Noone has been obese becuse of Nutella alone.
Why focusing on Nutella?
This is really a problem of those countries of higly elevated percentage of obesity, not of the rest of the world. And for these countries it's not about Nutella, not at all, but of their lifestyle.
I'm not obeses, not even the slightest. And I like Nutella. Don't blame Nutella.
Originally posted by WajomaHow can you make an informed choice about a product when the manufacturer has chosen not to inform you about the product?
I didn't really expect to have a coherent discussion with you. You've already expressed your belief that your fellow man is unable to make decisions for himself, he needs...what...other men to do that for him, you see yourself as one more qualified.
Companies lie. Regulation is intended to make lying more difficult. Sadly regulators can be bought off.
Originally posted by spruce112358Actually an enormous part of the research burden is carried by the taxpayer, as corporations get to use research done by people in universities. Then the corporations go and skimp on their taxes. Less than 5% is the figure I read.
You say homeopathic medicines annoy you, but to do the sort of research required to generate FDA-approved labels for safety and efficacy costs hundreds of millions of dollars -- which means that only companies with huge bankrolls can participate. I assume that annoys you, too?
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358No, the best way to make money is to create addicts and milk them, preferably in a form that induces religious enthusiasm among the milkees. Reduce choice to as close to zero as possible, form a monopoly if you can or club together and make an oligopoly, and fix prices so you can screw your suppliers (who in turn are forced) screw their workers) and customers as much as possible for a good healthy profit margin.
The overlap is almost total -- the only way to make the most money is to provide the consumer exactly what he wants.
Food labelling simply increases the amount of customer choice. You're saying that food companies can choose to reduce the amount of customer choice. Well, they can and do, all the time -- but they should not.
People aren't rational utility maximizers, by the way. By and large, they certainly don't 'expend their energy on the tasks that will give them the most benefit' -- if 'benefit' in the case of food means 'something that promotes health'. Then again, 'benefit' is often taken to mean 'pleasure', which is often not beneficial at all. Therein lies the rub.
Originally posted by FabianFnasSame here -- I like Nutella and am not obese.
Noone has been obese becuse of Nutella alone.
Why focusing on Nutella?
This is really a problem of those countries of higly elevated percentage of obesity, not of the rest of the world. And for these countries it's not about Nutella, not at all, but of their lifestyle.
I'm not obeses, not even the slightest. And I like Nutella. Don't blame Nutella.
Do you think the EU should spend tax revenue trying to convince us that we should not like it?
2 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358To point out Nutella, and not point out Coke (or Pepsi) is redicolous. No, I don't think money should be spent, if not spent to the whole sugar and fat industry.
Same here -- I like Nutella and am not obese.
Do you think the EU should spend tax revenue trying to convince us that we should not like it?
In Sweden we are drinking more sugared sodas than ever. We also tend to eat pralines (I don't know the English name for it: "Plock-godis", http://nyttig.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/kistagrossen.jpg and it is selled everywhere, especially in the near vincinity of schools.), and this is especially so for children. I foresee more obesity in Sweden in the future.
A remedy for a nationwide obesity is to advice people to eat less sugar, eat less fat (or eat more healthy fat), and have a physical active life. To bring out this message I cna allow EU to spend money on.
Originally posted by spruce112358The purpose of the labelling is to provide a health warning, not to convince you not to like something.
Same here -- I like Nutella and am not obese.
Do you think the EU should spend tax revenue trying to convince us that we should not like it?
But the Nutella issue seems to be a storm in a teacup raised by the Italian media, defending a product that is a source of fierce national pride, it would seem, perhaps the only thing that can unite Italian citizens after the disastrous performance of the Azuri at the World Cup.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMost people prefer food that tastes good. In general, sugar tastes good - fat tastes good - salt tastes good. Unfortunately, even if everyone was maximally informed, most people will still choose unhealthy food if it tastes better than the healthy options. On the other hand, people will choose healthy food if they enjoy eating it.
People already prefer healthy food. It's just that most people don't know what's healthy.
Warning labels can only go so far. Ultimately, the best approach is for nutritionists and chefs to work with the food and restaurant industries to help them develop and market large amounts of extremely healthy food that tastes as good or better than the unhealthy options.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm cautiously disagreeing with your statement because it may depend on what you mean by unregulated. Government has a role in enforcing property rights and non-coerced contracts, and in ensuring there are no barriers to entry into a market. Those conditions are required for a free market to work.
Unregulated 'free markets' tend to reduce competition and limit choice, in sharp contrast to the claims of the true believers.
When that is the case, I would claim competition and choice flourish.
Originally posted by spruce112358What about cartels and misinformation?
I'm cautiously disagreeing with your statement because it may depend on what you mean by unregulated. Government has a role in enforcing property rights and non-coerced contracts, and in ensuring there are no barriers to entry into a market. Those conditions are required for a free market to work.
When that is the case, I would claim competition and choice flourish.
Originally posted by MelanerpesYes, like I said, depending on preference people will want a combination of tasty and healthy. What if there are two similar products A and B, which are about equally tasty and expensive, but different in healthiness? If people don't know the difference in healthiness, they might pick A or B arbitratily. But if they can easily verify that B is much less unhealthy, many people will pick B. Soon the producer of A will attempt to make its product more healthy to keep up. In this respect an easy-to-read warning label is the free marketeer's dream - just provide the information to consumers and the free market will take care of everything else.
Most people prefer food that tastes good. In general, sugar tastes good - fat tastes good - salt tastes good. Unfortunately, even if everyone was maximally informed, most people will still choose unhealthy food if it tastes better than the healthy options. On the other hand, people will choose healthy food if they enjoy eating it.
Warning labels can on ...[text shortened]... arge amounts of extremely healthy food that tastes as good or better than the unhealthy options.