Dude......
Do you even read what you post?
Do you even understand the words you're using?
How is reprimanding CORPORATES for using false info to advertise their product is anti CONSUMERS?

Adoi, you commented without doing any research. Who said we only sell raw palm oil?

Haiya

As for biodiesel, it just cost more to process biodiesel compared to just diesel especially in Malaysia. Still if you see B5 diesel at petrol pump in this country, that's biodiesel with 5% palm oil

Indonesia on the other hand, makes it mandatory to use b30 biodiesel


Haiya. You think biodiesel is 100% palm oil is it?

Power generation requires more heating value compared to what diesel or petrol can give. Thus, they use coal Cheaper too. Did you know power generation is basically a giant water kettle?

Coal or nuclear power is used to heat up water until it become high pressure steam. Then the steam is used to move steam turbines thus producing electricity.

You don't fricking use diesel or petrol to boil water

This post has been edited by tupai: Oct 20 2022, 12:40 AM

Have you read the TS first post?

Yes and the fines are against those that use the labels on their products
Not those that buy the products with said label

This post has been edited by cursetheroad01: Oct 20 2022, 12:41 AM

TS post is about taking action to retailers. Not to consumers

You see. The whole point here is about the demand of palm oil.
If there is demand, we don't have to worry about the smear campaigns.

That's why I mentioned economy of scale.

once you take action on retailers, consumers are left with limited choices.

This post has been edited by abc2005: Oct 20 2022, 12:48 AM

There's demand. Still why wouldn't we fight slander. You like discrimination?

They can still produce and sell those products here minus the label. The ingredients list is still there if consumers don't want palm oil.

It's not a big deal for manufacturers to use different packaging for different countries

does pork-free also imply discrimination? I don't think so. Because it serves certain segment of population.
We must fight slander with proper channel aka court of law, not by fear tactic by fining poor retailers.

This post has been edited by abc2005: Oct 20 2022, 12:52 AM

yes, and it should be done in proper channel. Taking action by fining them or blocking the sales is very anti-free market.

There's demand for rhino horns so i guess we shouldn't ban rhino poaching, yes?

I am now convinced you're a troll

No one can be this stupid to keep getting definitions wrong yet using the words with confidence, and this dense to not see the issue where the using of such labels is at best useless and at worst slanderous, which culminates to false advertising

Shalom

u are using irrelevant example. Same thing on drugs.

The fine is based on proper law.

Pork free is not discrimination. Simply because the usage of pork free label is not used to slander anyone or any pork.

Besides, for manufactured foods, seldom you see pork free label. Usually it's the halal or kosher labels are used.

Palm oil free label are based upon slander and smear campaign of soy oil manufacturers.

Pork free is used to inform those that cannot eat pork which mainly out of religious/cultural requirements

Palm oil free is used to inform who?


Edit: alright im done repeating the same shit

This post has been edited by cursetheroad01: Oct 20 2022, 12:56 AM

Slander labelling is also very anti free market.

that's for those who produced the label to answer. And definitely not the retailers.
Whether it violates the law or not, the court will need to decide. That's why I emphasise the proper channel, not by fear tactic.

there's certainly court of law for that.
The fines are purely opinionated action by the authorities, like the slander on paint brushes that contained pig hair that caused the losses on the retailers/sellers.

This post has been edited by abc2005: Oct 20 2022, 01:02 AM

unless there is a label saying palm oil is detrimental on the product itself (now that's slanderous) like the cigarettes labels, i'd believe otherwise.

This post has been edited by abc2005: Oct 20 2022, 01:07 AM

The law makes sense a lot. Western countries are trying to villify palm oil for the sake of promoting their own oil (sunflower, olive etc)

Their main point is we are destroying tropical rainforest for its plantations.

But palm oil actually yields the most per acre of land, more cost effective resulting better price for the consumer. Imagine using olive oil for your everyday cookings. And its actually not that bad compared to other vege oils nutrition wise.

Please stop trying to associate everything with discrmination and politics. Palm oil is a big contributor to Malaysia economy which means if its going down, its definitely going to affect the local economy and indirectly affects us the Malaysian people.

Passing a law requires majority vote. And I'm sure all the parties agree with this in the parliment that's why it got passed. This law benefits *our people*, that's all that matters.