Big Food vs. the People • Hacker News Board

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#171

Post by diydsp » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 4:30 PM UTC

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…

Sorry but are you saying the article is somehow inadequate bc it's largely about Mexico? Is Big Food expected to be an a USA-only enemy?

I urge you to re-read. there are many more important ideas there.

it's an international story. one of the main points are how much resources are wasted by international governments managing the diseases caused by bad foods and fighting these hundreds of lawsuits.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#172

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 4:37 PM UTC

avazhi wrote: post #154

cogman10 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#173

Post by erikerikson » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 4:55 PM UTC

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…

Right at the top of the article, after the first picture:

> 239 lawsuits were filed between 2010 and 2025 across Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the US, the UK, and India against public health policies targeting food and beverages such as front of pack labelling, regulating advertising junk food to children, soda taxes, and taxes on ultra processed foods.

So the rights would be not to put health labeling on the front of their products, advertise unhealthy food to children, and be untaxed for the health externalities their products create.

Maybe the rest of the article when I read it will give me the same experience but starting to read it after reading your comment, this stuck out like a sore thumb.

[edit: nope, it's a straightforward report on cross border behaviors of food companies]

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#174

Post by cogman10 » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 4:56 PM UTC

Straw wrote: post #145

cogman10 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Grocery store profits aren't larger than any other industry. Nor are they larger than in the past. Large grocery store chains do not have high profit margins. Sure, the total profit may be large if you run 1000 grocery stores. What do you mean by they are the wealthiest in the nation? None of the richest people in the world built their fortunes on groceries? Price fixing is a phenomenon. Anti trust is a policy agenda…

> None of the richest people in the world built their fortunes on groceries?

The Waltons (Walmart) aren't some of the richest people in the world?

> What entity would carry out the proposed agenda, when the parties supposedly fixing are in different countries?

Few can, to be fair. The US and the EU are some of the few that can due to the size of the markets underneath them. A company getting excluded from their markets is enough for them not to want to risk anti-trust enforcement.

China can to some extent as well, which is why you see the likes of Hollywood bending over backwards to meet Chinese standards in media. It's a large enough market that they don't want to miss out.

> How long did the fixing agreement last successfuly?

I see no reason they wouldn't have gone on indefinitely. The only thing that ultimately ended them and caused the busts was antitrust enforcement.

> Could you give an example of a cartel maintaining their position without heavy government help?

Modern examples are few and far between, and that's because the historic examples failed to use their money to buy off enough government officials to cement their positions.

Standard Oil would be an example of this. They did spend money to avoid being regulated, but they didn't ultimately use that to push policies and laws to cement their position in the market. They simply bought out competitors as they rose up.

Bell Labs/AT&T is another example that didn't use their influence to cement their position. They got their monopoly fairly naturally. The closest you could argue is they got utilities access laws passed by the government.

An even older example would be the East India Company. They became so big that they actually took over land and established themselves as a government. Basically the only reason they fell was because of an armed rebellion.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#175

Post by AlotOfReading » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 5:02 PM UTC

Pay08 wrote: post #158

AlotOfReading wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure how you can read the article and think it isn't arguing MSF/DWB is political. A few quotes:

    Hamas operatives in Gaza hospitals, failure to screen out terrorists, and politicized leadership erode the Nobel Prize-winning aid group’s claim to neutrality

    While continuing to invoke the language of medical neutrality, its rhetoric has become overtly politicized, most notably in its discourse on Israel.

    From medical neutrality to political advocacy

    This ideological position has also been reinforced at the highest level of MSF’s international leadership.

    That silence leaves the international community to ask whether MSF is advocating for Palestinians or functioning as a humanitarian façade through which terror is laundered by the moral authority of humanitarian medicine.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#176

Post by arthurjj » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 5:43 PM UTC

erikerikson wrote: post #173

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…

Right at the top of the article, after the first picture: > 239 lawsuits were filed between 2010 and 2025 across Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the US, the UK, and India against public health policies targeting food and beverages such as front of pack labelling, regulating advertising junk food to children, soda taxes, and taxes on ultra processed foods. So the rights would be not to put health labeling on the front of th…

To be clear my issue is with the reporting, not the policies

Starting your article with "We expose Big Food’s 239 lawsuits against life-saving policies" especially when a quick google shows it doesn't appear to work [1], isn't good reporting

Similarly "such as" in the quoted sentence implies that they're leaving out a public policy, I have to assume it's in one of 1/5 cases the government hasn't won. But they don't talk about that

[1] https://archive.is/UPdWg#selection-1493.0-1498.0

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#177

Post by overtone1000 » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 5:59 PM UTC

shermantanktop wrote: post #42

thegrim33 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you are saying "an NGO probably has an agenda." Ok, sure, they are not robots with no opinions, and if you read even the first few sentences of that report you can see the opinion. But if you are suggesting that this NGO is carrying water for some unspecified shadowy group that is pulling the strings, you'll need to provide some backing for that. Who has a nefarious motivation to oppose junk food? Trial lawye…

Up vote for Big Celery.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#178

Post by erikerikson » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 6:24 PM UTC

arthurjj wrote: post #176

erikerikson wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right at the top of the article, after the first picture: > 239 lawsuits were filed between 2010 and 2025 across Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the US, the UK, and India against public health policies targeting food and beverages such as front of pack labelling, regulating advertising junk food to children, soda taxes, and taxes on ultra processed foods. So the rights would be not to put health labeling on the front of th…

To be clear my issue is with the reporting, not the policies Starting your article with "We expose Big Food’s 239 lawsuits against life-saving policies" especially when a quick google shows it doesn't appear to work [1], isn't good reporting Similarly "such as" in the quoted sentence implies that they're leaving out a public policy, I have to assume it's in one of 1/5 cases the government hasn't won. But they don't t…

> doesn't appear to work

I'd be sceptical of that claim. Public health interventions often have long time frames. For example the fairly successful campaign against tobacco.

> implies that they're leaving out

Maybe. Or they are just summarizing.

You seem to be working hard to find nefarious efforts in this public health messaging.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#179

Post by Straw » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 6:25 PM UTC

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #117

Straw wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sure. The most straightforward example would be utilities in much of the US. Companies like PG&E are literally granted a monopoly in a region.

Another example would be epipens. There is a competitor, but unlike most drugs, if the doctor prescribes you an epipen, the pharmacy can't give you a generic substitute, it must be name brand.

Tesla is being heavily protected from Chinese competitors by US auto tariffs.

Credit Ratings agencies (in large part responsible for 2008 crash) have direct government granted status.

Taxi medallions, Jones act, sugar tariffs.

These are the ones that come to mind right away, but there's a whole slew of stuff- any regulation that's easier for a big business to comply with than a small competitor, for example. Even worse if the big business manages to influence the regulation to enhance this effect. Personally I'd guess Boeing is an example of this; yes, aviation does have high capital costs but I suspect that FAA regulation + Boeing cozy relationship makes it much harder for new entrants. Of course, this isn't to say the FAA regulation isn't helpful or doesn't improve air safety, just that it also has this effect.

Re: Big Food vs. the People

#180

Post by ElProlactin » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 6:38 PM UTC

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…

> People have to learn to recognize the patterns.

Indeed, including the pattern of your ridiculous comment.

> 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 out to themselves as wages/compensation), they put together and release "reports", "studies", etc., that push the messaging the NGO was created to push.

The 2025 report is here:

https://www.lighthousereports.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06...

Grant income was €2,499,181.

Compensation for the core team was €1,342,778. There are ~32 people listed as core team, so that works out to about €42,000/person. Salaries & wages (ostensibly for the management) was €291,661. It looks like 3 people and if that's correct, it works out to ~€97,000/person.

An additional €208,726 was paid to freelancers on projects, and it looks like they had over 10 different "projects" during the year.

Anyone with an iota of common sense can see: nobody is getting rich from this. The vast majority of people doing this type of work don't do it unless they have a non-monetary motivation/interest.

> ...they put together and release "reports", "studies", etc., that push the messaging the NGO was created to push.

Yes, "studies" like https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/syrias-stole..., which revealed that a major European NGO running children's orphanages was apparently knowingly taking in children who had been kidnapped by Bashar al-Assad in an effort to coerce their parents to cooperate with his regime.

But I'm sure you think there's a nefarious intent behind this type of reporting?