6 ms·

Junk food manufacturers depend on the addictive nature of the sugar and fat they cram into their products. I don't see how this is any different than cigarette

Junk food manufacturers depend on the addictive nature of the sugar and fat they cram into their products. I don't see how this is any different than cigarette warning labels.

rqtwteye 3y ago
Sometimes I buy sugar free corn flakes and although they should be cheaper theoretically, in reality they cost a multiple of the super sugary flakes. It would be great if we could get more products that aren’t sweetened when you buy them. Like corn flakes, cereal, bread, chocolate milk and lot of others.
- sneak 3y ago
  This is a grocery store and grocery distribution consolidation/duopoly/monopoly problem, which is a separate issue than the food that is sold. This is actually one reason I love FBA - I can buy all sorts of small brand specialty health foods from Amazon, bypassing what the local stores choose to stock (or, more often, not stock). Amazon's anticompetitive practices mean this will become harder in the future however, as they will use this sales and pricing and customer data directly against any mom and pop product that becomes sufficiently successful. We really need better protections for small businesses that sell via giant online platforms. There is no shortage of healthy, tasty food, people who want to sell it, or people who want to buy it.
- globular-toast 3y ago
  Corn flakes and chocolate milk (I'm so confused by the mention of this) are junk food products made with sugar. It makes no sense to have them sugar free. As for cereal and bread, it should be trivially easy to find these without added sugar. I don't know where you live but I'm confident you can find these.
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  Hehe, a while ago I embarked on a quest to find the lowest-added-sugar corn flakes. 6 or 7 supermarket chains further, sometimes a dozen products in same category, end result: not one (0) without added sugars. Anywhere. And all in a similar range, iirc. So basically the same product everywhere. Just minor tweaks (or with/without chocolate, eg.) + packaging, brands & pricing differences. Just goes to show how powerful food conglomerates destroy consumer choice.
  - rqtwteye 3y ago
    I assume a lot of food is produced like toothpaste. I used to know a guy whose dad had a factory that produced toothpaste and shampoo for almost all big brands. They did R&D for them and just put slightly different recipes into the branded boxes. That means that a lot of shampoos and toothpaste (and probably) are basically only slight variations of the same thing.
sneak 3y ago
It's still compelled speech. It's possible that you think commercial communications are a special case, but I and many others do not, and find it just as reprehensible as any other form of compelled speech. What other sorts of solutions are possible other than forcing people to put things on their packaging that they don't want there?
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > just as reprehensible as any other form of compelled speech Do you feel the same way about the ingredient list?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- mymac 3y ago
  (1) it's not speech. (2) it's not political. (3) it is essential information for consumers that manufacturers have routinely lied about in the past. (4) it is already a compromise between what manufacturers would like and what 'the people' (you know, those pesky voters and their representatives) actually need. And finally (5) corporations already have outsized power, to carry their water to the point that you believe that documents a few hundred years old should be interpreted in the most literal way possible so that they can have even more power is not rational.
  - tzs 3y ago
    > (1) it's not speech A ton of court decisions say it is in the US. Here is an article that cites a plethora of them [1]. Note: I have no idea who gfi.org is or whose agenda they are pushing or what side they are on. They just happened to have an article with a nice list of relevant cases. [1] https://gfi.org/resource/the-first-amendment-right-to-use-clear-labels-on-food https://gfi.org/resource/the-first-amendment-right-to-use-cl...
    - mymac 3y ago

Junk food manufacturers depend on the addictive nature of the sugar and fat they cram into their products. I don't see how this is any different than cigarette warning labels.

rqtwteye 3y ago

Sometimes I buy sugar free corn flakes and although they should be cheaper theoretically, in reality they cost a multiple of the super sugary flakes. It would be great if we could get more products that aren’t sweetened when you buy them. Like corn flakes, cereal, bread, chocolate milk and lot of others.

sneak 3y ago
This is a grocery store and grocery distribution consolidation/duopoly/monopoly problem, which is a separate issue than the food that is sold. This is actually one reason I love FBA - I can buy all sorts of small brand specialty health foods from Amazon, bypassing what the local stores choose to stock (or, more often, not stock). Amazon's anticompetitive practices mean this will become harder in the future however, as they will use this sales and pricing and customer data directly against any mom and pop product that becomes sufficiently successful. We really need better protections for small businesses that sell via giant online platforms. There is no shortage of healthy, tasty food, people who want to sell it, or people who want to buy it.
globular-toast 3y ago
Corn flakes and chocolate milk (I'm so confused by the mention of this) are junk food products made with sugar. It makes no sense to have them sugar free. As for cereal and bread, it should be trivially easy to find these without added sugar. I don't know where you live but I'm confident you can find these.
RetroTechie 3y ago
Hehe, a while ago I embarked on a quest to find the lowest-added-sugar corn flakes. 6 or 7 supermarket chains further, sometimes a dozen products in same category, end result: not one (0) without added sugars. Anywhere. And all in a similar range, iirc. So basically the same product everywhere. Just minor tweaks (or with/without chocolate, eg.) + packaging, brands & pricing differences. Just goes to show how powerful food conglomerates destroy consumer choice.
- rqtwteye 3y ago
  I assume a lot of food is produced like toothpaste. I used to know a guy whose dad had a factory that produced toothpaste and shampoo for almost all big brands. They did R&D for them and just put slightly different recipes into the branded boxes. That means that a lot of shampoos and toothpaste (and probably) are basically only slight variations of the same thing.

sneak 3y ago

It's still compelled speech. It's possible that you think commercial communications are a special case, but I and many others do not, and find it just as reprehensible as any other form of compelled speech. What other sorts of solutions are possible other than forcing people to put things on their packaging that they don't want there?

Dylan16807 3y ago
> just as reprehensible as any other form of compelled speech Do you feel the same way about the ingredient list?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mymac 3y ago
(1) it's not speech. (2) it's not political. (3) it is essential information for consumers that manufacturers have routinely lied about in the past. (4) it is already a compromise between what manufacturers would like and what 'the people' (you know, those pesky voters and their representatives) actually need. And finally (5) corporations already have outsized power, to carry their water to the point that you believe that documents a few hundred years old should be interpreted in the most literal way possible so that they can have even more power is not rational.
- tzs 3y ago
  > (1) it's not speech A ton of court decisions say it is in the US. Here is an article that cites a plethora of them [1]. Note: I have no idea who gfi.org is or whose agenda they are pushing or what side they are on. They just happened to have an article with a nice list of relevant cases. [1] https://gfi.org/resource/the-first-amendment-right-to-use-clear-labels-on-food https://gfi.org/resource/the-first-amendment-right-to-use-cl...
  - mymac 3y ago