Nanny State Might Force Table-Saw Manufacturers to Build Much Safer Saws

The nanny-staters are at it again trying to save people from cutting off their fingers and limbs by accident. Technology developed in 1999 provides a way to stop saws from spinning and saving fingers and limbs from being chopped off. And now the federal government in the USA wants to require safe saws.

Feds might force table-saw makers to adopt radically safer technology

In 2015, 4,700 people in the US lost a finger or other body part to table-saw incidents. Most of those injuries didn’t have to happen, thanks to technology invented in 1999 by entrepreneur Stephen Gass.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) predicts switching to the safer saw design will save society $1,500 to $4,000 per saw sold by reducing medical bills and lost work.

Related: Citizens Don’t Need Nanny State Deciding What Food is Safe to EatNanny State Doesn’t Want People Texting While They DriveNanny Staters Expect Sidewalks to be Maintained

Nigeria Confiscates Plastic Rice – Nanny States Are Everywhere

Nigeria has confiscated 2.5 tonnes of “plastic rice” smuggled into the country by unscrupulous businessmen, the customs service says.

Note how the nanny state disparages the business by calling them unscrupulous just for providing an alternative that the nanny state doesn’t like. As usually the nanny state wants to impose its opinion on what is good food on everyone.

Whoever made this fake rice did an exceptionally good job – on first impression it would have fooled me. When I ran the grains through my fingers nothing felt out of the ordinary.

But when I smelt a handful of the “rice” there was a faint chemical odour. Customs officials say when they cooked up the rice it was too sticky – and it was then abundantly clear this was no ordinary batch.

They’ve sent a sample to the laboratories to determine exactly what the “rice” is made of.

They are also warning the public not to consume the mystery foodstuff as it could be dangerous.

Why do nanny states continue to act as though people don’t know what they should eat? They continue to act as though we need nanny states protecting us from harmful products and food when people just want to be free to buy unsafe food if that is what they want.

Update: Artificial food intended for display only, say Chinese manufacturers:

The artificial food products are popular with restaurants to display menu choices as they always look fresh and never rot. Artificial rice is made of PVC, a white, brittle plastic.

See, once again the Nanny State was being foolish. Now, I suppose some people might say the bags should be properly labeled to avoid people making foolish assumptions but why would we want to make things easy and avoid funny misunderstandings?

Related: Nanny State Shouldn’t Have Food Service Workers Use Safe Health PracticesCitizens Don’t Need Nanny State Deciding What Food is Safe to Eat

No Evidence of Aloe Vera Found in the “Aloe Vera” at Wal-Mart, Target, CVS…

No Evidence of Aloe Vera Found in the Aloe Vera at Wal-Mart, CVS

Samples of store-brand aloe gel purchased at national retailers Wal-Mart, Target and CVS showed no indication of the plant in various lab tests. The products all listed aloe barbadensis leaf juice — another name for aloe vera — as either the No. 1 ingredient or No. 2 after water.

ConsumerLab said it tested a dozen aloe products, including pills and juices, and just half the items appeared to meet the claims on their labels.

I suppose nanny-staters would expect the government to protect people from false claims by businesses. Obviously that isn’t a good idea. If people want to be sure products they buy contain Aloe Vera they can just test their purchases themselves. They shouldn’t expect the government to spend resources protecting them.

Related: Citizens Don’t Need Nanny State Deciding What Food is Safe to EatNanny State Shouldn’t Have Food Service Workers Use Safe Health PracticesNanny Staters Think the Government Should Protect People From Fraud

Nanny State Doesn’t Want People Texting While They Drive

Nanny state thinks it should interfere with free choice of drivers doing what they feel like doing. Once again the nanny staters want to discourage free people from doing what they see fit to do just because they may kill themselves or others.

Sure texting while driving endangers the driver, their passengers and anyone else on the road with them. Sure many deaths and critical injuries have resulted from texting while driving.

We have known drinking with driving and talking on a cell phone while driving endangers ourselves and others for a long time. Still, people choose to drink and drive or choose to use talk on the phone while driving. Those choosing to do so know they are risking their lives, their passengers lives and those on the road with them. Yet millions do it anyway. If we wanted nanny state protections from deathly risks we could choose to not take foolish risks.

And sure texting is even more dangers that hands free phone calls or driving drunk but why does the nanny state have to get involved? Only to save lives and prevent injuries. Why would we want to give up freedom just for to save lives and prevent injuries?

Sure, distraction and teen crashes is even worse than we thought but we can’t let the nanny state win.

The results showed that distraction was a factor in 58 percent of all crashes studied, including 89 percent of road-departure crashes and 76 percent of rear-end crashes. NHTSA previously has estimated that distraction is a factor in only 14 percent of all teen driver crashes.

Who knows what the nanny state would do next to try and save lives and protect people from harm?

Related: Nanny Staters Think the Government Should Protect People From FraudNanny State Wants Safe MedicineCitizens Don’t Need Nanny State Deciding What Food is Safe to EatSelf Driving Cars Have Huge Potential for Benefit to Society

Nanny State Shouldn’t Have Food Service Workers Use Safe Health Practices

Sen. Thom Tillis (Republican, North Carolina):

“I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says we don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom. The market will take care of that.”

As we said earlier, if consumers want safe milk they can test it themselves. Why should the government seek to help citizens be safe when we don’t want a nanny protecting us.

If we want to know if where our baby is safe from unvaccinated people, we can just ask every person if they are vaccinated before we bring our baby into the airplane or shopping mall or theme park. This isn’t tricky stuff. We don’t need a nanny state making things safe for society. If we want to protect ourselves, we can do the research and testing ourselves.

It is odd to think some people believe safety rules and regulations are needed when ancestors 20,000 years ago didn’t have any such things and we descended from them. They must have gotten along fine, otherwise we would be here.

I suppose some people might argue a social contract makes sense when we form urban societies where some might want expectations of safety and protection: from thieves, fraudsters, other criminals, unsafe products, unsafe medical practices, abuse by those with authority, unsafe roads, etc.. But that seems crazy. If we need safety we can just do the testing and research ourselves and avoid anything where we haven’t been able to independently access the safety of. Thinking we are society of people interacting with each other and with obligations to society is reckless.

It is much better to live in a nanny free state and view ourselves as individuals with freedom to behave however we want with the understanding we are on our own to protect ourselves from all the others that may not feel like providing safe services or products. It may seem a little daunting at first but I am sure we can figure it out without nannies.

Statue of Chairman Mao, Shanghai

Statue of Chairman Mao, Shanghai, China. Do people that believe in safety regulations want us to model our government on Chairman Mao’s policies?

Of course the Senator’s desire that the freedom of Starbucks be limited and they give notice of what safe practices they avoid is reverting to the nanny state ideas. He is a freshman senator so it isn’t surprising he hasn’t figured out the logical extension of his belief. Over time he should be able to be more logically consistent.

Related: Citizens Don’t Need Nanny State Deciding What Food is Safe to EatNanny Staters Think the Government Should Protect People From FraudNanny State Recalls Beef Shipped from Kansas

Nanny State Wants to Intrude When New Jersey Bars Try to Trick Customers

Once again the nanny staters are having the government act as our nanny. We don’t need the government figuring out if our drinks are dangerous. We can test the drinks ourselves if we want to protect ourselves.

Six Ways to Tell Your Bar Is Passing Off Cheap Liquor as the Good Stuff

On Wednesday, the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control raided 29 New Jersey bars and restaurants as part of Operation Swill, a year-long sting operation that caught these establishments allegedly pouring bottom-shelf liquor into top-shelf bottles and selling it to customers as the real deal

Sometimes, the fraud was a bit more blatant. “In one instance, a bar in New Jersey mixed rubbing alcohol with caramel food coloring and served it as scotch,” writes Brent Johnson in the Star-Ledger. “In another, a bar filled an empty liquor bottle with dirty water and passed it off as liquor.”

It should be obvious that we don’t need the Nanny State intruding if we are drinking alcohol. How many studies are there are about the risks of drinking alcohol? If we are trying to drink alcohol we can’t really be interested in out health can we?

Just leave us alone, and stop acting like we need the nanny state to protect us from tainted drinks (or just watered down drinks or being served something not quite what we ordered). If the bars can fool us why should the nanny state protect us from them – the bars just took advantage of our stupidity or laziness and it serves us right.

Related: Citizens Don’t Need Nanny State Deciding What Food is Safe to EatIf You Want Unpolluted Milk Just Test It Before You Drink ItNanny State Recalls Beef Shipped from Kansas

Citizens Don’t Need Nanny State Deciding What Food is Safe to Eat

comic on Chinese tourist speculating on food safety

Read more great comics on

Some nanny states go around trying to make sure food is safe. We don’t need that. People can decide for themselves what food is safe.

Nanny stater perspective shown in articles on China food safety: Food-borne disease could affect an estimated 300 million Chinese consumers every yearChina to step up monitoring of baby milk powderRat-meat sold as mutton and other tainted food scandals have prompted China’s top court to call for harsher punishments for making and selling unsafe foodChina wrestles with food safety problems

Related posts: If You Want Unpolluted Milk Just Test It Before You Drink ItNanny State Recalls Beef Shipped from Kansas

If You Want Unpolluted Milk Just Test It Before You Drink It

Indian Milk Frequently Polluted: Govt Study

Over two-thirds of Indian milk is polluted with contents ranging from salt to detergent which may perhaps be unsafe to drink, according to a survey by an Indian government supervisory body.

The survey across 33 states by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India found that 68.4 percent of 1,791 milk samples contained adulterants.

Some supports of the nanny state would want people to be able to trust that the milk they drink isn’t contaminated. Saying no to the nanny state means you don’t have the nanny checking your milk for you. Just test it yourself. There must be test you can run after all this study figured out you are more likely to get contaminated milk in India than not.

Related: Nanny State Recalls Contaminated BeefNanny State Kills Wild Animals