Online Shopping: Hazardous To Junk Food's Health

Rambo Tribble writes "Reuters is reporting that the trend toward online shopping is reducing the sales of impulse-purchase items, most notably candy and snacks often displayed at the checkout counter. As even grocery shopping shifts online, junk food producers are feeling the squeeze. From the article: 'Anthony Hopper, chief executive of advertising agency Lowe Open, said brands need to change how people buy chocolate, but acknowledges that it won't be easy. "If you're somebody who on average buys one bar of Cadbury Dairy Milk on impulse once a week, can I encourage you that it's actually better value to buy a pack of four when you're doing your next online shop? It's a long-term strategy," he said.'"

Comments

will it help against impluse eating?

[gl4ss]

besides, you could plan to buy one at a time.

if I'd buy four candybars and they would come in the mail I would eat them all! ALL! excuse me while I go raid the fridge for some kitkat.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cadbury Dairy Milk? Yekkkk that's disgusting! I'll have the crab juice.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Cryacin]

Crabury Dairy Milk chocolate. It's as tasty as it sounds!

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[sayfawa]

That's exactly why I never buy beer or snacks for "tomorrow". Because it would just get consumed tonight. Controlling the eating means controlling the buying. At least in my case. Forcing myself to go outside every time I want fat or alcohol helps a lot.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[ArcadeMan]

excuse me while I go raid the fridge for some kitkat.

Why are you keeping your phone in the fridge?

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Anonymous Coward]

besides, you could plan to buy one at a time.

if I'd buy four candybars and they would come in the mail I would eat them all! ALL! excuse me while I go raid the fridge for some kitkat.

"Lowe Open, said brands need to change how people buy chocolate, but acknowledges that it won't be easy. "If you're somebody who on average buys one bar of Cadbury Dairy Milk on impulse once a week, can I encourage you that it's actually better value to buy a pack of four when you're doing your next online shop? It's a long-term strategy," he said.'"

Thats exactly what companies want you to do and what a surprise to have an (what appears to be another online) advertising company come out and make a claim for you to consume even more, by buying online, where there ads are readily available to swipe/store data about you, not to mention the money they make from more people using online stores.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[JanneM]

We keep plenty of snacks of all kinds at home. You get a lot of snacks as gifts here, and a lot of really high-quality chocolates are only sold here during Valentine's and White Day, so my wife stocks up then.

The trick is to set a limit, and make it a part of your routine. Convince your mind that no, it actually doesn't want any more because another piece would break the daily routine. We have a snack, candy or chocolate every evening after dinner. A snack, singular. One piece of chocolate, one candy drop, one cookie or whatever. Since it's routine, there's no craving for a second one.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[citizenr]

besides, you could plan to buy one at a time.

if I'd buy four candybars and they would come in the mail I would eat them all! ALL! excuse me while I go raid the fridge for some kitkat.

You just discovered why Americans are fat, yay for you.
Sad fat low income American goes to walmart, buys huge box of vegetable oil labeled as chocolate and immediately eats it all.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[seanvaandering]

That's awesome! Wish I had your self control. A pack of tic-tacs must last you almost two months!

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only moderate myself like that with drugs.

If it's licorice, haribos or whatever it's munching time.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Belial6]

Sorry. Cadbury is way worse. We actually have Cadbury quality chocolate here in the US. It is basically sold only around Easter when people care more about the shape of the chocolate than the taste. We refer to it as crappy Easter chocolate.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Pharmboy]

That kind of discipline is great, but our brains are hardwired to seek high calorie foods, to which snacks fit right in. Most people just aren't going to overcome the urge to eat too much at least some of the time.

Case in point, the country with the most fat people is the one with the most "all you can eat buffet"s. For most people, it is easier and better to simply limit the amount of temptation than it is to deal with that temptation when it is 10 feet away...and salty, and rich, and sweet, and chocolaty and....

Excuse me, need to grab a snack....

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am confused as to why you keep your Android devices in your fridge.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry. Cadbury is way worse. We actually have Cadbury quality chocolate here in the US. It is basically sold only around Easter when people care more about the shape of the chocolate than the taste. We refer to it as crappy Easter chocolate.

That stuff is better described as "chocolate-flavored wax".
And to the GP, just FYI chocolate is from the Americas, we've actually got the best stuff on the planet. But also the worst.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[lgw]

I think if you're taking marketing advice form someone who says "when you're doing your next online shop" you've already lost.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[TheLink]

Hardwired to seek high calorie foods? OK eat a spoon of unsweetened peanut butter. Or drink some olive oil. Or chew on some low sugar biltong. Does that help? :)

The real problem is sugar is addictive for many people - sugar high, then crash, then want more sugar, repeat till obese. I'm lucky that I'd prefer biltong or good beef jerky to candy, or >80% cocoa chocolate. Except that biltong and good quality high cocoa chocolate bars are a lot more expensive... So I end up not snacking much.

By the way there's some research indicating that alcohlics tend to like sweet stuff: http://alcoholism.about.com/library/weekly/aa001218a.htm

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[rogoshen1]

can those hollow tooth destroying Easter monstrosities even be called "chocolate"? If i'm not mistaken for something to be labeled as 'chocolate' it has to have X% of cocoa butter, and those as near as i can tell are churned out in a chinese woodshop and varnished with something vaguely resembling chocolate.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[jimshatt]

Please ask yourself the question WHY the sugar is addictive. Because evolution has hard-wired our brains. So, erhm, thanks for supporting his point?

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[TheRaven64]

Chocolate is like beer in the USA. You can find excellent examples, but it's far, far easier to find something absolutely terrible.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Megane]

I winced inside when I saw Daily Milk mentioned. It is Almost Entirely Unlike Chocolate[tm]. I went on a one-week trip to London many years ago, and those things infested all the tube stations. It was like something out of a Dr. Who episode, maybe one written by Douglas Adams.

Yes, there is a reason Cadbury is all but banished from the US except for novelty chocolate around Easter, when you need to satisfy your primal instinct to bite off a bunny's ears, and you don't care how mundane of a chocolate the bunny is made from. For comparison, that's also the season when we in the US willingly eat large quantities of that chocolate substitute known as carob.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[JanneM]

but our brains are hardwired to seek high calorie foods,

It's not quite that simple. I mean, very few of us actually spend much time hunting for high calorie foods (or any foods) after all.

We're creatures of habit, more than anything else, and what that sugar kick does to you is reinforce a habit of snacking on sugary foods. Sugar may give you a jolt, but it's the habit that makes you snack.

And refraining from doing something can become a habit just as well; it's just not as straightforward to set up. In a way, creating a "one and one only" habit is really all about teaching yourself that the chocolately kick is a signal to stop, not to take another one.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Big Hairy Ian]

But but I do all my online shopping at http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/home.html

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Anonymous Coward]

OP said "high calorie foods". Try drinking cooking oil. Find that addictive?

So "high calorie" is not it.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anything that doesn't apply to? Hell, is it just the US? 90% of everything tends to be crap, so they say.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[tlhIngan]

I winced inside when I saw Daily Milk mentioned. It is Almost Entirely Unlike Chocolate[tm]. I went on a one-week trip to London many years ago, and those things infested all the tube stations. It was like something out of a Dr. Who episode, maybe one written by Douglas Adams.

Cadbury chocolate is made quite differently - they intentionally sour the milk a bit to give it a more distinct taste, which is why it's different. (It's also relatively popular north of the 49th).

Of course, if you're not used to it, it may taste terrible, but it's quite good. Then there's Swiss and Belgian chocolate... more traditional.

The American stuff is generally OK except around easter, when even the "real cocoa butter" bars are just plain awful - gritty, awful tasting and so much more.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[mvdwege]

our brains are hardwired to seek high calorie foods

"It's not my fault I'm an obese pig. It has nothing to do with all the food and snacks I stuff into my fat gizzard, it's the way my brain is wired, honest!"

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please ask yourself the question WHY the sugar is addictive. Because evolution has hard-wired our brains. So, erhm, thanks for supporting his point?

No, it's just about only sugar. I've occasionally found something that I'll crave to the same degree (like jalapeño poppers) but for the most part, it's only sugar that I cannot keep in the house without consuming it all.

It's also only sugar which causes weight gain. I can eat as many of those jalapeño poppers, or as many home-made tacos (the other item I can't control my intake of) as I want and, despite it being nearly twice as many calories as I actually need, by some miracle I fail to gain any weight. Get some sugar in the house, however, and I'll start packing on pounds immediately.

I've been watching my dietary intake vs. my weight for years, and so I know this to be a fact. Unfortunately, I also know that merely avoiding sugar isn't sufficient to lose weight, it's only consuming sugar that causes weight gain. Once the weight is gained, it takes a strict sugar-free diet with carefully measured portions on a regular schedule to lose weight, but if you merely want to avoid gaining additional weight, simply keeping sugar out of your diet is sufficient.

Unfortunately, avoiding sugar is very hard to do since the cravings for it don't go away until you've managed to completely avoid the stuff for two weeks straight, and that's hard to do if you have even the lamest social life since sugar is everywhere and so if you go out of the house you'll almost certainly be offered some. Once you do hit the two week mark, you're ability to just say no to the stuff greatly increases, but if you then so much as have a piece of cake at a birthday party you'll find that you're suddenly unable to control yourself anymore and you'll have five pieces of cake, then end up putting on ten pounds by the end of the week.

The shit should be illegal. Don't let the sweet little five-letter name you've known since you were two years old fool you into thinking it's some completely natural and harmless food. Sugar is the result of a complex manufacturing process that turns a plant into a single molecule. Usually when we do that we consider what we end up with to be a drug.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Megane]

They sour the milk for Hershey's too, and I like their chocolate. The legend is that old man Hershey had a tanker car full of milk that went sour and he was too cheap to throw it out. It ended up making the chocolate better.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[gnasher719]

"It's not my fault I'm an obese pig. It has nothing to do with all the food and snacks I stuff into my fat gizzard, it's the way my brain is wired, honest!"

Meant to be sarcastic, but absolutely true except for some misunderstandings or misrepresentations.

Yes, your body is very keen on eating high calorie foods, because during 99% of human history people could eat all the food available to them without bad side effects, and still the majority of people on earth can.

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[TheLink]

I refuted his point. Pharmboy claimed we are hardwired to seek high calorie foods. So I gave examples of high calorie foods that I think most people aren't as addicted to- they may like it (or not), consume it but then they stop fairly easily - they may even stop for days or longer with no urge to reconsume them in the same quantities.

And there are also people like me who aren't as addicted to sugar. I do not feel a great urge to consume more white sugar or a sugar solution after having a bit of it. But for example, after taking a single Lays potato chip, I feel like I have to have another and another etc (I can stop, but the urge is stronger). Lays may be high calorie but it's not as high calorie as pure oil or fat. And there are plenty of foods with similar calorie density that aren't as addictive.

So it's not high calories. Assuming it is won't get you closer to figuring the real reasons.

I bet the snack food people have done a lot more research on addictive snacks and are closer to the truth. Saltiness, sweetness, umaminess, oiliness, stuff like mouthfeel, even the sound a snack makes when you chomp on it (crispy is popular for some reason). There's probably some snack food researcher somewhere working on snacks that are as addictive as possible while remaining legal, cheap and minimally satiating ;).

Re:will it help against impluse eating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Case in point, the country with the most fat people is the one with the most "all you can eat buffet"s.

Have you considered that you might have the cause-effect reversed? Are the people fat because there are many all-you-can-eat buffets, or are there many buffets because there are a lot of fat people who want to patronise them?

Or, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it be that people just aren't interested in buying that processed garbage any longer?

Re:Or, maybe

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Honestly it's starting to irk me a bit when people are against processed food. Most people have no idea what it even means and what the concerns might be (actual or merely perceived.) You can live perfectly healthy on processed foods. In fact, people who don't eat processed foods are extremely rare, even indigenous tribes devoid of modern technology process their food.

http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/food%20columnist0/Beware_Processed_Foods.shtml

It also irks me a bit when I hear people say you need to stay away from ingredients whose names you can't pronounce. I've asked said people what they think of ascorbic acid, to which most of them effectively say they'd avoid anything containing it. Not a very good idea to completely shut out one of the most important amino acids from your diet. Words you don't recognize, or even things that aren't "natural" aren't inherently bad, in fact most of them are fine to consume.

Re:Or, maybe

[Cryacin]

This comment was proudly brought to you by the Monsanto corporation.

Re:Or, maybe

[Waffle Iron]

In fact, people who don't eat processed foods are extremely rare, even indigenous tribes devoid of modern technology process their food.

When people say to avoid processed food, they're not talking about some tribeswoman grinding it up with a mortar and pestle. They're talking about things like Cheez Whiz, which despite what you may think, is not a healthy food source.

Words you don't recognize, or even things that aren't "natural" aren't inherently bad, in fact most of them are fine to consume.

I'm sorry, but "most" isn't good enough. When you're talking about things that people stuff into their bodies, they damned well better all be fine to consume.

Re:Or, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

With this economy being what it is, as the "lower classes" drop even lower. certain things have to go. Things like candy and sodapop are my first things to give up. I gave up on cable TV some time ago as just plain overpriced for the usefulness I get from it.

As our Congress mulls over tax law, immigration, H1-B, and the like, they also need to keep in mind that as the income for a lot of us decline, there will be a lot of things that will have to experience a decline in sales. The populace will cut back on things that are a "like to have one" in favor of things that fall into the "gotta do" category.

Example: I have already done my Christmas shopping for the year. I had a budget for $3,000 that I had available for spending. My property tax bill for the year also came to $3,000. So, the $3,000 went to pay the property tax and the "gift" is the peace-of-mind knowing the State is paid off for another year. Not a single penny of that $3,000 I paid for tax will pass from my hand into any local cash register.

I do not know if any local merchants are all that concerned. for if they were, there would be an uproar to State lawmakers to do something to increase the amount of spendable income in the general public - as it is we voted for yet another tax hike a couple of years ago... every penny extracted from the public is a penny taken from the till of some merchant's cash register.

Another rant about property tax... why is it that when I get a bank loan for a mortgage, *I* pay the property tax? Technically, the bank owns the house until I pay it off, but I end up footing the whole tax bill - not just that pro-rated for my equity. Why is the note written by the bank not considered "property"? It was created from thin air yet is worth the house! They may say the house represents a tangible property, and the note is just paper. OK, then why is music or patent stuff considered property when it comes to someone else using it, but not considered property at the Assessor's office? Why is it we "little people" end up paying taxes so that the ownership class can have their "rights" protected for stuff like music or how things are done, yet I have to pay tax for have my rights respected, yet they enjoy protection for their rights sans equivalent taxation?

Re:Or, maybe

[MtHuurne]

There is nothing wrong with processed food in theory, but in practice a lot of it has been optimized more for low cost than for health or taste. For example, a minimal amount of the taste-providing ingredients and then a lot of salt and MSG to compensate for that.

Re:Or, maybe

[c0lo]

I've asked said people what they think of ascorbic acid, to which most of them effectively say they'd avoid anything containing it. Not a very good idea to completely shut out one of the most important amino acids from your diet.

Would you please show me the amino (NH2) group specific to aminoacids in the C6H8O6 molecula formula of the ascorbic acid?

Re:Or, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Becuase you are one using the services provided by said property tax dickhead.

Re:Or, maybe

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I'm sorry, but "most" isn't good enough. When you're talking about things that people stuff into their bodies, they damned well better all be fine to consume.

All of them are fine to consume, it just depends on the quantity. Trace amounts of hydrogenated oil are harmless, but large quantities are probably not a good idea. Along that same line of thought, few people know that too much potassium can have very deadly short term consequences that can kill without warning, even deadlier than too much hydrogenated oils.

Foods you pick off of the vine contain these things. The fact that something on the shelf might also contain them doesn't make it inherently bad.

Re:Or, maybe

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Even if it was, does the source of information make it any less true? If so, you might want to check out a pamphlet called 100 scientists against Einstein.

Re:Or, maybe

[Waffle Iron]

Trace amounts of hydrogenated oil are harmless, but large quantities are probably not a good idea.

Gee, and guess what a lot of "processed foods" contain?

Large quantities of hydrogenated oils.

Foods you pick off of the vine contain these things.

In general, they contain trace amounts of bad things, and a large number of essential things.

Processed foods, OTOH, tend to include large amounts of bad things and omit many of the essential things you'd find growing on a vine.

The key is in the amounts, not whether they or not they can be detected in one food or another.

Re:Or, maybe

[ArcadeMan]

All I know is that after reading all the facts about hydrogen oxide I've stopped using it!

Re:Or, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that when they say "processed foods" they don't mean carrots and broccoli that were put in a food processor, right? Processed foods means they come from a huge factory somewhere, whose sole purpose is to crank out the cheapest food possible and charge the most possible to maximize profits. This involves, in part, replacing healthy ingredients with less-healthy, cheaper ingredients.

Re:Or, maybe

[beelsebob]

The point is that the term "processed food' is inaccurate speech at best, and complete bullshit at worst. There are planting of "processed" things (e.g. E-350/Asorbic Acid) that are things you absolutely want to be consuming plenty of, there are plenty of unprocessed things (e.g. Cyonide found in apple pips) that you absolutely don't want to consume any of.

What they *should* be saying is not to consume poisons, or not to consume sufficient volumes of the good stuff that it becomes poisonous. Neither of these has anything at all to do with the level of processing involved.

Re:Or, maybe

[beelsebob]

Oh okay, so then corrupts and broccoli become unhealthy the moment that a large factory start cranking them out? Sounds reasonable. Better steer clear of pretty much any carrots of broccoli sold in a supermarket, because guess where they came from!

Re:Or, maybe

[beelsebob]

Well, feel free to live without street lighting, rubbish collection, or sewers and drainage if you don't like paying your $3000 ;) Off you go to the woods to live like a hermit.

Re:Or, maybe

[phantomfive]

When people say to avoid processed food, they're not talking about some tribeswoman grinding it up with a mortar and pestle.

When most people say to avoid processed food, they're repeating some propaganda they heard somewhere. Sad but true.

One way to distinguish those who are clueless is to ask them if they'll eat any ingredient they can't pronounce. If they say yes, then just smile at them politely and move on.

Re:Or, maybe

[phantomfive]

It also irks me a bit when I hear people say you need to stay away from ingredients whose names you can't pronounce. I've asked said people what they think of ascorbic acid, to which most of them effectively say they'd avoid anything containing it.

Heh.....as a result of this comment, I just posted on Facebook a 'warning' to avoid ascorbic acid, which is in many packaged foods. We'll see how many bites I get.

Re:Or, maybe

[The Snowman]

Foods you pick off of the vine contain these things. The fact that something on the shelf might also contain them doesn't make it inherently bad.

Processed foods not only tend to contain high levels of bad stuff, they have the double whammy of also containing less good stuff. All those vitamins and minerals that appear in natural foods? Processed out of processed foods.

Look up the history of "fortified" foods. Manufacturers spend time and energy removing nutrients from foods, then more time and energy adding them back in.

Re:Or, maybe

[Trogre]

There's a word that can be ascribed to the condition in such people: chemophobia

Re:Or, maybe

[demonlapin]

Perhaps it's different in the UK (assumed b/c of spelling/word choice), but where I live, trash collection and water/sewage treatment are done by the municipality but not paid out of taxes - they're fee-for-service. Street lighting is a public service. Public education is another, but the local schools are so bad as to be unusable. My parents paid property taxes for ages, and I've been paying them for quite some time. I never spent a day in the city's schools, nor did my sister, nor did my wife or her brother, nor any of our children, and none of us were rich. My mother made our clothes herself in order to save enough to keep us in private schooling.

We pay for a lot of nominally public services that we don't actually use.

Re:Or, maybe

[ewieling]

I try to keep my consumption of highly processed foods to reasonable amounts because they tend have very high amounts of things I already consume plenty of i.e. saturated fats, sodium salt, and processed sugar. I do not, however, obsess over eating healthy. Could I have a more healthy diet? Absolutely! Could I have a much less healthy diet? I did for many years. Do I feel guilty about the occasional soft drink or bacon cheeseburger? Never.

Re:Or, maybe

[Waffle Iron]

What they *should* be saying is not to consume poisons, or not to consume sufficient volumes of the good stuff that it becomes poisonous. Neither of these has anything at all to do with the level of processing involved.

They don't in theory.

In reality, the two are very highly correlated. So in the real world, for real people, the advice about processed foods is valid.

Re:Or, maybe

[DeathElk]

A truck driving friend of mine once sent me a photo of his delivery - pallets full of pharmaceuticals being delivered to a breakfast cereal plant in time for the sticky kids cereal batch run. The cereal box says "fortified with iron and vitamins". Why not just have the HEALTHY and NATURAL option of bran and sliced fruit? That's good for your colon, heart and tastebuds. Why? Because the advertising industry is employed by these food companies to brainwash kids (and apparently people like you) into believing this processed sticky shit is somehow healthy.

Re:Or, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not food, it's feed.

Re:Or, maybe

[Guy Harris]

Even if it was, does the source of information make it any less true?

No, but the fact that ascorbic acid isn't an amino acid makes

I've asked said people what they think of ascorbic acid, to which most of them effectively say they'd avoid anything containing it. Not a very good idea to completely shut out one of the most important amino acids from your diet.

sound, at best, like an odd combination of two sentences talking about different unrelated things.

Re:Or, maybe

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Some of these you kind of have to, though for differing reasons. Just as an example, part of my diet requires me to avoid bran (high in phosphorus,) which e.g. requires removal from brown rice to make it white rice. At that point, fortifying nutrients back into it only serves to benefit.

Re:Or, maybe

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Let me tell you a joke I once heard.

A guy goes to a doctor's office once after watching Dr. Oz and asks if reducing the sodium, trans fats, msg, and sugars in his diet would I live longer. The doctor thinks for a second and replies "Hmm...well, it'll certainly seem longer."

Re:Or, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

The cereal box says "fortified with iron and vitamins". Why not just have the HEALTHY and NATURAL option of bran and sliced fruit? That's good for your colon, heart and tastebuds. Why? Because the advertising industry

Wrong, it's largely not very tasty compared to a bag of flour mixed with sugars and food coloring.

Re:Or, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that when they say "processed foods" they don't mean carrots and broccoli that were put in a food processor, right?

Actually that's exactly what they mean. The FDA will slap you down if you run your veggies through a food processor (or even chop it by hand) and then attempt to sell it as "whole" or "unprocessed".

Re:Or, maybe

[pepty]

if the taste-providing ingredients taste savory then they quite probably contain a lot of glutamate as well.

Re:Or, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, the bank owns the house until I pay it off

No, technically you own the house. Feel free to hang some pictures on the wall or replace the taps in the kitchen; the bank won't mind. All the mortgage shows is that the bank lent you a certain amount of money, and that the property is being used as collateral to secure this loan.

Re:Or, maybe

[CodeBuster]

I've asked said people what they think of ascorbic acid, to which most of them effectively say they'd avoid anything containing it.

What can you say? The average person off the street is an idiot. If you told them to avoid dihydrogen monoxide too, they would probably agree with that as well. In fact, they would even probably sign a petition on the spot to ban dihydrogen monoxide if you asked them to..

Re:Or, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Unprocessed Food: 1 part marketing against Processed Food, 1 part saving cost on 'processing', 1 part jack up the price due to novelty. 3 parts profit.

Re:Or, maybe

[gl4ss]

sell it to the bank and rent from them then.

technically you own it - unless you break the mortgage contract(if the contract is so screwed up that they can one handedly without you breaking the contract cancel that contract and take the possession then it's a pretty fucked up contract).

maybe stop waging expensive wars? and fuck your taxes are pretty low on international scale anyways..

and I'm pretty sure you're supposed to be paying taxes on royalties..

Re:Or, maybe

[bickerdyke]

While that piece of junk is technically right that "processing food" is an expression too wide to base any descision on (it DOES range from cooking or canning to adding 99% artificial ingredients and still call it food) it completly leaves out the problematic processes. The basic claim is that just because cooking food is also a kind of process, all processing done to food is harmless. Well yeah. sometimes my life would be easier if I was dumb enough to believe such BS.

But what you mentioned is still a good rule of thumb. The more of the "food processing" (from cutting to cooking) is done in your own kitchen, the better control YOU have of the whole process. And the more control you have, the less likely it becomes that you're doing something that would only benefit the manufacturer by reducing quality for the sake of profits. If you do, well, then it's quite stupid, but your own descision.

The less complex processes a food item has gone through, the easier it is for the layman to see if it is a quality enhancing or a profit enhancing process.

Likewise, the "if you can't spell it, don't eat it" is also a good rule of thumb to avoid unneccessary additives. And that even holds through for your Vitamin C example. If it is listed as an additive, it has usually NOT beed added because of its benefits as a vitamin, but as a preservative. And even as it is essential (no doubt about that) you can get more than enough by eating easy to spell food as "fruit" or "bell pepper"

If you really have to take additional vitamin suplements, that's a sign of malnutrition (or medical condition) and you should change your basic diet.

Re: Or, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Some processing is necessary. Even into the early 20th century Americans suffered from and died of pellagra because no one bothered to process maize the way the Indians had, which makes niacin available. Now pellagra is rare, because we process corn.

As someone else pointed out, that's different from trying to subsist on Cheez-Whiz. If only there were a term available to describe the latter category and differentiate it from the former, something to clarify that some foods are junkâ¦

Re:Or, maybe

[MtHuurne]

...but not as much sodium.

Re:Or, maybe

[Bert64]

And over the many years that humans have lived on this planet we have learned which naturally occurring items should not be consumed. That's why only some naturally occurring items are considered to be "food" and other things are not.

Also its not necessarily "processing" that people have a problem with, its the underhanded and greedy methods of the food processing companies who will mix in all manner of nasty crap that we wouldn't normally want to eat. Some of us like to know exactly what we're eating.

What i also absolutely detest is "new improved recipe", where "new" and "improved" mean that its now cheaper to produce but probably doesn't taste as good. There are all manner of products i used to buy but which now either taste revolting or contain substances i wouldn't want to consume. If you change the recipe you should be forced to change the brand too, if the recipe is different then you've create a new different product.

Re:Or, maybe

[Megane]

The real joke there of course is that "a guy" would watch Dr. Oz, as his show is clearly aimed at women. The early afternoon time slot just confirms it.

Re:Or, maybe

[Megane]

You know what "fortified with iron" means, right? It means they mix in a bunch of iron filings into the cereal. Crush some up and stick a magnet into it if you don't believe me.

Re:Or, maybe

[Megane]

I've asked said people what they think of ascorbic acid, to which most of them effectively say they'd avoid anything containing it.

Do you also ask people if they are worried about Dihydrogen Monoxide and if we should end the suffrage of women? Also, protip: it's not an amino acid, it's vitamin C.

Re:Or, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

And good for you! Now, if you stopped using di-hydrogen oxide...we wouldn't know anyway as dead people cannot post on /. [probably]

Re:Or, maybe

[Bert64]

It's more likely that a large food processing factory will do several things with the carrots and broccoli...

1, use more of the spoiled/bad vegetables that most people would discard
2, use less vegetables and add more cheap filler materials to bulk out the product
3, use more fat, salt, msg etc to improve the flavor (which may have been ruined by the filler materials) in the cheapest way possible
4, replace other ingredients with cheaper substitutions wherever possible, again using more salt/fat/msg/etc to try and disguise the difference

If carrots and broccoli are sold in their original form you can see what they are, and you can see that unknown substances have not been mixed in to bulk them out. The same can't be said of a processed product, where the end result will usually make it very difficult if not impossible to identify the source ingredients and processes used.

Companies want to reduce costs in order to increase profits, and profits are considered far more important than customer satisfaction or health. Processed foods allow them to hide all manner of things that people would disapprove of and which might alter their purchasing decision. I doubt you'd buy a 200g pack of broccoli if it came with 50g of broccoli and a 150g blob of grey paste and instructions to blend them together and then reform it in broccoli shaped moulds to get the final product.

Re:Or, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

If the government wasn't meddling, the house would be yours as per a standard money loan contract. Odds are that the property is put as collateral for if you default on your loan or something. Not that it literally belongs to the bank until you pay it off. Again, legal distinctions created by the state.

Re:Or, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh okay, so then corrupts and broccoli become unhealthy the moment that a large factory start cranking them out? Sounds reasonable. Better steer clear of pretty much any carrots of broccoli sold in a supermarket, because guess where they came from!

I don't know what corrupts and broccoli is suppose to be but you need to pay attention to where the ingredients for your frozen vegetables come from and the processes used when freezing them. It is quite possible to grow vegetables in really crappy soil that leaves the vegetables low in all those healthy vitamins and minerals. This leads to vegetables that are even more dangerous then "processed foods" because the people consuming them think they are eating healthily but they are not getting all the good stuff they expect.

Also, the processes between the receiving of the veggies at the factory and the end product can have a huge effect on the nutritional value of the end product. For example, boiling broccoli (or any other vegetable for that matter) tends to leach out the vitamins and minerals contained in the vegetable, an example being folate (a essential vitamin which is required to make 2 of the bases for dna, a deficiency of folate can lead to massive problems). Cooking can destroy up to 70% of folate in vegetables, if your frozen broccoli has been cooked before freezing, thats up to 70% of the folate gone already, add to that the cooking required prior to consumption and you are looking at up to 100% loss of folate in your broccoli.

The source of your produce matters even if you are buying "fresh" vegetables and fruits though. Those cheap red apples that you bought the other week (sourced from China) probably are not as healthy as what you would think...

Re:Or, maybe

[ChumpusRex2003]

Actually, as cereals/grains make up a large part of the modern diet, the fact that they are poor sources of certain vitamins becomes relevant. For example, breakfast cereal commonly has folic acid added, not because it was lost during process (although some is), but because it is an important public health measure. Same for flour for bread making.

Additionally, some nutrients will be lost from processing - usually cooking, as most breakfast cereals are baked. Many vitamins are heat unstable and are therefore added back by the manufacturers.

Re:Or, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

One word: Castoreum. Or three words: beaver ass exudate.

Re:Or, maybe

[Megane]

Wow, there's an idiot with mod points doesn't believe me.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=youtube%20cereal%20iron%20filings

Junk Food

[BringsApples]

Yeah, because it's something that everyone should be buying, despite the fact that:

so many are struggling financially
people want to live better and feel better

Right? It's got to be because of online shopping.

Re:Junk Food

[DavidClarkeHR]

Yeah, because it's something that everyone should be buying, despite the fact that: so many are struggling financially people want to live better and feel better Right? It's got to be because of online shopping.

Yeah. We should definitely control it. That works out well for alcohol and marijuana and 32 oz cups of soda.

Re:Junk Food

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking MORAN

Re: Junk Food

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen

Re:Junk Food

[causality]

Yeah, because it's something that everyone should be buying, despite the fact that: so many are struggling financially people want to live better and feel better Right? It's got to be because of online shopping.

Yeah. We should definitely control it. That works out well for alcohol and marijuana and 32 oz cups of soda.

In American legislation, you're not supposed to grasp the principle. You're supposed to keep trying many different iterations on it, until there's a War on Everything. How else are we going to dictate to people how they shall live?!

Re:Junk Food

[Anonymous Coward]

[May only work in countries where this chocolate bar and associated campaign was seen]

M (get the go)
O (get the go)
R (get the go)
O (N get the go)

MORON!

PS: Not directed at anyone in particular, just in Primary school I thought this was hilarious.

Re:Junk Food

[InsightfulPlusTwo]

Remember the Hostess bankruptcy? Sales of Twikies kept going down, and they said the reason was because "customers have migrated to healthier foods." Which supports your claim about people wanting to live better and feel better.

Re:Junk Food

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh?

A higher likely reason

[Anonymous Coward]

People are getting poorer.

But don't mind my life experience.

Re:A higher likely reason

[citizenr]

Its poor that are getting fat because they eat cost optimized manufactured garbage thats so cheap you can eat a lot of it.

Re:A higher likely reason

[drinkypoo]

The price of those snacks has gone up, too. That's not surprising, that's what prices do, but wages haven't gone up with them. With three applicants for every job even if they were evenly distributed, it would be surprising if people were spending a dollar on something they used to get for fifty cents.

To boot, more people are getting concerned about the amount of sugar they're consuming...

Re:A higher likely reason

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to that, the dearth of actual nutrients in this garbage doesn't satisfy the brains need for those nutrients and therefore you stay hungry.

Ever feel like pigs in a trough?

Validates what your home ec teacher said

[MrEricSir]

Remember your home ec class? One of the lessons was to use a shopping list -- and stick to it -- in order to avoid impulse buys.

Well an online shopping cart is, for all intents and purposes, a shopping list. Looks like your home ec teacher was right all along.

Re:Validates what your home ec teacher said

[Anonymous Coward]

reminds me of a story i recall reading a while back (sorry, don't have a reference) about how parents who got tivo found they were able to save money on toys, fast food/junk food, and assorted other items just because they could censor the commercials their children watched on teevee.

Re:Validates what your home ec teacher said

[dbIII]

Yep, that class was the thing just like typing that the school decided that men would never need so they didn't give that class to the boys.

Re:Validates what your home ec teacher said

[Gavagai80]

Takes all the fun out of grocery shopping. I've tried online grocery shopping and it's really boring, plus you can't check the expiration dates or visible freshness on what you're putting in your cart. I prefer to go to the store when I'm hungry without a list and decide what to get on impulse, which makes it fun. But I'm also sane, so I limit my impulses to the things that are cheap and only spend about $150/mo on groceries.

I'd do almost any other sort of shopping online, but there's no substitute for actually seeing and smelling food. And it's a boring life if you just eat off a list without the ability to notice something new and interesting.

Re:Validates what your home ec teacher said

[Ambvai]

Same here-- I tried shopping with a list once. Failed horribly: Unless there's a special event, I know what I can make, and I decide what to buy based on current prices, quality, and how long to my next expected grocery trip.

Re:Validates what your home ec teacher said

[istartedi]

Home Ec was under that cloud when I was in school; but some of us saw the writing on the wall when it came to typing. The typing class was still majority female. The teacher was this very prim, older woman--the classic professional secretary look. Taking that class "so I could use my computer better" was one of the best decisions I ever made to guide my own education. Absolutely nobody pushed me to do it. I think that fact that my father had been a Yeoman in the Navy and then later an administrator for DoD helped. He could type 70 wpm on a manual. They taught us with manuals in school. I tested at 45 after a semester. I still pound the shit out of my keyboards. People in the same room complain about it sometimes.I suppose I should make an effort to get over that...

Re:Validates what your home ec teacher said

[Belial6]

And as time went on, they didn't add that class for boys, they dropped it for girls.

Re:Validates what your home ec teacher said

[Gavagai80]

Considering specials in the decision is important, people who shop from a list may spend more because they buy what's on their list instead of what's on sale.

Re:Validates what your home ec teacher said

[Dr_Barnowl]

Do you have a proper keyboard with clicky mechanical switches? They provide the feedback you need to reduce your typing pressure to just over the level required.

Re:Validates what your home ec teacher said

[RabidReindeer]

Considering specials in the decision is important, people who shop from a list may spend more because they buy what's on their list instead of what's on sale.

Not me. I have to have a list, since otherwise it takes me 3 or 4 trips before I get everything. Leaky memory.

And if an item's on sale, I often grab it in addition to what's on the list. Plus, if I think of a specific use of something, that may require further purchases in order to use it as I wish.

Re:Validates what your home ec teacher said

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of what I buy is fruits and vegetables. Making a list for them is silly. You don't know what's going to look good that day. Same thing with meat. The trick to avoiding impulse buying is to not do it. Such things are habits and habits can be changed.

Makes a lot of sense actually

[dyingtolive]

I hit a different liquor store for booze tonight than normal. It was one of those yuppie "wine and cheese" places, because it was convenient.

They had all sorts of chocolates at the counter. I skipped lunch and was hungry, so I almost got a couple to tide me over.

If I was somehow buying magic alcohol that was getting delivered to me same day? Wouldn't have even considered it.

leeches

[Anonymous Coward]

*nm*

Figures

[sacrilicious]

Anthony Hopper, chief executive of advertising agency Lowe Open, said brands need to change how people buy chocolate, but acknowledges that it won't be easy.

After that scene where he talks about eating fava beans with a light chianti, I figured he could make anything sound tasty. No surprise he ended up in food advertising.

Re:Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Anthony Hopkins did that

they can just add an Halloween 2 in the summer tim

[Joe_Dragon]

they can just add an Halloween 2 in the summer time

Re: names people can't pronounce

[FranklinWebber]

> ...what they think of ascorbic acid,... they'd avoid anything containing it.
> Not a very good idea to completely shut out one of the most important amino acids from your diet.

BTW, ascorbic acid is not an amino acid.

Newsflash !

[Anonymous Coward]

Newflash !

Online shopping does not cure binge eating.

News at 11

and remember kids

[fermion]

If you smoke, buying cigs by the carton makes economic sense as well.

Invoking Betteridge's law in 3... 2... 1...

[pla]

If you're somebody who on average buys one bar of Cadbury Dairy Milk on impulse once a week, can I encourage you that it's actually better value to buy a pack of four when you're doing your next online shop?

No. No, you cannot. Because:

1) Most people prone to impulse-buying your crap would eat it all the same day it arrives,
2) Impulse buyers tend to act on impulse, and wouldn't actually seek it out deliberately, and
3) People intentionally buying chocolate buy chocolate. Not your "HFCS, carob and soy lecithin" garbage.


Now, if we consider junk foods beyond just candy, let's consider margins of impulse-buys vs planned buys. I happen to like Doritos. Yeah, complete crap, and bad for me, but I intentionally (whether impulse or actually on the list) buy them every now and then.

As an impulse buy, I pay basically a buck for a 1.5oz bag of their crap. For two bucks, I can get a full-sized bag. So, Frito Lay needs to ask itself something - Can you afford to sell Doritos without the insane margins on your "vending-machine" sized packs? Or do those basically subsidize the price of "family packs" that you may well only sell for the purpose of keeping us "hooked"?

Because the same logic applies to almost every less-than-bulk sized junk-food out there. Sodas make a great example - a 20oz soda at the register costs MORE than a 2-liter bottle. A 3-pack of gum in the candy aisle costs less than a single pack of the same gum at the register. Can "impulse-buy"-centric companies actually afford to sell only their more economical sizes?

Re:Invoking Betteridge's law in 3... 2... 1...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you afford to sell Doritos without the insane margins on your "vending-machine" sized packs? Or do those basically subsidize the price of "family packs" that you may well only sell for the purpose of keeping us "hooked"?

Because the same logic applies to almost every less-than-bulk sized junk-food out there. Sodas make a great example - a 20oz soda at the register costs MORE than a 2-liter bottle. A 3-pack of gum in the candy aisle costs less than a single pack of the same gum at the register. Can "impulse-buy"-centric companies actually afford to sell only their more economical sizes?

Of course they can. They don't want to, but I guarantee they make a profit on every single item they sell.

For example, a 16-ounce bag of Doritos might set you back $6. That's cheap relative to their small bags, but on the other hand, they're selling corn tortillas for $6/pound.

OM-\G\ we are losing uptake!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah so we're going to lose a few opportunities to put some extra mercury laced GMO high fructose corn syrup into them, but
I'm sure in the long run the extra radiation they're getting from their devices will do the job. Nothing to fret about,
we are still on-track with exterminating these excess vermin. And if your job goes away, well I suppose you're another
useless frier we need to get rid off.

Somebody think of the chocolates!

[Anonymous Coward]

"feeling the squeeze"?

Yes, how can they continue to sell less products but still at well over 1000% markup and be viable? It's certainly a conundrum, and one I will be sparing more than the odd thought for. Those poor shareholders!

Dear Anthony

[ArcadeMan]

I'm vegan, lactose-intolerant and allergic to casein. It seems that almost all snacks companies (chips, cookies, granola bars, chocolate bars, etc) not only do not care about losing all the vegan customers but some even have the habit of adding lactose to the ingredients. Lactose in chips, for example. Yes, there's lactose in some brands of salt and vinegar chips to give you a strange example. I know to avoid anything cheese-flavored but the salt and vinegar ones took me by surprise.

Vegans in small towns do not have access to vegan brands and only get the "commercial" stuff. So the first company to actually comply with vegan requirements will be able to cash early on by grabbing customers who are currently left behind.

At the moment, the only chocolate bar I've found to be vegan is made in France, sold at our local dollar store.

Re:Dear Anthony

[demonlapin]

Your problem is that the vegan market is so small as to be nonexistent in most places. And the number of people who are both a) vegans and b) interested in junk food is even smaller.

Re:Dear Anthony

[Windwraith]

This is very true. I am also lactose-intolerant and I've noticed dairy or dairy derivatives in the places you'd least expect, one of them being chips, another being meat (!?), and even some sweets that, as a pastry chef, I know it shouldn't use milk at all.

Re: Dear Anthony

[cecom]

You are saying "I am a vegan" as if it is a disease and not your own choice. Nobody is forcing you to be a vegan. If there aren't enough vegan products, the solution is simple: don't be one.

I am in a much more difficult situation myself: I only eat foods which contain meat. I have to tell you, no food producers and no restaurants are sensitive to my needs! Those bastards. I have been asking for meatball bread at my local Safeway for years, but they simply ignore me and laugh at me. Insensitive clods!

Re:Dear Anthony

[Anonymous Coward]

There's tons of great tasting vegan junk food out there, including cheese flavoured stuff. Sure, it's almost impossible to find at your local store, but considering the subject of this story is online shopping, that's a non-issue.

Although . . . we're not supposed to to tell anyone as it's super secret, but if you want junk food, Oreo cookies can be found everywhere and are vegan. Depending on whether or not you consider sugar vegan due to the probable use of bone char and can live with the deforestation resulting from palm oil production.

Now, remember, it's a secret! Don't tell anyone. If regular Americans found out they were eating vegan cookies, there would be rioting in the streets, the people working at Nabisco would be lynched, and Santa Clause will put coal in your stocking for removing his favorite cookie from plates on fireplaces everywhere.

Re: Dear Anthony

[Anonymous Coward]

He can't consume milk products. Even if he wasn't vegan and did consume meat, it wouldn't change much, because you don't typically find beef in chips and cookies. Milk products are in everything.

But, forget the junk food for a second. It especially annoys me when there are milk products in breakfast cereal. Considering people typically consume cereal with milk, it seems like there would be no point in adding it other than to annoy the fuck out of people that don't consume milk.

Re:Dear Anthony

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing, you have most of the "Trendy" health issues but I noticed you missed out on "Gluten" which seems to be the "in" thing at the moment.

Learn how markets work, you represent a SMALL percentage of the population, did you expect to have the largest selection?

Re: Dear Anthony

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure he can, LACTAID....

Re: Dear Anthony

[ArcadeMan]

Lactaid only helps with the lactose, not the casein.

Re: Dear Anthony

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarious.

You dumn fuck.

Fuck slashdot beta

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't read a fucking thing here, and I can't find the damn link to go back to the working slashdot format instead of this broken fucked up beta site. I hope everyone at dice media die a horrible painful death this holiday.

Cadbury Dairy Milk...

[mjwx]

"If you're somebody who on average buys one bar of Cadbury Dairy Milk on impulse once a week, can I encourage you that it's actually better value to buy a pack of four when you're doing your next online shop? It's a long-term strategy,"

If you're somebody who on average buys one bar of Cadbury Dairy Milk on impulse once a week, can I encourage you to try some decent chocolate.

Re:Cadbury Dairy Milk...

[colin_young]

Please don't. The increased demand will just push the price up for those of us who are capable of appreciating decent chocolate.

Re:Cadbury Dairy Milk...

[zippthorne]

Not necessarily. There would certainly be an initial bump, but if the demand was consistent, then production would roll out to match. Maybe more fields (people buying more "pure" chocolate might require more plants to supply it), re-tooling, or whatever. Eventually the price would stabilize, and might even be lower, if the new demand levels allow for economies of scale and competition is cutthroat.

On a scale of 10...

[Animats]

On a 0..10 scale of problems to worry about, this ranks around 0.01.

The dynamics of on line food ordering could get interesting. Has anyone noted interesting suggestions from Amazon Fresh?

Re:On a scale of 10...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a suggestion, get away from your computer and go to your local farmer's market.

Re:On a scale of 10...

[LienRag]

It's not a problem, it's a solution...

The problem would be getting rid of the people who try to trick other human beings back in unhealthy eating habits.

Yeah right, online purchases...

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Sorry, It's not "online purchases" or "healthier eating" that's causing the drop in prices, it's the doubling or tripling prices for chips and soda.

Most folks who are middle class can't justify spending 4.50 on a 12-14 ounce bag of chips on their salary. Living where I do, the only ones spending that are using the link card (welfare cards for food) to get chips, pop, ice cream, and other junk foods.

The folks whining about declining sales just need to wait until more folks are on government subsistence, then the profits will creep back.

Here's a theory

[viperidaenz]

Perhaps you're actually better off not buying the junk food after all. You don't need to buy in bulk.

Re:Here's a theory

[Chrisq]

Perhaps you're actually better off not buying the junk food after all. You don't need to buy in bulk.

But does the lack of junk-food compensate for the loss of exercise walking round the supermarket?

Re:Here's a theory

[jimshatt]

That's why I've set up dozens of PCs in my house. One for each isle in the supermarket. That way I get the exercise AND the home shopping!

Re:Here's a theory

[viperidaenz]

An 80g chocolate bar has 400 calories in it, 1/5th of a average daily intake. I doubt walk around the supermarket burns that much energy.

You'd be lucky if it burnt 100.

"It's a long-term strategy"

[Anonymous Coward]

For whom? For Cadbury's or for me?

Cadbury's doesn't care for me. I don't care for them. All is well. May they burn in hell.

shifts online

[cascadingstylesheet]

As even grocery shopping shifts online

Still waiting for that ... granted, I choose not to live in a hive of extreme population density that is probably required to make it work.

But dang, there are days I would love to just place an online order and have some milk and bread show up.

Not a problem!

[xenobyte]

Just display candy-ads on a page on the way to checkout. You'll still get impulse buys.

Make what people want

[Princeofcups]

How about you make what people want instead of trying to get them to buy what you want to make. Just saying.

So online shopping is healthy?

[slasher999]

So sitting on one's couch Internet shopping is actually healthier than the alternative?

If Cadbury goes under.....

[Anonymous Coward]

... how will I get my daily dose of melamine?