91–100 of 110 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So this is never going to fly then. Why would a food company use this coating at all? It's not in their interest - wasted food means more money for the company.
So do smaller containers for the same price. When you shop do you pay attention to how much usable product you're buying?
If I were Heinz, why would I want this product? I'd rather people throw away the ketchup bottle with some of the ketchup still in it since that leads to higher sales for me. They're still paying me to throw that ketchup away.
This thing is very useful for consumers and the environment, but not for the companies that will pay for it. Unless customers are willing to pay more for a bottle with that coating I don't see how can you sell this.
If I were Heinz, why would I want this product? I'd rather people throw away the ketchup bottle with some of the ketchup still in it since that leads to higher sales for me. They're still paying me to throw that ketchup away.
They might decide it isn't worth the cost, or that it could expose them to health-related lawsuits (I'm worried about that myself, there's "non-toxic" and then there's non-toxic), but no one would think this shouldn't be incorporated into existing products because people will waste a little less.
If I were Heinz, why would I want this product? I'd rather people throw away the ketchup bottle with some of the ketchup still in it since that leads to higher sales for me. They're still paying me to throw that ketchup away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you've been misinformed about organic food. It's not healthier, isn't necessarily better for the environment, and the profit margins are much higher.
Modern pesticides are not particularly toxic, but they are also not completely safe. They often break down into things like estrogen, so we know low doses are not going to kill you but they are still biologically active. Which set's up a cost benefit analysis of tiny positive vs significant cost. Modern farming is more harmful to the area being farmed, but takes significantly less land to produce the same food which…
Regulatory limits are often based on immediate observable effects. Delayed hard-to-observe problems tend to be ignored. See the toxicity of organophosphates and COPIND, and the history of its regulation (when regulations were enforced; when the upper limit was revised to consider the problems of COPIND). There are research results that suggest some Americans have a sufficiently high dietary intake of pesticides to affect their lives.
Furthermore, for many pesticides, there's no way for the policy makers and public to estimate its toxicity, because research is often suppressed, dissemination of toxicity information is often suppressed, policy change is often suppressed, etc. It's a well-established problem with the political-economy of America.
In many less-developed-countries, MNCs like Monsanto and Bayer have used aggressive and deceptive sales techniques and misrepresentation of product toxicity to persuade farmers to use pesticides far in excess (over 100 times the level of) of regulatory limits in the US. These products do get exported. Search for such news and policy discussions in India and China.
Lastly, pesticides don't "often" break down into chemicals similar, in biological activity, to estrogen. Pesticides can cause quick death, physical deformities in fetuses and young children, autism, epilepsy, mental retardation, cancer, organ failure, rashes, ulcers, can be used in biological warfare, etc. Some pesticides take decades to breakdown; Some pesticides have metabolites that are extremely toxic. Do refer to toxicity and metabolism research and data when evaluating the health risks of pesticide exposure and consumption, and/or consult an expert with little conflict of interest.
PS: Organic farm allows the use of (some classes of) pesticides as well.
I have always got the plastic bottle of ketchup. For the final third you just leave it upside down. The ketchup pools by the cap. Fancy tech not required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have an example of this already happening?
The obvious one is that it's illegal for food companies to advertise whether or not their products are GMO: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/18/fda-labeled-free-modif... There are a lot of other food safety best practices that the FDA has effectively banned as well though. For example the movie Food Inc. explains the issues surrounding bacteria in beef.
Bacteria in beef is problematic to justify because the bad outcomes tend to be low-probability events, and the events can often be attributed to other causes, so it's hard to pin it down on food safety practices.
Try something more clear-cut, like the history of trans-fat regulation as compared to when the adverse health-effects of trans-fat were identified, and whether trans-fat was allowed as a food additive with compelling evidence for its safety (by appeal to long-term epidemiological data or otherwise). Trans-fat is also clearer because the government has encouraged (with marketing dollars) its consumption over other kinds of fat.
I'm sure there are many better examples than GMO labeling and bacteria in food.
Perhaps this is ignorance, but I do not want this anywhere near my food. The FDA's said a lot of things are non-toxic over the years.
Out of curiosity, what criteria do you use to determine which food products are probably safe for your consumption? Do you do research yourself, or is there another source of research you consult?
Dittos mayo.
And watching either of them slither around in those non-stick bottles is kinda gross.
The slippery tech is pretty cool though, and I like the "hrm, try this on a boat" comment. Though ultimately hull-speed kills you there.