They will fuck with vaccine making companies, all the while financially profiting by manipulating the share prices. One week, it will be “NO VACCINES!” but before that anouncement shorting the companies or buying puts or whatever.
Then, a week later, “OK, vaccines for now.” but after selling the puts and buying calls.
And, every other sector of the economy. Easier than actually making money on one’s own business, which requires hours of managing.
If we switched all of the existing corn subsidies to subsidize broccoli and spinach and Brussels sprouts instead, I feel like that would have a profound impact.
I remember.
Maybe they can team up.
Uh… that’s self-contradictory. Large portions, sugary drinks, high calorie snacks ARE what people are eating (consuming).
To be clear, I realize this is a non-starter politically.
I’d say the odds are low. One, she’s an Obama. And two, I don’t think Trump would think she’s quite white for the job.
I guess it depends on the extent that it’s up to Trump vs RFK Jr. I don’t know that JFK’s nephew would turn his nose up at working with a Democrat on a pet project.
So instead we list it all out there with names we don’t recognized as real food ingredients or the added flavor/ conditioner/additive that needs to be even less clear what it is?
For years we have been fed hfcs and margarine pretending it’s all the same because it has the same calorie as regular sugar or fat.
I honestly think we might be at the worst place possible with food labels where the quantitative values are useless and the ingredients lists are ignored since no one understands the ingredients as long as they’re FDA approved.
Ignorance of what an ingredient is versus not even knowing what the ingredients are. Here’s an article listing out common names for sugar on the ingredients list.
That list would be useless without the label ingredients list. You wouldn’t even know if a product had added sugar let alone the type or approximately how much. Improve labeling, don’t get rid of it.
Ignorance of the consumer is a separate issue. It is unrealistic to expect most consumers to be able to keep up with the chemists, product developers, and marketers in the food industry.
Our health outcomes do not suggest our food labels are effective. I am not arguing that a label can’t be effeective. My point is our current label is so bad that its counterproductive in aggregate, we are worse off because it exists.
I buy a lot of food without an ingredient list. It is real food, like an apple, or some meat from the butcher. What if the alternative is some mystery crunchy crap in a bag that is bright orange? I don’t know, maybe I pass since it doesnt have that list of FDA approved ingredients.
I know, it’s complicated and more than just labels at that point…but is it? I might also argue that what goes on the label has been lobbied into uselessness. Companies put their marketing on the other 95% of the package. That 5% is there to keep people ignorant/accepting, and nothing more than that.
I like packaged food where the 95% marketing section has the ingredients. Simple ingredients, real food.
You have made this claim but not supported it.
I assumed we are all familiar with obesity rates in the US and the increases in consumption of processed and ultra-processed foods.
Note: one win for food labels in the US is that trans fats have been reduced/eliminated as their contribution to heart diease had been recognized, although it is difficult to determine how much of this was due to food labels vs companies removing it from their products.
Think this paragraph through. Companies lobbied to make the label almost useless. Why? Why do companies want useless labels?
On the 95% of the label with marketing there are limits with regard to what they say. An example, peanut butter vs. peanut butter spread, I believe the cut off is 70% peanuts to be called peanut butter. That’s a labeling requirement, do we throw out those requirements with dropping the ingredients list an nutrition label?
On the 5% that is the ingredients list and nutrition table you say it is there to keep people ignorant and accepting. How does removing it make people less ignorant? Are you saying the information is actually wrong? If a person follows the nutritional label, eats the designated portion on the label, reads the ingredients list and looks up the words they don’t know, are they healthier or less healthy than just picking up the product and eating what they want?
This article suggest some areas where they do lead to some beneficial changes in behavior.
However "Studies that looked at the effect of labels on calorie intake generally assessed only a single meal, and it’s not clear if a 6.6 percent reduction in calories in one meal will translate into reduced calories over the course of a week, month, or year, and eventually into health outcomes. "
I don’t think we have any real way to determine the potential false sense of security provided by labels vs the benefits as they have evolved over decades. We see the macro trends in diets and health outcomes and they aren’t good.
We also know that calorie counting is an oversimplifed view where there are additional concepts like satiety and glycemic index of various foods. Our current nutrition labels informs none of that. If you are trying to count calories as a way to lose weight, you could make terrible choices based on the information that is available. That 100 calorie pack that is nothing but sugar might be fewer calories than the 180 calorie bag of nuts, but when you are hungry again in an hour rather than 2-3, you have made a poor choice.
Can labels be improved? Hell yes! That’s not what you are arguing your saying get rid of them. As a marketing guy my interest is with the lack of marketing controls rather than the much needed improvements with nutrition labeling.
Actually holding corporations accountable for their actions is anti-American Capitalism and that’s the biggest hurdle. Food labeling limits food industry profits. Thus our food labeling sucks. We keep the bare minimum labeling to keep the food companies from murdering the populace. Our governments motto with regard to business. You can hurt them, you can make their life miserable, you can shorten their life, just don’t kill them outright.
Sure, an individual consumer can be more informed by reading a label, but what about the average consumer? If aggregate outcomes are worse, can we conclude that the average consumer has used the label to make the wrong conclusion about their choice?
Not quite:
If aggregate outcomes are worse, can we conclude that the average consumer has used the label to make the wrong conclusion about their choice?
Yes, possibly. Does deleting the label entirely improve that outcome by helping the average consumer make a better choice? I say no as the marketing that replaces the label will increase the likelihood of a wrong choice.
Don’t underestimate human behavior and the potential for counterintuitive results. Plenty of examples outside of nutrition where a lack of information forces someone to make better personal choices.
I wasn’t clear. Some people have been suggesting Americans are unhealthy either because the plants they are eating are no longer nutritious or they’re eating too many wheat products, or the food is ultra-processed. I’m trying to say the problem is more the volume of stuff we’re eating rather than the specific items.
