Perusing my usual list of news sources, I came across a posting pulled from AP about the vegan Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine filing a lawsuit to require warnings from restaurants and food makers when grilled meats are sold.
When meats of any kind are grilled or charred, a chemical reaction forms a carcinogen called PhIP. This is not particularly recent news, as multiple studies have confirmed this over the past decade.
What is new is that a California law called The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 is being viewed as a platform for vegetarian diligence. Though this is not the first attempt at civil enforcement – a previous lawsuit was rejected on technical reasons (a good sign that the establishment of judiciary, generally pro-business, will resist as much as it can).
Now, it isn’t a bad idea to let consumers know that they are eating something that could kill them or cause harm, yes? We have legislation nationwide that requires warnings on menus when raw meat and dairy is present, or when alcohol might be consumed by pregnant women. Cigarette packaging must warn of the dangers caused by smoking. No one thinks that is a bad idea.
So read the article from the AP. Notice the sarcastic tone of the author. First quote is awarded to a pro-business lobby warning of “dire” consequences. Immediately, the supposition is placed in the negative. Vegans are “strict” vegetarians, according to the third paragraph. Imagine if the story concentrated on religion, and quoted “strict” Catholic priests. Do you see how words are used subtly to prejudice your interpretation?
I suppose at the end of the day, informed readers will not be surprised by such bias out of the AP or wire news services. Many have documented their pro-business/anti-consumer stance in the past. But consider this the next time you find a rant from mainstream media (MSM) about the lack of credibility and unreliability of blog news sources. And consider where their revenue is coming from. Perhaps they protest too much?