MikeW665 wrote:I think the two biggest issues, are parents that aren't parenting, and a lack of common sense.

You mean this for the hot dog choking issue or life in general?

Frankly, the only way to make anything choke-proof is make it injectable. I suspect my kids will object, such as, "Dad, this doesn't taste like anything."

edited to add: This thread is on pg. 2 now!?! Rats!

CM2772 wrote:Octodog=choke-proof hotdog.

Recommended by Dr. Octomom!

Wow. Just...[i]wow[/i].

So this really is the solution they jump to, rather than, "Hey, parents...cut up your child's food" or "Pay ATTENTION to what your kid is eating when you feed him."

And to think, a friend once tried to convince me that the "this coffee is hot" paper cup warning labels were NOT a slippery slope.

Riiiiiiiiight.

I await their next recommendations (of stoves that don't get hot and knives that aren't sharp) with breathless anticipation.

tgoddess wrote:So this really is the solution they jump to, rather than, "Hey, parents...cut up your child's food" or "Pay ATTENTION to what your kid is eating when you feed him."

But, looked at another way, the invention of the "chokeless hot dog for children" (if such a thing ever could be invented) is analogous to consumable options that we basically welcome.

Before artificial sweeteners, you could have said, "Hey, Mr. Guy Who Should Cut Down on His Sugar, why don't you stop drinking so much Coke?" But the invention of Diet Coke allowed him to have his Coke and drink it too.

Before the invention of chewable aspirin for children, you could have said, "Hey Mr. Parent, why don't you try dissolving a couple of aspirin in a teaspoon of water, instead of subjecting your children to a choking hazard?" But the invention of chewable St. Joseph's Aspirin for Children allowed parents to skip this step. (As did the advent of liquid Tylenol for children later on.)

So I don't think the parents who would welcome a chokeless hot dog for their kids are necessarily lazy, irresponsible or negligent. It might simply solve a problem in a way they'd appreciate.

Which speaks to exactly my point, we change something to fix one problem and then it turns out we may have made it worse...

Study Finds Diet Soda Increases Weight Gain

(Not to mention this...)

riddlemay wrote:
Before the invention of chewable aspirin for children, you could have said, "Hey Mr. Parent, why don't you try dissolving a couple of aspirin in a teaspoon of water, instead of subjecting your children to a choking hazard?" But the invention of chewable St. Joseph's Aspirin for Children allowed parents to skip this step. (As did the advent of liquid Tylenol for children later on.)

So I don't think the parents who would welcome a chokeless hot dog for their kids are necessarily lazy, irresponsible or negligent. It might simply solve a problem in a way they'd appreciate.

If I am not mistaken, are you even supposed to give your child aspirin these days? (g)

It all begs a question. We ate nuts and hot dogs as toddlers. We drank milkshakes with raw eggs. We drank from the well out of a common dipper. We rode around in cars without seat belts in unapproved and flimsy child seats ...

I guess that I should rejoice that I am a survivor.

jlawrence01 wrote:
We ate nuts and hot dogs as toddlers. We drank milkshakes with raw eggs. We drank from the well out of a common dipper. .

lol...

I think if kids today were allowed to do those things you mentioned and were actually allowed to play outside, & get their hands dirty (without mom or dad chasing them around with hand sanitizer), there would be less of an epidemic of childhood allergies imho.

tgoddess wrote:So this really is the solution they jump to, rather than, "Hey, parents...cut up your child's food" or "Pay ATTENTION to what your kid is eating when you feed him."

Much ado about nothing. There's no slippery slope here, the reason for the advice is stated as ' "No parents can watch all of their kids 100% of the time," Smith says. "The best way to protect kids is to design these risks out of existence." ' So, yeah, they seem to be fully aware of your advice. Nobody's outlawing hot dogs, pediatricians would just like to see a redesign and, frankly, this might be a good way for some intrepid sausage engineers to make a killing. What a great business opportunity.

Binko wrote:

tgoddess wrote:So this really is the solution they jump to, rather than, "Hey, parents...cut up your child's food" or "Pay ATTENTION to what your kid is eating when you feed him."

Much ado about nothing. There's no slippery slope here, the reason for the advice is stated as ' "No parents can watch all of their kids 100% of the time," Smith says. "The best way to protect kids is to design these risks out of existence." ' So, yeah, they seem to be fully aware of your advice. Nobody's outlawing hot dogs, pediatricians would just like to see a redesign and, frankly, this might be a good way for some intrepid sausage engineers to make a killing. What a great business opportunity.

Another reason it is unnecessary to create an entirely new product to deal with this issue is that no matter what a kid is eating, whether it's "choke proof" or not, they need to be supervised. Up to a certain age at least. This "no parents can watch kids 100% of the time" business is a flimsy argument.

I heartily agree that it's a fabulous business opportunity. No one ever went broke underestimating the laziness or stupidity of the human species.

I also agree that its a great business opportunity. I am buying OctoDog stock once it goes public.

bnowell724 wrote:Another reason it is unnecessary to create an entirely new product to deal with this issue is that no matter what a kid is eating, whether it's "choke proof" or not, they need to be supervised. Up to a certain age at least. This "no parents can watch kids 100% of the time" business is a flimsy argument.

It's not necessary. So what? If a parent feels safer buying this so-far-theoretical Better Safer Hot Dog (TM), let the parent decide what they feel is necessary and what isn't. All the report is saying is "Hey, we pediatricians recognize hot dogs are a bit of a choking hazard. Wouldn't it be cool if someone came up with a better, safer hot dog?" I mean, come on, it's not like any agency is coming down and mandating such changes. There's plenty of room in the market for a choke-resistant hot dog, if the market decides it wants one. Nobody is taking your encased meats away from you.

Binko wrote:

bnowell724 wrote:Another reason it is unnecessary to create an entirely new product to deal with this issue is that no matter what a kid is eating, whether it's "choke proof" or not, they need to be supervised. Up to a certain age at least. This "no parents can watch kids 100% of the time" business is a flimsy argument.

It's not necessary. So what? If a parent feels safer buying this so-far-theoretical Better Safer Hot Dog (TM), let the parent decide what they feel is necessary and what isn't. All the report is saying is "Hey, we pediatricians recognize hot dogs are a bit of a choking hazard. Wouldn't it be cool if someone came up with a better, safer hot dog?" I mean, come on, it's not like any agency is coming down and mandating such changes. There's plenty of room in the market for a choke-resistant hot dog, if the market decides it wants one. Nobody is taking your encased meats away from you.

It's fear-mongering, and according to the article, the FDA is taking the AAP's recommendations under serious consideration.

Binko wrote:It's not necessary. So what? If a parent feels safer buying this so-far-theoretical Better Safer Hot Dog (TM), let the parent decide what they feel is necessary and what isn't. All the report is saying is "Hey, we pediatricians recognize hot dogs are a bit of a choking hazard. Wouldn't it be cool if someone came up with a better, safer hot dog?" I mean, come on, it's not like any agency is coming down and mandating such changes. There's plenty of room in the market for a choke-resistant hot dog, if the market decides it wants one. Nobody is taking your encased meats away from you.

The dopiness of it all comes from the fact that the AAoP feels the need to put out an official position like this at all. A position regarding a product which has been around (most likely) 500 YEARS*, is suddenly this very dangerous and life-threatening food that must be changed, even though for half a millennium, the MAJORITY of human parents have simply just taken on the responsibility themselves to make sure their children weren't choking themselves on it.

Surely, parents are taking precautions to make sure their children aren't choking on OTHER foods, aren't they? Do the pediatricians feel that having to cut up a hot dog is an EXTRA burden in some way? Why single out the hot dog? What about carrots? Celery sticks? Popsicles?

And why now? Are MORE children choking on hot dog/sausage-shaped foods than ever before? In 1860, at Coney Island, why weren't there protests from caring parents and doctors about this life-threatening sausage? Could it possibly be that it's because children choking has LESS to do with the shape of the food, than the size of it...or that the child hasn't been taught to chew properly yet OR that a parent (gasp!) was irresponsible?

It just seems to me that rather than putting forward a ridiculous and poorly thought out position, they would have been better to issue a statement REMINDING parents to be more diligent...to not give their children foods they could possibly choke on in the first place and stress the importance of all parents to learn CPR and what to do in case of a choking emergency.

That would be prudent and sensible advice from an organization which is clearly in a position to get its message out there and would probably save just as many lives and doesn't sound nearly as idiotic as suggesting that hot dog manufacturers be the ones to take responsibility for this "issue."

FWIW, this topic isn't enraging me as much as it may appear. I just find it amusing that as a species, our luge of common sense keeps careening faster and faster toward the rails. Warning labels on coffee cups...velcro shoes...NUTTY.

Perhaps I should come up with a hot dog-flavored macaron...since they're already in a non-hazardous shape.


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dog

tgoddess wrote:FWIW, this topic isn't enraging me as much as it may appear. I just find it amusing that as a species, our luge of common sense keeps careening faster and faster toward the rails. Warning labels on coffee cups...velcro shoes...NUTTY.

Another way of looking at it is that our society, rather than becoming sillier, is becoming more humane. Analogous to our steady progress over the centuries in the realm of human rights (a field in which we still have a long way to go, but in which we've come a long way) is our increasing embrace, in many consumer departments, of the essentially moral position that "I am my brother's keeper." I know a lot of people find this intrusive--"get your hands off me, you're not my keeper"--and that's one valid way of reacting to the trend, but another valid response is to say that a society that cares about people getting sick or injured, and does what it can to make it happen less, is a good one.

riddlemay wrote:

tgoddess wrote:FWIW, this topic isn't enraging me as much as it may appear. I just find it amusing that as a species, our luge of common sense keeps careening faster and faster toward the rails. Warning labels on coffee cups...velcro shoes...NUTTY.

Another way of looking at it is that our society, rather than becoming sillier, is becoming more humane. Analogous to our steady progress over the centuries in the realm of human rights (a field in which we still have a long way to go, but in which we've come a long way) is our increasing embrace, in many consumer departments, of the essentially moral position that "I am my brother's keeper." I know a lot of people find this intrusive--"get your hands off me, you're not my keeper"--and that's one valid way of reacting to the trend, but another valid response is to say that a society that cares about people getting sick or injured, and does what it can to make it happen less, is a good one.

I like the sound of that, but I don't know this organizations motivations or affiliations. Their recommendation is so extreme, and feels so counter-intuitive to me as a parent, that I can't assume they are only looking out for my best interests.

riddlemay wrote:

tgoddess wrote:FWIW, this topic isn't enraging me as much as it may appear. I just find it amusing that as a species, our luge of common sense keeps careening faster and faster toward the rails. Warning labels on coffee cups...velcro shoes...NUTTY.

Another way of looking at it is that our society, rather than becoming sillier, is becoming more humane. Analogous to our steady progress over the centuries in the realm of human rights (a field in which we still have a long way to go, but in which we've come a long way) is our increasing embrace, in many consumer departments, of the essentially moral position that "I am my brother's keeper." I know a lot of people find this intrusive--"get your hands off me, you're not my keeper"--and that's one valid way of reacting to the trend, but another valid response is to say that a society that cares about people getting sick or injured, and does what it can to make it happen less, is a good one.

Which is all fine and good except when anything that kills or injures a handful of people every year requires an industry resolution, media blitz, legislation, extensive labeling and research dollars. Just as any parent can become overprotective and smothering, so can society. If it were just hot dogs, it wouldn't be a big deal. But it isn't. It's everything. And since the threshold for massive undertaking is so low, and accidental deaths and injuries will never be eliminated, there's no theoretical end to it. So it becomes a matter of which infinitesimal danger will we target this week to spend millions of dollars and man-hours to possibly prevent. Meanwhile, if pediatricians put those conference hours into free treatment for uninsured families and hot dog manufacturers put those research dollars and man hours into simply sending hot dogs to starving nations, we'd save a whole lot more than 13 kids every year.

I'm kind of conflating two points here, but I think they're both valid.

Dmnkly wrote:Which is all fine and good except when anything that kills or injures a handful of people every year requires an industry resolution, media blitz, legislation, extensive labeling and research dollars. Just as any parent can become overprotective and smothering, so can society. If it were just hot dogs, it wouldn't be a big deal. But it isn't. It's everything. And since the threshold for massive undertaking is so low, and accidental deaths and injuries will never be eliminated, there's no theoretical end to it. So it becomes a matter of which infinitesimal danger will we target this week to spend millions of dollars and man-hours to possibly prevent. Meanwhile, if pediatricians put those conference hours into free treatment for uninsured families and hot dog manufacturers put those research dollars and man hours into simply sending hot dogs to starving nations, we'd save a whole lot more than 13 kids every year.

I'm kind of conflating two points here, but I think they're both valid.

FWIW, so do I.

tgoddess - I don't really disagree with your position in that of course it's up to the parents to watch what their kids put in their mouths and make sure they don't choke on anything. Personally, and I'm NOT a parent, I had no idea hot dogs (and apparently grapes, as I read elsewhere) were such choking hazards to kids. I simply don't think what the agency is doing here is extreme or leading down some slippery slope to outlawing hot dogs (or wherever it is people think this slippery slope is leading.)

Here's a slightly more in-depth story on the pediatrician's recommendations. This is what they say:

The policy statement called for the government to establish a "mandatory system . . . to label foods with appropriate warnings according to their choking risk, to conduct detailed surveillance and investigate food-related choking incidents, and to warn the public about emerging food-related choking hazards."

That doesn't sound too crazy to me. Of course the "hot dog redesign" is what the headlines are going to jump all over, but if you read through the story, the recommendations are, in my opinion, sensible.

If this debate gets any more important, I believe the administration will spend billions to start the Bureau to Understand the Redevelopment of Safe Sausages(BUNS for short). There will be a hot dog czar. Might as well socialize the encased meat industry.

RevrendAndy wrote:If this debate gets any more important, I believe the administration will spend billions to start the Bureau to Understand the Redevelopment of Safe Sausages(BUNS for short). There will be a hot dog czar. Might as well socialize the encased meat industry.

Their first order of business could be teaching people the actual definition of the word "socialism"

Bill Dailey just posted this elsewhere. I like the "hot dog bites" idea...hmmm....

Binko wrote:tgoddess - I don't really disagree with your position in that of course it's up to the parents to watch what their kids put in their mouths and make sure they don't choke on anything. Personally, and I'm NOT a parent, I had no idea hot dogs (and apparently grapes, as I read elsewhere) were such choking hazards to kids. I simply don't think what the agency is doing here is extreme or leading down some slippery slope to outlawing hot dogs (or wherever it is people think this slippery slope is leading.)

Maybe this is a nitpick, but I think it should be pointed out that quite often (especially these days when it is more common than not for both parents to work outside the home) the person feeding a small child is not always going to be the parent. It's not that much of a logical leap that a caregiver may not be as attuned to potential choking hazard as a parent, so these kinds of warnings really are necessary. I personally rely on my well-meaning but clueless parents to watch my kids from time to time, and I've been pretty shocked at how it simply doesn't occur to them that giving grapes or hotdogs to a 1 year old might be a problem. Ditto for the sweet and otherwise attentive 16 year old neighbor girl who babysits my kids, and even for several of the nannies and daycare providers I know who are employed by friends of mine.

The AAP issues all kinds of guidelines and recommendations in an attempt to publicize health and safety related issues for babies and children (ever heard of the back to sleep campaign, that's probably one of their more well-known undertakings.) It's simply untrue that this latest recommendation is part of some nefarious plot to dumb down the sausage industry or to create a nanny state.

SMT wrote:
Maybe this is a nitpick, but I think it should be pointed out that quite often (especially these days when it is more common than not for both parents to work outside the home) the person feeding a small child is not always going to be the parent. It's not that much of a logical leap that a caregiver may not be as attuned to potential choking hazard as a parent, so these kinds of warnings really are necessary. I personally rely on my well-meaning but clueless parents to watch my kids from time to time, and I've been pretty shocked at how it simply doesn't occur to them that giving grapes or hotdogs to a 1 year old might be a problem. Ditto for the sweet and otherwise attentive 16 year old neighbor girl who babysits my kids, and even for several of the nannies and daycare providers I know who are employed by friends of mine.

great point

There is an easy and obvious solution. It's called the gene pool. If they don't choke on a dog, chances are they'll stick a fork in an outlet. Let nature take it's course.

hoppy2468 wrote:There is an easy and obvious solution. It's called the gene pool. If they don't choke on a dog, chances are they'll stick a fork in an outlet. Let nature take it's course.

It's called Darwinism. If you can't survive a hot dog, your genes probably shouldn't be in the pool.

More like bad luck or inattentive supervision than Darwinism.

Regardless, at least one good thing has come of this. I know now not to feed little kids whole grapes or un-cut-up hot dogs.

Mhays wrote:Bill Dailey just posted this elsewhere. I like the "hot dog bites" idea...hmmm....

For you then



edited to add here rather than continue this thread

later - on pg 3 of the thread, Mhays wrote:Are those Hot Dogs a la Rose, Sazerac?

I don't know this Rose, but a la A2Fay is similar (no ginger; yes, curry leaves along with garlic and spices - cumin, coriander, turmeric, red-chili powder, maybe some ancho)
Abomination, but good eats.

We aren't jumping it too far, though-- this is exactly where legislation/regulation comes from, all these initialed groups with Washington lobbyists.

In a battle on Capital Hill, I'll bet on the processed meat lobbyists over the kid's health lobbyists any day of the week.

I just got a press release promoting this as the solution.