Caveat emptor

 

There is a space between right and truth that very few people talk about.  For the most part, lawyers stand guard at the entrance to this space, using whatever means possible to stop the flow of questions, thus protecting the company and in so doing, keeping the cost to the company to a minimum.

There are many, many examples, but one that has recently surfaced deals with a large corporation.  They produce a product that the general public consumes.  One of the ingredients in this product has been questioned as to its effect on the person consuming it.  Does it cause harm?

By not answering, one might assume it does cause harm, but the release of this information could potentially cost the corporation millions.  Instead, the company opts to employ skilled lawyers, wearing lawyer clothes and shined shoes.  This assumption seems logical, otherwise they would simply answer the question and avoid paying for the lawyers, shoes and all.

A simple statement, “This ingredient is safe to consume.” would put an end to the curiosity and close up the space between right and truth.

 

 At the time of this post I still have not received an answer to my inquiry.  I'll let you know what happens. 

It is now 2-7-2025
I received a letter from the Company lawyers. (I could tell they were lawyers from the way it was written),  It took them two pages but they finally said the red dye in their product has been approved by the FDA.  They never came out an stated it was safe, just that it was approved.

Based on what I know of the FDA, I think I'll stop using their product.