Live data from Hacker News

Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

bloomberg.com

141–150 of 347 posts

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#141

Yamaha wants to sell you noise-canceling headphones, and a motorcycle.

Although most people know Yamaha as a manufacturer of motor bikes and possibly electronics its origins are in manufacturing music instruments.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_Corporation

"Yamaha was established in 1887 as a piano and reed organ manufacturer by Torakusu Yamaha as Nippon Gakki Company, Limited (日本楽器製造株式会社 Nippon Gakki Seizō Kabushiki Kaisha?) (literally Japan Musical Instrument Manufacturing Corporation) in Hamamatsu, Shizuoka prefecture and was incorporated on October 12, 1897. The company's origins as a musical instrument manufacturer are still reflected today in the group's logo—a trio of interlocking tuning forks"

Today it's the world's largest manufacturer of music instruments. The range covers just about anything on which you can play a tune.

Branching into motorcycles and electronics happened only after WWII.

So, yeah, they probably know a thing or two about acoustics.

Edit : Better legibility

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#142

The other day I went to buy some canned refried beans. When I read the label, I noticed that it contained refined sugar. WTF?!? There should be no need for sugar in refried beans! After recovering from the shock, I went to another grocery store, where I found refried beans without sugar. Why does this happen? Obviously, sugar tastes good. That has to be why companies add it to all sorts of things. However, if most pe…

There are many other explanations.

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#143
post #123

The other day I went to buy some canned refried beans. When I read the label, I noticed that it contained refined sugar. WTF?!? There should be no need for sugar in refried beans! After recovering from the shock, I went to another grocery store, where I found refried beans without sugar. Why does this happen? Obviously, sugar tastes good. That has to be why companies add it to all sorts of things. However, if most pe…

This is the equivalent of RTFM or the 15 page terms of service documents that no one can possibly read. Sure it makes sense in some cases but you can't use it as an excuse to shift the burden to the consumer however you like.

15 page terms of service document versus an easy to read table that lists sugar, salt and fat content of a product?

It is my view that companies have the obligation to make information available about their products and do so in an easy-to-read manner, everything else is consumer's choice. Your comparison lacks relevance in my opinion.

(and in cases where someone asks stupid questions, which can be easily answered by looking in the manual page, yes... please read it...)

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#144
post #10

Diabetes is not always a byproduct of over consuming sugar and a company producing sugary snacks and diabetes pills does not force or even encourage over consumption of sugar. I don't see what the actual problem is.

> Diabetes is not always a byproduct of over consuming sugar

Refined carbs in general are the big issue, but sugar in particular is a very large part of the problem. It's difficult to buy any processed food that doesn't contain sugar these days.

> or even encourage over consumption of sugar

They market sugar-laden foods to children, such as sickly-sweet breakfast cereals - IMO they do encourage over consumption of sugar.

> I don't see what the actual problem is

I think the problem with Nestle doing both of these things is that it creates a pretty clear conflict of interest - to maximise revenue, they need to sell as many sugar laden products as they can, so they can sell more much diabetes medication.

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#145
post #102
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What, let a company supply a substance to intentionally harm people so they can sell them a cure?" Let's not forget our history here, since it wasn't exactly all that long ago. For decades, the consensus has been that the root cause of dietary issues is excessive fat in the diet, not sugar. Sugar was on the top of the food pyramid not because it was "bad" for you, but merely because it displaced other better things.…

the root cause of dietary issues is excessive fat in the diet, not sugar. Anything excessive in the diet will lead to gaining weight and eventually to obesity. I can not say which will lead to diabetes faster, consuming extra 1000 calories daily in fat or in sugar, but in terms of fat gain results will be similar. The government recommendations are most unfortunate, as they concentrate on macronutrients. So when *fat…

Do you think you're disagreeing with me somehow? My post was about history. Giving me an example of someone concretely stating some modern opinion doesn't change history. Even if you are totally correct, which I do not stipulate, you're opinions are still recent.

Having made sure to stay focused on my core point, I'm going to point out that you're basically begging the question. The model of diabetes as unrelated to the form of incoming calories is the standard model, and that is specifically what is being questioned. Basically just reiterating the standard model isn't really an argument. And it's not that hard to imagine that sugar really is related when we are discussing the mechanism the body uses to regulate sugar. Specifically sugar, the pancreas is not responsible for regulating some sort of ontological "generic obesity particles".

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#146

The other day I went to buy some canned refried beans. When I read the label, I noticed that it contained refined sugar. WTF?!? There should be no need for sugar in refried beans! After recovering from the shock, I went to another grocery store, where I found refried beans without sugar. Why does this happen? Obviously, sugar tastes good. That has to be why companies add it to all sorts of things. However, if most pe…

On a vaguely related note, Mars Foods is planning on changing its labeling to indicate approx how often you should eat their products [1].

This was most likely a preemptive move on their part, presumably to counter the anti-sugar law being mooted in the UK.

My guess is that their argument will be that people should have the choice to eat unhealthily as long as they do it in moderation. If so, I would tend to agree but I think I'm inclined to moan about a lack of personal responsibility so I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36051333

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#147

The other day I went to buy some canned refried beans. When I read the label, I noticed that it contained refined sugar. WTF?!? There should be no need for sugar in refried beans! After recovering from the shock, I went to another grocery store, where I found refried beans without sugar. Why does this happen? Obviously, sugar tastes good. That has to be why companies add it to all sorts of things. However, if most pe…

> However, if most people were like me, ...

My teacher always said: Imagine the most average american citizen. Then realize that half of the american population is dumber that.

Really brings things in perspective.

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#148
post #2

It's the Wall-e Scenario. If we can find a way to continue to consume cheap, shelf-stable, nutrient-dense food; while at the same time repairing our bodies from the side effects, we can be fat blobs living and consuming and growing the economy. And whether that's unilaterally a bad thing may not be a settled question. The top 5 drugs in the US[1] are remedies for problems caused by advanced society - a statin, antaci…

We will probably become fatter and at the same time remain very unhappy about it. People don't get sexually attracted by fat people.

I know this may come as a shock, but any one person's specific sexual preferences aren't always universal.

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#149
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure they'd say something like that, but it is false. People were not eating gobs of sugar for breakfast until someone came up with sweetened breakfast cereal and marketed it.

I used to eat a lot of sweets when I was young. Not for breakfast, because that's not the customary here, but at all other times. I liked that stuff. As I grew older, I lost my taste for all that. I have seen this pattern in so many other people too. Kids like sweet stuff. As long as they are active and are in the normal weight range, I don't see any reason to discourage it either, except at night, after brushing tee…

> As long as they are active and are in the normal weight range, I don't see any reason to discourage it either

Diabetes is a pretty good reason.

Re: Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

#150

The other day I went to buy some canned refried beans. When I read the label, I noticed that it contained refined sugar. WTF?!? There should be no need for sugar in refried beans! After recovering from the shock, I went to another grocery store, where I found refried beans without sugar. Why does this happen? Obviously, sugar tastes good. That has to be why companies add it to all sorts of things. However, if most pe…

Wherever the baseline intelligence quotient of John Q. Public sits on an absolute scale, when we're discussing something as critical and universal as food distribution, it should be pretty easy to accept that, at a minimum, the median IQ should be accommodated. It should be easy for the consumer to understand what's in the food he's going to eat. Manually picking up every food item and reviewing the list of ingredients by hand in the middle of grocery store does not comport with this; this is a matter of efficiency more than a lack of the intellectual faculty to process a list of ingredients (though when half of those ingredients are impenetrable chemical names that only commercial food chemists understand, it makes even more sense to skip it).

Lament the average consumer's lack of gross intelligence all you want, but the fact is that it's irrelevant in this circumstance. Food distribution should be accessible and understandable by nearly all adults, and if it's not, it's a systemic failure, not an individual one.

This is especially true now that all of the food for sale in a typical grocery store is altered by chemists. This artificial manipulation should cause us to be more careful about food, not less.

It is absolutely true that nearly every food item in the mainstream grocery store contains superfluous sugar, including foods that you wouldn't expect or think about. While many stores will carry one or two SKUs of a particular product without sugar, you have to be really careful to pick out the right one. For instance, canned pears come "in heavy syrup" (i.e., drenched in sugar) by default. They also offer pears in "light syrup" (i.e., sugar added). There are various combinations of heavy/light syrup canned pear offerings, and then, at the very back, you may luck out and find one can of pears "in water".

These aren't Oreos -- people are buying canned fruits and vegetables because they are trying to be healthy, and the corporate grocers are pulling a fast one on them by dumping large helpings of sugar into everything to try to make the food more addictive (and thereby, increase sales).

Corporate profiteering absolutely plays a massive role in the obesity epidemic. Discounting that is playing into their hands at the peril of public health.

Post reply on HN