That’s why they are big companies. Follow the trends, hit the niche markets when it is profitable to do so.
Thousands of years ago, PepsiCo introduced a product to the market known as Crystal Pepsi, or alternatively as Pepsi Clear. The reason that they did so was because there was a huge craze going around that people (for whatever reason) thought that clear was cleaner, and therefore, more healthy. In addition to that, 7UP was gaining in market share at the time.
So, Crystal Pepsi gets introduced to the market and it accounts for 1% of all pop sales in its first year. That may not sound like much, but let me assure you that 1% of all pop revenue is huge ROI when you consider that Pepsi only had to create a new formula, but it did not have to fundamentally change anything else.
Ultimately, Crystal Pepsi failed because most people did not think that it tasted good, I personally thought it was terrific.
The point of the matter is, if sales of 7UP continued to climb along with sales of other clear pops, then Pepsi theoretically could have become a company dealing with only clear pops. The same concept has potential here, if everyone who uses organic products can make a strong enough argument for them and get everyone else to use them, then people will cease to use inorganic products. The parent companies will no longer have cause to produce inorganic products and will be all organic all the time. Then, the fact that they produce inorganic products won’t matter, simply because they will not produce them.
For now, they’re making money where money is there to be made, that’s how big companies stay big. Even though Crystal Pepsi may have ultimately failed, PepsiCo still made money on it.
I don’t think they give too much of a shit about being green, but I do think the people that get hired to manufacture those products do give a shit about being green. As I’ve said, it’s not so much about the company as it is the product, itself, and the people using said product.
By the way, visual disaasociation would be if a bottle said, “This product is not made, distributed by or in anyway affiliated with Colgate-Palmolive Inc.” In essence, they are not disassociating themselves with the product visually, they simply are not outwardly associating themselves with it.
If you sit down and really think about it, the basic intent of omission of ownership, in this case, is to deceive. You can get all technical about it if you want, and spend hours and hours word crunching as to what a “lie” is or is not, but when it all comes down to it, it is essentially lying to the customer because to do so (to lie rather than not) would lead to greater profit. If company A is no longer an independent company and is owned by company B, don’t market it as if it is an independent company, because it is not. But that is how it is done, and that is because part of the selling appeal is exactly in the perception that it is a small independent company. The customer thinks he is getting something completely different -he buys into an illusion of choice.
It was done before, so why can’t it be done now? Putting “X is a registered trademark of Y” or “X is a subsidiary of Y” does not take a lot of space on the package. I am pretty sure that it is not the scarcity of space on the package that prevents the company from putting an ownership label (but a potential loss of profit).
A big company is more likely to start adulterating a product because it has a much larger product distribution, and eventually it will become cost prohibitive to keep expanding the product and keep quality ingredients (which cost more than artificial additives). A company that needs to increase its profits will keep looking for ways to reduce costs, and tampering with quality of its products and using its power of influence to redifine concepts like “organic” or “natural” is one of the ways it can do so.
Against: corporations are obliged by the legal framework that creates them to maximise their profit; ideology is only tolerated insofar as it captures a market segment. Also, international concerns make many cost savings by uniformity of process. Insofar as these processes are invisible to the consumer, they can be as unideological and even unethical as they find necessary and possible within the rules of business - this taints the purity of what could drive the smaller company. Finally, the ultimate decision-making process is further removed and abstracted from the products and markets; as a commodity, the product is numbers on a balance sheet, and the value is reduced to this.
For: Large corporations offer economies of scale, have resources to invest in the early stages of new products, and can get the message across to more people. Supporting the ethical branch of a large corporation also sends the message that ethics is important to consumers (with money), and the subsequent investment can further spread awareness of ethical products and bring them to more people’s attention. As a semi-benefit, the threat of you withdrawing your business can lead to them being more careful of their behaviour in other areas - see the Nestle boycott for an example with mixed results. Larger corporations are larger targets.
Corporate capitalism and globalisation can be dehumanising, but the tools to fight that are implicit within the system. I can’t help feeling that a lot of the negativity toward the companies is actually misplaced resentment that could as well or better be directed at the consumers who don’t care as long as their shampoo’s cheap and endorsed by a celebrity.
You’re making some big assumptions that small is automatically better, greener, more organic, whatever… In some cases, you’re absolutely right but in others, wrong. Large may mean reduction of not-good-for-you elements. Fat reduction in certain foods is one. Another is the ability to provide beneficial additives such as vitamins. Vitamin D added to milk is something not easily accomplished in the one-cow dairy operation. The same goes for pasteurization of a variety of food products that small operations couldn’t handle.
The same is true of durable goods. Producing one-offs of anything sounds romantic, but costs can only be contained by large scale production.
Are there “cheaters” out there? Yes, both large and small. Deception is practiced at all levels. But being large isn’t an automatic condemnation. Many of the benefits we enjoy come from products only large organizations can supply.
It may be deceptive, and it may be so for all of the reasons that you stated, but that does not make it illegal, or even unethical. We’re talking about business ethics here, if they were the same as all others, they’d just be called ethics!
It is also my opinion that, provided the makeup of the product itself has not been altered, there is no reason to alter the labelling to make it appear as though it is somehow different than it once was.
One thing I want to know is, if a customer wants to buy some organic eggs, does it really matter all that much to the customer that they are produced by a small, independent company, or is it the cost of the eggs and that they are organic that matters? If you wanted organic eggs that you knew were from a small, independent seller of eggs, then why are you buying your eggs at a grocery store and not a Farmer’s Market to begin with?
I want to briefly point out something about separate legal entities that not only make this a question of deceptive labelling, but also a question of liability. Suppose I own and incorporate two businesses, one is a convenience store while the other is a barber shop. I am 100% stockholder in both corporations, but they are two separate corporations. One of my barbers hacks off a customer’s ear at the barbershop, as you expect, the customer sues. If I had not been paying my liability insurance at the barbershop, he can still only sue the barbershop, he cannot sue my convenience store. If I incorporate a holding company for the stocks of the convenience store and the barbershop, essentially, a parent company, he can’t sue that either provided the two shops are actually separate corporations.
In the case of Tom’s of Maine and Colgate, I believe that it was technically a merger. In that sense, I would think that Colgate would still be legally liable for anything that Tom’s of Maine does, so in a sense, it is even more honest (despite the labelling) than for Colgate to buy Tom’s of Maine and create a whole new corporation out of it.
I disagree that it will become cost prohibitive to continue to expand the product and use quality ingredients, because if you exapnd a product, that means someone is buying it at the price for which you wish to sell it. Generally, it is less cost prohibitive to have a greater demand for your product than a weak demand for your product, especially when you consider that if the costs of the ingredients increases, then you can raise the cost of your product accordingly and will retain a greater number of buyers than if you had less people buying to begin with.
Another thing to consider is a broader distribution network. If you consider a company that only produces one product, then you can imagine that such a place would pay significantly more for distributing. They either have to outsource their distributing to a distributing company, or they can take the product there themselves. As you may realize, filling multiple small orders can cause problematic situations such as having to make multiple runs, or paying for diesel (or gas) for space in the truch where you are not putting anything! Let me assure you that if there is one thing a manufacturer or distributor hates, it’s paying for all the fuel for a half empty truck.
Again, in the case of Colgate, Tom’s of Maine now has access to a vast nationwide distribution network, and is now able to spread to more customers. Regardless of the costs associated with the ingredients of Tom’s of Maine products, and what the cost of said ingredients does (except in very rare circumstances) both of these things are positive when it comes to the product sales of Tom’s of Maine.
I think that is a fantastic point that cannot be stressed enough. I go back to my example that if every single drinker of milk was drinking Horizon milk, then not a single person would drink regular Dean’s Milk. Dean’s would continue to own and operate Horizon Organic Milk, but would discontinue all production of their regular milk.
Only Legislative Government or the consumers (through the products they buy or do not buy) can dictate the ethics of a company. Otherwise, the company is just going to do whatever is most profitable, which (for the company) is obviously the most sensible.
I think for some things, maybe many things, small is good. A point I dislike about mass production/consumption is that there is a lot of knowledge lost; there is no eye for quality.
I go to a butcher’s instead of a supermarket. He knows about the cuts of meat, the best way to prepare them, he knows what the quality of the lamb is like and whether a recipe calls for a rib chop or a shoulder chop. If I want an unusual cut, he can manage that. In the supermarket there are ten shelves of pre-packed cuts; that’s it. The production is done by semi-skilled labourers following instructions that a butcher once wrote, using animals that pass minimum health requirements. There’s no-one to ask any questions of besides shelf-stackers, and no way of knowing the quality of the produce. Same goes for suits, shoes, you name it… the products are seen as units, to be gobbled up by a lowest common denominator who doesn’t ask questions.
This wouldn’t be a bad thing, in a fair system in which providers competed equally for customers. But when the largest providers are powerful enough to influence the system itself; beyond a certain size, larger businesses have access not just to economies of scale, but to political and legal resources that smaller ones cannot reach. You don’t have to look far to find hypermarkets that have had attractive offers from local councils to set up a store somewhere. A national chain can drive prices down locally for a year or two, starve out small businesses, and then slowly raise them back again when it has a monopoly assured by council contracts; no net benefit to the consumer. “We’ll bring 100 new jobs to the area” - at the expense of how many old jobs? 90 low-paid shelf stackers, part-time students and schoolkids, to replace 40 butchers, greengrocers, hardware store owners? No wonder your food is cheap and you’re happy to buy the only options you’re offered; there’s no-one to tell you better. No-one knows any better. Meat’s over there. If it’s not on the shelves, it’s not in stock. Mend your shoes? Why bother, a new pair’s cheap enough? Mendable shoes? Why bother, a new pair’s cheap enough? Shoes designed to last? Why bother, a new pair’s cheap enough…
Democracy has many checks and measures built in to prevent a tyranny of the majority. Free-market capitalism actively encourages it. Sic transit scientia mundi.
I can’t speak for your area, obviously, but I can say that in my city there are three major supermarkets and two of them have meat departments where meat is cut to order. Of course, there are also pre-packaged meats there, but that does not comprise the entirety of what is available.
I will grant you that the quality of the produce can sometimes be an unknown, but if you feel like waiting around 10-15 minutes for the Department Manager to finally show up, he can usually tell you about it.
I have to disagree with you as far as suits and shoes are concerned. I agree to the extent that there is a lowest common denominator product and it will be crap, but I maintain that there is little difference between a $70 pair of shoes and a $300 pair of shoes except for the name. Same goes with a $300 suit vs. a $1,000 suit.
I’m currently wearing the best pair of shoes I’ve ever owned. They’re skateboarding shoes (I don’t skateboard) by World Industries that I got for $26, they are the most comfortable, lightest and most durable shoes I’ve ever owned. They don’t stain, they don’t show dust, they’re fantastic!
Strength in numbers, all they are doing is playing the human game. The human game is we could not have possibly achieved the technology and control over our environment that we enjoy today without doing it as a collaborative effort and working in great numbers. Why should companies be any different when they are made up of humans?
Besides, every business (large of small) started off somewhere. It’s not like it was Tuesday February 10, 1981 and there was only one Wal-Mart in the world and then on Wednesday, February 11, 1981, if you didn’t have more than one Wal-Mart you were considered a small city! Companies grow, expand, conquer, repeat, and that is just the way it works. The reason that they don’t have to worry about competing at the smaller level or doing things that way is because they’ve already succeeded at that, or found a way around having to succeed at that. (i.e. merged with another company)
The political and legal resources to which they have access are derived from the fact that they have a shitload of money, which they gained from being successful at the smaller levels of the game.
And of course the local council wants these major stores to set up shop in their little towns, because the ROI is fantastic. A year of tax breaks now, decades of tax revenues later!
By the way, I played this Sims game once where you had to make an amusement park. I found that I could actually make a profit in the game by only having one ride at my amusement park and charging a moderately high price for it combined with one concession stand with Moderately high prices. My ride kicked ass, but the game wasn’t fun for very long after that.
I decided to build a bigger amusement park, played for hours.
Of course a national chain can do that, because a national chain has bad-ass prices and a bad-ass distribution network. I think, “Starve-out,” is a good term to use, but I prefer choke-out. The superstore gets its hands around that little local store’s neck and chokes it until all of the customers are coughed up as bile out of the little store’s throat. One last desperate cough for air, and the last customer is out of the door.
They’re awesome, they cannot be beaten, it is hopeless to try. However, you can rest assured knowing that there will be some price competition when another big store moves into that same market. I think mine is one of the only cities left in this country where you can go to Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club and not have a CostCo or Target within about twenty miles. Of course, there is a Kroger in town and another grocery store chain with about ten locations in and around the area. There’s an Aldi, as well, but I won’t so much as walk into that dump.
Let me tell you something about Kroger and that other grocery store. I walked around Wal-Mart with a list of fifty somewhat random items (a.k.a. my shopping list) and wrote down the prices for each of those items. I then did the same thing at Kroger and that other grocery store. Taking into account only items that matched both in name brand and in quantity of the product, can you guess how many prices were lower at Kroger and that other store combined?
Not one.
But, both of the stores are still around for now. I think that Kroger probably has less than five years left because people are finally starting to get the idea, besides, it’s right by Wal-Mart! As far as the other store is concerned, it stays alive because their stupid baggers will take your groceries out to your car for you…isn’t that cute? Can you imagine these people who are paying $0.89 more per item, on average, so that the baggers will take the groceries out to the car?
I don’t necessarily blame them, though. I go to that store because I can pay my electric, cable and phone bill there, that’s the only reason why. I might pick up a single item or two if I am there paying a bill, anyway. It seems that everyone who shops there is either old and has money, therefore they don’t care about the price, or they are people on FoodStamps who don’t care about the price because it’s not their money anyway.
Take my groceries into my house and put them away for me, make sure to leave out a dinner which you then cook, and maybe I’ll pay $0.89 more per item.
I don’t know that free-market capitalism actively encourages it, so much as that was an unintended consequence of that which free-market capitalism does encourage.
That’s not the case here in Holland, as far as I’ve experienced it, and I’ve not come across it in the UK. But if so, and you really can talk to the people about the meat, it’s not a bad thing.
I’d absolutely disagree. But I think it’s like wine; my mother-in-law can’t tell a 3-euro bottle of wine from a 15-euro bottle. I can’t tell a 40-euro bottle from a 75-euro bottle. What one person calls snobbishness, the other calls discernment - I think there’s a value in having the difference in and of itself.
We also couldn’t have done it without slavery in the past, without exploitation and unethical behaviour, either. I don’t believe that commercial might makes social right; society should be the framework within which commerce operates, not a slight impediment to the might of the free market. In my view.
As I said before, I don’t resent small companies for growing big. Nor for competing on economies of scale. Where they encroach onto the political sphere is where I have a problem, as the political/social sphere is what defines and supports free trade and competition - if you see this as a valuable thing, you should fight the encroachment of business interests into that sphere, as it distorts free competition. In just the same way that it’s not good for a democracy to permit totalitarian politics, and most democracies have constitutions set up to prevent this - it’s only within the framework that the concept makes sense, and so changing the framework from within is undesirable. The biggest companies shout loudest about the separation of state from commerce, and how it is their right to do business unmolested by the state’s influence - but this is sheer hypocrisy, they use the state apparatus to further their own ends when it suits, the state/commerce interaction is twisted to their advantage.
People buy the same goods as they would have bought in three shops in one shop, for lower prices. The employees are paid lower wages, generally. How does the council get more tax revenue?
That they’re cheaper is absolutely not under dispute.
HIV doesn’t actively kill you, either, but death is an undesirable side-effect of what it does do.
You asked why companies should be different being made up of humans. The nature of the (original) system is such that the most successful can manipulate it to a new system. It’s not a stable equilibrium to start with, there’s a balance point at which positive feedback kicks in. As I said, if commercial success resulted only in commercial power, no problem. If it results in political power, there is a problem. Corporations receive political representation out of proportion to the humans that make them up. If you want to live in a plutocracy, this isn’t a bad thing. If you want to spread the power to represent the interests of the people governed, it is. That’s all.
I absolutely don’t disagree with capitalism per se. But the “capitalism is democracy” myth seems almost unquestioned among the Western right (which includes much of the US left) - they have conflicting interests, aims and benefits, and a healthy tension between the two seems to be potentially a lot more productive and beneficial than treating them as the same thing - which effectively means leaving things to capitalism, as it has the power to change the system to its ends.
Of course the two I was talking about were Kroger and the other place (not Wal-Mart), but we won’t get into that.
Besides, the other place will be around forever because the old people love it. The baggers take your groceries out to your car anytime you have more than one or two bags, they’ll do that at Wal-Mart too, but you have to ask. Apparently, it;s worth $0.89/item to the old people not to have to ask.
As far as many of the FoodStamp people are concerned, they just want to do as little work as possible.
You’re right, I have a fairly discriminating taste when it comes to beer, Xunzian’s even more of a beer snob (own admission) than I am, though!
I just don’t see the difference in shoes, but then again, I suppose I’ve never worn a $300 pair of shoes either.
In my view, it already is. The mere building of a superstore in a town with a small-time hardware store does not necessitate that people buy their tools from the superstore, nor does the fact that the tools at the superstore are at a lower price.
That’s the thing, society (i.e. the consumer) is making their decision, and despite protests to the contrary, the decision, by and large, is that they want to save money on qualitatively similar items. They’re not just saying this, they’re screaming it, for every small-time business that closes.
That’s the point, you don’t have to shop there, I don’t have to shop there, my Great-Grandma (still alive!) doesn’t have to shop there, nobody HAS to shop there.
But most of them do.
I only quoted this part of that paragraph because I agree with everything said before it, in that paragraph.
Here’s the thing, the State is going to encroach where the State is going to encroach. The FTC encroaches, the FCC encroaches, the SEC encroaches, the Government, in general, encroaches. Even when you have the Government dictating minimum health and safety requirements for a company’s workers, that’s an encroachment, raises costs.
So, it’s a push and pull tug-of-war sort of thing. The, “Free Market,” has been encroached upon in the past, and they will be encroached upon in the future. For this reason, I don’t think that they can be blamed for crawling through legal loopholes, cutting corners (in a legal way) or using their vast financial resources to their political advantage.
By the way, I will admit that the current structure is to the advantage of those companies, by and large, but I would like to add to that the situation is subject to change. Only society can change it, right now, it doesn’t seem like society wants or cares enough to change it.
Property tax, personal property tax, building tax, payroll tax, zoning costs…etc.
Besides, a big, huge, shiny and new Wal-Mart SuperCenter generally brings more people in from out of town than Tom’s Hardware sitting on the corner of Main & Second in a semi-dilapidated building. Nobody is crossing county lines to go to Tom’s hardware, nobody is crossing State Lines to go to Tom’s Hardware.
So, what you have is all of the people in town, or in county, that have to buy their shit somewhere. It makes no difference to the City/County whether or not someone buys a screwdriver at Tom’s or at Wal-Mart, because the money saved on the screwdriver at Wal-Mart will just as likely be used to purchase something else…at Wal-Mart. For this reason, the absolute worst that the City/County could do is break even.
But, then you have to look at drawing money spent in the stores of your City/County from residents of other cities or counties. That’s your draw right there, and that is the shot you are taking at increased tax revenue, you know that the revenue will not decrease.
And again, I can’t speak for Holland, but when it comes to menial positions (cashier, deli clerk) it is my understanding that Wal-Mart starts the employees off making more here than they do at Kroger’s or the other place. That’s probably not a Universal, but it is most assuredly the case here, in fact, having spoken with many Department Managers, I gather that they make more as well.
I can also say that in the city of Moundsville, West Virginia, a Wal-Mart opened and the only places that have closed since that Wal-Mart opened were a Convenient, a second convenience store (that store was closed off and on anyway, prior to Wal-Mart entering town), a small bakery (which later moved and re-opened), a small hardware store and a Giant Eagle grocery store. The Giant Eagle building then became an IGA which also closed.
Not counting the second convenience store or the bakery, the amount of businesses that closed amounts to three.
However, Wal-Mart generated such tremendous traffic that a Subway was actually opened inside the Wal-Mart, a Burger King was put into the same plaza (where the city of Moundsville did not have a BK prior) AND a Buffalo Wild Wings opened in the same plaza as Wal-Mart, (again, no Buffalo Wild Wings prior). A Dollar General also opened during this time.
In the case of Moundsville, West Virginia, the net loss of actual businesses is zero; I would say negative one, but I don’t think the opening of Dollar General can be in any way attributed to Wal-Mart, but maybe to that convenience store closing. In fact, it can be argued that there is a net gain because the new businesses that opened are large enough to the extent that they can be expected to generate more long-term revenue than the businesses that closed.
Kroger in Benwood, West Virginia is now gasping for air. All of the customers from South Wheeling, Benwood and McMechen who once went to the Benwood Kroger are now going to the Wal-Mart in Moundsville. In fact, during this time, Benwood West Virginia lost an Ames Department Store, a women’s Department store (forget what it was called), two fast food establishments, and a Value City Department Store which reduced and became just a Furniture Store, then moved to Saint Clairsville, Ohio.
In short, by getting a Wal-Mart in there, Moundsville, West Virginia kicked the living shit out of Benwood and increased their tax revenues substantially.
Yeah, but HIV is not an ideal. It is certainly not the case that obtaining HIV is a goal for very many people.
The people can take back this perceived lost power anytime they want to, they just don’t want to.
I think it is important not to vilify people or even institutions but rather processes whereby we become blind.
Specialization allows for a wide variety of benefits. From a societal perspective, specialization is pretty self-evidently superior (I don’t really want to get into it but we could hash that out if it becomes necessary). But a huge drawback to specialization is that it encourages the already all-too-human blindness of those engaged within the process. Sure, if I buy twelve pairs of socks at $0.25/pair that is cheaper in a more immediate sense than if I buy twelve pairs of socks at $0.50/pair. No argument. But if shopping at the kind of store where they sell $0.25/pair socks drives the $0.50/pair stores out of business, well, that concern is pretty alienated from me. Plus, that is how capitalism is supposed to work, right? But now I’ve lost the store that sells quality socks at $0.50/pair and all of a sudden my property values start to sink. And all the businesses around me are engaged in a rather nasty race to the bottom.
It probably won’t end with me living in the ghetto. A combination of rationality, snobbishness, and outright racism will eventually keep the neighborhood from completely going to pot. But the latter two, at least in America, hold a hell of a lot more sway than the first option. So we’re left with a pretty poor situation.
It is all well and good to say, “people are dumb for doing that” but, hey, they are specialists. They don’t merely not know any better, they can’t. They are too busy working in their field, taking care of their family, and so on to care about the price of freakin’ socks. Because we could easily expand my example even beyond the catastrophic events I suggested on a micro scale. The union worker who makes the $0.50/pair socks? He is now on the doll while some child in Indonesia gets to work in a sweatshop. But that kind of value assessment is utterly and completely beyond the human brain.
The Mass Line flows from the people to the people. But there does need to be a sounding board. And that isn’t some commie bullshit, the whole reason why modern states are “republics” and not “democracies” is precisely because of that notion. Someone who is detached (but not too detached) needs to make the right decision.
Given all that, why blame the company and not the individual? Because there are substantially fewer people at the company making the decisions. You can’t expect an unfocused mass of non-specialists to make a coherent decision. You can’t hold them responsible in any meaningful way. A few specialists, on the other hand, one of them ought be able to say, “Stop, this is wrong” in the same way that individuals in the population do. But the one person not shopping there has very little effect. Undeniably, they are making the world a better place through their actions. But a person in a place of responsibility can do so much more! So their failure is all the greater.
Why would your property values necessarily shrink when the city in which you live is bringing in tax revenues from surrounding cities that they otherwise may not have brought in? They can use those tax revenues to make improvements in the city, fix some roads, plant a couple sidewalk trees, install new playground equipment in the park. Those are just visual improvements, by the way, there are plenty of other places that money could go.
Greater tax revenues should theoretically be used to improve the city which would cause the property values to go up.
Even if that weren’t the case (and it usually is) what the Hell difference does it make if the property values go down? I understand that current property owners lose money as a result, but on the other hand, the lower prices open up the properties in the city to more potential buyers. Besides, the current property owners technically only lose money if they sell.
The union worker is probably overpaid and receives benefits he doesn’t deserve anyway, so I’m going to completely disregard him.
As far as the kid in Indonesia is concerned, is he not better off working in a sweatshop for pennies than he would be if there was no work whatsoever for him to do? Is it preferable for his entire family to starve to death?
Besides, with all of the advances we have made in the last century or so with respect to transit, it only makes sense that companies are going to outsource this work and do things the cheapest possible way. Again, it is their goal to maximize profits and they will usually do that via whatever means is legal. The Union worker already decided that he didn’t want to make the socks, he did that when he went on strike, he did that when he decided that he wants $18/hour for work that does not even require a High School education. At least the Indonesian kid wants to make the socks, or if that is an over-statement, at least he understands the necessity of making the socks.
The Unions were spot on back in the day when all that they wanted was reasonably safe working conditions and for employees not to have to work sixteen hour days in sweatshops. Then, they got greedy. Unions are now as much a business as Wal-Mart is a business, seeking to grow and to bring in more revenues via union dues. Provided that the Union dues are a certain percentage of income, higher income means more revenue from union dues.
In fact, I might go as far as to suggest that many companies would not have outsourced at all were it not for unions.
This problem will be alleviated when we switch to a one-world currency. That’s just a question of when. It should level the playing field to some extent, if not entirely.
These people, “In a place of responsibility,” as you put it have a responsibility that they perceive to be even greater than that they have to the world at-large, that responsiblity is to make the company money. It’s a singularly focused goal and they will not be deterred by anything except for the law or lost revenues. Only the people can stop buying which is what would result in lost revenues. The people have to educate one another and make a concerted effort to bring companies down if they disagree with their policies.
That’s not going to happen, but it is the only way possible.
The kid in the Wal-Mart picture was adorable, that’s just wrong of you to do that. Don’t get me wrong, were I his Dad, his chubby ass would be doing three-a-days in the summer until he dropped those fat cheeks, but he’s still cute.
[size=150]USDA Investigation Discovers Dean Foods’ Organic Mislabeling[/size]
CORNUCOPIA, WIS. - December, 2009 - An investigation by the USDA’s National Organic Program has determined that Target Corporation wrongly used the image of a certified organic product when promoting the sale of a conventional product to consumers. The investigation was triggered by a complaint filed by The Cornucopia Institute.
The violation at Target came after Dean Foods switched almost all their category-leading Silk soymilk from organic to conventional soybeans earlier this year. The specific problem involved Target using an image of a Silk organic product, in advertising flyers, when the retailer was really selling Silk’s reformulated “natural” version (not organic, but made with conventional soybeans). Target made a commitment to the USDA to review their procedures to “prevent future errors of this nature.”
Dean Foods stealthily switched its core Silk product line to cheaper conventional soybeans, while, until recently, retaining the same packaging appearance. Now the giant dairy processor’s WhiteWave division has been found itself to also be misrepresenting the product as organic on one of their own websites. A new legal complaint has been filed in an attempt to protect consumers from what Cornucopia calls, “fraudulent misrepresentation.”
“It should not take the judicious oversight of an industry watchdog to cause these giant corporations to simply comply with the law,” said Mark Kastel, Cornucopia’s Senior Farm Policy Analyst. “Target and Dean are trying to do organics on the cheap and have not invested in the kind of management expertise necessary to prevent problems of this nature from occurring,” added Kastel. “And after widespread media condemnation, it’s hard to believe that Dean Foods hasn’t even cleaned up its own websites.”
Since the NOP investigation, and Target’s pledge to review their practices, unlike Dean Foods, Cornucopia has not observed additional problems with the retailer’s advertising.
The meteoric rise in consumer interest in healthy, environmentally sound and humane farming practices has catapulted organics into a $24 billion industry. Along the way, major agribusinesses, like General Mills, Dean Foods and Kraft have gobbled up many pioneering companies that helped build the industry through a series of acquisitions. Today, most processed organic food is produced and controlled by the same type of companies that bring us International Delight imitation coffee creamer, Cheetos, Ding Dongs and Cap’n Crunch.
No longer controlled by industry visionaries, corporate managers now seek to squeeze extra profits out by sometimes switching established organic brands to “natural” labeling, using cheaper conventionally grown and processed ingredients.
That’s a far cry from when the organic food and farming movement first started enjoying widespread commercial success in the 1980s. In its inception, the industry was dominated by a number of family businesses, entrepreneurial enterprises and farmer-owned cooperatives, where building a profitable brand was most often married with the owner’s values.
“Big is not necessarily bad in the organic industry,” said Kastel. “As an organic watchdog we are much more concerned with ‘corporate ethics’ than we are with ‘corporate scale.’”
Dean Foods, the largest dairy processor in the United States, has apparently acquiesced and finally changed the packaging for their Silk brand of soymilk. Cornucopia had sparked widespread media scrutiny, and associated consumer backlash, against Dean for quietly shifting their core Silk product line from organic to conventional soybeans—while keeping essentially the same packaging and UPC (scanner) barcodes. “This change [new packaging] should have happened right as they shifted to conventional soybeans, not after the fact,” said Kastel.
“For the better part of this past year, consumers and retailers both have repeatedly reported that they were deceived and ended up unknowingly buying Silk products with conventional soybeans,” stated Kastel. With both their new and old packaging still in the marketplace, Cornucopia is concerned that consumers will be misled by advertising on websites representing the product as organic.
Silk is manufactured and distributed by Dean Foods’ WhiteWave-MorningStar division headquartered in Longmont, Colorado. Like many other massive agribusiness corporations, the Dean name never appears on the packaging for its soy foods or its Horizon dairy label — just as consumers will never see the name General Mills on a package of Cascadian Farms frozen vegetables, Kraft on Back to Nature brand crackers or Kellogg’s on Kashi cereal.
Dean/WhiteWave spokesperson Sara Loveday denied the corporation intentionally misled their customers, telling the East Bay Express in a November interview, “The company was not trying take advantage of consumer confusion over organic and ‘natural.’”
“These corporate food giants know that many organic consumers are looking for an alternative to our current food production system,” said Will Fantle, who heads up Cornucopia’s research staff. “Upon acquiring a number of the leading organic pioneers, they have kept their subsidiary names upfront on packaging to create a facade “hiding” the true corporate ownership,” Fantle noted.
Cornucopia maintains a chart, Who Owns Organics, created by Michigan State University professor Philip Howard, on its website that lifts the veil, enabling consumers to know who is producing their favorite organic brands cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/.
Roy Beard, who has operated Roy’s Natural Market in Dallas for 41 years, told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, in their November 8 coverage surrounding the Silk controversy, that he hadn’t realized there was a product change until contacted by a reporter. He said retaining the same bar code “was troubling.” Most retailers were never informed of the Silk switch to conventional soybeans.
Dean/WhiteWave has also received heat in the organic food and agriculture community for choosing to convert some of their Horizon dairy products, the leading organic label in terms of sales volume, to cheaper “natural” (conventional) ingredients.
“This really hit a nerve because one of these new Horizon products, Little Blends yogurt, is aimed specifically at toddlers, at an early stage of development, where the nutritional superiority of organic food, and its benefit of avoiding chemical residues in our food, is so critically important,” Kastel explained. “This starkly undermines the propaganda on the Horizon website proclaiming how dedicated they are to the organic movement — this is all about profit, not values!”
The media blow up on the Silk switcheroo included a front-page story in the Chicago Tribune in July that outlined a consumer survey indicating the public was unclear about the difference between natural and organic labels and that some corporations, particularly Dean Foods, were taking advantage of the confusion in the marketplace.
“Dean has only added to the marketplace confusion between ‘natural’ and ‘organic,’ as they definitely do not mean the same thing, and ‘natural’ requires no verification whatsoever,” Urvashi Rangan, a senior scientist at Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, also told Barry Shlachter of the Star-Telegram. perishablenews.com/index.php?article=0003598
The “Natural” loophole that allows companies to tamper with the quality of ingredients while maintaining the aura of “organic”.
Horizon Organic Launches New “Natural” Line:
Horizon Organic, the country’s largest organic milk products distributor, has recently announced a new line of “all natural” products. This is dismaying to many fans of the organic movement, because it would cause an erosion in revenue and profit to organic farmers.
You see, “Natural” is an undefined term, at least from a regualtory perspective. Which means products labeled “Natural” will enjoy the Horizon aura of health, but cost far less to manufacture, reaping a hefty profit to Horizon.
The first products are toddler yogurts, called Little Blends, and are expected to roll out later this month. Milk Breakers, a boxed vanilla / chocolate drink is slated for later this year.
According to Horizon, their natural products will be produced “without added hormones, artificial sweeteners, artificial colors, flavors, preservatives or high fructose corn syrup.” [source: LA Times]
What you need to know:
This is a great marketing move by Dean Foods, the mega dairy corporation that acquired Horizon back in 2003. In professional lingo this is called brand extension. You take the well known spotted cow logo of Horizon Organic and plaster it on new line of products.
What’s deceptive here, is that the new product line is NOT organic. The amorphous “all natural” claim is not defined by the FDA or USDA, although a an FDA spokeswoman said “the agency does not object to using the term on food labels ‘in a manner that is truthful and not misleading’ and if the product has no added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.”
But this is too open ended. For example, High Fructose Corn Syrup is considered by some manufacturers as a natural product, because it is made from corn.
“All natural” foods are one of the fastest growing product categories in the US in the past year. It’s no wonder all the big manufacturers are jumping on board. It’s great for sales, because it lets consumers feel good about their choice, even with no real backing.
At the end of the day, this move will deteriorate even further consumer perception of differences between organic and natural food. This ultimately hurts organic farmers, who are already struggling in a tough economy.
Horizon has previously been called out for production practices claimed to be out of line with organic principles. It seems that the bigger you grow as a company, the harder it is to adhere to your original beliefs and principles.
And don’t get us started on toddler yogurts. What’s the problem with junior enjoying a regular yogurt? Is it caffeinated? Does it have alcoholic content? But that’s the subject for another post.
What to do at the supermarket:
Don’t get duped by “Natural” labels. They do not necessarily mean the product is healthy for you. If you want no growth hormones, antibiotics, and free pastured cows, you’ll have to cough up the cash to pay for the more expensive organic products.
And if you are buying conventional, look beyond the front of package marketing hype and read the nutrition panel carefully. Look at daily values for nutrients and examine the ingredient list. A high amount of fat and sugar in a product may count as natural, but they definitely do not make it a healthy food. fooducate.com/blog/tag/milk-breakers/
Deterioration of Organic Standard (thanks to big companies):
In a study conducted by The Shelton Group, it seems American consumers have confused “natural” as a better indicator of an eco-friendly product than “organic.”
While the Great Recession has slowed the adoption of “green” and organics, shoppers remain interested in reducing the environmental impact of their choices, though scepticism is increasing about marketing hooey in the form of “greenwashing.” Shelton Group asked 1,006 US consumers how they know if a product is green, and the top response was “don’t know/not sure” (22%) followed by “says so on the package/label” (20%). Despite well-defined certification standards, organic products have failed to win consumers’ trust: 31% said “100 percent natural” is the most desirable eco-friendly product label claim, compared to 14% picking “100 percent organic.”
Despite strict regulations, shoppers think of the organic category as both more unregulated and, of course, more expensive. “Natural” is virtually meaningless since there are no standards or government regulations for its use on products. “Natural” has soared in popularity among marketers, and is the leading label claim on new launches according to research by Mintel. Globally 23% of all new products last year carried the “natural” claim. Dean Foods’ Horizon brand, America’s largest organic milk brand, is launching a “natural” (but not organic) yogurt aimed at toddlers, and single-serve milk targeted toward children. The dairy products are produced conventionally, though the company is insisting they “naturally produced without added growth hormones, artificial colors, flavors or preservatives and no high fructose corn syrup.”
Unlike with organics, the cows can be fed with foodstuffs treated with pesticides, herbicides and other artificial additives. The problems of organic integrity may be partially at fault for the label’s lack of trust from consumers, along with a healthy mistrust of Washington bureaucrats. Organics regulations have been relaxed for some products, partly as demand has pushed the category to over $24bn in annual sales with major players like Kraft and Coke investing in or buying up organic brands. For example, grated organic cheese can contain wood starch to prevent clumping, and organic beer can be made from non-organic hops.
Under the original organics law in 2002, 5% a USDA-certified organic product could be non-organic provided it was approved by the National Organic Standards Board. The original list had 77 substances and has since grown to 245. Manufacturers have to appeal the inclusion every five years by explaining why an organic alternative is not possible or practical. In addition, the law’s mandate for annual pesticide testing was left optional. One problem with enforcing organics standards is that major food companies have taken control-of or purchased outright most small, independent organic companies. Kraft owns Boca Foods, Kellogg owns Morningstar Farms, and Coke has 40% of Honest Tea, President Obama’s favorite organic beverage.
Lobbying is a natural result of this situation. For example, organic infant formula labels trumpet the additives DHA and ARA, synthetic fatty acids that some studies claim help the growth of nerves, but are synthetics that don’t meet the organics standards because they are produced with a potential neurotoxin known as hexane. According to The Washington Post, Deputy USDA administrator Barbara Robinson, who administers the organics program, overruled her staff’s ban on the additives after being lobbied by William J. Friedman, a lawyer representing baby formula makers. foodbizdaily.com/articles/95890- … -bslg.aspx
There’s a shoemaker in the street I live in, I think handmade shoes start at around 350 euros. I don’t have a pair, but I’m tempted… good leather shoes, well cared-for, are a source of joy.
And one of the reasons we have elected representative governments is to mitigate the lack of wisdom and short-termism that most people fall prey to. Tax isn’t voluntary either; what do you suppose would happen to the social infrastructure if it were?
We’re in agreement here - the point I was making earlier: “a lot of the negativity toward the companies is actually misplaced resentment that could as well or better be directed at the consumers who don’t care as long as their shampoo’s cheap and endorsed by a celebrity.”
People spend exactly the same amount at the shops, they just buy more? I don’t think so. They save up, they invest, they go on holiday; this takes money out of the local economy. It redistributes it elsewhere, I’m not arguing it’s a force for poverty, of course. Maybe buying more expensive houses balances it out. But you don’t buy five pork chops for a family of four just because the chops are 20% cheaper.
But if they’re drawing in business from the surrounding counties and towns, you can’t take the effect of Moundsville alone. In fact:
Well done! That’ll show Benwood, alright. Fuck 'em and their net loss of business. Whoop.
So you remove the point by one step to “having risky sex”. We’re going to end up skirting existentialism if we’re not careful
See my earlier point.
In my view, a political system should try and remove the entrenchment of power; the maintenance of power by a section of society sheerly by virtue of having power. Not for handwavy hippy reasons, or out of embittered and misguided Marxism, but for the practical benefits and effects of meritocracy. The same problems of aristocracy beset plutocracy; the fact that people could have an armed revolt to install a republic and yet choose not to is not an argument that monarchy is good, simply that the effort and risk of improving it isn’t judged as worth the effort. Or that the powerful class influence societal values sufficiently to make this seem to be the case. The benevolent free market is as much a dogma as the divine right of kings.
While corporations have sway in the political process, the process is suboptimal; vested interests distort the ability of society to select what is best. To change this would require changing the status quo, and the powerful have no interest in changing the status quo. Being entrenched, they can push barriers up to “the people taking back the power” to the extent that the people settle for a suboptimal system that lines the pockets of the wealthy. Abstracting the argument: that I wouldn’t risk everything to change a system doesn’t mean that the system shouldn’t be changed.
