Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 347 posts

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

#311

Post by Qwertious »

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.…

That's great, people can observe the contents. And now they just need to interpret it, which requires research. What's this "HFCS", and is it good or bad for you?

It's like asking a nonprogrammer to read the source code. Sure, it's right there in front of them, but that doesn't make it useful. The obvious solution - let's require everyone to become a programmer! /s

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

#313

Post by rhizome »

yomly wrote: post #267
yomly wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest - if a cigarette company started selling lung cancer treatment, would you still hold this stance? I would hazard to say that the analogy I've chosen aligns more closely with the stance of the article and the posters taking a condemnatory tone than your Yamaha analogy does.

Don't really understand the downvotes here can people explain why they are downvoting? The parent opinion is that Nestle is a large corporation and they are diversifying their revenue streams as every profit-seeking company is entitled to. The other opinion elsewhere on this thread is that sugar is the enemy and therefore Nestle should be held accountable for first causing a problem then charging people for offering…

as every profit-seeking company is entitled to.

To be sure, this isn't a natural right. The entitlement is entirely a creation of policy and legislation, both of which can be modified or rescinded.

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

#314

Post by Retra »

matwood wrote: post #159
djrobstep wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, they do encourage exactly that. Stating the obvious, the choices people make are a function of the choices available to them.

So we should remove all choice that isn't considered safe? Who decides what is safe?

Safety is something you can actually measure.

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

#315

Post by Retra »

erikb wrote: post #69
mhurron wrote: 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.

Even considerung a possible connection I don't see a problem. That's how business works.

"I don't see a problem with the status quo. That's just how the world works."

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

#317

Post by yomly »

rhizome wrote: post #313
yomly wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't really understand the downvotes here can people explain why they are downvoting? The parent opinion is that Nestle is a large corporation and they are diversifying their revenue streams as every profit-seeking company is entitled to. The other opinion elsewhere on this thread is that sugar is the enemy and therefore Nestle should be held accountable for first causing a problem then charging people for offering…

as every profit-seeking company is entitled to. To be sure, this isn't a natural right. The entitlement is entirely a creation of policy and legislation, both of which can be modified or rescinded.

True, completely agree, but we currently live in a world where the majority of corporations will make profit up until the boundaries of legality.

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

#318

Post by exclusiv »

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…

You make some good points and it may not be a nefarious overall strategy to push sugar and then sell turn around and sell diabetes pills. They pushed sugary foods first so this is more of a hedge if anything. It's a story though.

A brand is a promise kept. What is Nestle's promise if they continue to expand in this manner? It's confusing and consumers don't like to get squeezed at both ends. Maybe they'll eventually transition over to a "a scientifically driven nutrition, health, and wellness company" as mentioned in the article, but that's a massive branding challenge for a 100 yr old company.

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

#320

Post by viraptor »

philh wrote: post #163
viraptor wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example design / civil engineering. Unless we can adjust literally everything to be supported by arbitrary-width any-direction conveyor belt system, we'll have issues with transport. Unless we can easily sell devices that are adaptable to any body shape/position (this goes from "screen for fat fingers" to "can't reach the panel on the wall"), we'll have issues with interfaces. And so on - this applies to thousand…

Broadly, your argument sounds like "people shouldn't become voluntarily disabled because society isn't very good at accommodating disabled people". I feel like we'd become better at accommodating disabled people if there were more of them. And that would be good for people who don't have a choice about their disability. As an example, "large screens for fat fingers" also sounds good for people with poor motor control…

Sure, we'd adjust - we'd have to. But that can be said about every possible change. The level of oceans raises 5m - we'd also adjust. It doesn't mean it's something that makes sense to prepare for right now.

It's not like we don't accommodate disabled people because we hate them. It's because it needs serious redesign everywhere. If every other person became voluntarily disabled today's cities would become unusable. It would likely have a social split between people moving out to suburbs and flat towns and active people who can use existing dense infrastructure. It would have high impact on taxation to support the change. It would have ripple effect on everything.

Now, would this be a net positive change just because we also improved life for those naturally disabled?

Post reply on HN