4 ms·

What I find most interesting about people caring about the content of their food (which is not a new thing, although I can see it is more widespread lately), is

What I find most interesting about people caring about the content of their food (which is not a new thing, although I can see it is more widespread lately), is the effect it has on capitalism and how consumers make their choices. In the beginning, the best products simply functioned properly. They looked good, tasted good, etc. Is the bread white? Does the paint stick to the wall? At some point we started realizing that what goes into a product turns out to be very important too. Is the bread nutritious? Is the paint lead-free? Does the movie player have DRM? I'd say we are primarily in this phase of consumer awareness, and the nytimes article suggests it has gone mainstream. However I see a third level on the way: People are now starting to care about the impact of products. In other words, what side-effects are there in production and usage. Were animals mistreated when producing this meal? Is the product recyclable upon discard? Did these bananas come from an exploited third-world country? We're still in the early stages of this phase, but I don't see it slowing down. Being a consumer takes so much brainpower...

skybrian 11y ago
It takes a lot less brainpower when costs are actually included in prices. Instead of everyone deciding on their own which products contribute the most to global warming (and being misled by advertising and getting it wrong most of the time), a carbon tax automatically adjusts the price of each product based on its impact. Then you can make decisions by comparing prices.
- cossatot 11y ago
  I think a water use tax would also be sensible here, and maybe more straightforward to design and implement.
tomp 11y ago
> Being a consumer takes so much brainpower... Exactly, and this is why I'm a strong supporter of regulation. I'm not even saying that regulation should be obligatory, or all-encompassing; simply that there should be clear and simple ways of branding foods and/or their contents (e.g. "organic" or "free-range" should have a legally-defined meaning, GMOs should be listed in the contents, ...), and consumers should be getting what they expect (e.g. toilet paper of a certain size/height, and common drugs are not harmful) - but of course, if you want something different (e.g. experimental drugs) you should be able to get it, it might just be a little harder (like hedge funds that can only market/sell to "sophisticated" investors).
- tptacek 11y ago
  You can do that now: you can create a certification program, sell inspections to acquire the cert, and enforce it through contracts. That companies for the most part don't do this suggests that there isn't really that much market demand for it.
  - redblacktree 11y ago
    There are a couple of these organizations on whose labels I rely. Non-GMO project: http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/understanding-our-seal/ http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/understanding-our-se... Certified Humane: http://certifiedhumane.org/ http://certifiedhumane.org/
bad_user 11y ago
Being omnivores our senses help us to distinguish good food from bad. For example we prefer sweet food because sugar in nature is rare, the fruits delivering sugar being a source of carbohydrates, vitamins and other essential nutrients. We avoid bitter plants because that's usually the taste of substances that do us harm. And rotten meat disgusts us. Plus we rely on the wisdom of our ancestors to know what to eat. But the food industry, in all its wisdom has produced foods that (1) lie to our senses, (2) are rich in calories, but poor in nutrients and (3) are so novel that our bodies aren't digesting it properly. Being a consumer is actually easy, if you can read the signs. It's the food industry that's feeding you the lie that nutrition is complicated and needs expert guidance. Does the food come in a package? Does it make health claims? Is the list of ingredients containing substances you don't recognize? Is sucrose or high fructose corn sirup one of those ingredients? Does it come from far away? Is it sold in a super market? All of those are red flags you should watch out for ;-)
- hueving 11y ago
  >Is the list of ingredients containing substances you don't recognize? This is a bit of a bogus argument. If you had to break down meat into its component chemicals, nobody would understand it then either. We just have a guideline that requires man-made things to list the components which leads to the false argument that seeing lower level chemicals in something means it's bad.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    Yes, but my ancestors ate meat from chicken, pigs or cattle, they survived and I'm alive as well. Compared to rats, we don't have to do a trial and error for everything we eat, as culture is part of who we are and we've been eating most of the same meat, vegetables and dishes for hundreds if not thousands of years. You are never going to see meat being broken down to its components on an ingredients label. The only way you're going to see chemicals on such labels is if those chemicals were added by food processors, for various desired effects, like for improved texture, or taste, or for extending shelf life. It's usually bad because, as I said, it's meant to fool your senses. Why do you think sugar or HFCS is in everything these days? It's also bad in the case of health claims and fads because reductionist science is applied.

skybrian 11y ago

It takes a lot less brainpower when costs are actually included in prices. Instead of everyone deciding on their own which products contribute the most to global warming (and being misled by advertising and getting it wrong most of the time), a carbon tax automatically adjusts the price of each product based on its impact. Then you can make decisions by comparing prices.

cossatot 11y ago
I think a water use tax would also be sensible here, and maybe more straightforward to design and implement.

tomp 11y ago

> Being a consumer takes so much brainpower... Exactly, and this is why I'm a strong supporter of regulation. I'm not even saying that regulation should be obligatory, or all-encompassing; simply that there should be clear and simple ways of branding foods and/or their contents (e.g. "organic" or "free-range" should have a legally-defined meaning, GMOs should be listed in the contents, ...), and consumers should be getting what they expect (e.g. toilet paper of a certain size/height, and common drugs are not harmful) - but of course, if you want something different (e.g. experimental drugs) you should be able to get it, it might just be a little harder (like hedge funds that can only market/sell to "sophisticated" investors).

tptacek 11y ago
You can do that now: you can create a certification program, sell inspections to acquire the cert, and enforce it through contracts. That companies for the most part don't do this suggests that there isn't really that much market demand for it.
- redblacktree 11y ago
  There are a couple of these organizations on whose labels I rely. Non-GMO project: http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/understanding-our-seal/ http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/understanding-our-se... Certified Humane: http://certifiedhumane.org/ http://certifiedhumane.org/

bad_user 11y ago

Being omnivores our senses help us to distinguish good food from bad. For example we prefer sweet food because sugar in nature is rare, the fruits delivering sugar being a source of carbohydrates, vitamins and other essential nutrients. We avoid bitter plants because that's usually the taste of substances that do us harm. And rotten meat disgusts us. Plus we rely on the wisdom of our ancestors to know what to eat. But the food industry, in all its wisdom has produced foods that (1) lie to our senses, (2) are rich in calories, but poor in nutrients and (3) are so novel that our bodies aren't digesting it properly. Being a consumer is actually easy, if you can read the signs. It's the food industry that's feeding you the lie that nutrition is complicated and needs expert guidance. Does the food come in a package? Does it make health claims? Is the list of ingredients containing substances you don't recognize? Is sucrose or high fructose corn sirup one of those ingredients? Does it come from far away? Is it sold in a super market? All of those are red flags you should watch out for ;-)

hueving 11y ago
>Is the list of ingredients containing substances you don't recognize? This is a bit of a bogus argument. If you had to break down meat into its component chemicals, nobody would understand it then either. We just have a guideline that requires man-made things to list the components which leads to the false argument that seeing lower level chemicals in something means it's bad.
- bad_user 11y ago
  Yes, but my ancestors ate meat from chicken, pigs or cattle, they survived and I'm alive as well. Compared to rats, we don't have to do a trial and error for everything we eat, as culture is part of who we are and we've been eating most of the same meat, vegetables and dishes for hundreds if not thousands of years. You are never going to see meat being broken down to its components on an ingredients label. The only way you're going to see chemicals on such labels is if those chemicals were added by food processors, for various desired effects, like for improved texture, or taste, or for extending shelf life. It's usually bad because, as I said, it's meant to fool your senses. Why do you think sugar or HFCS is in everything these days? It's also bad in the case of health claims and fads because reductionist science is applied.