I want it on my toilet so I will never have to scrub it.
MIT’s Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing
101–110 of 110 posts
Re: MIT’s Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Knowing they FDA, they'll just ban companies from telling consumers whether or not it's in their products. Because if it's a medicine you might actually want to use, it's illegal unless you have $100 million dollars to pay for testing. But if it's something that can make food corporations money, not only doesn't it need to be tested but it's illegal for you to even know if you're eating it.
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.
The ketchup is just a good demonstration. they can apply that coating to a million other things... Pipes, tubes... Take a smaller bottle, cover it outside and you got yourself a dildo. It's all about potential possibilities not "food" :)
Re: MIT’s Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing
#103I am already thinking of far better uses for this then ketchup.
How about spraying inside of fire hoses, pumps etc? The main benefit is the massive reduced friction. More energy efficient pumps, less wear and tear etc.
I would then extrapolate the idea of smooth flowing ketchup to air and wonder if this would reduce the drag caused by air if you coated your car in it etc.
No bugs sticking to your cars front window. Water and dirt don't stick to your paint etc.
And this is just after a few minutes of thinking of the potential uses for it.
Re: MIT’s Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing
#104I think this would be great applied to bottles for personal care products like shampoo, conditioner, and hand lotion. I also wonder if they might be able use it to make a toothpaste tube you can get all the toothpaste out of...
Re: MIT’s Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing
#105Earlier 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.
> It's not in their interest - wasted food means more money for the company. It's sick. But I keep wondering - why no one in this industry seems to be trying to be good and use it as a marketing advantage? "We do not try to make profits on stealing from you by wasting materials and energy like everyone else out there". I'd definitely try to buy as much as I could from such company.
My wife used to be on a team that managed Heinz ketchup. When I spoke to her about this, the decision analysis usually runs as follows:
1) Does this incremental improvement (i.e. non-stick coating) provide a distinct competitive advantage that is backed by clear and pressing consumer demand?
2) How much will it cost in terms of: i) disrupting/modifying existing at-scale manufacturing/bottling processes ii) fixed cost increase iii) potential liability
There is usually a laundry list of pressing consumer needs with associated costs, balanced against market share numbers (usually culled from Nielson data) and satisfying power distribution channel partners.
The non-stick coating is, afaik, not high on the list of consumer demands for Heinz ketchup.
Re: MIT’s Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing
#106If this is for real it has major implications in the aviation industry. Icing is a major safety factor and grounds/diverts flights regularly. If you can get rid of the heavy, expensive anti-ice systems on aircraft with just a coating you'll get significant safety and cost savings benefits.
Re: MIT’s Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I assume you assert that out of ignorance. Modern pesticides are extremely toxic in small quantities, some with immediate and easily observed effects, others with delayed and long-lasting effects. 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 we…
I assume you assert that out of ignorance.
No, however I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume we have a vastly different view on what small quantities entails. You have farmers who are basically drenched in the stuff and then the general public who get's 1/1000th of those doses. Most of the time toxicity is not a linear relationship, feel free to go swim in a vat of phosphoric acid an ingredient in Coca-Cola Soda Syrup if you survive feel free to report back to me on what that was like.
Re: MIT’s Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
So do smaller containers for the same price. When you shop do you pay attention to how much usable product you're buying?
Call me cheapskate, but I always look at £/100ml part of the label.
I do that too (except it usually says kr/l or kr/kg here.). Sometimes I end up buying more than I need, though, because the unit price for bigger packets are that much lower. Doesn't mean that the packet will last me any longer, specially if it's chips, chocolate or fizzy drinks.
Re: MIT’s Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume you assert that out of ignorance. Modern pesticides are extremely toxic in small quantities, some with immediate and easily observed effects, others with delayed and long-lasting effects. 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 we…
I assume you assert that out of ignorance. No, however I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume we have a vastly different view on what small quantities entails. You have farmers who are basically drenched in the stuff and then the general public who get's 1/1000th of those doses. Most of the time toxicity is not a linear relationship, feel free to go swim in a vat of phosphoric acid an ingredient in Coca-…
PS: I was thinking about this after posting it, and the acid comment was over the top. I hope you took as the hyperbole it was intended as, but if not I would like to apologize.
Re: MIT’s Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing
#110Perhaps 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?
I try to stick to food products that existed 200 years ago.