
|
|
That's so strange. I used to work for Purina (pet foods) and they were highly strict about incoming and outgoing quality. Time to switch to Dog Chow?
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend; inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -- Groucho Marx
|
|
|
|
|
Purina (Nestlè, IIRC) is incredibly strict on anything. Usually the biggest names are maniacal regarding the safety of their products. Most of small-time producers, some of them property of big multinationals but under different (and cheaper) brands on the other hand...
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Nestle did have their big problem with infant formula back in the 80s
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: Most of small-time producers,
Not in the US. Small competitors can't compete on price because they do not have enough volume to negotiate raw materials pricing nor can they support bringing some processing in house.
Which means that almost always they have to compete on quality.
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: Many food manifacturers don't really care if the products they sell are contaminated with glass shards or stone fragments.
Perhaps that is cultural.
In the US they do care because real cases of contamination can lead to a decrease in profits. Continued problems (repeats) can lead to brand depreciation that can last for years. That is because there are always competitors and people are willing to pay more if they think there is a quality difference (which there realistically would be if one product continued to be contaminated.)
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: What about you? Would you be working at your job if it weren't for federal laws?
Nope, I'd be counterfeiting money - that's a federal law [against] isn't it?
But seriously a lot of "work" in IT is vastly extended by the need for ever increasing compliance: accounting, tax, EXIM, HR and myriads of product regulations (tracing, archiving etc.)
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
|
|
|
|
|
I work in my job despite federal laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly not.
My company is providing software interfaces for the car industry.
If there were no regulations we would get a lot more work to adjust for every car brand, that could possibly make us prohibitively expensive.
Standardization is a good thing.
But what every company wants is a monopoly situation on their services.
Just look at Apple, works really fine within their own acosystem. A pain to connect to others.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. I work for the government and many of my projects involve law enforcement. I'll leave it at that  .
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - environmental health and safety as well as supply chain - all of which are heavily regulated in some parts of the world.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Luckily for me the UK insurance industry is reasonably well regulated well by government bodies.
But we are predominantly a high net worth company for individual home insurance.
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
My current job isn't really due to government regulations, but some regulations that were made after I started doing this will ensure its continued existence for a long time.
My current employer is "too big to fail". At least it pays well.
|
|
|
|
|
I work on controllers for environmental testing, and while some industries, such as automotive, probably wouldn't if there weren't federal safety regulations, we do work in enough industries that we'd still be doing this if there weren't federal laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Probably not. My industry--consisting of only three companies in the USA (there's your clue)--deals in music performance rights, recognized by US Copyright Law.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
I work for the US Air Force, so without that federal regulation called the National Security Act of 1947 I probably wouldn't be doing what I do... 
|
|
|
|
|
The insurance industry was around prior to government regulations. Granted it's gotten a lot more regulated since WWII but it existed prior to that. Lloyds of London has been insuring shipping companies since before the rise of the steam engine.
|
|
|
|
|
I work for a payroll provider, as a software developer.
I would argue that, if not for federal and state laws and regulations, most if not all of the "information technology" industry would not exist. I mean, how hard is it to pay people when they provide a good or service? If you don't have to report to several other parties (the IRS, state and city tax authorities, EEOC, SEC, etc. ad ridiculum), paper record keeping is sufficient, even for very large companies, and it was so until well into the 1970's.
Yes, computers are really cool. Yes, the Internet is a thing. Yes, computers are useful and necessary for space travel, modern product design, scientific research, etc.
But would any of that happened at all if the damn government didn't require massive amounts of information about things that, in a proper society, shouldn't be any of their damned business?
Freedom? That is a worship word.
-- Cloud William
The only thing a free man can be forced to do is die.
|
|
|
|
|
Probably not, we provide health & safety and compliance-type software and services.
But, I'd just be grinding out business software somewhere else. It doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Probably not. The software I work on is for helping distilleries stay compliant with TTB reporting rules and regulations. The other stuff we offer is gravy 
|
|
|
|
|
Do you consider property rights a "Federal Law"?
I work for small companies. All of which are IMPACTED by Federal Laws, but none of which are created by more than Property Rights, and demands of consumers.
One client exists because Federal Laws make importing plants very very expensive/laborious/time consuming, so he brokers deals. But again, it's to get AROUND the impact of the laws, not to serve them. Also, it makes sense to have someone specialize in maintaining these relationships, as opposed to every tiny nursery doing it themselves. (For the record, we have good reason to quarantine, and control this. Red army ants, and Kudzu being 2 disastrous examples of what can get into a country)
Can we avoid the impact of Federal Laws? Not really. And that's sad. Property Rights, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association should rule.
|
|
|
|
|
My company builds handheld software for security and safety. Some of our clients are government clients that are trying to check a box, but the majority truly want improve safety for their employees, better efficiency, and better security.
It is one of the great benefits of starting your own company. You can walk away from red tape and projects you feel are not advancing human productivity.
<hr>
"Qulatiy is Job #1"
|
|
|
|
|
That rather depends which way you look at it
I'm an independent consultant, so I cover pretty much all industry's, in all sectors.
I do write a lot of software, which at the moment is mostly LOB Web Apps in dotnet core for a few different industries, I also do a lot of R&D projects where I'm tasked with working out new ways of doing stuff.
However, I could also be classed as being in an industry that does depend on Lawyers and all that jazz, but not directly.
I write books, and do training courses, so a lot of what I do in that respect means that if it wasn't for you lot that work because of the lawyers etc, I'd have a lot less work, in producing materials that you use.
|
|
|
|
|
If I didn't work as a software engineer, I would collect welfare. Then, I could make more than working at McDonalds.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: In other words, the "insurance" industry.
Lloyds of London was a private enterprise that started with insurance in late 1600s. Nothing government about them.
As a business practice insurance existed in the 1750 BC. Again not a government practice.
History of insurance - Wikipedia[^]
Marc Clifton wrote: weren't for lawyers, lawsuits, and government mandated requirements
The reality is that contract law needs to exist because there is no practical way to contractually define all possibilities. So disputes about what was meant and what is fair will always arise. There is no other possibility (not with humans.)
And for that to be real a legal system must exist. And if one allows that to be financed by markets then there is an increased perception that economic biases will exist and likely that they actually will exist. Thus a third party would always be required to maintain that. Since there are other needs for legal systems using a single source for all of that is efficient. Which leads to a government running the courts.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
