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

#301

Post by Larrikin » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:40 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #240

unclebucknasty wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't think anyone or very few people believe that Aunt Jemima's is real maple syrup. Its popular number one because its cheap.

I'm probably in the minority but I can afford real maple syrup and buy Aunt Jemima's because I actually prefer the taste of it over maple syrup, not because I'm misinformed.

A better example of deceptive marketing would be Breyer's "ice cream" in the US having half of their flavors not legally allowed to be called ice cream anymore sold next to the real ice cream and their few remaining flavors that are actually ice cream with the same packaging.

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

#302

Post by cookiecaper » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:40 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #276

wnevets wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That fact is now being used against you, and all of us, in a big conspiracy called "marketing". addiction would be a better term IMO.

Marketing is spot on. It's funny how people seem to know this, and yet don't realize it in practice - most of marketing is actively malicious. It's not like a law of physics which you can understand and then learn to work around; marketing is done by humans who have decades of psychological research, hundreds of years of honed best practices and many billions of dollars of budget annually within the industry; you can…

I think most marketers believe that the products they're marketing have at least some valuable properties, and that their job is to ensure everyone understands what those properties are. That the product may, in some cases, be improperly used or applied is an implicit technicality that the consumer should understand and accommodate even if those improper uses are not highlighted in the marketing.

I think it's inappropriate to say that most marketing is actively malicious. I will agree that much of it is uncomfortable. I've lost a lot of business due to reticence to get into the mud on this, but I think I'm at the point where I believe it's a necessary evil that has to be engaged in, but handled with as much finesse and decency as possible.

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

#303

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:42 PM UTC

linker3000 wrote: post #223

madengr wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditto for pasta sauce. Difficult to find ones that don't have sugar. Only one at my grocery store despite a shelf full of various brands.

I make my own - start with a tin of decent quality tomatoes and go from there. No sugar needed.

Preferably tomatoes grown in volcanic soil, like San Marzanos.

It is well worth buying one can of several different brands of tomato sold in your locale, and making experimental taste-test batches with all other variables held constant. With good quality inputs, you can beat the pre-made jarred marinaras every single time, using nothing more than a very basic recipe and a minimum of cooking skill.

Exercise caution. Once you know how to make a good sauce, you will never be able to stand eating at Olive Garden again.

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

#304

Post by scalio » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

linker3000 wrote: post #223

madengr wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditto for pasta sauce. Difficult to find ones that don't have sugar. Only one at my grocery store despite a shelf full of various brands.

I make my own - start with a tin of decent quality tomatoes and go from there. No sugar needed.

Bingo.

I've come to realise myself, cooking something very edible is not hard. Buy a physical cook book so as to not get distracted on the internet, and just try some things. The first couple tries at a new recipe might turn out slightly weird, so what? You'll still get the satisfaction of having produced something yourself, it won't kill you, and it'll be a whole lot healthier than ordering or microwaving fast food. Plus you'll know exactly what's in it because you put it there.

Should you ever not have time to stand around in the kitchen, a loaf of bread, some jam and ham should do it. Add in some bacon, spread, whatever, and you've got dinner ready to go in the time it takes to take all of that out of the fridge. Heck, slice a couple pickles! There's so many ways to eat well and tasty if you just try for a moment.

Though of course, not getting fucked over by your ingredients requires you to look at them before buying. Hoo-hah.

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

#305

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

shawn-furyan wrote: post #245

The offerings of humongous multinational conglomerations are not coherent. You could generate stories of this type all day, because the offerings of the likes of Nestle, GE, J&J, P&G, Coca-Cola, et. al. are the results of the efforts of hundreds of thousands of employees (for each conglomerate) subdivided into thousands of business units [read sub-companies], each with its own goals, challenges, and many existing wit…

On one level I agree with you, but the whole point of a corporate structure is to give a collective effort the legal identity of an individual so that administrative efficiency and profit can be maximized. It's no coincidence that virtually every stock-based corporation has a strictly hierarchical governance structure culminating in the office of a chief executive, notwithstanding the existence of boards and presidents. these chief executives are paid staggering amounts of money in return for managing the wealth and activities of the corporation productively.

Yet when we find examples of a large corporation creating a vicious circle with easily observable negative externalities, suddenly a corporation is a diffuse network of different products and market actors which is impossible to control, manage, or monitor, and whose activities must not be interfered with at the behest of regulators or the public itself, lest some intangible market equilibrium be disturbed.

It seems to me that this is an example of investors wishing to have their cake and eat it. Either they want the potential of high profits driven by a singular business vision...and which incurs responsibility for outcomes commensurate with the degree of executive authority available to the management, or they want a maximally free market of atomistic competition that is not subject to the whims of trusts, conglomerates and so on. Society cannot afford both options.

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

#306

Post by cookiecaper » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:45 PM UTC

Larrikin wrote: post #301

cookiecaper wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think anyone or very few people believe that Aunt Jemima's is real maple syrup. Its popular number one because its cheap. I'm probably in the minority but I can afford real maple syrup and buy Aunt Jemima's because I actually prefer the taste of it over maple syrup, not because I'm misinformed. A better example of deceptive marketing would be Breyer's "ice cream" in the US having half of their flavors not leg…

I'll admit that I don't have any real source for the claim that most people think "maple syrup" is maple syrup. I only have anecdotes and assumptions. It is certainly possible that most people already understand that "maple syrup" is not really maple syrup in the same way that it's understood things labeled "juice" are not really juice unless there's some additional indicator of authenticity.

My personal intuition is that people probably assume some sweeteners and preservatives are added but that somewhere in there, there is an actual base of maple syrup, meaning some product that is derived from the sap of a maple tree. In fact, however, there is not.

To be totally honest, I don't think any hard study on this subject would be any more useful than my anecdotes, assumptions, and intuitions because I think the chance that it would be manipulated by people with an interest in one outcome or another is too high.

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

#307

Post by vkou » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:46 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #275

gerardnll wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Spain we say "Pan para hoy, hambre para mañana". Which literally translated would mean "Bread for today, hunger tomorrow". Eat cheap and in the future your health will be paying for that, and it will be more expensive than eating healthy during your life.

This is the kind of advice the rich can follow. For the poor, it's not a choice between cheap/bad and expensive/good, it's the choice between cheap/bad and death from starvation right now.

Death from starvation isn't exactly a widespread problem in the developed world. Homelessness is the more realistic outcome.

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

#308

Post by gukov » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:55 PM UTC

lloyddobbler wrote: post #254

bduerst wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of the cause of the diabetes endemic is Nestle though? Isn't lack of nutritional education more to blame? It's easy to come down hard on the smoking industry due to the chemically addictive nature and serious health hazards of the product, but there are many consumers who moderate their fat and sugar intake. And then there are diabetics who don't consume any Nestle products - so why can't they be given treat…

Agreed. As someone with Type 1 diabetes (look up the difference if you don't know), I'm always interested in this distinction. Sugary foods neither "give people" nor cause Type 2 diabetes. A person consistently consuming too many sugary foods over a long period of time causes themselves to be at higher risk for Type 2 diabetes. Cigarettes are a different beast, due to the chemically-addictive nature of them (although…

I'm also T1 and I think that sugar definitely plays a role in both T1 and T2. Sugar directly interacts with pancreas, consumption of sugar has skyrocketed, diabetes rates have skyrocketed. The official word on T1D is that we don't know what exactly causes it, it's not "sugar definitely doesn't cause it."

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

#309

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, May 09, 2016, 10:05 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #307

TeMPOraL wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the kind of advice the rich can follow. For the poor, it's not a choice between cheap/bad and expensive/good, it's the choice between cheap/bad and death from starvation right now.

Death from starvation isn't exactly a widespread problem in the developed world. Homelessness is the more realistic outcome.

You're right. It doesn't change the calculation much though - especially when we're thinking about poor families; feeding yourself or your children badly is suboptimal, but it beats the hell out of raising them on the street or giving up to the foster care.

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

#310

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, May 09, 2016, 10:21 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #302

TeMPOraL wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marketing is spot on. It's funny how people seem to know this, and yet don't realize it in practice - most of marketing is actively malicious. It's not like a law of physics which you can understand and then learn to work around; marketing is done by humans who have decades of psychological research, hundreds of years of honed best practices and many billions of dollars of budget annually within the industry; you can…

I think most marketers believe that the products they're marketing have at least some valuable properties, and that their job is to ensure everyone understands what those properties are. That the product may, in some cases, be improperly used or applied is an implicit technicality that the consumer should understand and accommodate even if those improper uses are not highlighted in the marketing. I think it's inappro…

The system is actively malicious - maybe not in the sense that it goes out of its way to be evil, but definitely in a sense that it's not a static system. It's not like gravity that always points you down and that you can learn to work around; it's constantly adapting, evolving and adjusting to be more effective at exploiting your weak sides. When we invented aeroplanes, the force of gravity did not suddenly triple. But marketing does react to people learning to work around its influence.

> I think most marketers believe that the products they're marketing have at least some valuable properties, and that their job is to ensure everyone understands what those properties are. That the product may, in some cases, be improperly used or applied is an implicit technicality that the consumer should understand and accommodate even if those improper uses are not highlighted in the marketing.

Sure, in many cases it is true, and in some cases the product in fact has a lot of valuable properties and marketing may do a fair work of informing about them. But more often than not it is not the case.

My experience of working alongside marketing people (as a programmer who got transferred to a sales&marketing company) is that quite often they tune out the "irrelevant" issues like "is this product actually useful at all?" and focus on technicalities - on how to get people to buy it. So they may expound various features of the product and construct elaborate use cases, while conveniently ignoring that compared to the competition, the product is crap, or that the whole product idea is something the customer is better off staying away from.

(Oh and BTW, the amount of bullshiting I saw in social media marketing is beyond belief; I think I'll have to write a post about it one day. My experiences led me to believe that a lot of business happening in Internet marketing is people who understand absolutely nothing about maths & statistics using complex tools to bullshit themselves as well as their customers, who don't understand squat about statistics either, so the money flows, everyone is happy, but nothing of actual substance is happening for anyone.)

> I've lost a lot of business due to reticence to get into the mud on this, but I think I'm at the point where I believe it's a necessary evil that has to be engaged in, but handled with as much finesse and decency as possible.

Yeah, I understand. It's something you have to engage in - because everyone else does too, and those who refrain from it get outcompeted by those who don't. Personally, I value what you call "finesse and decency", as well as honesty, and try to gravitate towards people and companies not afraid to tell me their product may not be a best fit for my current use case.