I picked the title partially because it actually related to this, and partially because it sounds cool.
Today I opened the cupboard to collect interesting things to read while I'm eating (yes I do that. I know, something's wrong with me). I found 3 cans of different branded tuna and set to reading them.
Two of them had "Dolphin Friendly" on the can, the third one didn't. So I wondered. Does this third company hate dolphins? Is it spearing dolphins and adding them to my Hobz Biz-Zejt? Is it netting off large amounts of the sea? Or did it simply not bother to put it on the can?
And that got me thinking. Not just about dolphins, but rather that - "When companies do good things, they put it on the packet, when they don't, they stay silent". You know like "No artificial colour or flavouring", "No preservatives"...
Maybe they should be forced by law to put icons when the do negative things.
Think about it, you're shopping for a packet of crisps and one of them has prominently - "Uses GM potatoes", or you're buying a packet of shoes and it has on it - "Produced in a sweatshop in India", or you're buying some shampoo with - "Has been tested on animals". So far, products with "Not tested on animals" on them are rare, should I assume everything has been tested on animals? Has my bottle of tabasco sauce been rubbed into a rabbit's eye? Probably not. What about my shaving cream? Probably.
So yeah, I'm sure many of these negative things would be greatly reduced if they were by law forced to be on the container. So if you happen to know anyone in politics, do pass the idea over.
Llama
I've been wondering about why they don't make companies post the negagtive things, especially with how some governments are becoming these days.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, I had to do a double take on those GM Potatoes.