Financial News

[Balta1701]

Logically this makes no sense. It's going to cost the company more money to put more additives into their products. I'm sure this is based on geographical considerations and regulations.

And yet, here we are, the thing you say shouldn't make sense is exactly the world we live in. Those preservatives and gunk are just that cheap these days, particularly since the taxpayer covers a large chunk of them.

 

This is why we can do better.

[Balta1701]

But I want it to be INSTANT with PEACHES & CREAM and I want it to contain NOTHING BUT ORIGINAL, GOD-INTENDED OATMEAL.

Like I said, you've basically summed up the product that gets sold in the rest of the world.

 

I don't mind some processing in foods, I actually like the convenience, and I'm not going to complain about that. All I'm saying is...we can do better, but we don't, and the reason why we don't winds up being the management and investors who run the manufacturers.

[Balta1701]

Oh, and just because we're kind of on the subject...

This also happened.

[Jenksismyhero]

Oh, and just because we're kind of on the subject...

This also happened.

 

They took one product, made it into another, different tasting product, it was hugely successful. So now they're creating a third new product. What's wrong with that?

[Balta1701]

They took one product, made it into another, different tasting product, it was hugely successful. So now they're creating a third new product. What's wrong with that?

You can't even find that to be hilarious?

[Jake]

But Balta, Quaker sells the less processed version more cheaply and in larger quantities.

[Jenksismyhero]

You can't even find that to be hilarious?

 

Well, I think it's pathetic more than hilarious, but I see the humor in it.

[Balta1701]

But Balta, Quaker sells the less processed version more cheaply and in larger quantities.

They could make a better version of the convenience product, they do right now overseas, and they choose not to do so.

[Jenksismyhero]

They could make a better version of the convenience product, they do right now overseas, and they choose not to do so.

 

How do you know that's not because of regulations or shipping considerations? Why are you assuming it's because of a financial choice to make more money (which still makes no sense since they have to pay extra to put the extra crap in the product)

[StrangeSox]

Along this line but much more important than oatmeal is pharmaceutical research. We had stagnated antibiotic development for over 20 years because there's not enough profit motive there, yet clearly we have a huge social motive.

 

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08...-drug-companies

 

Market forces are great in some instances, but there are very clear limitations.

[StrangeSox]

How do you know that's not because of regulations or shipping considerations? Why are you assuming it's because of a financial choice to make more money (which still makes no sense since they have to pay extra to put the extra crap in the product)

I was trying to find some explanation (because I have no idea why they differentiate), and came across this:

 

http://www.100daysofrealfood.com/2013/02/1...ther-countries/

 

Obviously a source with an agenda, but it appears that many preservatives used in US foods are banned elsewhere.

 

another on the difference between US and UK chocolate:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-chocolate.html

 

and one on chicken mcnuggets

 

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/25/a...e-of-2-nuggets/

 

and one on nutrigrain

 

http://blog.fooducate.com/2010/12/02/nutri...than-europeans/

 

 

 

So most other places don't allow food companies to put s***loads of chemicals into their processed foods, but we're cool with that here.

Edited March 28, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

How do you know that's not because of regulations or shipping considerations? Why are you assuming it's because of a financial choice to make more money (which still makes no sense since they have to pay extra to put the extra crap in the product)

If the problem is that US Regulations require way too many preservatives in the product...then clearly we have one helluva major policy issue in this country...and if that raises the price of the product, then the lobbyists for that industry have somehow been incredibly ineffective at getting rid of those rules while simultaneously getting rid of every other rule on the books.

 

Somehow, I'm more than a little bit skeptical.

 

The answer that makes sense is...this is wall street pressure. In the book/interview that started this conversation, the author recounted a story of Campbells soup spending lots of money to develop a product that tasted the same but had 25% less sodium with no added fat or sugar to offset it. They put it on the shelves, but then pulled it when wall street investors freaked out about them changing their product, to the point where the healthier version disappeared rapidly from shelves.

 

Everybody else loads up with chemicals, wall street effectively thinks these are chemical companies. There's large resistance to making a healthier product but no resistance to adding in another preservative until 30 years down the road the FDA links it directly to some health problem.

[StrangeSox]

IIRC new chemicals are presumed safe until proven dangerous in this country, sorta the opposite of how medicine is regulated.

[bigruss]

They could make a better version of the convenience product, they do right now overseas, and they choose not to do so.

If you don't like it, but the more expensive organic oatmeal. There are options out there, and companies do take notice if consumers choose these other products.

 

Look at the Tostitos marketing campaign a few years back, they advertised less than 5 ingredients or something.

 

Why do Walmart, Target, etc carry greek yogurt, organic produce, etc now? Because consumers demand it.

 

This next generation of young adults/teens are some of the most aware people of what they are eating, I just read an article yesterday about how McDonald's views Subway as a huge competitor with them for young adults, because of the image that Subway portrays vs. McDonald's foods. So what does McDonald's do? They offer more "premium" products, wraps, and go out with a huge marketing campaign of what McDonald's food is made of.

 

 

[Balta1701]

If you don't like it, but the more expensive organic oatmeal. There are options out there, and companies do take notice if consumers choose these other products.

 

Look at the Tostitos marketing campaign a few years back, they advertised less than 5 ingredients or something.

 

Why do Walmart, Target, etc carry greek yogurt, organic produce, etc now? Because consumers demand it.

 

This next generation of young adults/teens are some of the most aware people of what they are eating, I just read an article yesterday about how McDonald's views Subway as a huge competitor with them for young adults, because of the image that Subway portrays vs. McDonald's foods. So what does McDonald's do? They offer more "premium" products, wraps, and go out with a huge marketing campaign of what McDonald's food is made of.

Well,l I'd also say that Walmart and places like that now carry organic produce because the legal definition of "Organic" has been watered down so much that there's little relevant difference between the products and non-organic produce, and the "organic" line is just a higher-margin item that is given small spaces on shelves.

 

But really, this is the rub. You can give me all of the lecture you want, but as a consumer, I'm not going to ignore the economic incentives. Failing to face up to that reality is a part of the problem as well. I'm still amazed at how much I actually pay for fresh vegetables and fruits per week now that I moved out of California.

 

We aren't going to improve the obesity rate in this country if we don't actually face up to the kinds of decisions people actually make. And just as a reminder, the end result is that everyone pays more in health care costs. Cities that aren't pretending a lecture will solve things, cities that are actively trying to improve diets, yes like our friends in New York, are actually having success and seeing reductions in obesity amongst children. Forcibly improving food quality will make a difference nationwide.

[StrangeSox]

If you don't like it, but the more expensive organic oatmeal. There are options out there, and companies do take notice if consumers choose these other products.

 

But that sorta ignores the whole part a few posts back about that 1) not being a solution for many people, to always opt for the more expensive product and 2) not being a realistic driving force for the economy at large

 

Look at the Tostitos marketing campaign a few years back, they advertised less than 5 ingredients or something.

 

Why do Walmart, Target, etc carry greek yogurt, organic produce, etc now? Because consumers demand it.

 

Do we demand it, or was a new market segment created after tens of millions of dollars of market research and product development?

 

This next generation of young adults/teens are some of the most aware people of what they are eating, I just read an article yesterday about how McDonald's views Subway as a huge competitor with them for young adults, because of the image that Subway portrays vs. McDonald's foods. So what does McDonald's do? They offer more "premium" products, wraps, and go out with a huge marketing campaign of what McDonald's food is made of.

 

Yeah, but those wraps are still pretty s***ty food.

 

also this:

 

People tend to think a candy bar with a green calorie label is healthier than ones with red or white labels, even when the number of calories is the same, a Cornell University researcher found.[...]

“Our research suggests that the color of calorie labels may have an effect on whether people perceive the food as healthy, over and above the actual nutritional information conveyed by the label, such as calorie content,” [a Cornell news release] said.

 

In a world with marketing, advertising and psychological research like we have, you can't really say that consumers drive the market, at least not anywhere near 100%.

[bigruss]

But that sorta ignores the whole part a few posts back about that 1) not being a solution for many people, to always opt for the more expensive product and 2) not being a realistic driving force for the economy at large

 

 

 

Do we demand it, or was a new market segment created after tens of millions of dollars of market research and product development?

 

 

 

Yeah, but those wraps are still pretty s***ty food.

 

also this:

 

 

 

In a world with marketing, advertising and psychological research like we have, you can't really say that consumers drive the market, at least not anywhere near 100%.

I just googled organic oatmeal and found 2lbs of Bob's Red Mill, which is a great brand, for $5, free shipping over $50 so you can buy all your organic grains from this online store for about the same price as in-store Quaker.

 

How much advertising has Chipotle done? I've seen the random billboards around major cities, but they don't do much besides that. And look at the demand that has grown for it, market researchers have put a huge emphasis on food awareness because it sells right now.

 

And I'm not saying McD's wraps are healthy, but they are trying to get products that quite frankly venture pretty far from their normal fare. How many items aren't deep fried and or found on a bun in that restaurant? That pretty much left salads, and not many people view salads positively. So they got creative and at least started with venturing into foods that can offer healthier alternatives. Are they there yet? No, and I can tell you simply by knowing that my generation doesn't talk about craving snack wraps like they do about Chipotle bowls.

 

100%? Nope, I'll agree with you there it's not close. But young adults are demanding more and more out of companies that they frequent, whether it's healthier or organic food, or if it's a socially aware company, etc.

[bigruss]

I'm not totally against government regulation here, or policy or whatever you want to call it.

 

One analogy I'll use is the mandate for higher MPG that the government/EPA set a few years back. IIRC, the policy was that each car company had to achieve certain averages for each auto classification, so sedans had to reach x mpg and trucks had to reach y mpg.

 

Well, most car companies didn't mind that much because most consumers were demanding it anyways. In fact, Ford made it a cornerstone of their turn around and it's a huge marketing tool that they use now. So while there was government regulation, it was really the consumer demanding the product that has really increased the production of higher mpg cars (from compacts to affordable hybrids, and really cool innovations such as CVT).

[Balta1701]

I just googled organic oatmeal and found 2lbs of Bob's Red Mill, which is a great brand, for $5, free shipping over $50 so you can buy all your organic grains from this online store for about the same price as in-store Quaker.

So I have to have a place to store 20 lbs of oatmeal? and someone to eat that?

 

Glad to know that if I ever buy a horse, I'm set

[bigruss]

So I have to have a place to store 20 lbs of oatmeal? and someone to eat that?

 

Glad to know that if I ever buy a horse, I'm set

It's an organic store, I figured if you really want to buy organic food that you can fill up your pantry with a list of organic foods from them (not just oatmeal as I originally pointed out anyways).

[StrangeSox]

Economy built for profits not prosperity

 

Newly released data on corporate profitability for 2012 show the continuation of historic levels of profitability despite excessive unemployment and stagnant wages for most workers. Specifically, the share of capital income (such as profits and interest, which are hereafter referred to as ‘profits’) in the corporate sector increased to 25.6 percent in 2012, the highest in any year since 1950-1951 and far higher than the 19.9 percent share prevailing over 1969-2007, the five business cycles preceding the financial crisis.

[Balta1701]

This happened when you weren't looking, btw.

Slipped into the Agricultural Appropriations Bill, which passed through Congress last week, was a small provision that’s a big deal for Monsanto and its opponents. The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks and has thus been dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act” by activists who oppose the biotech giant. President Barack Obama signed the spending bill, including the provision, into law on Tuesday

[farmteam]

I keep reading that it "protects Monsanto from litigation" without seeing how it protects them. I'd want to see that before getting worked up.

[Balta1701]

I keep reading that it "protects Monsanto from litigation" without seeing how it protects them. I'd want to see that before getting worked up.

as soon as I saw that Snopes had a piece on it, i figured that aws a better explanation than anything I could find elsewhere.

[farmteam]

as soon as I saw that Snopes had a piece on it, i figured that aws a better explanation than anything I could find elsewhere.

Still pretty vague sounding. It's not like it prevents constitutional challenges to this act, though.