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

151–160 of 196 posts

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#151

Post by [deleted] »

munk-a wrote: post #82
mikem170 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like enough to pay some people for some months or a year or two - a combination of experts, part-time specialists, cotractors, etc. - to do things like gather some data via their contacts, hack together a meta-study, put out a glossy report andsome press releases, etc.

I think the bigger point is that there's an overwhelming amount of money going to push the opposite narrative. A quick search revealed that Tyson alone spends well over a million annually on lobbying and I am sure the industry at large spends significantly more on this issue alone.

[deleted]

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#153

Post by mikem170 »

munk-a wrote: post #82
mikem170 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like enough to pay some people for some months or a year or two - a combination of experts, part-time specialists, cotractors, etc. - to do things like gather some data via their contacts, hack together a meta-study, put out a glossy report andsome press releases, etc.

I think the bigger point is that there's an overwhelming amount of money going to push the opposite narrative. A quick search revealed that Tyson alone spends well over a million annually on lobbying and I am sure the industry at large spends significantly more on this issue alone.

Ah, I was more focused on the effectiveness as opposed to the quantity, i.e. if you have a million dollars, that could be decent way to spend it, given the world we live in.

I see what you are saying - that it's not enough compared to what the other side spends.

Money seems to decide too many of these things...

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#154

Post by avazhi »

cogman10 wrote: post #107
Straw wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Groceries are an excellent example of competition. Profit margins on groceries are razor thin. The large chain leverage results in lower consumer prices. Large grocery chains don't have anomalously high profits, ROI, or really anything that would indicate harm to consumers. Groceries are cheaper than ever compared to median wages. The memory market is international, its not clear what anti trust even means here. Even…

> Large grocery chains don't have anomalously high profits Define "anomalously" What do you mean by this? You'd admit that large grocery chains do have high profits right? Even with "razor thin" margins. Large grocery outlets do love to claim that their margins are razor thin yet somehow each of them are some of the wealthiest in the nation. How can that be if they are so good for the customers? > its not clear what…

> You'd admit that large grocery chains do have high profits right? Even with "razor thin" margins. Large grocery outlets do love to claim that their margins are razor thin yet somehow each of them are some of the wealthiest in the nation. How can that be if they are so good for the customers?

No, grocery chains don't have high profits.

https://www.economist.com/business/2026/07/20/dont-blame-sup...

"First, consider margins. These are often wafer-thin. American supermarkets like Kroger and Albertsons collected just 1% of their sales in operating profits last year. Even Walmart, with its 4% margin, hardly looks like it is milking customers. It is a similar story in Britain and France, with margins only a little fatter in Australia and Canada. The real cream has traditionally been elsewhere in the supply chain, such as with the big food manufacturers. Over the past decade the average operating margin across General Mills, Kraft Heinz, Mondelez and PepsiCo has been 13%."

Do you know what an operating margin is? If you don't you can easily find out. Your comment is wrong in its entirety and you could have very easily discovered this before subjecting others to it.

"yet somehow each of them are some of the wealthiest in the nation."

Who even knows what on earth you meant by this. Some of the wealthiest what, businesses? That's something certain large grocers and some other businesses get with scale - it doesn't mean a business necessarily has 'high profits,' which was your entire thesis.

Looking at your comment history, you have a tendency to state things with a high degree of confidence when you often know very little about them. You should strive to do better - perhaps research and read more and type less.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#155

Post by throwawayffffas »

throwway120385 wrote: post #122
throwawayffffas wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In the 50's you'd buy it in an 8-oz can. The sizes we're getting out of vending machines are pretty absurdly large for something that basically started out as a dessert you'd buy to top off your small sandwich and cup of water for lunch.

8-oz was glass bottles I think. 12-oz cans were a thing in the 50s, we still have 12-oz cans, there are 8-oz cans out there and the vending machines typically carry 12-oz cans or at most 16-oz bottles where I live.

Everything bigger is clearly meant to be consumed over multiple sittings or by multiple people.

I will grant you that fast food restaurants especially and restaurants in general do offer ludicrous amounts of soda for a very low price.

But the retail packaging has not really gotten larger, in a very long time.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#156

Post by 59percentmore »

Taronar wrote: post #93
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…

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.

It's used correctly here. Advertising to children is a moral hazard because the money used to buy the advertised product comes from the parents, not the children (mostly). The point of advertising is to inform and influence a consumer, but in this case, you're manipulating someone who likely doesn't understand the costs involved, who in turn is meant to influence the actual consumer/purchaser, who are themselves cut out of the loop and potentially buying something they don't understand.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#157

Post by rcbdev »

stronglikedan wrote: post #70
citizenpaul wrote: post #41

Is it REALLY that hard for so many people to just stop drinking sugar water? I just don't get it. I can drink a soda or whatever once a year and thats more than enough for me, I usually don't even finish it. Is there something wrong with me or everyone else?

Yes, it's really hard for people that already regularly drink sugar water to quit the sugar water, but it's not very hard for those that don't drink it regularly to abstain indefinitely. The reason is the gut microbome, which drives your cravings. If you regularly drink it, you have more of the types of gut bacteria that consume it, and they tell your brain to give them more. If you don't regularly drink it, you don'…

What a load of bullshit. Don't reduce human willpower and autonomy down to "hurr, durr, muh gut microbiome made me consume the slop". Of course you can refuse to give in to cravings.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#158

Post by Pay08 »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #141
mcmcmc wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all NGOs. Some are actually mission focused and spend their money and effort on direct action instead of policy or advocacy. Do you really think the purpose of Doctors Without Borders is to push an agenda? No. They provide care to those who would otherwise receive none, who would suffer and die from poverty as much as illness.

Unfortunately, there are actually people who believe that DWB's purpose is political. Here's an example from the Times of Israel [0]. [0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/doctors-without-borders-and-th...

The article doesn't back up your comment.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#160

Post by samueljohnson77 »

thegrim33 wrote: post #23
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…

People have to learn to recognize the patterns. In this case, lighthouse reports is an international NGO which receives on the order of ~1MM in income per year (an extremely common pattern for these NGOs), which was directly given to them by (unspecified) government grants and (unnamed) private donors (can see all this in their openly published annual reports). In exchange for the funding (80.38% of which they paid o…

yes learning pattern is the best
Post reply on HN