In response to:

Food Bunk

DagNabbit Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 12:26 AM
SMH. Unbelievable. You think it's a competition to sell the BEST food, or the MOST food? It's not like selling cars, where reliability means a greater market share and wheels that fall off mean less people will buy. It's about profit, which in food production can easily mean selling something that's bad for you earns more profit.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 9:49 AM
"You think it's a competition to sell the BEST food, or the MOST food?"

Since that is inarguably proved to be the case, how could you be stupid enough to try to deny it?

"It's not like selling cars, where reliability means a greater market share and wheels that fall off mean less people will buy."

Actually, as any competent economist, historian, or individual connected with basic reality can tell you, it is EXACTLY like selling cars and for the same reason. You're delusional.

"It's about profit, which in food production can easily mean selling something that's bad for you earns more profit."

Actually, ALL human industry is about profit and providing a better product has always been the chief way of getting it.
hvogel Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 8:35 AM
Do you buy your groceries from a different store every time you shop or do you go back to the same handful of stores every time? Those stores are a brand. They want you to return so they do their best to NOT poison you.

Do you buy the same brands of food most of the time? Most people settle on a range of brands and buy those almost exclusively. They do that because the brand consistently meets their expectations, both for taste and for NOT poisoning them.

So, yes, it's a competition to sell the BEST food because that leads to selling the MOST food. It works because people know they can trust the brand -- store and food.
oujon Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 3:28 AM
Actually, it's EXACTLY like selling cars, where reliability means that consumers don't fear getting sick and thus a greater market share for the responsible companies. You're right that it's about profit, and companies that sell us things (including food) that we want are the ones who survive (notwithstanding the "scientifically illiterate, business-hating media").
scrow Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 1:12 AM
It's a competition to sell the most food that doesn't end up in a company being destroyed in a lawsuit and/or bad PR.

So you dispute the point that the industry is regulating itself more closely than the government requires?

Or that they do so, but for some other reason than to avoid lawsuits and bad PR?

With America's "fiscal cliff" approaching, pundits wring their hands over the supposed catastrophe that government spending cuts will bring. A scare newsletter called "Food Poisoning Bulletin" warns that if government reduces food inspections, "food will be less safe ... (because) marginal companies ... (will) cut corners."

We're going to die!

Most people believe that without government meat inspection, food would be filthy. We read "The Jungle," Upton Sinclair's depiction of the meatpacking business, and assume that the FDA and the Food Safety and Inspection Service are all that stand between us and E. coli. Meatpacking conditions were disgusting. Government...

Related Tags: FDA Pink Slime Food safety