Maybe they should call it Lead Vines licorice?
According to the California Department of Public Health, some bags of Red Vines Black Licorice Twists have tested positive for lead.
Avoid 1-pound bags with the phrase "best before 02/04/13" stamped on them, the CDPH warned in a statement released Wednesday afternoon.
Health officials said the candy "contained as much as 0.33 parts per million of lead. This concentration of lead could provide up to 13.2 micrograms of lead per serving. Children under 6 years of age should not consume more than 6.0 micrograms of lead per day from all dietary sources."
If you're pregnant or suspect your child has eaten these candies, the CDPH recommends consulting a doctor.
Red Vines are manufactured by Union City-based American Licorice Co., which has voluntarily recalled the candies, the CDPH said.
If you spot some for sale, the health department asks you to call 1‑800-495-3232.
Firstly, it is the damn government getting involved in what parents want to feed themselves or their kids. Secondly, who are a bunch of unelected officials to tell a company that provides jobs to thousands, what they should or should not put in their product? If people do not believe they'll get sick, should we not respect them? Let the free markets dictate this. If people do not want to eat leaded Red Vines, they will not. It is over-regulation like this that is sending jobs from California to Tejas. Bet they do not have such meddling government influence in their lives. Instead, they are correctly focused on raising property taxes so that law enforcement can be properly funded to fight the UN forces that are about to run over (http://cbsloc.al/OadCUJ) their great state. Lastly, corporations are people. So why is the government picking and choosing winners among people? Admittedly some people will get sick, but they can go to the ER where they cannot be refused free healthcare (thanks, St. Reagan), but who'll take care of the corporations? You want to eat that candy, go ahead, but you should not expect the government to be creating a huge bureaucracy testing micrograms of lead on the taxpayer dime. Bet there are thousands of such people with big fat pensions and further ruin the state. Corporations are responsible enough to do the right thing. Let's not interfere with the free markets, shall we?
Thanks to unelected bureaucrats and grotesque over-regulation, the exodus of high paying California jobs and the industries themselves to foreign countries with constitutional monarchies continues...oil, electronics, software, candy... Clean bandages are next!
BUT, and I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, it could be that state health bureaucrats need a reason to justify their existence in a weak economy, and sensing that their jobs and pensions may be axed in the budget cuts, they inflated the lead content readings. Note that, according to their website, they "have issued a public press release announcing an immediate ***voluntary*** recall of this product." (Emphasis mine). If it was not voluntary after the state health bureaucrats "discovered" (right!) it, I'd be suspicious that there was an ulterior motive. Besides, should we really be worrying about candy when we have a $16 trillion dollar national debt? Or maybe it was a disgruntled employee upset over something that caused him or her to poison the candy.
About 95% of what he posts seems to have little purpose other than to get a rise out of folks. He is essentially a self-appointed pot-stirrer, but a very adept one. So adept that all one need do is see how many times he will sometimes copy-n-paste the very same pot-stirring comments on numerous Patch sites around the country that carry the same or a similar story. I think that's why he says absurd things like: "Lastly, corporations are people." I think he knows they are not and that no Court has ever said that they are. He simply says such things because he knows that the idea pushes a lot of intellectual and emotional buttons for some folks. Saying such things prompts reactions and for him, it seems, the more visceral reaction the better he likes it. Shripathi seems to like to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. Whenever he does this I think he adds a lot of levity and entertainment to the Patch articles upon which he comments. I think the trick to enjoying Shripathi's comments is to avoid thinking of him so much as a serious commenter but more along the lines of a court jester....always playing the fool, but a very intelligent one, and very often at someone eles'e expense.
Hmm, perhaps I should consider voting for this guy: http://youtu.be/E2h8ujX6T0A. Oh wait, I cannot vote for people who say absurd things. But I know who will. "I think the trick to enjoying Shripathi's comments is to avoid thinking of him so much as a serious commenter but more along the lines of a court jester....always playing the fool, but a very intelligent one, and very often at someone eles'e expense." [chuckle] oh, and thanks.
Of course a reasonable person is likely to understand what Gov. Romney was attempting to convey in that clip...that corporations -as the Supreme Court has also said- are associations of people in corporate form and that the profits paid *through* a corporation are ultimately paid *to* the people who own or co-own that corporation. Do you disagree with this explanation of what corporations are, Shripathi? If so, how does your explanation differ in this context? [snicker] Oh, and anytime, Shripathi. Anytime!
Not for me, but it does, or at least should, for someone who will vote for him, I suppose. Unless, of course, there is adequate (retroactive?) rationalization and such. Such as "Of course a reasonable person is likely to understand what Gov. Romney was attempting to convey in that clip...that corporations -as the ***Supreme Court*** has also said- are associations of people in corporate form and that the profits paid *through* a corporation are ultimately paid *to* the people who own or co-own that corporation." which washes away "I think that's why he says absurd things like: "Lastly, corporations are people." I think he knows they are not and that no ***Court*** has ever said that they are." [chuckle] thanks, again.
Good. I'm glad you seem to agree that your saying that corporations are people was absurd. You are, of course, entirely free to suppose whatever you like, about anyone you choose. I think Romney explained quite clearly what he meant by what he said and he did so in the very clip you linked. I think he did so adequately (contemporaneously?). Do you disagree? I think Romney spoke absurdly in saying that corporations are people. They are not. They are merely associations of people in corporate form. Romney attempted to explain that, in his own words, to the hecklers in your video clip. Unfortunately, they did not seem interested in the truth. The balance of your most recent comments are so poorly constructed as to be virtually unintelligible. Perhaps that was your intent...just another means by which you seek to stir the pot: Convolute, obscure, duck, dodge, scoff, chuckle, move on to the next site, and repeat the process. Well, stir away, Shripathi. As I said, I think you bring much levity and entertainment whenever you do so. [snicker] You are most welcome anytime.