Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by hinkley » Mon, May 09, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #118

jensen123 wrote: post #72

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…

> Why does this happen? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_point_(food) > There can be only one explanation Why/how have you arrived at this conclusion? > it's always framed as if "big evil corporations" is the whole problem So, you have evidence of food that shouldn't have sugar in it but does in fact have sugar anyway. And you conclude that it's the consumer's fault, because they're stupid, and not the company t…

I'm really having a hard time with the cognitive dissonance in our society that says that optimizing to the Bliss Point is okay, but putting additives in cigarettes to make them more addictive is bad.

They are motivated by the exact same desire and goal. If we're gonna rake Phillip Morris for it we should be doing the same to Kraft, Nabisco and Nestle.

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

#232

Post by hinkley » Mon, May 09, 2016, 5:23 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #162

mulletbum wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel that a consumer is responsible for what they put in their body? If they never tasted the food, they would miss out on this "marketing." The fact remains, if those manufacturers have always produced their beans with sugar, then they should not be at fault. If those companies changed their recipe to contain sugar after they found people grey addicted to it, there should be a label to warn the consumer that…

>Do you feel that a consumer is responsible for what they put in their body? Of course. But the average consumer is not only at a disadvantage, they are regularly deceived into believing that unhealthy foods are in fact healthy. In reality, culpability is a complex calculation that passes through the farmer, the food processor, the manufacturer, the ad firm, the grocer, the consumer, and any other party involved in t…

And parents. We learn many of our bad food habits when we're under the care of an adult.

That's the great thing about marketing a habit forming product. The parents end up doing your advertising for you!

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

#233

Post by unclebucknasty » Mon, May 09, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #162

mulletbum wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel that a consumer is responsible for what they put in their body? If they never tasted the food, they would miss out on this "marketing." The fact remains, if those manufacturers have always produced their beans with sugar, then they should not be at fault. If those companies changed their recipe to contain sugar after they found people grey addicted to it, there should be a label to warn the consumer that…

>Do you feel that a consumer is responsible for what they put in their body? Of course. But the average consumer is not only at a disadvantage, they are regularly deceived into believing that unhealthy foods are in fact healthy. In reality, culpability is a complex calculation that passes through the farmer, the food processor, the manufacturer, the ad firm, the grocer, the consumer, and any other party involved in t…

>someone should be able to carefully select healthy foods, the evident reality is that people aren't able to do so

You are conflating people's ability to select healthy foods with their desire to do so. There is no lack of information regarding eating healthy, at least here in the U.S.

It's just that people frequently eat what they like and, then, too much of it.

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

#234

Post by wahsd » Mon, May 09, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

I wonder if it will ever hit the mainstream that Nestle put plastic filler in jar baby food in order to drive sales as babies would need to eat more baby food because they would simply pass the plastics. If anyone's interested in pursuing the story, they funded research into how much plastic could be added without causing health problems.

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

#235

Post by hinkley » Mon, May 09, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #150

jensen123 wrote: post #72

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 ingredien…

Median means it's okay to trick nearly half of the population. I think we can do a little better than that.

Aren't there laws on the books that define what the minimum mental faculty is to be an independent adult? And below that point a relative can assert power of attorney/legal guardianship over you?

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

#236

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, May 09, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #233

cookiecaper wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you feel that a consumer is responsible for what they put in their body? Of course. But the average consumer is not only at a disadvantage, they are regularly deceived into believing that unhealthy foods are in fact healthy. In reality, culpability is a complex calculation that passes through the farmer, the food processor, the manufacturer, the ad firm, the grocer, the consumer, and any other party involved in t…

> someone should be able to carefully select healthy foods, the evident reality is that people aren't able to do so You are conflating people's ability to select healthy foods with their desire to do so. There is no lack of information regarding eating healthy, at least here in the U.S. It's just that people frequently eat what they like and, then, too much of it.

> There is no lack of information regarding eating healthy

There's a very high noise-to-signal ratio in information purporting to be about eating healthy, with considerable investment in misinformation by commercially interested parties. So, while it is in one sense true that there is not a lack of information, that should not be taken to mean that it is simple for laypeople to get and identify accurate information on which to make healthy eating decisions.

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

#237

Post by Kluny » Mon, May 09, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #210

cisstrd wrote: post #155

Nestle is a very big company making all kinds of products, and since ever more people are following the health and fitness craze, there are so many people obsessed with health, they want to profit from it. They want to adjust their company in order to guarantee future profits, that's actually (a) the most normal thing in the world and (b) a form of following consumer's choice and wishes. I don't see how selling sugar…

First of all, diabetes pills are not really 'health products.' They are more like 'you fucked up your health, now try not to die' products. Even Nestle's low-fat and low-sugar "foods" are a far cry from "health products." You are being disingenuous by conflating the two, or even for suggesting that Nestle is in the business of selling "health products." Beyond that, however, I see a pretty big flaw in your reasoning…

There's no conflict in being a capitalist and thinking that Nestle shouldn't get a pass. They are recipients of government welfare in the form of those SNAP subsidies, since the crap they sell is the only thing people on SNAP can afford to buy in bulk. That's not capitalism, it's just theft.

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

#238

Post by hinkley » Mon, May 09, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

fucking_tragedy wrote: post #160

jensen123 wrote: post #72

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…

The truth is you can add enough corn syrup, fat and salt to pretty much any cheap low quality ingredient to make palatable. Often, the available or cheaper option is not the healthiest. I don't blame consumers for having to make that trade off. Personally, to find products that I enjoy that aren't loaded with sugar beyond reason (29g vs an equally enjoyable 6g per serving?), I had to visit four shops. That's not some…

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

#239

Post by kedean » Mon, May 09, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

trbvm2 wrote: post #114

Nagyman wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit harsh to make a blanket statement about intelligence; people just need information which isn't being readily provided or is being drowned out with too much information. The collective actions seem counterintuitive to people paying attention, but paying attention requires time - which doesn't come easily if a swath of the population is busy with two part-time jobs and recovering with reality TV in the meantime.

"people just need information which isn't being readily provided" The breakdown of the nutritional value of every food stuff is literally right in front of the consumer's face. I'm not sure information availability is a core issue there. It takes less time to check a food label than it does to respond to a text message or check Facebook. If I had to guess I would say prioritization and budgeting are core issues here.…

"It takes less time to check a food label than it does to respond to a text message or check Facebook"

That's a pretty ridiculous counter. Multiply that by the dozens to hundreds of items a person buys in a single grocery trip, and you might have a valid comparison. It's true that this would be mostly a one time cost, as you would start to learn what is good and what is not, but the fact still stands that it is not as quick as checking a text message.

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

#240

Post by cookiecaper » Mon, May 09, 2016, 5:43 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #233

cookiecaper wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you feel that a consumer is responsible for what they put in their body? Of course. But the average consumer is not only at a disadvantage, they are regularly deceived into believing that unhealthy foods are in fact healthy. In reality, culpability is a complex calculation that passes through the farmer, the food processor, the manufacturer, the ad firm, the grocer, the consumer, and any other party involved in t…

> someone should be able to carefully select healthy foods, the evident reality is that people aren't able to do so You are conflating people's ability to select healthy foods with their desire to do so. There is no lack of information regarding eating healthy, at least here in the U.S. It's just that people frequently eat what they like and, then, too much of it.

No, I disagree. Foods are regularly marketed as healthy when they are in fact unhealthy. Labeling is frequently deceptive. Foods that are well-known to be healthy, like fruits and vegetables, are modified to accommodate preferred taste profiles.

Go to Walmart and look at the maple syrup section. You'll see about 8 SKUs that claim to be "Syrup", meaning they're just a viscuous fluid, but cleverly omit the actual term "maple" (while showing pictures of things usually associated with maple syrup). These products are called "syrup" but they're not related to real syrup in any way. They are literally dyed sugar water. If you look in the rightmost corner of the topmost aisle, you'll find a glass bottle that costs like $8 and contains real maple syrup. The rest is crap that costs $3-4. The people who buy Aunt Jemima's and the other brands of syrup usually believe they are buying maple syrup, a naturally-occurring food that our ancestors successfully consumed without growing into 400 pound hamplanets. But they're not.

Now, repeat this for every type of food at Walmart.

We need to admit there is a real systemic problem here that is not as simple as individual gluttony. It is not at all true that obese people eat 40 Snickers a day, which is what many fat-person-hate types seem to believe.