3 ms·

In lots of disability cases, share of people affected is very very small it's not profitable to cover them. Otherwise the companies would already fight to captu

by mcmoor 2y ago

In lots of disability cases, share of people affected is very very small it's not profitable to cover them. Otherwise the companies would already fight to capture this market. This is why lots of disability measures are (or campaigned to be) enforced by government. But now we're out of realm of free market and on to production quota, and that comes with its own consequences.

nox101 2y ago
Of course the market is small. Not sure what your point is. My point is it's not profitable for a large company like Bimbo to target that small segment. A smaller company, not trying to compete with Bimbo, can target that segment knowing Bimbo and other large companies are going to stay out of it. I don't understand why you don't see that as a solution. That kind of thing exists all over. Half the products at Whole Foods or maybe Erewhon are from small indie companies catering to small markets of people that want those things. It's arguably no different than a market that carries foods that aren't found at big chains like a market that has product from India or Russia or China. If the market is too small then either those that need that need their special foods either have to pay $$$$ until there is a market or make them themselves. That seems normal to me. It's not other people's responsibility to provide for your needs.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Not only that, but bread isn't a "need". Lots of cultures don't have bread as a significant portion of their diet.
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  Would you be willing to pay >$100 USD for a loaf of sesame free bread? There is no market for it. You need customers willing to pay the price. A small company, not trying to compete with Bimbo, cannot afford to sell >$100 USD allergen free bread, because no one would buy it. You're right, it's not other people's responsibility to provide for your needs. The problem is, the downstream effects of this policy make everything worse for people with sesame allergies, which is the opposite of the intended effect.

by mcmoor 2y ago

nox101 2y ago

Of course the market is small. Not sure what your point is. My point is it's not profitable for a large company like Bimbo to target that small segment. A smaller company, not trying to compete with Bimbo, can target that segment knowing Bimbo and other large companies are going to stay out of it. I don't understand why you don't see that as a solution. That kind of thing exists all over. Half the products at Whole Foods or maybe Erewhon are from small indie companies catering to small markets of people that want those things. It's arguably no different than a market that carries foods that aren't found at big chains like a market that has product from India or Russia or China. If the market is too small then either those that need that need their special foods either have to pay $$$$ until there is a market or make them themselves. That seems normal to me. It's not other people's responsibility to provide for your needs.

shiroiushi 2y ago
Not only that, but bread isn't a "need". Lots of cultures don't have bread as a significant portion of their diet.
Ferret7446 2y ago
Would you be willing to pay >$100 USD for a loaf of sesame free bread? There is no market for it. You need customers willing to pay the price. A small company, not trying to compete with Bimbo, cannot afford to sell >$100 USD allergen free bread, because no one would buy it. You're right, it's not other people's responsibility to provide for your needs. The problem is, the downstream effects of this policy make everything worse for people with sesame allergies, which is the opposite of the intended effect.