|
Consumer advocate: Under the current absence of government standards for food product labeling, manufacturers are misleading or deceiving consumers by their product labeling. For example, a certain brand of juice is labeled “fresh orange juice,” yet the product is made from water, concentrate, and flavor enhancers. Since “fresh” as applied to food products is commonly understood to mean pure and unprocessed, labeling that orange juice “fresh” is unquestionably deceptive.
Manufacturer: Using words somewhat differently than they are commonly used is not deceptive. After all, “fresh” can also mean never frozen. We cannot be faulted for failing to comply with standards that have not been officially formulated. When the government sets clear standards pertaining to product labeling, we will certainly comply with them.
16. Which one of the following principle, if established, would contribute most to a defense of the manufacturer’s position against that of the consumer advocate?
(A) In the absence of government definitions for terms used in product labeling, common standards of understanding alone should apply.
(B) Government standards for truthful labeling should always be designed to reflect common standards of understanding.
(C) People should be free to the extent that it is legal to do so, to exploit to their advantages the inherent ambiguity and vagueness in language.
(D) When government standards and common standards for truthful labeling are incompatible with each other, the government standards should always take precedence.
(E) In their interpretation of language, consumers should never presume that vagueness indicates an attempt to deceive on the part of manufacturers unless those manufacturers would reap large benefits from successful deception.
Key is C, why isn't A? After all, the manufacturer is quibbling the meaning of "fresh", if only common standards were applied, his explanation would not have prevailed.
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2005-2-6 02:23:00
