PepsiCo's CEO Indra Nooyi Was Right. Now What? • Hacker News Board

Re: PepsiCo's CEO Indra Nooyi Was Right. Now What?

#41

Post by gumby » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 7:31 PM UTC

goodJobWalrus wrote: post #25

jkestner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish someone would start a no-added-sugar movement. I have a sweet tooth, but the amount of sugar added to even fruit products disgusts me. Dried mango without sugar costs 2x. Raisin bran does not need more sugar. That's the point of the raisins! I like creamer in my coffee, but I cut it with milk.

Since you mentioned dried fruit twice, I thought you might find interesting that WHO recommends counting dried fruit as added sugar (also honey and natural syrups, such as maple, in addition to what we usually count as added sugar).

My favorite (== most hated) example of this was some soy milk I saw at whole foods. In big letters on the front it said "NO ADDED SUGAR!". Flip the box around and the #2 ingredient was "dehydrated cane juice."

It's no surprise even the CEO of whole foods says most of the stuff they sell is crap. I used to shop at their original two stores in Austin before they decided to expand and they sold a very different class of product.

Re: PepsiCo's CEO Indra Nooyi Was Right. Now What?

#42

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 7:32 PM UTC

juliangregorian wrote: post #38

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do have a choice. If fluoride scares you so much, stop brushing your teeth and buy a water filter. Oh, and eat a diet that has no carbohydrates in it.

Cute answer, but I, along with the entire non-toddler population, don't ingest toothpaste. HN's propensity for "don't like it? Just buy this gadget/start your own company/move to Somalia"-style rhetoric also makes an appearance. I have no idea what you meant with the carbohydrate comment if you wouldn't mind explaining. Oh and thanks for the down vote, but this isn't reddit.

> Cute answer, but I, along with the entire non-toddler population, don't ingest toothpaste.

You do ingest toothpaste, albeit only small amounts. Much like you ingest mouthwash, you just try to keep it to a minimum.

> HN's propensity for "don't like it? Just buy this gadget/start your own company/move to Somalia"-style rhetoric also makes an appearance.

What else can I suggest? In a democratic society that is your choice. You can fight to change the law, or you can work around it.

> I have no idea what you meant with the carbohydrate comment if you wouldn't mind explaining.

Since humans developed agriculture and started consuming large amounts of carbohydrates, they have experienced tooth decay. Fluoride is necessary to prevent it.

> Oh and thanks for the down vote, but this isn't reddit.

This discussion is completely off-topic and your comments are unhelpful. A downvote is justifiable.

Re: PepsiCo's CEO Indra Nooyi Was Right. Now What?

#43

Post by juliangregorian » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 7:34 PM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #34

thomas943 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're interested to know how and why you've been conditioned to think that way, look up Edward Bernays and his involvement with getting fluoride into the water supply of a number of countries. In short, he's known as the father of Public Relations. Fluoride can only legally be disposed of in expensive toxic waste dumps, and Mr. Bernays came up with a plan to dispose of it for free by passing it through the human…

Yes, water fluoridation happened, at least in part, because of large company lobbying. This has no impact on its health benefits, however. For $1 a year, we get less cavities. This isn't marketing bullshit, it's science.

It's not science and just because you know a little bit about computer science doesn't make you qualified to speak about water fluoridation. Several countries have banned water fluoridation for the very reason that after decades and decades there is no causal link between water fluoridation and tooth decay.

Re: PepsiCo's CEO Indra Nooyi Was Right. Now What?

#44

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 7:35 PM UTC

juliangregorian wrote: post #40

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, people aren't listening to your anti-fluoride woo because they're well aware of the situation.

Oh are they? Your edification would be most appreciated in that case.

Public water fluoridation has well-understood health benefits (a reduction in cavities that cannot be achieved through brushing alone). It also has well-understood drawbacks (tooth mottling in high concentrations, toxicity in high concentrations).

Someone participating in this discussion would either know this from general knowledge, or could look it up.

People aren't that ignorant.

Re: PepsiCo's CEO Indra Nooyi Was Right. Now What?

#45

Post by cromulent » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 7:36 PM UTC

thomas943 wrote: post #15

jessaustin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Acidity is bad for teeth, particularly in locations without fluoridated municipal water. Is acidity implicated in any other health problems?

I don't know about acidity, but fluoride has been implicated in many health problems. Here's a list of peer reviewed studies: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=&type=reviews&...

"Sola dosis facit venenum". The dose makes the poison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison

Water fluoridation is at safe levels. Other fluoridation is not. Completely agree.

Re: PepsiCo's CEO Indra Nooyi Was Right. Now What?

#46

Post by adam419 » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 7:39 PM UTC

deelowe wrote: post #13

dylanjermiah wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. I can't put my finger on it but the first 1/4th of the article through me off.

Is there a term for this kind of "journalism?" I've heard it described before as being journalism for journalists or that the journalists have to fill a certain amount of space, so simple articles become wordy and tedious. I see it all the time and hate it, but don't know how to describe it.

Similar to the agency problem except it's not a misalignment between managers and shareholders but between "operators" ie journalists and consumers.

The journalism suits the interest of the journalists and their managers and not the reader.

Re: PepsiCo's CEO Indra Nooyi Was Right. Now What?

#47

Post by juliangregorian » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 7:40 PM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #44

juliangregorian wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh are they? Your edification would be most appreciated in that case.

Public water fluoridation has well-understood health benefits (a reduction in cavities that cannot be achieved through brushing alone). It also has well-understood drawbacks (tooth mottling in high concentrations, toxicity in high concentrations). Someone participating in this discussion would either know this from general knowledge, or could look it up. People aren't that ignorant.

Assume that I am. Sources, please.

Re: PepsiCo's CEO Indra Nooyi Was Right. Now What?

#48

Post by gumby » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 7:41 PM UTC

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #9

I first learned about Nooyl after reading this PA comic trilogy back in '11 http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/01/03 …so nice to hear that her cult is still working out

That comic is right on. I remember being shocked when I met the lead engineer on Pringles. He was understandably quite proud of the engineering problems they'd solved.

I shouldn't have been shocked. He is a food engineer. Sounded like a joke title, but the supermarket shelves have more engineering in them as the shelves of Best Buy.

I threw in the towel and pretty much buy raw food, bread from bakeries that can't afford all the soy supplements etc. The manufactured stuff I guy (bread, butter etc) costs a lot more because the labor content of the food is higher. Luckily I can afford it.

I am morally unclear on the value of the engineered food. On one hand it's true, we have calories and vitamins, fibre etc in the hands of people who in an earlier age couldn't afford it. On the other hand the nutritional value available to poorer people is still lower than the wealthy.

Re: PepsiCo's CEO Indra Nooyi Was Right. Now What?

#49

Post by johnohara » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 7:42 PM UTC

It's breathtaking to consider the amount of shelf-space that Pepsi products occupy. Pepsi, Frito-Lay, Doritos, Tostitos, Gatorade, Aquafina, Tropicana, Quaker Oats, not to mention Lipton, 7-Up, Mountain Dew and Naked. It's a planet with its own gravity and atmosphere.

It takes a special perspective to sell $66B worth of product while blaming consumers for their inability to discern healthy food.

On the plus side tho', their production requirements oftentimes bring state-of-the-art processing facilities to areas lacking in, or in desperate need of, clean water and filtration. Parts of India come to mind.

Re: PepsiCo's CEO Indra Nooyi Was Right. Now What?

#50

Post by JesperRavn » Sun, Jun 07, 2015, 7:44 PM UTC

cromulent wrote: post #39

JesperRavn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are synonyms. The field of economics (the only field that could legitimately claim to give exact definitions to these terms) uses them interchangeably, and tends not to care about classification or exact verbal definitions, but rather focuses on the implications of various mathematical models. If there is ambiguity in a verbal definition, it can be clarified by writing down a mathematical model, not by endless d…

My experience of economics as a social science is the opposite - that it does not relate specifically to mathematical models. For example, the distinction between a mixed economy and pure capitalism is very clear.

In my experience (Economics PhD) the term "command economy" is used to describe a theoretical extreme where the government dictates all consumption and production decisions, while "free market", unqualified, refers to the situation where the government only enforces property rights.

"Pure capitalism" would be a synonym for "free market" although it's rarely used academically, I guess because the term capitalism is a lot less descriptive that "free market".

Terms like "mixed economy" just refer to somewhere in between these two extremes.

As I said, economists are not particularly interested in giving things accurate names, or classifying them. They mighty do this occasionally, as is necessary especially when communicating with people outside the field, but the field itself relies mainly on mathematical models, not sociological categories. That is why I feel the need to correct someone who, speaking with an authoritative tone, claims to know that "free market" and "capitalism" have precise and different meanings.