8 Comments

  1. Excellent article! A few years ago I wrote an email to General Mills. I was a fan of their Progresso brand soup. The letter was a plea for them to remove the BPA liner from their soup cans, or find a better supplier for the cans, one that doesn’t use a toxic liner. I informed them that it would also be a good idea to use organic products, or at least more natural ingredients.

    Their response was the canned answer I expected from a corporation that’s blinded themselves from years of obscene price-fixed profiteering. It went something like this:

    “The Bisphenol A in our can liners has been approved as safe by the FDA.”

    Um.. No sh!t you pack of retards, but that wasn’t my point. The letter I sent them was very clear and made several relevant points about where the market is heading. And they replied with two sentences, one of which was the quote above. They ignored very basic rules of a functional free market. The supply must meet the demand, and they should always be concerned of the subject matter when a customer takes the time to write them a letter about how to improve their product.

    The company operations at this point are nearly autonomous. The executives get paid their huge salaries whether the company makes or loses money. Improving their products at this point would require physical changes and work. Ultimately, this is an issue of laziness and ineptitude. This is why they fail.

  2. blank Warren Lauzon says:

    How did you come up with that $4 billion loss number? Do you have an actual credible reference? From reading the article and links, it appears that you left out this part “in market share”, and failed to mention a few other things, like even if some consumers bought the woo and went organic, there is an 80% chance it went to some Evil Big Ag company anyway. And while an 11% increase in organic sales sounds impressive, it is starting from a very small base, and the total is still only around 4% of total food sales.

  3. blank Warren Lauzon says:

    I wonder if it is just coincidence that all the click bait ads are to pseudoscience sites and products?

    1. blank Undecider says:

      Pseudoscience? I don’t see any globalwarming, pro-GMO or pro-vaccine nonsense.

      1. blank Warren Lauzon says:

        pseu·do·sci·ence
        ˌso͞odōˈsīəns/
        noun
        noun: pseudoscience; plural noun: pseudosciences; noun: pseudo-science; plural noun: pseudo-sciences
        a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

        1. “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.”
          Exactly Undecider’s point! GMO promulgators, promoters and propagandists IGNORE science, then cherry pick or do their own deceptive and flawed studies and call it Science with a capitol S, as if it’s a brand they own. After that is established in the naive reader’s mind, they enjoy nothing more than hitting you over the head with it. What the mutation pushers practice, such as “Warren Lauzon”, is the MANIPULATION and DISTORTION of science as they desparately continually to persuade the quickly dwindling numbers of the unaware.

  4. blank Undecider says:

    After how much spraying of roach killer on your food would you consider it “toxic”? One second? Three?

    1. Having the open can anywhere near my food is toxic enough. Are you yourself a roach spray-resistant mutant that wants to talk about “acceptable levels” of roach spray? Bad news Undecider: I know your thinking is toxic and would bet your body is toxic as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *