If I don’t like what’s in a food product, I choose not to eat that food product. Maybe I could come up with a more eloquent way to say “I don’t like what’s in it,” but it seems silly or foolish to willingly consume something that has ingredients I deem to be harmful or suspicious. It is a shame we don’t have a pharmaceutical industry (or…
If I don’t like what’s in a food product, I choose not to eat that food product. Maybe I could come up with a more eloquent way to say “I don’t like what’s in it,” but it seems silly or foolish to willingly consume something that has ingredients I deem to be harmful or suspicious. It is a shame we don’t have a pharmaceutical industry (or an actual food industry, but off topic…) that isn’t more transparent and forthcoming about the ingredients of their products.
I agree that the term “religious exemption” is sometimes misleading or inappropriate which is why I believe “conscience exemption” might be a more fitting category name. After all, one mustn’t be religious to object to fetal cell line use in vaccine derivation…
If I don’t like what’s in a food product, I choose not to eat that food product. Maybe I could come up with a more eloquent way to say “I don’t like what’s in it,” but it seems silly or foolish to willingly consume something that has ingredients I deem to be harmful or suspicious. It is a shame we don’t have a pharmaceutical industry (or an actual food industry, but off topic…) that isn’t more transparent and forthcoming about the ingredients of their products.
I agree that the term “religious exemption” is sometimes misleading or inappropriate which is why I believe “conscience exemption” might be a more fitting category name. After all, one mustn’t be religious to object to fetal cell line use in vaccine derivation…