IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Allergy Labels Required, Is that true in 2070?
LamplightSlasher
post Apr 13 2009, 03:02 AM
Post #1


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 6-April 09
From: The Barrens
Member No.: 17,056



So today, food allergies like peanuts are common. In game terms, a player could justifiably pick such an allergy as a negative quality from the common field. In 2070, with such a prevalence of synthetic foods, would a peanut or milk allergy actually be considered common?
How rule ye, league of extraordinary gm's?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kzt
post Apr 13 2009, 03:14 AM
Post #2


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,537
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Albuquerque NM
Member No.: 9,234



The megas run most of this, and they just don't care. See the thread on chemistry sets...

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=25383
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Browncoatone
post Apr 13 2009, 04:31 AM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 5-January 09
Member No.: 16,733



I disagree. Corporations are still required to obey national laws outside of their extra-national holdings. Which means they can be sued in court and lose lots 'o money. More importantly though, is the opportunity that would be lost if they didn't label their products with allergy information.

Think of how many products are on the shelves today that advertise "all natural", "pesticide free", or "organic". There is a big business selling those products to people who are willing to pay more for them. Now consider the warning on the side of a pack of cigarettes. How many people bother to read it, much less decide not to purchase based on the dire warning on the side of the pack?

With the number of products that have milk, peanuts, wheat, etc (would iron fortified foods present a threat to those with a iron allergy?) as an ingredient, the general populace isn't going to take note of it any more than they do with Sodium Diacetate or Thiamin Mononitrate. However, the opportunity to sell those with an allergy a product without these common ingredients presents a chance for significant profit.

I expect that the labels would be even more detailed than today to the point of being useless: "These peanut butter cookies contain milk, peanut and wheat ingredients? You don't say!" - special note: I've actually purchased peanut butter cookies with just such a warning on the label.

As I think upon it, I think maybe that even the wrapper would be included in the allergy labeling. I mean if you're allergic to plastic and your food is wrapped in plastic...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LamplightSlasher
post Apr 13 2009, 04:54 AM
Post #4


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 6-April 09
From: The Barrens
Member No.: 17,056



But would there be enough natural food around for allergies to them to be common?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Browncoatone
post Apr 13 2009, 05:33 AM
Post #5


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 5-January 09
Member No.: 16,733



Why does food have to be natural to be an allergy threat?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kzt
post Apr 13 2009, 05:59 AM
Post #6


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,537
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Albuquerque NM
Member No.: 9,234



QUOTE (Browncoatone @ Apr 12 2009, 10:31 PM) *
I disagree. Corporations are still required to obey national laws outside of their extra-national holdings. Which means they can be sued in court and lose lots 'o money. More importantly though, is the opportunity that would be lost if they didn't label their products with allergy information.

No, suing Ares is like suing Saudi Arabia. They are both independent nations, and I'm sure in fine print there is a shrinkwrap contract that says you have to assert to Ares jurisdiction to use/eat the product.

To use a current example, it's exactly like suing an Indian tribe, which will get you nothing but legal bills as they can and will successfully claim Sovereign Immunity. Like this story shows.

https://www.glgroup.com/News/Tribal-Soverei...hips-29421.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BlueMax
post Apr 13 2009, 06:04 AM
Post #7


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,336
Joined: 25-February 08
From: San Mateo CA
Member No.: 15,708



QUOTE (Browncoatone @ Apr 12 2009, 09:31 PM) *
I disagree. Corporations are still required to obey national laws outside of their extra-national holdings. Which means they can be sued in court and lose lots 'o money. More importantly though, is the opportunity that would be lost if they didn't label their products with allergy information.

Think of how many products are on the shelves today that advertise "all natural", "pesticide free", or "organic". There is a big business selling those products to people who are willing to pay more for them. Now consider the warning on the side of a pack of cigarettes. How many people bother to read it, much less decide not to purchase based on the dire warning on the side of the pack?

With the number of products that have milk, peanuts, wheat, etc (would iron fortified foods present a threat to those with a iron allergy?) as an ingredient, the general populace isn't going to take note of it any more than they do with Sodium Diacetate or Thiamin Mononitrate. However, the opportunity to sell those with an allergy a product without these common ingredients presents a chance for significant profit.

I expect that the labels would be even more detailed than today to the point of being useless: "These peanut butter cookies contain milk, peanut and wheat ingredients? You don't say!" - special note: I've actually purchased peanut butter cookies with just such a warning on the label.

As I think upon it, I think maybe that even the wrapper would be included in the allergy labeling. I mean if you're allergic to plastic and your food is wrapped in plastic...


Everyone plays Shadowrun differently. For me , its a dystopic future where the governments are laughable. So, the government angle doesn't stick to me.

As for the label angle... Sure on real food. Why only real food? Because only those rich enough to buy real food read. Everyone else is illiterate. Sure, you could put icons on but man thats a boatload of icons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LamplightSlasher
post Apr 13 2009, 06:04 AM
Post #8


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 6-April 09
From: The Barrens
Member No.: 17,056



^^
If it was made of something other than what its... made of... why would you be allergic to it still?
If I am allergic to bananas I'm not allergic to banana flavored candy.
If I'm allergic to peanuts why would I be allergic to a synthetic compound design to taste and feel like peanuts?

I can understand an allergy to the brown-28 dye in Stuffer Shack Peanut Butter pies, though... Wouldn't that kind of allergy be more likely in Shadowrun than an allergy to peanuts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
raggedhalo
post Apr 13 2009, 08:06 AM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 343
Joined: 3-October 07
From: Birmingham, UK
Member No.: 13,515



The RFID chips embedded in your cookie (!) would let you know allergy information etc. The megacorps would like to avoid people dying from their products because accidentally killing people with foodstuffs is not a strong business model and is likely to hurt sales. The bottom line is king.

I do, however, disagree with the poster who says that you submit to megacorp law when eating their food. Megacorps have to abide by appropriate national law when outside of their extraterritorial domains.

My observation is that national governments have gotten more and more important and played a bigger role in Shadowrun over the last twenty years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Draco18s
post Apr 13 2009, 08:17 AM
Post #10


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,289
Joined: 2-October 08
Member No.: 16,392



QUOTE (BlueMax @ Apr 13 2009, 01:04 AM) *
Everyone else is illiterate.


(IMG:style_emoticons/default/proof.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mäx
post Apr 13 2009, 08:54 AM
Post #11


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,803
Joined: 3-February 08
From: Finland
Member No.: 15,628



QUOTE (raggedhalo @ Apr 13 2009, 11:06 AM) *
Megacorps have to abide by appropriate national law when outside of their extraterritorial domains.

In theory yes, in practise not so much, there isn't really much a local goverment can do if a AAA dosn't abide.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cardul
post Apr 13 2009, 09:06 AM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 992
Joined: 2-August 06
Member No.: 9,006



QUOTE (raggedhalo @ Apr 13 2009, 03:06 AM) *
The RFID chips embedded in your cookie (!) would let you know allergy information etc.


Heck, even with packaged foods, the RFIDs on them would likely have that information, and your Commlink be programmed when looking at them to highlight the relevant sections.

There might even be pro-active things at restaurants where you go in, and your allergy info is flagged for your server to know about, and the AR menus you get avoid listing the things you are allergic to. I mean, that is part of the dystopianism of SR: the lack of privacy, the constant Big Brother feel....things like that help the corps track not only what you buy, but even some of why you buy it. Every bit of information they get about your purchases, even if you got the cereal because you are allergic to Red Dye number 50, and it had Red Dye number 58 while its nearly identical competitor(you know..you make the competitor under a different "brand name") is avoided due to Red Dye 50...and, if you start seeing alot of people in that area with Red Dye 50 allergies, do you think you are going to keep selling the Red Dye 50 product there, and losing money? Or start sending it to where there are more people buying it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
crazyconscript
post Apr 13 2009, 09:07 AM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 23-February 09
From: Tír na nÓg
Member No.: 16,906



I just love to make my characters allergic to something really very common in the 6th world. Like soy for example....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CanRay
post Apr 13 2009, 11:48 AM
Post #14


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 14,358
Joined: 2-December 07
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Member No.: 14,465



QUOTE (crazyconscript @ Apr 13 2009, 04:07 AM) *
I just love to make my characters allergic to something really very common in the 6th world. Like soy for example....

"Contents, Soy, damn... Contents, Soy, son of a... Contents, SOY! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Here we go, Krill-O-Bite! Contents, Krill 2.0, good. What the, SOY FILLER??? Of all the..." *Starts shooting randomly in Stuffer Shack*
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
crazyconscript
post Apr 13 2009, 12:20 PM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 23-February 09
From: Tír na nÓg
Member No.: 16,906



Precisely (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paws2sky
post Apr 13 2009, 12:50 PM
Post #16


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,162
Joined: 16-November 07
Member No.: 14,229



QUOTE (LamplightSlasher @ Apr 12 2009, 10:02 PM) *
So today, food allergies like peanuts are common. In game terms, a player could justifiably pick such an allergy as a negative quality from the common field. In 2070, with such a prevalence of synthetic foods, would a peanut or milk allergy actually be considered common?

How rule ye, league of extraordinary gm's?


I would allow a food Allergy.

Whether or not they're common depends entirely on how the GM interprets the world. Mycoprotein and soy are far more common than milk and peanuts, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the latter are "Uncommon".

Basically, consult your GM about his or her interpretation of the world. If you're the GM, you'll need to make the call (and stick with it).

My personal take on it...

If you're eating pre-pack foods, then the bulk of what you're eating is made of artificially flavored, mass produced "factory foods" like krill, soy, and mycoprotein. You have very little chance of encountering "real" ingredients like milk and peanuts. That peanut flavor really is a peanut flavor - no peanuts required.

If you're eating mostly "real" foods - either buying and preparing them yourself, eating at an upscale restaurant, or visiting a nation that uses more traditional agriculture - you're far more likely to encounter milk and peanuts than you are factory foods... less so if you prepare your own foods.

As a GM, I'd rule that once ingested, you're stuck with the penalty for 24-48 hours. (And given the experiences of a couple people I know with gluten allergies, that's probably being very generous.)

-paws
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Larme
post Apr 13 2009, 01:21 PM
Post #17


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,653
Joined: 22-January 08
Member No.: 15,430



We need to revisit the difference between common and uncommon. "Uncommon" doesn't mean it's hard to find. It has its own definition that you can glean from the examples.

The book tells us that "common" is sunlight, or seawater in a coastal setting. So either it's ubiquitous half the time, or there are billions of gallons of it down the street from you. Is that more or less common than peanuts? It is a HELL of a lot more common than peanuts. Peanuts do not occupy 100% of the outdoors at any time like sunlight, there's no way they fit into the same category as sunlight and other common allergens.

Uncommon encompasses just about everything else. An allergy is uncommon if you could expect to run into it, but you can avoid it without totally altering your life. Things like gold, sliver, or peanuts would be uncommon, because while they aren't terribly rare, they are not absolutely eveywhere. Something has to be nearly everywhere, or it has to exist in ridiculously large quantities nearby, like seawater, before it gives points for being common. Again, it is vital to note that from the examples, we're not going off the dictionary meaning of "common" and "uncommon." Those definitions are far too fuzzy to be workable anyway. The qualities, as listed in the base book, ask more accurately whether something is easily avoided. If it can't really be avoided without drastic measures (like never going outside during the day), it's common, if it can, it's uncommon. I would give an allergy to soy points for being common, because literally all food has it, from soyburgers to soy coffee. You'd have to be on some kind of crazy special diet not to eat any of it. But for peanuts, you just have to avoid eating certain foods, mostly uncommon forms of candy which have real peanuts instead of artificial peanut flavor. Not really a big deal if you ask me, and not worth all those extra points for being common. Just stack it up against the disadvantage you'd get from being allergic to sunlight, and you'll see the comparison.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paws2sky
post Apr 13 2009, 02:11 PM
Post #18


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,162
Joined: 16-November 07
Member No.: 14,229



Well put, Larme.

-paws
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Browncoatone
post Apr 13 2009, 02:25 PM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 5-January 09
Member No.: 16,733



I guess this is just another example of differences in interpretation because I never understood how peanuts and wheat, which are grown in such abundance today, will somehow be all but totally replaced by soybeans to become rare delicacies. Replace meat with a meat substitute? Sure. Replace coffee with a synthetic substitute? Yeah, I'd buy that. Replace dairy products with artificial substitutes? Again, no problem. But corn? Wheat? Peanuts? Those are harder to swallow.
Anyone ever wonder where they're growing all these soybeans that they're using to replace every other foodstuff on the planet with?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BlueMax
post Apr 13 2009, 02:28 PM
Post #20


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,336
Joined: 25-February 08
From: San Mateo CA
Member No.: 15,708



QUOTE (Browncoatone @ Apr 13 2009, 07:25 AM) *
I guess this is just another example of differences in interpretation because I never understood how peanuts and wheat, which are grown in such abundance today, will somehow be all but totally replaced by soybeans to become rare delicacies. Replace meat with a meat substitute? Sure. Replace coffee with a synthetic substitute? Yeah, I'd buy that. Replace dairy products with artificial substitutes? Again, no problem. But corn? Wheat? Peanuts? Those are harder to swallow.
Anyone ever wonder where they're growing all these soybeans that they're using to replace every other foodstuff on the planet with?


Shadowrun was a game about an alternate future based on 1980's paranoia. It was not the late 1990's plus magic that it has become today and it had no intention of realism.

Also, that "soy" in your soydog may not even be soy. Soy is just a synonym for cheap protein by 2050.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CanRay
post Apr 13 2009, 02:31 PM
Post #21


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 14,358
Joined: 2-December 07
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Member No.: 14,465



Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, NutraSoy, Vat-Grown Food that's never seen a farm!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paws2sky
post Apr 13 2009, 02:40 PM
Post #22


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,162
Joined: 16-November 07
Member No.: 14,229



NutraSoy! Now with 10% more real soy!

-paws
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Draco18s
post Apr 13 2009, 03:02 PM
Post #23


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,289
Joined: 2-October 08
Member No.: 16,392



QUOTE (paws2sky @ Apr 13 2009, 09:40 AM) *
NutraSoy! Now with 10% more real soy!

-paws


How much did it have in it before?

None.

So the 10% increase won't cut into our profits?

Nope.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tiger Eyes
post Apr 13 2009, 04:15 PM
Post #24


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 732
Joined: 21-July 05
From: Seattle
Member No.: 7,508



1 in 30 people in 2072 are allergic to soy. RC, 150: "Because of overexposure, it is estimated that 1 in 30 have an allergy to soy, a disturbing trend that continues to grow."

Runners Companion, advanced lifestyles, talks about food...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LamplightSlasher
post Apr 13 2009, 05:03 PM
Post #25


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 6-April 09
From: The Barrens
Member No.: 17,056



QUOTE (Larme @ Apr 13 2009, 06:21 AM) *
We need to revisit the difference between common and uncommon. "Uncommon" doesn't mean it's hard to find. It has its own definition that you can glean from the examples.

The book tells us that "common" is sunlight, or seawater in a coastal setting. So either it's ubiquitous half the time, or there are billions of gallons of it down the street from you. Is that more or less common than peanuts? It is a HELL of a lot more common than peanuts. Peanuts do not occupy 100% of the outdoors at any time like sunlight, there's no way they fit into the same category as sunlight and other common allergens.

Uncommon encompasses just about everything else. An allergy is uncommon if you could expect to run into it, but you can avoid it without totally altering your life. Things like gold, sliver, or peanuts would be uncommon, because while they aren't terribly rare, they are not absolutely eveywhere. Something has to be nearly everywhere, or it has to exist in ridiculously large quantities nearby, like seawater, before it gives points for being common. Again, it is vital to note that from the examples, we're not going off the dictionary meaning of "common" and "uncommon." Those definitions are far too fuzzy to be workable anyway. The qualities, as listed in the base book, ask more accurately whether something is easily avoided. If it can't really be avoided without drastic measures (like never going outside during the day), it's common, if it can, it's uncommon. I would give an allergy to soy points for being common, because literally all food has it, from soyburgers to soy coffee. You'd have to be on some kind of crazy special diet not to eat any of it. But for peanuts, you just have to avoid eating certain foods, mostly uncommon forms of candy which have real peanuts instead of artificial peanut flavor. Not really a big deal if you ask me, and not worth all those extra points for being common. Just stack it up against the disadvantage you'd get from being allergic to sunlight, and you'll see the comparison.


Thank you... First appropriate answer on the thread earns a gold credstick. Don't spend it all in one place chummer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th March 2020 - 01:05 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.