General > General Technical Chat

absurd marketing bullshittery

<< < (17/23) > >>

DavidAlfa:
There're lots of BS in the food marketing, but this one isn't.

- Not everyone knows which foods contains gluten naturally?

- You can never be 100% sure, maybe some additive has gluten, so anyone allergic will appreciate the label.

- Of course, crispy and crunch sounds great, but adding gluten-free makes it more inviting, it's a no-brainer for the intolerant, while having to analyze every food looking for gluten must be tiresome!

- If some f*cktrads buy gluten-free because it's fancy, nice for them!

- Someone had too much free time to rant about gluten-free labeling! :-DD

AlbertL:

--- Quote from: wraper on May 23, 2022, 07:30:33 am ---FWIW if we talk about chips then garbage made from potato flakes may contain plenty of gluten. Layman may not know the difference between real chips and junk like Pringles which often contain more of other components than potato. Not to say even in real chips whatever additive was used may contain grain products. With processed foods made these days it's not as straightforward as it may seem. On other hand things like "cholesterol free" vegetable oils are really lame.

--- End quote ---

I believe Pringles are a composite of sawdust and glue.

TimFox:
If you find a restaurant that actually makes potato chips in house, be sure to patronize them!

tom66:

--- Quote from: free_electron on May 26, 2022, 02:40:16 pm ---
--- Quote from: Stray Electron on May 26, 2022, 01:54:28 am --- Just like the manufacturers that put California Proposition 65 warnings on EVERYTHING that they make.

--- End quote ---
ah yes. another one of those turds. instead of warning us about it , why don't they remove the crap ?

--- End quote ---

The Prop 65 authors acknowledge the failure of their legislation.

It was very much intended to reduce harmful elements from being used in consumer products, by the notice being a novelty, it would draw attention to it.  The problem is when everything has some level of harm then the liability headaches mean everything suspect gets declared as definitely harmful.

It needs to change but the broad idea of labelling products that contain carcinogens/etc. is a good idea.

james_s:

--- Quote from: free_electron on May 26, 2022, 02:40:16 pm ---ah yes. another one of those turds. instead of warning us about it , why don't they remove the crap ?

--- End quote ---

Because they can't. Have you looked at the list of substances that Prop 65 covers? It is huge and growing all the time, and it does not take quantity into consideration, trace amount or a majority of the composition makes no difference. On top of that there is no penalty for putting the warning on something that does not contain any of those substances while there is a penalty for failing to place the warning on something that does contain it so the end result is many companies just put the warning on absolutely everything just to cover their bases. The law may have been based on good intent but it is fundamentally flawed and it takes either a special kind of stupid or magical thinking to believe that it actually does something useful. A warning that is on everything tells you nothing, and amuses me to some degree that California seems blissfully unaware that they are the laughing stock of the entire country. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone see that stupid cancer warning and say something like "well, it's a good thing we're not in California! har har"

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod