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

Big Food vs. the People

lighthousereports.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 196 posts

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#111

Post by tptacek »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #99
Taronar wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have nothing of substance to add, but that term moral hazard is not being used as intended. it's a term used to describe when you spend someone else's money it actually doesnt have to do with morals.

That is only within the context of economics. Outside of that it is fine to use the common literal meaning. Professions don't get to dictate that their jargon is used by the rest of us, even if they coin the phrase.

I don't think that's the case; "moral hazard" doesn't have a conventional colloquial meaning. If you use the term outside it's technical meaning you're just going to confuse people.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#112

Post by tptacek »

onedognight wrote: post #110
arthurjj wrote: post #13

I'm about as hippie with my food as you can get, but this "article" is badly written propaganda that conceals more than it reveals. Half way down the article you learn that ~80% (193 out of 239) of the lawsuits are in Mexico and > many of them were against the country’s labelling regulation. Quinto Elemento Lab reveals the companies’ arguments: that the laws were a violation of their constitutional rights But the art…

When the Mexican government signed up for NSO’s spyware, who did they target? A woman who was working to pass a sugar sweetened beverage tax. And her children.

Wait, this is getting pretty twisty-turny here. The premise of the story is that the food conglomerates are adversaries of the Mexican government. That's why they're suing them!

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#113

Post by hamper653 »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #92

Can you blame them? Would you sue if the government suddenly decided your industry has to pay extra taxes, or they tried to restrict your advertising? Honestly coca cola should probably thank the UK government for the sugar tax. They are the only ones that had the courage to keep the sugar and pay the tax, making their original soda the only potable soda in the UK.

> potable soda

There is no such thing.

> potable in the UK

Now you’re getting silly.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#114

Post by _HMCB_ »

arthurjj wrote: post #13

I'm about as hippie with my food as you can get, but this "article" is badly written propaganda that conceals more than it reveals. Half way down the article you learn that ~80% (193 out of 239) of the lawsuits are in Mexico and > many of them were against the country’s labelling regulation. Quinto Elemento Lab reveals the companies’ arguments: that the laws were a violation of their constitutional rights But the art…

So the lobbying is ok in your eyes because maybe, just maybe there’s something in it (although minuscule compared to the billions upon billions made by the other side) for side B? Gotcha.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#115

Post by kelvinjps10 »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #104
titanomachy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know that the lack of information should lead you to assume that the Mexico lawsuits are justified. From what I’ve read, they’re contesting (among other things) the mandated black octagon on the front of packaging that says “exceso calorías” or “exceso azucáres” (excessive calories and sugar) and also bans on advertising to children. The cases that have already been decided have overwhelmingly been in favor o…

If they didn't sue they wouldn't be doing their jobs. Coca Cola for example has had 39grams of sugar per 12ounces since the 50s. Now almost 80 years later it's suddenly excessive?

They used to be advertising for cigarettes, cocaine used to be sold as medicine for headaches, etc. things change and there are things that are not healthy for a society that the society itself decided

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#116

Post by 6177c40f »

_HMCB_ wrote: post #114
arthurjj wrote: post #13

I'm about as hippie with my food as you can get, but this "article" is badly written propaganda that conceals more than it reveals. Half way down the article you learn that ~80% (193 out of 239) of the lawsuits are in Mexico and > many of them were against the country’s labelling regulation. Quinto Elemento Lab reveals the companies’ arguments: that the laws were a violation of their constitutional rights But the art…

So the lobbying is ok in your eyes because maybe, just maybe there’s something in it (although minuscule compared to the billions upon billions made by the other side) for side B? Gotcha.

This comment strikes me as being in bad faith: "Oh so you don't like A? You must be on the side of ¬A!"

I ask, humbly, that people please not do this. Nothing good has ever come of it.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#117

Post by vjvjvjvjghv »

Straw wrote: post #102
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are describing sounds great in theory, but the real world doesn’t work like that. In more and more areas the obstacle to enter a market is not regulations but money.

I'd say exactly the same about antitrust. Can you give an example of a lasting monopoly not backed by some government policy? At any point in the last 150 years?

Can you give examples of these government policies?

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#118

Post by strictnein »

mmooss wrote: post #71
strictnein wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I think you understand what I'm saying. They're externalizing the costs and internalizing the benefits. The same thing we complain about with numerous other industries. The alternative would not be to take away the right of private citizens to sue. There is, surprisingly enough, quite a chasm between identifying that some parties are taking advantage of a system and completely shutting that system down.

How do they externalize the cost? Who is paying them? The plaintiff class-action firm pays their own costs and hopes get reimbursed when the case is resolved.

Courts aren't free. Juries involve real humans.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#119

Post by strictnein »

jt2190 wrote: post #39
strictnein wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I think you understand what I'm saying. They're externalizing the costs and internalizing the benefits. The same thing we complain about with numerous other industries. The alternative would not be to take away the right of private citizens to sue. There is, surprisingly enough, quite a chasm between identifying that some parties are taking advantage of a system and completely shutting that system down.

It sounds like you’re proposing that individuals should have to pay court costs, in full so that the “taxpayer” doesn’t have to pay the bill

As a wise man once said:

> "There is, surprisingly enough, quite a chasm between identifying that some parties are taking advantage of a system and completely shutting that system down."

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#120

Post by strictnein »

BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #31
strictnein wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're purchasing lottery tickets that are mostly paid for by tax payers who fund the court systems.

The only direct costs to the taxpayers in these kinds of lawsuits are the judge's time (also the bailiff's, stenographer's, and a couple more), a slight extra load on the computer system to handle the filings, and miscellaneous wear and tear on the courtroom.

That would make sense if we had infinite courts and judges, but we don't. You waiting longer for your trial date is a significant cost (justice delayed is justice denied, and all that). A jury's time is a cost. A system that enriches a select few while the rest of us get $20 off our next purchase of XYZ product is a cost. The only people receiving a major benefit aren't even the people affected by the wrongdoing.
Post reply on HN