25 ms·

Do you believe generally that Big Food makes healthier products than independents? I believe the reverse is usually true in the US. You can trust Big Food to p

by tlb 13y ago

Do you believe generally that Big Food makes healthier products than independents? I believe the reverse is usually true in the US. You can trust Big Food to pump their products full of sugar because testing shows it makes consumers buy more. Sugar is second on Ensure's ingredient list (http://ensure.com/products/ensure-complete-shakes http://ensure.com/products/ensure-complete-shakes) while Soylent is not sweet.

mbreese 13y ago
I trust Abbott far more than some random startup with zero experience in long-term production of food supplements and replacements. I'm sorry, but living off of a concoction for a few months and then claiming that it is better for you than X is crazy. Look, Soylent may not kill you. It might actually be good for you. But until there have been multiple, years-long studies, this just isn't going to fly. Hell, get some actual nutritionists (PhDs) and doctors (MDs) on board and maybe you have a shot at convincing people. Say what you want about Abbott, but they produce baby-formula. Baby-formula that has been around for decades, so they have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't.
- sard420 13y ago
  Abbott would be the first to tell you not to try and use Ensure as a substitute for food. Some YC kid thinks you can live off his stuff, hope he doesn't kill too many people.
- cLeEOGPw 13y ago
  I'm willing to take the risk and test it for a conservatives like you.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    But that's useless unless it's a large, controlled, randomised, double blind, trial. So far we have people selling stuff telling us "it's okay". I'd be really interested to see what the FDA has to say about Soylent. Have any of the Soylent team got legal advice?
    - cLeEOGPw 13y ago
      For me at least it would not be useless, because soylent wold be 10x better food than what I eat now.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      It's not useless. It will shake out any number of "obvious" problems. It is just not sufficient to deem the product generally safe as a food substitute for everyone and/or for prolonged use.
billybob255 13y ago
Maltodextrin has a GI of 85 vs table sugar of 68. Not being sweet doesn't automatically make something healthier.
dragonwriter 13y ago
VC-funded startups have exactly the same kind of incentives that result in Big Food not producing healthier products than health-over-maximizing-profits oriented independents. Sure, they are going to want to differentiate from existing Big Food products (so do new Big Food products), but otherwise, the trust factors are pretty much the same.
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  Actually, startups have worse incentives. Startups have the idea that they can be bought out be someone. At which point any legal liabilities(form say inaccurate advertising as a meal replacement/health claims/long term health consequences/ death) are the buyers problem. Say what you will about "big food," but they will be around to be sued in 20 - 50 years. It means they have incentives to actually careful about what they to do people.
  - westicle 13y ago
    Just wanted to correct this understanding. Just because I sell something doesn't make me exempt from the legal consequences of my actions prior. If I negligently claim that a product will make you healthier and it cripples you, then you can sue me regardless of whether I still own the product. Similarly, I could be prosecuted for dishonest advertising type offences (which aren't wiped clean simply by selling a business!). You might be talking about a products liability type claim. Only an incompetent acquirer would take liability for any latent claims in a target acquiree. Most likely they will get strong warranties from the seller about the existence of claims and rely on their own due diligence to ensure they aren't buying a product which is likely to cripple people in the future. In 90% of cases the seller will retain liability for incidents which pre-date the sale of their business.
    - pydave 13y ago
      So the founders are personally responsible for the actions of their corporation?
nobodysfool 13y ago
Doesn't matter, what's your hangup with sugar anyway? Maltodextrin has the same calorie content as sugar.
qaruxj 13y ago
Sorry, but I don't trust anyone who uses the phrase "Big ______". Your argument isn't even coherent. You're just making a fallacious appeal by putting the scary capital-B "Big" in front of a random noun and acting like that's supposed to mean something. Who makes up "Big Food"? Who controls "Big Food"? Why does "Big Food" necessarily make less healthy products than "independents"? I agree that a lot of mass produced food is unhealthy and probably excessively seasoned and sweetened to improve market appeal, but that isn't really an argument for why Soylent is better or worse than Ensure.
- gruseom 13y ago
  He's not allowed to say "Big", but you can say "mass produced"? Those are pretty close. Why does "Big Food" necessarily make less healthy products than "independents"? I agree that a lot of mass produced food is unhealthy and probably excessively seasoned and sweetened to improve market appeal Take out that hedgey "necessarily" and you've answered your own question. that isn't really an argument To say that Ensure is excessively sweetened to make people buy more, while Soylent isn't, sounds like an argument to me.
  - javert 13y ago
    > He's not allowed to say "Big", but you can say "mass produced"? Those are pretty close. No, because "Big _____" is a Progressive catchphrase that is normally used to villify whatever their target is and rationalize taking away some freedom from the marketplace, wheras "mass produced" just means "mass produced." Of course, some people might use "Big _____" in a useful way, but it's definitely like a code smell but for English.
    - gruseom 13y ago
      "Big _____" is a Progressive catchphrase [...] used to villify [...] taking away some freedom from the marketplace This all sounds much more ideological to me than the comment to which you are objecting.
      - 13y ago
Cyclosa 13y ago
Sure, there are differences between Soylent and Ensure, but the comparison is inescapable. Soylent is a new twist on an old idea, nothing more. I guess Soylent can say whatever they want in their marketing spiel. Some people may even believe it.

by tlb 13y ago

mbreese 13y ago

I trust Abbott far more than some random startup with zero experience in long-term production of food supplements and replacements. I'm sorry, but living off of a concoction for a few months and then claiming that it is better for you than X is crazy. Look, Soylent may not kill you. It might actually be good for you. But until there have been multiple, years-long studies, this just isn't going to fly. Hell, get some actual nutritionists (PhDs) and doctors (MDs) on board and maybe you have a shot at convincing people. Say what you want about Abbott, but they produce baby-formula. Baby-formula that has been around for decades, so they have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't.

sard420 13y ago
Abbott would be the first to tell you not to try and use Ensure as a substitute for food. Some YC kid thinks you can live off his stuff, hope he doesn't kill too many people.
cLeEOGPw 13y ago
I'm willing to take the risk and test it for a conservatives like you.
- DanBC 13y ago
  But that's useless unless it's a large, controlled, randomised, double blind, trial. So far we have people selling stuff telling us "it's okay". I'd be really interested to see what the FDA has to say about Soylent. Have any of the Soylent team got legal advice?
  - cLeEOGPw 13y ago
    For me at least it would not be useless, because soylent wold be 10x better food than what I eat now.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    It's not useless. It will shake out any number of "obvious" problems. It is just not sufficient to deem the product generally safe as a food substitute for everyone and/or for prolonged use.

billybob255 13y ago

Maltodextrin has a GI of 85 vs table sugar of 68. Not being sweet doesn't automatically make something healthier.

dragonwriter 13y ago

VC-funded startups have exactly the same kind of incentives that result in Big Food not producing healthier products than health-over-maximizing-profits oriented independents. Sure, they are going to want to differentiate from existing Big Food products (so do new Big Food products), but otherwise, the trust factors are pretty much the same.

anologwintermut 13y ago
Actually, startups have worse incentives. Startups have the idea that they can be bought out be someone. At which point any legal liabilities(form say inaccurate advertising as a meal replacement/health claims/long term health consequences/ death) are the buyers problem. Say what you will about "big food," but they will be around to be sued in 20 - 50 years. It means they have incentives to actually careful about what they to do people.
- westicle 13y ago
  Just wanted to correct this understanding. Just because I sell something doesn't make me exempt from the legal consequences of my actions prior. If I negligently claim that a product will make you healthier and it cripples you, then you can sue me regardless of whether I still own the product. Similarly, I could be prosecuted for dishonest advertising type offences (which aren't wiped clean simply by selling a business!). You might be talking about a products liability type claim. Only an incompetent acquirer would take liability for any latent claims in a target acquiree. Most likely they will get strong warranties from the seller about the existence of claims and rely on their own due diligence to ensure they aren't buying a product which is likely to cripple people in the future. In 90% of cases the seller will retain liability for incidents which pre-date the sale of their business.
  - pydave 13y ago
    So the founders are personally responsible for the actions of their corporation?

nobodysfool 13y ago

Doesn't matter, what's your hangup with sugar anyway? Maltodextrin has the same calorie content as sugar.

qaruxj 13y ago

Sorry, but I don't trust anyone who uses the phrase "Big ______". Your argument isn't even coherent. You're just making a fallacious appeal by putting the scary capital-B "Big" in front of a random noun and acting like that's supposed to mean something. Who makes up "Big Food"? Who controls "Big Food"? Why does "Big Food" necessarily make less healthy products than "independents"? I agree that a lot of mass produced food is unhealthy and probably excessively seasoned and sweetened to improve market appeal, but that isn't really an argument for why Soylent is better or worse than Ensure.

gruseom 13y ago
He's not allowed to say "Big", but you can say "mass produced"? Those are pretty close. Why does "Big Food" necessarily make less healthy products than "independents"? I agree that a lot of mass produced food is unhealthy and probably excessively seasoned and sweetened to improve market appeal Take out that hedgey "necessarily" and you've answered your own question. that isn't really an argument To say that Ensure is excessively sweetened to make people buy more, while Soylent isn't, sounds like an argument to me.
- javert 13y ago
  > He's not allowed to say "Big", but you can say "mass produced"? Those are pretty close. No, because "Big _____" is a Progressive catchphrase that is normally used to villify whatever their target is and rationalize taking away some freedom from the marketplace, wheras "mass produced" just means "mass produced." Of course, some people might use "Big _____" in a useful way, but it's definitely like a code smell but for English.
  - gruseom 13y ago
    "Big _____" is a Progressive catchphrase [...] used to villify [...] taking away some freedom from the marketplace This all sounds much more ideological to me than the comment to which you are objecting.
    - 13y ago

Cyclosa 13y ago

Sure, there are differences between Soylent and Ensure, but the comparison is inescapable. Soylent is a new twist on an old idea, nothing more. I guess Soylent can say whatever they want in their marketing spiel. Some people may even believe it.