Critical thinking and the Dangerous Hot Dog!

[Dave]

Right now it's all over the news that hot dogs are a dangerous choking hazard for kids. The news is reporting that there are several deaths each year and that people are starting to ramp up efforts to get WARNING LABELS on certain (only certain!) food items as choking risks.

Now, let's for a second take the dumbass parenting angle out of the equation - and I think this is much more due to fucking stupid parents than anything - let's take a look at the numbers involved.

First, a few givens. Americans will consume 7 BILLION hot dogs from Memorial Day to Labor Day every year. I couldn't find statistics on the entire year so we'll only do the 5 months. So 7 BILLION hot dogs consumed. That includes all demographics.

Second, in the years 2001 and 2006 there were 61 & 60 pediatric deaths which were related to food. Again, statistics couldn't be found but you can make the assumption that this is fairly accurate. So we'll make the inference that there are 65 pediatric choking deaths which were food related each year.

Third, of these food-related choking deaths, 17% are attributed annually to the hot dog. That's 11 kids.

Breaking down the numbers, that means 1 death for every 636.4 MILLION hot dogs sold. The odds your child is going to choke to death is 1 in 636.4 MILLION. To put this in perspective, the odds of winning the Powerball jackpot is 1 in 195,249,054. You are THREE TIMES more likely to win the Powerball than to have your child choke to death on a hotdog!

I know the media are yellow-colored alarmists but come the fuck on! What ever happened to critical thinking?

 

[Cajungal]

It *is* strange that they'd only focus on that one particular thing. Funny, the only time I ever really choked badly (turned blue) was on a hot dog. Did you find out what other things were involved? Because I figure it's not just food, but plastic pieces and stuff as well. I know you're talking about food-related stuff, but still...

 

[Bowielee]

Well, the way I see it, singling out any one particular food item as a choking hazzard is like singling out the single drop of water that drowned a man in a pool. When an item's sole purpose is to go down your throat hole, it ALWAYS presents a choking hazzard.

 

[Dave]

According to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of the 17,000 or so cases of pediatric choking in 2001, 60 percent were related to food, 31 percent were related to non-food substances, and 9 percent were related to undetermined objects. Of the food-related choking incidents, 19 percent resulted from candy or gum. Of the choking incidents resulting from non-food objects, 13 percent were related to coins.

It's estimated that between 66 and 77 children under age 10 die every year in the United States from choking on food.

So let's use these numbers. In fact, let's say 100 kids each year. That's still 1 for every 70 MILLION hot dogs consumed.

 

[sixpackshaker]

But then you have to discount all the Hot Dogs consumed by adults, and the ones consumed at Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest. That is most of the dogs anyways...

---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------

How many children are under 10 in this nation? 10 million or so? Your pre-tween has a one in 10,000 chance to die from choking on a dog each year.

 

[AshburnerX]

So... it's the hot dog's fault for choking the child, not the parent that never made their children chew food properly? I swear to god, these people won't be happy until we're eating a flavored slurry of algae like in fucking Warhammer 40k.

 

[Math242]

darwin

 

[Iaculus]

So... it's the hot dog's fault for choking the child, not the parent that never made their children chew food properly? I swear to god, these people won't be happy until we're eating a flavored slurry of algae like in fucking Warhammer 40k.

At least in 40K, the algae have a chance to fight back.

 

[sixpackshaker]

FLAVORED SLURRY OF ALGAE!!!! IT'S PEOPLE..........................

 

[Dave]

Yeah it's funny and all, but because of this the hot dog industry is going to have to spend millions of dollars to either fight or change things, the US populace will be spending an amazing amount of taxpayer money to promote something that doesn't need to be promoted and kids will lose out because their mommies and daddies can't be bothered to parent and will just stop giving them hot dogs.

 

[sixpackshaker]

They should at least get the word out that giving a 3yo a hot dog is not a good idea.

 

[Dave]

They should at least get the word out that giving a 3yo a hot dog is not a good idea.

BULLSHIT!!! That's the whole point of my post! Hot dogs are FINE for kids! Jesus tapdancing Christ! The President (George W) almost choked to death on a pretzel! Does that mean pretzels should have a warning label? No!

Give your fucking kid a hot dog! If they are smaller, cut it up. Common sense!

 

[sixpackshaker]

but if it is not common knowledge that a smushy(real word, really) food like hot dogs is a choking hazard, how can you blame the parent?

 

[Iaculus]

but if it is not common knowledge that a smushy(real word, really) food like hot dogs is a choking hazard, how can you blame the parent?

Babies can choke on damn near anything. You'd think they'd have figured that out by now.

 

[Dave]

but if it is not common knowledge that a smushy(real word, really) food like hot dogs is a choking hazard, how can you blame the parent?

Because it's up to the parent to decide whether or not the child is ready for certain foods and if giving the food cut it up into pieces that are safe. Hot dogs, bologna, etc. All of these are given to kids every day safely. The parents to blame are the ones who give kids who are not ready an entire hot dog because they can't be bothered to cut it up.

And for the record, hot dogs are pre-cooked as are given cold to kids all the time. They are NOT smushy.

 

[Fun Size]

I think the issue is not so much that hot dogs are inherently dangerous. Rather, I think it's that they are one of the few foods that have an eating technique taught by Linda Lovelace, which in all fairness can cause some serious choking.

I've heard.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Fun, you have to be older than I think you are...

 

[Fun Size]

Nope, just well versed in all of the fine arts.

 

[Shakey]

The report by the AAP goes over choking hazard by both food and non-food items. The media is just picking up and on the hot dog angle. From the actual report:

From 1972 to 1992, 449 deaths from aspirated
nonfood foreign bodies among
children aged 14 years or younger were
recorded by the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC). Nearly two
thirds (65%) of these fatalities were
among children younger than 3 years.
Latex balloons were associated with
29% of deaths overall.11 Choking on
food causes the death of approximately
1 child every 5 days in the
United States. Hot dogs accounted
for 17% of food-related asphyxiations
amongchildren younger than 10 years of
age in a 41-state study by Harris et al.12

What's kinda strange is:

Prevention of Food-Related Choking
Increased federal action to prevent
choking on food by young children
should include surveillance, cautionary
food labeling, recalls when necessary,
and public education. These
actions will encourage food manufacturers
to give greater attention to child
safety and modify their products to
prevent choking-related injury. Current
systems for conducting injury
surveillance (such as the NEISS-AIP)
and strategies for prevention of choking
associated with toys have direct
application to the problem of foodrelated
choking in the same high-risk
group of young children.

I'm not sure how food manufacturers would modify hot dogs and grapes to prevent choking. I also don't see the harm in simply putting a label on the package saying that if it's given to a child under 3 you should cut it up.

Here's the actual report if you feel like reading it.

 

[Dei]

How is cutting up food for a child under 3 not already common sense though?! That's the whole point. Why the fuck do we need to label everything?

 

[sixpackshaker]

How is cutting up food for a child under 3 not already common sense though?! That's the whole point. Why the fuck do we need to label everything?

So you can heap more guilt on the parent of a blue baby, when they screw up.

 

[Shakey]

How is cutting up food for a child under 3 not already common sense though?! That's the whole point. Why the fuck do we need to label everything?

But what harm is there in adding a label?

 

[Tinwhistler]

How is cutting up food for a child under 3 not already common sense though?! That's the whole point. Why the fuck do we need to label everything?

But what harm is there in adding a label?[/QUOTE]

 

[Krisken]

I would like to start a new campaign. "Too stupid to eat= too stupid to live."

 

[Covar]

How is cutting up food for a child under 3 not already common sense though?! That's the whole point. Why the fuck do we need to label everything?

But what harm is there in adding a label?[/QUOTE]
A decrease in Darwin award winners and nominees.

 

[Shakey]

How is cutting up food for a child under 3 not already common sense though?! That's the whole point. Why the fuck do we need to label everything?

But what harm is there in adding a label?[/QUOTE]
A decrease in Darwin award winners and nominees.[/QUOTE]

Except the stupid people wouldn't be the ones dieing. It's their kids, whether stupid is genetic is another topic.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Pre-tweens don't count for Darwin Awards, because they have not made it to the age or reproduction. Well by and large... there have been a few troubling cases...

 

[Eriol]

How is cutting up food for a child under 3 not already common sense though?! That's the whole point. Why the fuck do we need to label everything?

But what harm is there in adding a label?[/QUOTE]
Because labels decrease critical thinking, or even basic awareness. If you expect a label around ANYTHING that's even MILDLY dangerous, then you're not thinking for yourself at all.

That's not to say there's never a use for a label, but there's a big difference between labeling a clear fluid sold at a store that's caustic, and needing to put a post-it-note on a porcupine saying "don't touch, can poke you." And choking hazards are actually the ones that should NOT be labeled IMO, since ANYTHING could be that in the right situation, and thus it's better to FORCE people to think, rather than assume hat others have ALWAYS thought for them.

 

[Dave]

In addition, labels are not needed and will do nothing more than harm the industry, cost taxpayer money and make the price of hot dogs to go up. And for what? Because mommy and daddy dipshit can't be bothered to actually PARENT and watch their kids or cut up their food.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I'll always err on the side of, it is better to educate the parent, than to rely on assuming something innocuous is actually dangerous.

 

[drawn_inward]

My friend's 19 month old son died from choking on a Goldfish cracker. One cracker. Babies choke on food, kids choke on food, and adults choke on food. A ham and cheese sandwich almost killed me once. It's not the food's fault. Putting warning labels on food will just cause fear in parents, and if someone sues b/c they choked on food then they should be shot.

Hot dogs are gross, and that's why kids should not be eating them, not b/c they may choke you.

 

[Shakey]

How would putting labels that tell people to cut up the hot dog for kids cause fear in parents if parents are supposed to already know this? You'd think people would look at it and say no shit. The label on paint cans that says not to drink it hasn't scared me into not using paint. I seriously doubt this would hurt the hot dog industry.

 

[Dave]

Changing labeling costs money. The passing of laws costs money. The time, effort and lawyering to word said warnings costs money. For what? To tell people things that have been common knowledge since babies started eating solid food! It's an unnecessary waste of time, money and effort. All based on fearmongering.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Companies change labels all the time. Just say, with in the next 2 years you will need to add a disclaimer to your product.
The nutritional content information should be taken off all food products to save me 35 cents on a 60 cent can of peas.

 

[Dave]

Companies change labels all the time. Just say, with in the next 2 years you will need to add a disclaimer to your product.
The nutritional content information should be taken off all food products to save me 35 cents on a 60 cent can of peas.

Don't be daft. The nutritional information is necessary for those who may or may not have food allergies, sodium/sugar limitations, etc. These are things which do not have common sense applications and would require a lot of research to figure out if they were not there. Whether or not labels change does not detract from the fact that changing the labels would cost unnecessary expense. The label templates have to be changed, possibly the label shape, the wording of the warning, etc. Each of these costs money not just for production costs and downtime to change the line but people have to take time and effort to do so, which in man hours starts to add up quickly.