Man, there’s so much just fundamentally wrong about this reply, I don’t even know where to begin.
I guess I’ll start by noting that 1972 was close to fifty years ago, so your insinuation that this is some sort of new expansion of government powers mostly just makes you sound really old.
Secondly, the fact that the CPSC was only formed in 1972 doesn’t mean that consumer protection laws were first made in 1972. The Pure Food and Drug act was instituted in 1906. The first anti-trust law was passed in 1890. The first mail fraud law was passed in 1872. And that’s just US law. Consumer protection has been an accepted function of American government for over a century. If you want to argue that it shouldn’t be a function of government, you are free to embarrass yourself in that manner, but your faux wide-eyed, “Gosh, since when do governments do that?” approach just makes you look ignorant of the basic facts of the issue. Moreso, I mean.
Lastly, the whole “We managed just fine for years without it,” is just dumb. The same thing could be said about literally everything that mankind has ever invented or innovated. We didn’t have penicillin-based antibiotics until 1942. Billions of people “got by without it” before then - is that, therefore, a good argument against penicillin? No, it’s a transparently stupid argument against penicillin. And it’s no smarter when applied to consumer protection laws.
Backing away from the stupid “Gubbment=bad” argument that D’Anconia seems determined to inflict on us, I’m curious about the aftermath of the failure of Pyrex. I had an old Pyrex 2-cup measuring cup that I dropped on the floor a few years back and it shattered…but not just normal “drop a glass and you get a bunch of big chunks of glass and a few fragments”, this Pyrex turned into needle-thin shards of glass everywhere. I mean, they were like splinters and even after sweeping the floor, vacuuming the floor and mopping the floor, I was still finding little tiny slivers of glass a week later.
So explain why it’s a good thing to allow manufacturers to produce defective, adulterated and/or poorly designed products that sicken and kill the consumer.
Of all the things that we can do to improve our government, the fact that the big bugaboo for some people is shit like privitizing the roads and making sure no consumer protection agencies exist take them straight to kookery. No one could seriously consider that sort of ideology if those are the sorts of centerpieces.
“Ah, but if your kids die to lead poisoning in that milk, at least some of the people who watch the news will hear about it and not buy that brand again even though they’ve been drinking it for two years and already suffered damage. But rest assured, that brand will suffer a small loss in sales until they rebrand it to something else. And for a mere $20 a month, you can subscribe to a magazine that independently tests milk for lead. Free market in action. I mean, sure, after the issue comes out and certifies them safe, they could start putting lead in the milk again, but, eventually, after lots of people suffer irreversible damage, another brand that only has industrial fertilizer runoff in it and not lead will take their market share!” is not a compelling argument against “lead in milk is outlawed”
But my freedoms to drink poisoned milk!
You make people hate your ideology by trying to share the kookiest aspects of it, uninvited, in a thread, and then arrogantly proclaim your own opinion as self-evidently superior. Your smug satisfaction as you drive everyone away from ever even considering your ideology is almost funny.
Wikipedia shows the two logos here – the new one from World Kitchen, the Corning spinoff that is making the cheap stuff, is indeed all lower case with a stylized lower-case “p”; the old borosilicate stuff from the original Corning is a logo in all caps.
I have some baking dishes which are unfortunately the new stuff and I wish I didn’t know this. Have used one of them a fair bit at 350 and 400 F and no problems yet, but not happy about this.
World Kitchen claims that one reason for using the cheaper tempered glass is that it’s not only cheaper but more resistant to breakage, according to the above-linked Wikipedia article. It may be that it’s the borosilicate that shatters this way. OTOH, I dropped an old Pyrex baking dish years ago on its way to or from the barbecue, and I’m pretty sure it was easily old enough to be one of the original borosilicate formulations, and I don’t remember anything unusual except normal shards of glass.
That has to take into account that the magazine might not bother to run any tests, or if they do, might not accurately report the results. If a few months later, people stop subscribing to that magazine because it’s proclaimed as safe something that poisons children… hey, free market.
Boy, you just didn’t understand any part of that post, did you?
The point, which you have so assiduously missed, is that whether a law passed in 1972 or 1872 has no bearing on whether it’s a good idea or not. I didn’t mention early consumer protection measures to argue, “They’re old, therefore good!” I mentioned them to demonstrate that your position of, 'New, therefore bad," is completely asinine, not only in practical and ethical terms, but in basic factual understanding of the concept being discussed.
If you read a little more, I believe you’ll discover that’s it’s not just a change in the formula but also less exacting manufacturing processing as well. I read somewhere the ‘tell’, as to which was at fault, was in how the thing shattered. Many pieces meant one, a few large chunks indicated the other. It was some time ago, and took some time to uncover ,but it’s out there somewhere if you dig for it!
The one I broke was from the mid-70s, at latest and it was bizarre how it shattered. Excluding the handle, and one or two large chunks near the rim or the base, the biggest piece was wooden matchstick size and most of them were smaller, like big sewing needles.
Roasted Thanksgiving turkey in the Pyrex. Worked great. I removed the beautifully, browned, roasted turkey. Now, for the gravy.
I decided to use the Pyrex to make the gravy. Why dirty another pan? The Pyrex is for the oven.
I made my best gravy, ever! With the Pyrex, the drippings, less fat, selected spices, and flour. I prepared it on the gas stove.
We sat down to eat. The gravy compliments were everywhere! Then, in the kitchen, the Pyrex exploded. I had turned off the flame. But, that didn’t matter. There were no seconds. Small, toothpick size, glass needles were everywhere in the kitchen No, leftovers either. Everything had to be thrown out. Sad, tragic story.
It was then I discovered that while Pyrex may be safe for oven temperatures. The gas stove flame was much hotter than an oven would ever be.
About a year ago we had “exploding fish dish surprise” for supper. I was cooking frozen fish filets in the oven in my 9x13 glass pan. I know about differences in manufacturing and I generally buy my glassware at second hand stores for that reason. I am just not sure about this pan, as I was given some when I moved across the country.
I was holding the pan and wiggled it a bit so the frozen parts released. Maybe a cold part touched the hot pan and made it go boom! Maybe it was something else…but it shattered pretty uniformly into cubes of glass, somewhat like automobile “safety glass”.
I was still finding bits of glass in bookshelves 10 feet away six months later.
