Evian nutritional information

[Shocker]

believe it or not, i bought a bottle of evian water and it had nutritional information listed on it.

it read:

protein: 0g
carbs: 0g
fat: 0g

i would be scared if any of those actually registered a result - IT'S WATER !

[Victor]

They also have such contents on little mint sweets. Worse still, which states something like 0.0003 for each department. Oh well...

[Paul Stagg]

The stupidity of government regulation.

[Wizard]

Hey, what about the calories? does it state how many cals are in there?
I am not gonna buy Evian again if you don't provide me with in depth nutritional analysis..

[kimpy225]

lol
a friend and i used to joke about regular water with ingredients..
apparently it is now coming down to that

[NateDogg]

If that is not done, then it comes down to having to define the boundaries of what "water" is, and disputes will arise over seltzer water, flavored water, etc. It's just easier to say that everything needs to have a nutritional label, IMO.

[Tryska]

i agree. i think nutrtional labels on everything is fantastic.

takes the guesswork out, and you know exactly what your getting.

even if it's just water.

[Tryska]

although it would be really cool if potassium, calcium and magnesium levels were put on labels alongside sodium. especially on water.

[TreeTrunks]

paul's right nutrition facts on water is just another product of government overregulation. But its a double-edged sword, yeah its ridiculous to have nutrition facts on water but the reason they are on there is that it has to be labeled on all food items so that is good.

[zwarrior99]

Stupidy i am glad they put that there!

[Paul Stagg]

If it is important to consumers, they would ask for it, and the free market would force the sellers to place labels there (since whomever decided to serve that market buy placing labels would be wildly successful)

We DO NOT need to government to hold our hands. Well, maybe some of you do, but I don't.

If you do, I suggest you move somewhere the government will take care of you. Like China. That seems like a nice place.

[Just some girl]

What exactly are you arguing against, Paul? Do you feel there is an extreme down side to manufacturers putting nutritional information on the label? Is there anything wrong with allowing the consumer to always be able to make educated decisions about what they are putting into their body for fuel? Even if many people do not currently utilize this source of information, would you say it is inherently evil or bad?

As someone stated before, can you force manufacturers of foods that you know to be higher in calories to put food labels on their products if you do not force them to label lower calorie products? What point would you use as the caloric cut-off for the products that needed nutrition information versus the ones that do not? And what about products with almost no calories, but lots of sodium? Don't people with high blood pressure need to know that information? What about products with almost no calories, no fat, no nutrition at all except sugar? Don't diabetics need to know that? So how can we establish a caloric or fat or sugar based cut-off? Isn't it just so much easier to say that all products need nutritional information even if it is to tell us that there is nothing in it? Basically the only product that this "nothing in it" would apply to would be water. But even then, as someone pointed out earlier, what about seltzer waters? What about the new "Snapple water"? How do you decide which "water" is really just plain old nothing-in-it-water?

But even more to the point, why waste all of our tax dollars trying to devise a new system to control this when the one we have already works. It is beneficial to numerous Americans, and is only actually silly for very few products out there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And the system in this case is far from broken.

[Tryska]

:withstupi

[Paul Stagg]

What exactly are you arguing against, Paul?

** Government interferance in the free market.

Do you feel there is an extreme down side to manufacturers putting nutritional information on the label?

** Absolutely not.

Is there anything wrong with allowing the consumer to always be able to make educated decisions about what they are putting into their body for fuel?

** Absolutely not

Even if many people do not currently utilize this source of information, would you say it is inherently evil or bad?

** Absolutely not.

As someone stated before, can you force manufacturers of foods that you know to be higher in calories to put food labels on their products if you do not force them to label lower calorie products?

** I don't think we shoudl *force* any one, in a free society, to do anything unless the use of force protects another individual's property rights.

What point would you use as the caloric cut-off for the products that needed nutrition information versus the ones that do not?

** Infinity, as I think it is wrong to *force* anyone to label anything.

And what about products with almost no calories, but lots of sodium? Don't people with high blood pressure need to know that information?

** Sure.

What about products with almost no calories, no fat, no nutrition at all except sugar? Don't diabetics need to know that?

** Sure

So how can we establish a caloric or fat or sugar based cut-off?

** Let the market place do it.

Isn't it just so much easier to say that all products need nutritional information even if it is to tell us that there is nothing in it?

** Easier? no. More effective? no.

Basically the only product that this "nothing in it" would apply to would be water. But even then, as someone pointed out earlier, what about seltzer waters? What about the new "Snapple water"? How do you decide which "water" is really just plain old nothing-in-it-water?

** You, of your own free will either: only buy products where the manufacturer or retailer has decided to provide the information OR research on your own what is in the product OR take your chances.

But even more to the point, why waste all of our tax dollars trying to devise a new system to control this when the one we have already works. It is beneficial to numerous Americans, and is only actually silly for very few products out there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And the system in this case is far from broken.

** I say we use $0 of our tax money. This system is horribly broken. Why? Because now the market is full of people who *think* that since the gov't requires the label, everything we need to know is on the label, and we don't need to research anything else. Which, of course, is not true. perhaps if the gov't stayed out of it, we would have far mroe useful information on the label as a result of a marketplace where the information is required to be successful, instead of a marketplace where the required information may or may not be appropriate, but since the gov't requires it, it MUST be all we need.

** I don't need to government to do this for me. If you do, then there are plenty of places where the government will take care of you. Of course, you won't have any property rights, but really, who needs them?

[Just some girl]

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
now the market is full of people who *think* that since the gov't requires the label, everything we need to know is on the label, and we don't need to research anything else. Which, of course, is not true. perhaps if the gov't stayed out of it, we would have far mroe useful information on the label as a result of a marketplace where the information is required to be successful, instead of a marketplace where the required information may or may not be appropriate

I think this is an interesting point. Though I disagree that there is a great deal more that needs to be on labels and within the nutritional information of food products for people to make educated decisions. I think knowing more about the things listed on the labels would be a great idea. Like the idea that all carbs are not equal, fat is not inherently bad, and so on. Ideas everyone here is very familiar with. But to put a mini diet and nutrition lesson on the package of every food item might be overboard. Or perhaps a good idea. Who knows. Maybe we'll even see that someday. If it helps America become more healthy, I say go for it.

But regardless of my disagreeing on this point, I think from a reality-based stand point, you point is out of touch. It is unrealistic to think that people in America will take the time to research on their own the nutrition information for each and every food they buy . The people of our nation (in particular keeping in mind dual-income families, single parent families, etc.) who are more likely to pick up a completely prepared meal at Boston Market to avoid the time it takes to cook; who talk on their cell phones, drink coffee, read the newspaper, and attempt to drive all at the same time; will budget the time into their already hectic lives to do this sort of investigating. Especially if it is make it harder for them to find the info (located on the side of every product so they can see it while they are in the store shopping is in my opinion, ideal. It may, for the average person, be the only time he or she will even think about the nutrition of that food).

I am replying, but I already know that we will never agree on this topic, so we can simply agree to disagree. And we can probably even do that without me having to relocate to China.

[Orange357]

Originally posted by Paul Stagg


We DO NOT need to government to hold our hands. Well, maybe some of you do, but I don't.

[Paul Stagg]

I don't want you to move to China.

I'm being somewhat rediculous to make a bit of a point. Do I really give a hoot that nutrition information is required? Not really. It's the point of it. (And I know and freely admit I'm out of touch )

Government regulation certainly (in most cases) begins with good intentions. My point is that the market, with no intentions, will almost always produce a better result. Why? Because $$ talks.

Here is a scenario:

Company A makes bread. Company B makes bread.

Company A puts clear nutrition information on the bread because they think it creates a competitive advantage. Company B does not.

Company A will sell more bread *if* consumers value the information. If they don't, then It isn't a competitive advantage (and has no value).

Now, what happens when Company B see's Company A's market share increase?

Company B has a couple of choices. One is to compete on the same turf - that is, provide nutritional info that is even better! The other is to find another competitive advantage (price, quality, etc.) What happens now?

Either consumers now have a product with clearer info than before, or they can get a better product, or spend less for it. All benefits.

Lets say Company B decides providing info is the way to go. They can use their clearer info as a selling point. Company A, in order to compete, will also have to improve labelling.

What ends up happening is the market will stabilize at the point where there is no value to increasing the amount of information.

Some things to consider:

a) since there is a profit motive, we actually get the information we want (value)
b) There is no use of force
c) The choice is left to the consumer
d) The consumer is not (mis) lead into thinking that since someone far smarter than they (government) came up with the label, it *must* be good.

Essentially, I'm suggesting that not only would we have labels on food, they would be far more useful than the ones we currently have. I'm suggesting that government intervention isn't necessary.

Our reliance on the government, our changes in behavior where we look for ways to not take responsibility for ourselves, will lead us down a very trecherous path.

[_-_v_-_]

Thank you for one of the clearest distillations of laissez-faire thought I have seen. Would that more people understood such basic economic theory.

Have you read much regarding anarcho-capitalistic political theory? It is in many ways similar to the Nozickian minimal state which most libertarians seem to prefer. If you have, I was wondering how you answer some of the common arguments against: chiefly,] the "free rider" critique of the aspects of the theory which propose competing "defense agencies," which are intended, of course, to provide that which is often given as the purpose of a strong federal government: national defense.

[Tryska]

as shady as companies are, i think not having a minimum requirement as to what should be on a label leaves companies with option of letting certain things be left off. Such as how much saturated fat really is in their products. or how much sugar is really in them. or any number of things, as to make their products more marketable period.

if there is no required "gold standard" that leaves plenty of wiggle room.

sorry paul, i know your all for a free market, and no government regulation or whatever, but frankly i don't have enough trust in corporate america to think that they would honestly and ethically do what they needed to do to protect my interests. Free Market or not.

even with government regulations, most of what's coming out of the free market is total shite. And people are okay with it because they don't know any better....i can only imagine if there were no regulations whatsoever. and i appreciate the rather optimistic view you have on the integrity of a deman-driven market, but i ain't buying that human nature and the bottom line allow for the sort of integrity you think it would.

the bottom line rarely does.

[body]

In the UK. unless you make a claim, you do not need to giv any nutritional info on at all.


plus there are many loops holes in the law.

if you declare soduim content or salt content.
MSG contains soduim but is not a salt.
low soduim products contain potasuim salts, but they are not. so the product will have more soduim in than if you did the straight equation of souim to chlorine ratio.
so soduim content can be lower. but over all salt content is still tha same.
Coprote america would use the claim beneficial to them.
I bet most people including people from here would not pick up on them.

paul still working for COKE? i wonder why you do not want to much info on a can?
plus to much info, will mean you have to get better ink printers for the can? It may get in the way of brand logo as well so detracts from the global logo?
also more nutritional info means if you ahev to make the product more consistenly as well. especially when tight on the claims.

As for water. I can see why they put lables on there. There are a lot of dim people out there. I may understand label declarations, but I would not be good at buying a car etc.

though in the UK they list lots of the mineral contents on bottled water.

another reason for nutritional info. is some have added fruit juice etc which add a small amount of kcals.

I could use the argument of why any foods needs it. I can roughly guess what most foods are off the top of my head anyway.

So paul how did coke sales change when they started to put nutritional info on? or is that confidential?

[Paul Stagg]

Those big nasty corporations can be forced to do just about anything if the market (consumers) wants.

Due to the mentality of most of the population (the government requires it, so it must be all I need to know), government intervention tends to screw up the process, as it actually limits our knowledge, while making us think we know everything we need.

-v-

I'm not sure I can do your question justice on a bulletin board (or at all). Do I think there should be competition in the defense industry? Yes. Do I see the benefit of competing private defense agencies? yes. Do I think it's necessary? No. Assuming the Federal Gov't was doing what the constitution says it is supposed to do (read the 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution), there is a profit motive to the government (and the people) in a proper national defense, and that would certainly make it very effective. That's one of the reasons our defense is as good as it is.

(Profit motive =/= money)

[Tryska]

so then why was anti-trust legislation created?

my thinking is because it was necessary.

[Paul Stagg]

Because we (falsely) believe there is such a thing as 'common good', and that forced competition is better than no competition.

I make a widget.

I make damn good widgets.

Everyone needs widgets.

I have a competitive advantage such that no one can compete with me, so I am the only widgetmaker.

Now that I am the all powerful widget maker, what happens?

Lets say I'm a meanipants, and I raise the price on widgets in order to inflate my profits. Wrong? No.

Now what happens?

Either people continue to pay my high prices for widgets, or someone in the market invents a wadget that not only does what my widget does, but does it for less. And it comes in 5 spectacular colors to go with any decor. OR, people will find a way to replace the widget with some other product.

Remember, also, that I have people working for me to make the widgets - there are many, many places competitive pressure can start, and value can change with time.

The market will fix this stuff all on its own, IF we leave it alone.

If no one makes a better widget given the resourses available, than my company with the expensive widget IS the best option.

Think about what would happen if your utilities suddenly became too expensive?

What would you do?

You either find an alternative source of energy (or buy energy from someone else)
or
you make more money

Could be, that the increase in costs of living would also increase the price of labor, increasing your salary... and naturally redistribuiting value elsewhere.

In the end, the market moves to make the best use of all resources. If you are using a resource under it's profit capacity (to anyone), someone will eventually offer you enough to purchase the resourse and use it to it's full potential (if that never happens, then you ARE using it to it's full potential)

[Tryska]

that's not exactly what i mean.


I mean moreso the various companies making widgets getting together (secretly of course) to price-fix widgets, squeeze out any independent widget-maker that may make widgets for cheaper, and/or any wigdet-maker unions that might demand that widget-workers have decent working envorinoments, even though the changes required to make those environments cuts into your bottom dollar.

that to me is a Trust.

and it certainly isn't an economy driven by customers. unless of course everyone all at one jsut stopped buying the widget. which of course is a "necessary" item.

[Paul Stagg]

Trust/monopoly tend to have similar economic impact.. the several companies working together are just like on big company, except that due to profit motive, there is more likely to be a break in the ranks.

Re-read my post. If widgets become too expensive, and they are necessary, there are other things that will happen in the market to fix the situation - either someone will find a way to replace the widget, people will make due without it, or the price of labor will go up (so people can afford the widget)

Lets say it's the latter.

When the price of labor goes up, that provides a huge incentive for large organisations not in the widget business to look at either subsidising widget purchases for their employees, OR spurring on innovation to either invent the wadget (in 5 colors) or get into the discount widget business.

Or, as I said before, the price point of the widgets with the trust/monopoly in place is the best use of resourses, and the market adapts.

Widget workers always have the option to get into another trade if working in widgets is no longer profitable for them as individuals. There is a risk/reward, as with anything, as well as a cost/benefit.

One of the neat things you learn studying how this stuff works is how remarkably arrogant we (humans) are. See, the 'Market' while requiring people, is not a creation of people. It just kinda happens. So trying to control it is an excercise in futility. It is not driven by anything but itself. it has existed for as long as people have had free will and have placed value on things, time, places, property, activities, etc.