Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 84 posts

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#51

Post by fhn »

roenxi wrote: post #42
galleywest200 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * Just look at the actual checkout price like everyone else Why should I have to go through the entire process just to see the price? Have you ever been in a store that has the tax added onto the price tag? It is very nice to not have to do mental math.

Because it isn't very important and the more degrees of freedom the seller has the more likely they are to do something to make the whole process cheaper for customers. Although it does seem appropriate that everyone should know the price of something before they buy it, as long as it happens before the money is handed over that is fine.

cheaper for customers??? What world do you live in where sellers care about customers?

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#52

Post by roenxi »

vrganj wrote: post #43
roenxi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it isn't very important and the more degrees of freedom the seller has the more likely they are to do something to make the whole process cheaper for customers. Although it does seem appropriate that everyone should know the price of something before they buy it, as long as it happens before the money is handed over that is fine.

> the more degrees of freedom the seller has the more likely they are to do something to make the whole process cheaper for customers. I think this is the crux of our disagreement. In my experience, the more degrees of freedom the seller has, the more chances to fuck you over they have. I think - and this might be my European perspective and maybe why we feel differently about regulations than Americans - the main so…

If you let yourself get taken advantage of by corporations the result is substantially higher median incomes [0]. I remain unconvinced that adopting an adversarial stance toward the people who are trying to give you real stuff is the best strategy. Cooperation and forming a consensus with them seems like a better path.

[0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/median-income-after-tax-l...

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#53

Post by vrganj »

roenxi wrote: post #52
vrganj wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the more degrees of freedom the seller has the more likely they are to do something to make the whole process cheaper for customers. I think this is the crux of our disagreement. In my experience, the more degrees of freedom the seller has, the more chances to fuck you over they have. I think - and this might be my European perspective and maybe why we feel differently about regulations than Americans - the main so…

If you let yourself get taken advantage of by corporations the result is substantially higher median incomes [0]. I remain unconvinced that adopting an adversarial stance toward the people who are trying to give you real stuff is the best strategy. Cooperation and forming a consensus with them seems like a better path. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/median-income-after-tax-l...

I think this, too, is a case of cultural differences. This ranking [0] seems much more meaningful to me than the one you linked.

[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-countries-fo...

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#54

Post by egberts1 »

Can't rip the plastic wrap off to smell for rottenness.

Absorbent pad adds to the price also hides the "purge".

Harder to find meat without thousand poked holes (tenderizing)

Can't tell if meat are colorized to hide browness.

Time for me to visit my local butcher for a quarter cow, butchered.

Also a bigger freezer chest too!

"Packed On" or "Processed On" is the most accurate way to label meat, IMHO.

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#55

Post by malfist »

egberts1 wrote: post #54

Can't rip the plastic wrap off to smell for rottenness. Absorbent pad adds to the price also hides the "purge". Harder to find meat without thousand poked holes (tenderizing) Can't tell if meat are colorized to hide browness. Time for me to visit my local butcher for a quarter cow, butchered. Also a bigger freezer chest too! "Packed On" or "Processed On" is the most accurate way to label meat, IMHO.

You're not charged for the absorbent pad anymore than you're charged for the packaging. You can weigh the meat when you get home to verify yourself

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#56

Post by blululu »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #34
blululu wrote: post #30

This is a pretty nothing law when you look into it. All it does is standardize "sell by" labels to be more transparent. The extent of the ban is the explicit phrasing "Sell By" which is itself confusing since the manufacturer has some estimated consumption interval that is tacked onto their actual expiration date. Sell By gives the customer has no idea how much padding they are adding to their estimate and when the t…

To be fair, if we waited until there "no more pressing issues", then we'd never get any "quality of life" regulations passed like this.

Yeah. I'd agree. This is a pretty quick and easy law with very few downsides. There is also a "good house keeping" aspect to this. The habit of keeping a house clean and tidy makes it easier to do the bigger and more substantive improvements. I'm a bit surprised that New York Times is reporting on such a small law passed so far away or that there are such negative comments about such laws here, but such is life.

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#57

Post by wildzzz »

WaxProlix wrote: post #20
vrganj wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of them? No. Some of them? Yes. Some examples: * ARL / Automatic Renewal Law: If a company allows you to sign up for a subscription online, they also must provide an immediate, straightforward way to cancel it online. * SB 478: No bullshit junk fees tacked on to prices. Any price displayed, be it for concerts, hotels, or whatever else, must be the full, out-the-door price. * SB 244: Right to Repair: Electronics a…

Does SB478 apply to car dealerships? That would be a huge boon to consumers on its own.

Dealers should be required to list the title/plate fees and their processing fee but stuff like dealer options and markup are required to be on a seperate sticker.

America has such an aversion to including taxes on a listed price so I doubt that will ever be included.

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#58

Post by paleotrope »

SilasX wrote: post #18
jrussino wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, it's a bad title. We should be able to skim the headlines and get an accurate impression of the news items of the moment. This headline seems intentionally misleading. It should have been clear to the publisher that it would be interpreted this way. Intentionally inflammatory clickbait titles poison the information ecosystem. (That being said - yes, commenting on something you have not read does as well!)

Agreed. In this case, a better title would be "California replaces 'Sell by' Labels with 'Use by', Hoping to Cut Food Waste" Still a simplification, but doesn't horribly mislead you into thinking it's a reckless policy.

How does this change affect food waste by consumers?

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#59

Post by unsnap_biceps »

malfist wrote: post #55
egberts1 wrote: post #54

Can't rip the plastic wrap off to smell for rottenness. Absorbent pad adds to the price also hides the "purge". Harder to find meat without thousand poked holes (tenderizing) Can't tell if meat are colorized to hide browness. Time for me to visit my local butcher for a quarter cow, butchered. Also a bigger freezer chest too! "Packed On" or "Processed On" is the most accurate way to label meat, IMHO.

You're not charged for the absorbent pad anymore than you're charged for the packaging. You can weigh the meat when you get home to verify yourself

The pad, no, but you do pay for the liquid that the pad soaks up from the overly hydrated meat. The cheaper chicken in my area is pumped full of salt water and is weighed as it's getting packed, but the pad absorbs a bunch of that water to keep the chicken from looking like it's sitting in a puddle.

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#60

Post by gumby »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #36
m4ck_ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well despite all that regulation, they're an economic powerhouse, they must be doing something right. CA is far from perfect but at least they occasionally aspire to do something for the benefit of their citizens - not something I can say for my 'least regulated' state that mostly just saps money from the federal government.

N=1 but I make a good amount of money and left California for a zero tax state. I feel like the quality of life is similar between the two. I don't feel like I was getting anything for the 13%+ extra taxes I was paying in California. Nearly every California program has a huge amount of wastage. Take: - High speed rail - 10x the cost of comparable European programs, still haven't built anything. Deadlocked by regulati…

> left California for a zero tax state.

Where, pray tell, is this state with zero taxes? Próspera?

Post reply on HN