5 ms·

Exploring aisles 9-13 at my local supermarket

96 points by nedwin 13y ago

Xcelerate 13y ago
Ah, those kinder eggs at the checkout aisle! I wish we could get them in the US. Anyone know why they're not in America?
- noonespecial 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Prohibition_on_sale_or_import_into_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Prohibition_on_... I used to love them when I lived in Germany. I found it hilarious when I discovered the reason because its one case where "Won't someone please think of the children" results in a mental seg-fault if you stop to think about it.
- nmb 13y ago
  [facepalm]
- simcop2387 13y ago
  Same reason as bucky balls. Kids might eat it. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Overview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Overview
- qqqqqq 13y ago
  It has to do with the FDA banning the import of confectionery with '...a non-nutritive object, partially or totally imbedded within it.' The FDA reasons that it may pose a potential choking hazard.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- fleitz 13y ago
  Some of my friends going south had kinder eggs for their children confiscated as a choking hazard. It was such a serious risk of choking that the kids weren't even allowed to eat them at the border.
- zdean 13y ago
  They're available in Texas...or at least were a couple of years ago.
- nsxwolf 13y ago
  I second your Kinder Eggs and raise you a Cherry Ripe. I do love Cherry Ripe.
MaysonL 13y ago
And you didn't even mention global warming or the Republican party.
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Buzzkill.
marban 13y ago
The peculiar excess found in US supermarkets is not something I would translate to the world cross-the-board though.
- arcameron 13y ago
  Author doesn't appear to be living in the USA
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- tylerlh 13y ago
  The post author seems to be in Australia, not the US.
- alwaysinshade 13y ago
  It's an Australian supermarket - South Australia I'm guessing based on the "SA Lotteries" sign in one of the photos. The supermarket in question is a Foodland but could easily be any other supermarket in Australia. I thought it was my local Woolworths store based on the product layout in the photos and I'm in Sydney, NSW.
  - marban 13y ago
    Makes sense. The title is still a bit of an overgeneralization.
  - nicksessions 13y ago
    Nice sleuthing! Foodland in SA is correct.
- zensavona 13y ago
  This is in Australia.
erickhill 13y ago
I had to look it up: pokies "Slang term used in Australia to refer to gambling slot machines. Pokies can be found in many hotels and pubs in Australia."
- nicksessions 13y ago
  Thanks for translating. I couldn't remember what the US equivalent was.
nevernpguy 13y ago
Some numbers - half of US will be Obese by 2030. http://statspotting.com/obesity-stats-half-of-the-u-s-population-will-be-obese-by-2030/ http://statspotting.com/obesity-stats-half-of-the-u-s-popula...
scrrr 13y ago
I am not in America, but perhaps a little education about nutrition at school would help to make people think twice about their food and drink choices?
- BurritoAlPastor 13y ago
  It exists; when I was in grade school (in the 90s) we learned about the Food Pyramid. As I recall, the base (and thus, the thing I should be eating the most of) was grains, and the top (the thing I should eat the least of) was sugar.
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  Many of us get educated plenty about nutrition in school. (I say many of us because standards are extremely variable within and between states, and recalcitrant people are fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.) But the handful of millions of dollars devoted to nutrition education campaigns and interventions absolutely pales in comparison to the billions of dollars spent on ad and marketing campaigns by the glorified drug dealers that are our food companies, not to mention the money they spend lobbying to contain education campaigns and develop yet more addictive food items.
Radle 13y ago
Just before reading, thumbs up for awesome title.
- nedwin 13y ago
  "they" changed the title.
aimhb 13y ago
I'm not sure a magazine about diabetes is something to be appalled about. Lots of people have type 1 diabetes, which is more or less congenital and whether you contract it or not is out of your control. Reading materials for those with gluten-free diets aren't so tabboo, why is it so for food recommendations that help keep a healthy A1c level?
- alwaysinshade 13y ago
  > I'm not sure a magazine about diabetes is something to be appalled about. The magazine is mounted on a shelf encrusted with boxes of discounted chocolates/candy. I think the point was the irony - perhaps after stocking up on Mars bars we can mentally pat ourselves on the back for flicking through a personal-health rag or feel less bad about gobbling sweets as we look at overweight/deformed celebrities.
- spullara 13y ago
  "Type 1 diabetes accounts for about 5 to 10 percent of diagnosed diabetes in the United States." http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/overview/ http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/overview/
zdean 13y ago
If you read some of Michael Pollan's books, one of the key observations that he makes about the food system is that people assume organic/natural/etc. foods are expensive when in fact most of the stuff you buy at the grocery store (and fast food joint) is made artificially cheaper. The #1 culprit of this is the subsidizing of the corn industry. Corn is the source of the corn syrup that ends up in all of those soft drinks, snacks, salad dressings etc. On the protein side of it, it's used as the primary feed for cows and other animals. So you have junk food that's cheaper than it ought to be at the grocery store and fast food that's cheaper than it ought to be at your favorite drive-through. I'm not sure why we keep looking downstream at the problem when there is in fact an underlying SINGLE cause upstream that can address a lot of the issues. Remove the subsidies, allow food to cost a bit more, financially incentivize people to eat 1) better food and 2) smaller quantities of food, and let the downstream problems like obesity, diabetes, etc. take care of themselves.
- zdean 13y ago
  http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/when-a-crop-becomes-king/ http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/when-a-crop-become...
- epoxyhockey 13y ago
  Corn is the source of the corn syrup that ends up in all of those soft drinks, snacks, salad dressings etc Corn syrup has permeated just about anything that doesn't come off of a vine or out of the ground. HFCS is added to bread, fruit juices, hot dogs and even soy sauce. It is quite a chore to find bread without HFCS.
  - zdean 13y ago
    Corn is in 75% of supermarket products...it's just as hard finding whole classes of other products without corn syrup.
  - tankbot 13y ago
    So true and so irritating! Health detriments aside, I can't stand this food. It's too sweet! Once you get used to good food that doesn't contain gobs of salt and HFCS, the stuff that does is disgusting.
prawn 13y ago
Looking through a lot of those photos of promotional stands (soft drink, chips, magazines, energy drinks, etc) I'm reminded of a broad rule that distracts me whenever I see TV advertising especially: If it's being advertised, you probably don't need it. (The other broad rule that distracts me in these cases: If a female subject in an advertisement is a brunette, it's usually targeting women. If blonde, it's more likely to be targeting men.)
redact207 13y ago
A bit off track, but the one thing I found that slit the throat of over zealous marketing was to study marketing. It helped disconnect the sales message from the product and it became painfully obvious how hard a lot of the product marketers need to push. A tub of chocolate spread is a healthy option because it has hazelnuts and dairy? A bottle of soda is diet because it substitutes one of the dozen chemicals? Compare that with the produce aisle where there's no marketing and it becomes clear the worst the product the harder it needs to be marketed.
Radle 13y ago
I totally disagree with the author, I am in living an a generation that has good chances to become more than one hundred years old, living is as healthy as never. Thought I need to agree food is not. Anyways two or three cokes a week won't hurt. Drinking Daily coffee won't hurt. Eating at McDonalds or BurgerKing twice a week won't hurt. If you do sports twice a week. (And eat some Vitamins, but that is usually no problem I believe.)
- aaron695 13y ago
  > And eat some Vitamins The fact you think in any shape or form vitamins have a relevance to you shows you have a total miss understanding of food science and how it relates to you. Unless you are starving because of drought in a poor country or are living on the streets with an addiction, then fair enough.
  - Radle 13y ago
    Please do not think that I am totally retarded :) The problem I see is that there are two terms of "healthy" food that people tend to confuse. 1) Food that makes you Overweight 2) Food that does not have specific oils/ Vitamins. Apologys for not writing clearly there, I tried to make the point that you usually don't need to care about Vitamins.
- marban 13y ago
  "If you do sports twice a week." I would argue that 6 x 30mins is the minimum and mcdonalds should be once a month, not twice a week. And skip the vitamins.
- cocoflunchy 13y ago
  > (And eat some Vitamins, but that is usually no problem I believe.) As a european living in the US, I am appalled at the sheer quantity of vitamins/pseudo health products that my roommates consume. Do you really need this? I don't know a single person in France who takes vitamins on regular basis.
  - 13y ago
chime 13y ago
I realize this is an uncommon opinion but I'm ok with this. I am not overweight, am fairly active, and rarely eat anything unhealthy. I am ok with this simply because that is how the market works. If you think of the world as some list of good vs. bad rules to follow, then certainly the supermarkets of today are appalling. But if you think of them as a set of interdependent actors within a closed system, each trying to maximize their personal utility functions, it makes perfect sense. A few years ago I was enraged walking through a Whole Foods store (for the first time) and coming upon one Homeopathic remedy after another in an entire aisle of medicines that weren't. It took me some time to realize that Whole Foods is not in the business of keeping me healthy. They are in the business of selling products. And so is everyone else. It is in the supermarket's best interest (short-term at least) to not manually stock everything but rather let vendors of different product lines setup their special displays. That's how you get the entire Doritos-line product display. It is in the best interest of the Doritos agent to maximize the sales at this particular store to get the highest commission. Doritos has learnt that giving a commission based on store-specific sales is the best way to maximize sales. The same goes for the Weight Loss and Diabetes mags, and even the pharmaceutical aisles. Additionally, it is in the best interest (again, at least in the short term) of the residents of the neighborhood to have one store they can go to in order to buy everything. Think of everyone aligning their actions with the best of their abilities to benefit themselves the most, like a crowd of hundred gather around a street performance to give themselves the best vantage point, and you end up with the world as is today. This does not mean it is the best the world can be. Certainly it is possible to optimize for net good at the cost of specific losses to certain entities but then we come back to the debate of who decides who should pay more taxes or lose their license to engage in trade. So as it stands, I am ok with seeing obviously unhealthy products aimed at the most vulnerable because unless the market wants otherwise, doing anything to change that is going to shake up more than a few foundations that build our economy and society.
- aliston 13y ago
  I don't think that this is necessarily a debate that should be confined to market terms... but even debating it within those confines, I would actually argue that this is a perfect example of a market failure. For one thing, food distribution in the US acts essentially like an oligopoly. There are a surprisingly few number of food distributors with a huge influence on which products are emphasized in the store. Companies like Frito-Lay and Coca-Cola can use their size to push out smaller companies and local farmers that produce healthier foods before the consumer even has a chance to find those products on shelves. As a result, in economic terms, most consumers are operating without anything close to perfect information and, consequently, aren't really "maximizing their personal utility functions." Second, a big reason people are buying a lot of these calorie-dense, unhealthy, processed "foods" is that they are cheap compared to, say, fresh fruits and vegetables. However, there are massive health care cost externalities that aren't factored into the costs of those products. It's a classic market failure, and if those costs were properly factored in, consumers would probably consume a lot less of them.
javert 13y ago
I would much rather live in a country where we are free to choose what we eat but most people are unhealthy, than the inverse. The blog post attempts to use emotional manipuation to win people its side. For instance, it ignores the fundamental tradeoff involved (freedom vs. public health), it uses vulgarity in the title, and has a massive platitude at the end. Moreover, it is highly focused around pictures, which is a giveaway for an attempt at emotional manipulation. In summary, this is highly juvenile and evasive writing and thinking. Even if you agree with the author's ultimate point of view, you should feel insulted that he would try to appeal to you you in a way that is not based in reason and logic.
- misiti3780 13y ago
  That is fine, except for the fact that our heath care system is fundamentally fucked up and since we are moving toward a socialize system (which I am not trying to take a side on for the purposes of this comment), its going to cost you and I more money cause unhealthy people cost more (they get sicker more often, they have higher percentage of cancer, heart disease, etc - they are in the hospital a lot more). I would be completely fine with all this stuff if insurance premiums were tied to weight/health - unfortunately for everyone who does exercise and stays in shape, they are not .... yet
  - thatswrong0 13y ago
    I've read that this isn't the case: > Obesity is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and is associated with high medical expenditures. It has been suggested that obesity prevention could result in cost savings. The objective of this study was to estimate the annual and lifetime medical costs attributable to obesity, to compare those to similar costs attributable to smoking, and to discuss the implications for prevention. …. Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...
eclipxe 13y ago
There's a huge opportunity for startups in the health and fitness space. Lots of room for disruption and a literally "growing" customer base.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
benaiah 13y ago
I agree that obesity and lack of exercise are terrible things - the latter is something I struggle with. I agree that it's quite ironic that diabetes magazines are sold next to junk food. I agree that many people have screwed-up priorities and self-control and that they would be better off without this stuff. That said, I strongly disagree, to the point of revulsion, with the implicit desire of the author, which I see echoed in various forms and about various subjects, that the government take action to ban any of this. ("Imagine if 65% of the population had a gambling problem and we let the banks put pokies inside ATMs." - emphasis mine). It appalls me that HN is so adamantly desirous of the freedom of the press, the freedom of anonymity, the freedom of assembly, etc., but sees no problem with calling for the mass restrictions of freedoms in work, housing, healthcare, and the like. Even, apparently, the freedom to choose what you eat. It's revolting to us that someone might decide what you should be able to say, but we are happy to make moral pronouncements from our padded office chairs on others' behalf, as long as it's something that won't affect us. Let me be clear - I am not absolving these companies of all wrong. They commit fraud when they lie about ingredients, they are implicit in assault or even murder when they sell actively toxic (as opposed to simply unhealthy) food and advertise that it is safe, and they regularly abuse our screwed-up political system to gain unfair and immoral advantages over competitors. These things are all wrong. Selling unhealthy food, with an honest description of what's in it, isn't. He even mentions it in the post - consumers are voting with their feet. We can disdain the stereotypical "people of Walmart" all we want, but we have no business forcing them to live the way we think is best. We're no better than the NSA if we start going down that road. No one is coercing them to buy there. There are plenty of cheap and healthy alternatives. We just have to come to terms with the fact that they are making a poor choice, and we have no right to force them to stop. We absolutely should encourage them not to. It's perfectly fine if you choose to boycott these places. It's fine if you don't let your children eat that food, and it's fine if you make it your life's work to making that food obsolete. But you have to draw the line there. Once you start forcing people, at the threat (ultimately) of death, to eat certain things, you are no better than the NSA forcing people at the threat of death to say or not say certain things. That's not our place. </lengthy rant> All that said, he's right. The world is, as he bluntly puts it, "fucking insane", and this is one of the ways that shows. EDIT: Holy cow, this article got flagged to death. Probably rightly so. It's on the third page right now, despite having 65 points in 2 hours.
mikekij 13y ago
Free. Market.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
locusm 13y ago
Amazed any Australian company is still using imagery of Capper and Fenech - Jesus wept! This is a good video on HFCS from Robert Lustig and why you should avoid it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
thomasfoster96 13y ago
Ah, the wonders of Australia. Luckily we all have Medicare for when the obesity epidemic takes it's toll. More seriously though, Australia is only marginally better than the US with this whole problem. We need to push the whole health thing a whole lot more. I like my weekly chocolate and sarsaparilla ration, but I know it's not something I should do every day. Stopping junk food from becoming a daily thing for people is a great first step. I also play sport at least twice a week, but again, we've become a lot more loose in that department over the past 10 years. All year round sport is meant to be compulsory for virtually all schools, but too many people sit out nowadays. If we get people playing sport at school, hopefully we can get more than 75% playing it well past the end of Uni. But otherwise, I don't think this sort of advertising is bad or should be banned, rather we need to tighten up our education about nutrition and regular sport.
charlysisto 13y ago
A simple question to those afraid of regulation : why does a country agree that some substances should not belong to the market (drugs) but that not letting junk food be sold in the most cynical and manipulative way to a population dying of diabetes would harm the sacro saint wisdom/freedom of market ? Sidenote : regulation doesn't mean banning, just tax the junk food heavily so the most vulnerable don't buy it and have clear markers it kills your brain cells just like on cigarettes & alcohol.

96 points by nedwin 13y ago

Ah, those kinder eggs at the checkout aisle! I wish we could get them in the US. Anyone know why they're not in America?

noonespecial 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Prohibition_on_sale_or_import_into_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Prohibition_on_... I used to love them when I lived in Germany. I found it hilarious when I discovered the reason because its one case where "Won't someone please think of the children" results in a mental seg-fault if you stop to think about it.
nmb 13y ago
[facepalm]
simcop2387 13y ago
Same reason as bucky balls. Kids might eat it. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Overview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Overview
qqqqqq 13y ago
It has to do with the FDA banning the import of confectionery with '...a non-nutritive object, partially or totally imbedded within it.' The FDA reasons that it may pose a potential choking hazard.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
fleitz 13y ago
Some of my friends going south had kinder eggs for their children confiscated as a choking hazard. It was such a serious risk of choking that the kids weren't even allowed to eat them at the border.
zdean 13y ago
They're available in Texas...or at least were a couple of years ago.
nsxwolf 13y ago
I second your Kinder Eggs and raise you a Cherry Ripe. I do love Cherry Ripe.

MaysonL 13y ago

And you didn't even mention global warming or the Republican party.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

Buzzkill.

marban 13y ago

The peculiar excess found in US supermarkets is not something I would translate to the world cross-the-board though.

arcameron 13y ago
Author doesn't appear to be living in the USA
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
tylerlh 13y ago
The post author seems to be in Australia, not the US.
alwaysinshade 13y ago
It's an Australian supermarket - South Australia I'm guessing based on the "SA Lotteries" sign in one of the photos. The supermarket in question is a Foodland but could easily be any other supermarket in Australia. I thought it was my local Woolworths store based on the product layout in the photos and I'm in Sydney, NSW.
- marban 13y ago
  Makes sense. The title is still a bit of an overgeneralization.
- nicksessions 13y ago
  Nice sleuthing! Foodland in SA is correct.
zensavona 13y ago
This is in Australia.

erickhill 13y ago

I had to look it up: pokies "Slang term used in Australia to refer to gambling slot machines. Pokies can be found in many hotels and pubs in Australia."

nicksessions 13y ago
Thanks for translating. I couldn't remember what the US equivalent was.

nevernpguy 13y ago

Some numbers - half of US will be Obese by 2030. http://statspotting.com/obesity-stats-half-of-the-u-s-population-will-be-obese-by-2030/ http://statspotting.com/obesity-stats-half-of-the-u-s-popula...

scrrr 13y ago

I am not in America, but perhaps a little education about nutrition at school would help to make people think twice about their food and drink choices?

BurritoAlPastor 13y ago
It exists; when I was in grade school (in the 90s) we learned about the Food Pyramid. As I recall, the base (and thus, the thing I should be eating the most of) was grains, and the top (the thing I should eat the least of) was sugar.
acjohnson55 13y ago
Many of us get educated plenty about nutrition in school. (I say many of us because standards are extremely variable within and between states, and recalcitrant people are fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.) But the handful of millions of dollars devoted to nutrition education campaigns and interventions absolutely pales in comparison to the billions of dollars spent on ad and marketing campaigns by the glorified drug dealers that are our food companies, not to mention the money they spend lobbying to contain education campaigns and develop yet more addictive food items.

Radle 13y ago

Just before reading, thumbs up for awesome title.

nedwin 13y ago
"they" changed the title.

aimhb 13y ago

I'm not sure a magazine about diabetes is something to be appalled about. Lots of people have type 1 diabetes, which is more or less congenital and whether you contract it or not is out of your control. Reading materials for those with gluten-free diets aren't so tabboo, why is it so for food recommendations that help keep a healthy A1c level?

alwaysinshade 13y ago
> I'm not sure a magazine about diabetes is something to be appalled about. The magazine is mounted on a shelf encrusted with boxes of discounted chocolates/candy. I think the point was the irony - perhaps after stocking up on Mars bars we can mentally pat ourselves on the back for flicking through a personal-health rag or feel less bad about gobbling sweets as we look at overweight/deformed celebrities.
spullara 13y ago
"Type 1 diabetes accounts for about 5 to 10 percent of diagnosed diabetes in the United States." http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/overview/ http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/overview/

zdean 13y ago

If you read some of Michael Pollan's books, one of the key observations that he makes about the food system is that people assume organic/natural/etc. foods are expensive when in fact most of the stuff you buy at the grocery store (and fast food joint) is made artificially cheaper. The #1 culprit of this is the subsidizing of the corn industry. Corn is the source of the corn syrup that ends up in all of those soft drinks, snacks, salad dressings etc. On the protein side of it, it's used as the primary feed for cows and other animals. So you have junk food that's cheaper than it ought to be at the grocery store and fast food that's cheaper than it ought to be at your favorite drive-through. I'm not sure why we keep looking downstream at the problem when there is in fact an underlying SINGLE cause upstream that can address a lot of the issues. Remove the subsidies, allow food to cost a bit more, financially incentivize people to eat 1) better food and 2) smaller quantities of food, and let the downstream problems like obesity, diabetes, etc. take care of themselves.

zdean 13y ago
http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/when-a-crop-becomes-king/ http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/when-a-crop-become...
epoxyhockey 13y ago
Corn is the source of the corn syrup that ends up in all of those soft drinks, snacks, salad dressings etc Corn syrup has permeated just about anything that doesn't come off of a vine or out of the ground. HFCS is added to bread, fruit juices, hot dogs and even soy sauce. It is quite a chore to find bread without HFCS.
- zdean 13y ago
  Corn is in 75% of supermarket products...it's just as hard finding whole classes of other products without corn syrup.
- tankbot 13y ago
  So true and so irritating! Health detriments aside, I can't stand this food. It's too sweet! Once you get used to good food that doesn't contain gobs of salt and HFCS, the stuff that does is disgusting.

prawn 13y ago

Looking through a lot of those photos of promotional stands (soft drink, chips, magazines, energy drinks, etc) I'm reminded of a broad rule that distracts me whenever I see TV advertising especially: If it's being advertised, you probably don't need it. (The other broad rule that distracts me in these cases: If a female subject in an advertisement is a brunette, it's usually targeting women. If blonde, it's more likely to be targeting men.)

redact207 13y ago

A bit off track, but the one thing I found that slit the throat of over zealous marketing was to study marketing. It helped disconnect the sales message from the product and it became painfully obvious how hard a lot of the product marketers need to push. A tub of chocolate spread is a healthy option because it has hazelnuts and dairy? A bottle of soda is diet because it substitutes one of the dozen chemicals? Compare that with the produce aisle where there's no marketing and it becomes clear the worst the product the harder it needs to be marketed.

Radle 13y ago

I totally disagree with the author, I am in living an a generation that has good chances to become more than one hundred years old, living is as healthy as never. Thought I need to agree food is not. Anyways two or three cokes a week won't hurt. Drinking Daily coffee won't hurt. Eating at McDonalds or BurgerKing twice a week won't hurt. If you do sports twice a week. (And eat some Vitamins, but that is usually no problem I believe.)

aaron695 13y ago
> And eat some Vitamins The fact you think in any shape or form vitamins have a relevance to you shows you have a total miss understanding of food science and how it relates to you. Unless you are starving because of drought in a poor country or are living on the streets with an addiction, then fair enough.
- Radle 13y ago
  Please do not think that I am totally retarded :) The problem I see is that there are two terms of "healthy" food that people tend to confuse. 1) Food that makes you Overweight 2) Food that does not have specific oils/ Vitamins. Apologys for not writing clearly there, I tried to make the point that you usually don't need to care about Vitamins.
marban 13y ago
"If you do sports twice a week." I would argue that 6 x 30mins is the minimum and mcdonalds should be once a month, not twice a week. And skip the vitamins.
cocoflunchy 13y ago
> (And eat some Vitamins, but that is usually no problem I believe.) As a european living in the US, I am appalled at the sheer quantity of vitamins/pseudo health products that my roommates consume. Do you really need this? I don't know a single person in France who takes vitamins on regular basis.
- 13y ago

chime 13y ago

I realize this is an uncommon opinion but I'm ok with this. I am not overweight, am fairly active, and rarely eat anything unhealthy. I am ok with this simply because that is how the market works. If you think of the world as some list of good vs. bad rules to follow, then certainly the supermarkets of today are appalling. But if you think of them as a set of interdependent actors within a closed system, each trying to maximize their personal utility functions, it makes perfect sense. A few years ago I was enraged walking through a Whole Foods store (for the first time) and coming upon one Homeopathic remedy after another in an entire aisle of medicines that weren't. It took me some time to realize that Whole Foods is not in the business of keeping me healthy. They are in the business of selling products. And so is everyone else. It is in the supermarket's best interest (short-term at least) to not manually stock everything but rather let vendors of different product lines setup their special displays. That's how you get the entire Doritos-line product display. It is in the best interest of the Doritos agent to maximize the sales at this particular store to get the highest commission. Doritos has learnt that giving a commission based on store-specific sales is the best way to maximize sales. The same goes for the Weight Loss and Diabetes mags, and even the pharmaceutical aisles. Additionally, it is in the best interest (again, at least in the short term) of the residents of the neighborhood to have one store they can go to in order to buy everything. Think of everyone aligning their actions with the best of their abilities to benefit themselves the most, like a crowd of hundred gather around a street performance to give themselves the best vantage point, and you end up with the world as is today. This does not mean it is the best the world can be. Certainly it is possible to optimize for net good at the cost of specific losses to certain entities but then we come back to the debate of who decides who should pay more taxes or lose their license to engage in trade. So as it stands, I am ok with seeing obviously unhealthy products aimed at the most vulnerable because unless the market wants otherwise, doing anything to change that is going to shake up more than a few foundations that build our economy and society.

aliston 13y ago
I don't think that this is necessarily a debate that should be confined to market terms... but even debating it within those confines, I would actually argue that this is a perfect example of a market failure. For one thing, food distribution in the US acts essentially like an oligopoly. There are a surprisingly few number of food distributors with a huge influence on which products are emphasized in the store. Companies like Frito-Lay and Coca-Cola can use their size to push out smaller companies and local farmers that produce healthier foods before the consumer even has a chance to find those products on shelves. As a result, in economic terms, most consumers are operating without anything close to perfect information and, consequently, aren't really "maximizing their personal utility functions." Second, a big reason people are buying a lot of these calorie-dense, unhealthy, processed "foods" is that they are cheap compared to, say, fresh fruits and vegetables. However, there are massive health care cost externalities that aren't factored into the costs of those products. It's a classic market failure, and if those costs were properly factored in, consumers would probably consume a lot less of them.

javert 13y ago

I would much rather live in a country where we are free to choose what we eat but most people are unhealthy, than the inverse. The blog post attempts to use emotional manipuation to win people its side. For instance, it ignores the fundamental tradeoff involved (freedom vs. public health), it uses vulgarity in the title, and has a massive platitude at the end. Moreover, it is highly focused around pictures, which is a giveaway for an attempt at emotional manipulation. In summary, this is highly juvenile and evasive writing and thinking. Even if you agree with the author's ultimate point of view, you should feel insulted that he would try to appeal to you you in a way that is not based in reason and logic.

misiti3780 13y ago
That is fine, except for the fact that our heath care system is fundamentally fucked up and since we are moving toward a socialize system (which I am not trying to take a side on for the purposes of this comment), its going to cost you and I more money cause unhealthy people cost more (they get sicker more often, they have higher percentage of cancer, heart disease, etc - they are in the hospital a lot more). I would be completely fine with all this stuff if insurance premiums were tied to weight/health - unfortunately for everyone who does exercise and stays in shape, they are not .... yet
- thatswrong0 13y ago
  I've read that this isn't the case: > Obesity is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and is associated with high medical expenditures. It has been suggested that obesity prevention could result in cost savings. The objective of this study was to estimate the annual and lifetime medical costs attributable to obesity, to compare those to similar costs attributable to smoking, and to discuss the implications for prevention. …. Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...

eclipxe 13y ago

There's a huge opportunity for startups in the health and fitness space. Lots of room for disruption and a literally "growing" customer base.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

benaiah 13y ago

I agree that obesity and lack of exercise are terrible things - the latter is something I struggle with. I agree that it's quite ironic that diabetes magazines are sold next to junk food. I agree that many people have screwed-up priorities and self-control and that they would be better off without this stuff. That said, I strongly disagree, to the point of revulsion, with the implicit desire of the author, which I see echoed in various forms and about various subjects, that the government take action to ban any of this. ("Imagine if 65% of the population had a gambling problem and we let the banks put pokies inside ATMs." - emphasis mine). It appalls me that HN is so adamantly desirous of the freedom of the press, the freedom of anonymity, the freedom of assembly, etc., but sees no problem with calling for the mass restrictions of freedoms in work, housing, healthcare, and the like. Even, apparently, the freedom to choose what you eat. It's revolting to us that someone might decide what you should be able to say, but we are happy to make moral pronouncements from our padded office chairs on others' behalf, as long as it's something that won't affect us. Let me be clear - I am not absolving these companies of all wrong. They commit fraud when they lie about ingredients, they are implicit in assault or even murder when they sell actively toxic (as opposed to simply unhealthy) food and advertise that it is safe, and they regularly abuse our screwed-up political system to gain unfair and immoral advantages over competitors. These things are all wrong. Selling unhealthy food, with an honest description of what's in it, isn't. He even mentions it in the post - consumers are voting with their feet. We can disdain the stereotypical "people of Walmart" all we want, but we have no business forcing them to live the way we think is best. We're no better than the NSA if we start going down that road. No one is coercing them to buy there. There are plenty of cheap and healthy alternatives. We just have to come to terms with the fact that they are making a poor choice, and we have no right to force them to stop. We absolutely should encourage them not to. It's perfectly fine if you choose to boycott these places. It's fine if you don't let your children eat that food, and it's fine if you make it your life's work to making that food obsolete. But you have to draw the line there. Once you start forcing people, at the threat (ultimately) of death, to eat certain things, you are no better than the NSA forcing people at the threat of death to say or not say certain things. That's not our place. </lengthy rant> All that said, he's right. The world is, as he bluntly puts it, "fucking insane", and this is one of the ways that shows. EDIT: Holy cow, this article got flagged to death. Probably rightly so. It's on the third page right now, despite having 65 points in 2 hours.

mikekij 13y ago

Free. Market.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

locusm 13y ago

Amazed any Australian company is still using imagery of Capper and Fenech - Jesus wept! This is a good video on HFCS from Robert Lustig and why you should avoid it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

thomasfoster96 13y ago

Ah, the wonders of Australia. Luckily we all have Medicare for when the obesity epidemic takes it's toll. More seriously though, Australia is only marginally better than the US with this whole problem. We need to push the whole health thing a whole lot more. I like my weekly chocolate and sarsaparilla ration, but I know it's not something I should do every day. Stopping junk food from becoming a daily thing for people is a great first step. I also play sport at least twice a week, but again, we've become a lot more loose in that department over the past 10 years. All year round sport is meant to be compulsory for virtually all schools, but too many people sit out nowadays. If we get people playing sport at school, hopefully we can get more than 75% playing it well past the end of Uni. But otherwise, I don't think this sort of advertising is bad or should be banned, rather we need to tighten up our education about nutrition and regular sport.

charlysisto 13y ago

A simple question to those afraid of regulation : why does a country agree that some substances should not belong to the market (drugs) but that not letting junk food be sold in the most cynical and manipulative way to a population dying of diabetes would harm the sacro saint wisdom/freedom of market ? Sidenote : regulation doesn't mean banning, just tax the junk food heavily so the most vulnerable don't buy it and have clear markers it kills your brain cells just like on cigarettes & alcohol.