Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Big food companies urge consumers to eat less
GaleHawkins
Posts: 8,159 Member
usatoday.com/story/money/2016/04/25/why-food-companies-are-telling-you-how-much-to-eat/83228810/
Major food companies are experimenting with different sizes to hedge against the demise of processed food.
Are they doing this for our betterment or theirs do you think?
Are many people really moving away from processed food to whole foods?
Major food companies are experimenting with different sizes to hedge against the demise of processed food.
Are they doing this for our betterment or theirs do you think?
Are many people really moving away from processed food to whole foods?
0
Replies
-
I think they are fighting every way they know how to hang on to their customers as there is an increased health awareness in the community. If they can get some people in (or back in) the door feeling as though they are making an OK choice for themselves and their family, then they are winning.
Clearly it's just another marketing strategy, to present themselves as the good guys, and cashing in on the more health conscious people in the community.
So, to answer your question - absolutely for their own betterment, specifically for the betterment of their financial situation.
6 -
pebble4321 wrote: »I think they are fighting every way they know how to hang on to their customers as there is an increased health awareness in the community. If they can get some people in (or back in) the door feeling as though they are making an OK choice for themselves and their family, then they are winning.
Clearly it's just another marketing strategy, to present themselves as the good guys, and cashing in on the more health conscious people in the community.
So, to answer your question - absolutely for their own betterment, specifically for the betterment of their financial situation.
I think they're fighting maintain a good image
When it's obviously a lie4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »usatoday.com/story/money/2016/04/25/why-food-companies-are-telling-you-how-much-to-eat/83228810/
Major food companies are experimenting with different sizes to hedge against the demise of processed food.
Are they doing this for our betterment or theirs do you think?
Are many people really moving away from processed food to whole foods?
Their interests and ours may not be mutually exclusive. If smaller portions or whatever keeps regulation at bay it's a win-win.
Many people have no clue how to cook, a situation that is now being passed down from a generation of box eaters to their offspring.5 -
It is to keep as many consumers of their products as possible. Maybe trying to convince more of the people that are more nutrition conscious. The serving sizes are already posted on the packages, people can read, but many choose not to, I didn't read nutrition labels prior to MFP. Bottom line for them is money. Smaller sizes doesn't mean that processed foods are any better for you.
As yarwell said, many people don't know (or want to learn) how to cook. Convenience of packaged foods and fast food is the norm. Perhaps the schools should have mandatory nutrition classes and cooking classes for students.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »usatoday.com/story/money/2016/04/25/why-food-companies-are-telling-you-how-much-to-eat/83228810/
Major food companies are experimenting with different sizes to hedge against the demise of processed food.
Are they doing this for our betterment or theirs do you think?
Are many people really moving away from processed food to whole foods?
Not where I live. The local Walmart has more frozen processed meals then veggies fresh and frozen combined. People will still eat way too much processed food. Too many do not know how else to eat. If you go to an area where there is poverty you will see lots of processed foods being eaten. When I tell my cancer patients that hot dogs and bologna does not count as protein (for the purpose of treatment) they act like I told them there is no Santa. We encourage a high protein low simple carb diet. Most don't get it.2 -
I think the move is definitely to capitalize on the "clean eating" movement similarly to Panera's rebranding efforts last year. I also think that the miniaturization of the food products could increase profitability, they may make higher margins on the small products than they do on the value sizes. Depends on how they price these new items.
I'm curious about this Mars initiative to label some of their products as "occasional" foods, since they specifically say candy bars won't get that label but mention some of their other products like ready rice and pasta sauce. Why would pasta sauce or rice need to be a caution, "sometimes" food?4 -
Responding to customer demand and gov't threats makes sense and has been happening forever. If there's enough demand for healthful products and sensible sizes, that's great. I'm not a "clean eater," but the fact that most lunch places here provide nutritional information/calories (and were before it was required, so I think partly that's demand) has been nice, and the fact that there's clearly a market for healthful options (even if sometimes mixed with too much focus on superfoods or woo for my taste) has been nice for me, as it's expanded what's available that fits within what I'd like to eat.6
-
As I've said before, they can feel which way the wind is blowing.0
-
I say if they're doing it for themselves, who cares. It's also helping me. In a country that "supersized" everything a few years ago, I think it's refreshing to see more portion control even in large, overly processed companies.1
-
WinoGelato wrote: »I think the move is definitely to capitalize on the "clean eating" movement similarly to Panera's rebranding efforts last year. I also think that the miniaturization of the food products could increase profitability, they may make higher margins on the small products than they do on the value sizes. Depends on how they price these new items.
I'm curious about this Mars initiative to label some of their products as "occasional" foods, since they specifically say candy bars won't get that label but mention some of their other products like ready rice and pasta sauce. Why would pasta sauce or rice need to be a caution, "sometimes" food?
Their pasta sauce is very high in salt esp if being used as a staple for kids.0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »It is to keep as many consumers of their products as possible. Maybe trying to convince more of the people that are more nutrition conscious. The serving sizes are already posted on the packages, people can read, but many choose not to, I didn't read nutrition labels prior to MFP. Bottom line for them is money. Smaller sizes doesn't mean that processed foods are any better for you.
As yarwell said, many people don't know (or want to learn) how to cook. Convenience of packaged foods and fast food is the norm. Perhaps the schools should have mandatory nutrition classes and cooking classes for students.
I think my family is totally outside the norm because not only do we cook virtually every day at home and eat family meals together, for the most part, they are all whole foods. Yes, we do a little fast food but it is very satisfying to hear both my teenage boys tell that they would rather eat at home that the "crap" at X Restaurant! Because they are homeschooled, their nutrition and cooking "classes" came from me and the Boy Scouts!
Almost 10 years ago, I was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. I was so bad off, both of my boys were convinced that I would die because I had to "sleep" at the hospital for over a week. After I got home, they were so worried about me so I gave them a "project." At 7 and 4 at the time, I did not hold out much expectation about the project. However, I told them that I had to eat healthier foods and gave them ingredients that I should and should not eat. They took that list and went shopping with their dad and came home with foods that were healthy and that I could eat. It took them over 3 hours in the store but they were bound and determined to help me. That started our household eating healthy movement. They learned how to shop smart and cook meals. They read food labels. Do we occasionally eat crap? Absolutely because sometimes you just have to eat a bag of flaming hot cheetos. However, it is not part of our every day life. Maybe my boys are the exception to the rule because they are homeschooled or because I had a life altering health event. Who knows? What I do know is that they like to cook and shop for food and they are rather "mouthy" when they see advertisements that try to present food as good for you when they really aren't. They actually have fun at the local farmers market where we buy most of our produce.5 -
rhtexasgal wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »It is to keep as many consumers of their products as possible. Maybe trying to convince more of the people that are more nutrition conscious. The serving sizes are already posted on the packages, people can read, but many choose not to, I didn't read nutrition labels prior to MFP. Bottom line for them is money. Smaller sizes doesn't mean that processed foods are any better for you.
As yarwell said, many people don't know (or want to learn) how to cook. Convenience of packaged foods and fast food is the norm. Perhaps the schools should have mandatory nutrition classes and cooking classes for students.
I think my family is totally outside the norm because not only do we cook virtually every day at home and eat family meals together, for the most part, they are all whole foods. Yes, we do a little fast food but it is very satisfying to hear both my teenage boys tell that they would rather eat at home that the "crap" at X Restaurant! Because they are homeschooled, their nutrition and cooking "classes" came from me and the Boy Scouts!
Almost 10 years ago, I was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. I was so bad off, both of my boys were convinced that I would die because I had to "sleep" at the hospital for over a week. After I got home, they were so worried about me so I gave them a "project." At 7 and 4 at the time, I did not hold out much expectation about the project. However, I told them that I had to eat healthier foods and gave them ingredients that I should and should not eat. They took that list and went shopping with their dad and came home with foods that were healthy and that I could eat. It took them over 3 hours in the store but they were bound and determined to help me. That started our household eating healthy movement. They learned how to shop smart and cook meals. They read food labels. Do we occasionally eat crap? Absolutely because sometimes you just have to eat a bag of flaming hot cheetos. However, it is not part of our every day life. Maybe my boys are the exception to the rule because they are homeschooled or because I had a life altering health event. Who knows? What I do know is that they like to cook and shop for food and they are rather "mouthy" when they see advertisements that try to present food as good for you when they really aren't. They actually have fun at the local farmers market where we buy most of our produce.
I was home schooled all the way through and learned about 'nutrition' from my obese mom
So I'd peg it more on the health crisis. My mother-in-law has completely changed her diet after cancer. I'm doubtful that the changes are actually doing anything special, but in her mind they are so who am I to argue with her- her body and her life. If eating organic now makes her feel better about herself than there's positives in that alone.
edited for clarity1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I think the move is definitely to capitalize on the "clean eating" movement similarly to Panera's rebranding efforts last year...
I saw a sign at Panera about "clean" and have been meaning to look this up. Here's what it means to them:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
...“We’ve made a commitment to remove artificial additives from our menu before the end of 2016,” John says, further explaining that the pledge means taking out any artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners from any food product made or served in a Panera Bread location. The goal: a cleaner menu.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I think the move is definitely to capitalize on the "clean eating" movement similarly to Panera's rebranding efforts last year...
I saw a sign at Panera about "clean" and have been meaning to look this up. Here's what it means to them:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
...“We’ve made a commitment to remove artificial additives from our menu before the end of 2016,” John says, further explaining that the pledge means taking out any artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners from any food product made or served in a Panera Bread location. The goal: a cleaner menu.
All I know is, next time someone asks in the forums what clean eating is, I'm going to say a nutty chocolate chipper cookie and a vanilla latte... Since that's what I get at Panera...
Actually, now that I think about it I'm curious. Does this mean that Panera will no longer offer Diet Pepsi and other drinks with artificial sweeteners?
5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I think the move is definitely to capitalize on the "clean eating" movement similarly to Panera's rebranding efforts last year...
I saw a sign at Panera about "clean" and have been meaning to look this up. Here's what it means to them:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
...“We’ve made a commitment to remove artificial additives from our menu before the end of 2016,” John says, further explaining that the pledge means taking out any artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners from any food product made or served in a Panera Bread location. The goal: a cleaner menu.
All I know is, next time someone asks in the forums what clean eating is, I'm going to say a nutty chocolate chipper cookie and a vanilla latte... Since that's what I get at Panera...
Actually, now that I think about it I'm curious. Does this mean that Panera will no longer offer Diet Pepsi and other drinks with artificial sweeteners?
Mind blown!0 -
mangamadayan wrote: »Publicly traded companies are done with baby boomers and gen x and gen y. With millennials on the rise, they need to adapt to a changed consumer base to keep their shareholders happy. And that includes Big Food. Everything is changing, from insurance to banking to food.
This is exactly the truth. I work in foods and the one thing I hear more often than any other is the change in trends toward whole food, organic, and processed items deemed to be healthier than others. The market is shifting in that direction evidenced by some recent acquisitions by big players in the market gobbling up smaller, less widespread competitors to Whole Foods. In most cases they aren't changing the little guys, they are bringing the processes in use by the smaller "healthier" grocers into their big chain philosophy. The change is fairly apparent in certain parts of the country, and will spread as market trends do.
Yes, it's good that they are making positive changes, but they are doing it because it's the most recognizable route to continued profit, it's recognizable, it's able to be analyzed and predicted, and it's marketable in highly successful ways.
*ETA: When your cube is in earshot of the largest meeting room in the company, you hear a lot of interesting stuff.4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »I think the move is definitely to capitalize on the "clean eating" movement similarly to Panera's rebranding efforts last year...
I saw a sign at Panera about "clean" and have been meaning to look this up. Here's what it means to them:
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
...“We’ve made a commitment to remove artificial additives from our menu before the end of 2016,” John says, further explaining that the pledge means taking out any artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners from any food product made or served in a Panera Bread location. The goal: a cleaner menu.
All I know is, next time someone asks in the forums what clean eating is, I'm going to say a nutty chocolate chipper cookie and a vanilla latte... Since that's what I get at Panera...
Actually, now that I think about it I'm curious. Does this mean that Panera will no longer offer Diet Pepsi and other drinks with artificial sweeteners?
Yeah, I've been joking about this for a while, since there was a huge Panera/clean eating billboard on the street right near my office since around the time I became aware of "clean eating" as a thing (due to MFP). I never go to Panera, though, because I like some other closer options better (this is nothing again Panera -- I'm quite stuck in my ways re purchased lunches). I'm willing to bet real money they aren't going to stop selling diet soda, however.1 -
BecomingBane wrote: »mangamadayan wrote: »Publicly traded companies are done with baby boomers and gen x and gen y. With millennials on the rise, they need to adapt to a changed consumer base to keep their shareholders happy. And that includes Big Food. Everything is changing, from insurance to banking to food.
This is exactly the truth. I work in foods and the one thing I hear more often than any other is the change in trends toward whole food, organic, and processed items deemed to be healthier than others. The market is shifting in that direction evidenced by some recent acquisitions by big players in the market gobbling up smaller, less widespread competitors to Whole Foods. In most cases they aren't changing the little guys, they are bringing the processes in use by the smaller "healthier" grocers into their big chain philosophy. The change is fairly apparent in certain parts of the country, and will spread as market trends do.
Yes, it's good that they are making positive changes, but they are doing it because it's the most recognizable route to continued profit, it's recognizable, it's able to be analyzed and predicted, and it's marketable in highly successful ways.
*ETA: When your cube is in earshot of the largest meeting room in the company, you hear a lot of interesting stuff.
Well, isn't Millennial just another name for Gen Y? In other words, the generation born between 1980 and 2000? And any sensible food seller that aims at a general market SHOULDN'T be done with Gen X (the ones around me are not, and I live in a nirvana--heh--for "whole food" sellers), and the crowd at the greeniest green market in Chicago is decidedly Gen X. Given buying power, this is not surprising.
Anyway, I do agree that of course it's driven by perceived profit, just as the less healthy trends were. That's what capitalism is. The market demands what it does. I like that healthy trends have some power now and like that companies are responding. (I also have no problem with gov't requirements like labeling.)1 -
Everything that publicly held corporations do is done for the bottom line. If that happens to also help me, great.
Pasta sauce from a jar is "sometimes" food because of high sodium. So is Uncle Ben's rice. Smaller portions won't stop my 19 year old son from eating everything in sight. He just buys two. My 22 year old daughter likes the smaller sizes. One is 6'2" and still growing; the other is 5'2" and runs daily to maintain a healthy weight. I have celiac disease and a host of food allergies. Every person is different. I've taught my kids to listen to their own body, read labels, and make the best decision for themselves.
5 -
Sugar is your enemy for fat loss. The more you spike your insulin through the day and the more sugar that is in your food, will block your body from using fat as a fuel source. That being said these companies didn't change the product, only there recommendation of how much you should consume. Even with smaller portions the sugar in the food will still inhibit your body from using fat stores. Ideal fat loss is achieved when sugar or carbohydrates is maintained at a level of 5-10% of your daily nutritional value. Around 30% should be proteins, this will sound counter intuitive, but the remainder of the macro nutrients for your body should be fats. Fat is insulin neutral and healthy for you. If you do this it will send your body in a state of ketosis. This basically means that your body is no longer receiving its fuel from "sugar" stored in the liver but rather almost exclusively from fat stores. To conclude, if the food is processed, comes in a pouch, or a little package and your goal is weight loss, do yourself a favor and spit it out. These companies are not on your side, they just want your money.0
-
z8limbedfighter wrote: »Sugar is your enemy for fat loss. The more you spike your insulin through the day and the more sugar that is in your food, will block your body from using fat as a fuel source. That being said these companies didn't change the product, only there recommendation of how much you should consume. Even with smaller portions the sugar in the food will still inhibit your body from using fat stores. Ideal fat loss is achieved when sugar or carbohydrates is maintained at a level of 5-10% of your daily nutritional value. Around 30% should be proteins, this will sound counter intuitive, but the remainder of the macro nutrients for your body should be fats. Fat is insulin neutral and healthy for you. If you do this it will send your body in a state of ketosis. This basically means that your body is no longer receiving its fuel from "sugar" stored in the liver but rather almost exclusively from fat stores. To conclude, if the food is processed, comes in a pouch, or a little package and your goal is weight loss, do yourself a favor and spit it out. These companies are not on your side, they just want your money.
No, this is not accurate. If you are in a calorie deficit you will lose, and there is absolutely no reason to keep carbs to 5-10% unless you enjoy eating that way or find it makes it easier to stay in a deficit or have some medical issue that it helps with.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »No, this is not accurate. If you are in a calorie deficit you will lose, and there is absolutely no reason to keep carbs to 5-10% unless you enjoy eating that way or find it makes it easier to stay in a deficit or have some medical issue that it helps with.
What you are eating is just as important as how much you eat. I can stay in a calorie deficit all day every day eating nothing but junk, this doesn't mean I am effectively losing fat. Nutrition and fitness require more than calorie counting. Everything you put in your body had a chemical effect and the idea is to maximize fat loss using human physiology. Not saying this is easy, it takes discipline, self control and support but the results are amazing.0 -
z8limbedfighter wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »No, this is not accurate. If you are in a calorie deficit you will lose, and there is absolutely no reason to keep carbs to 5-10% unless you enjoy eating that way or find it makes it easier to stay in a deficit or have some medical issue that it helps with.
What you are eating is just as important as how much you eat. I can stay in a calorie deficit all day every day eating nothing but junk, this doesn't mean I am effectively losing fat. Nutrition and fitness require more than calorie counting. Everything you put in your body had a chemical effect and the idea is to maximize fat loss using human physiology. Not saying this is easy, it takes discipline, self control and support but the results are amazing.
Actually yes, it does. It doesn't matter what your calories are made of-if you're eating at the correct calorie deficit for your weight loss goals you'll lose poundage.
I've lost around 50lbs, improved every single health marker and I've been in maintenance for several years now. I eat the same foods I did before, when I was overweight and flirting with prediabetes. The difference is I just eat less of them now ie less calories. I still eat all sorts of 'processed' sugary foods, fast foods etc. As well as veggies and whole grains etc. My diet hasn't changed, the quantity of food I eat has.
0 -
z8limbedfighter wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »No, this is not accurate. If you are in a calorie deficit you will lose, and there is absolutely no reason to keep carbs to 5-10% unless you enjoy eating that way or find it makes it easier to stay in a deficit or have some medical issue that it helps with.
What you are eating is just as important as how much you eat. I can stay in a calorie deficit all day every day eating nothing but junk, this doesn't mean I am effectively losing fat. Nutrition and fitness require more than calorie counting. Everything you put in your body had a chemical effect and the idea is to maximize fat loss using human physiology. Not saying this is easy, it takes discipline, self control and support but the results are amazing.
Yes, if the "junk" includes adequate protein for muscle maintenance, and all else is equal, of course you will effectively lose fat. For maintaining muscle what matters most beyond protein is exercise and having a reasonable deficit and how much that matters depends on how lean you are -- if obese, it really doesn't matter, although I think it's easier to maintain a deficit if you eat generally healthfully.
Of course, none of this has a thing to do with your original claim that it was important to keep carbs to 5-10%. Why on earth would you jump to "eating only junk" (I still am mystified by the idea that anyone would WANT to eat only junk, yet so many seem to go to that strawman) from my no need to keep carbs to 5-10%. Is the only alternative to a super low carb diet "eating only junk"? I eat a quite healthful diet made up of 40-50% carbs, which is what I seem to naturally prefer.3 -
Let's be clear about something, businesses only care about one thing and that's their bottom line. A company would never do something that would be bad for sales. The reason they're doing this is because it makes them look good. It makes them look moral like they have social values and that will lead to more people buying their products. It's the same reason pepsi and coke are funding Michelle Obama's campaign to get kids healthier. They don't care if kids are healthier they just want to make it look like they're "good companies" and that when they lobby in the government to ban having to put added sugars on their label mothers don't go up in arms because they're helping the fight against childhood obesity. But let's be real, no they're not.1
-
pebble4321 wrote: »I think they are fighting every way they know how to hang on to their customers as there is an increased health awareness in the community. If they can get some people in (or back in) the door feeling as though they are making an OK choice for themselves and their family, then they are winning.
Clearly it's just another marketing strategy, to present themselves as the good guys, and cashing in on the more health conscious people in the community.
So, to answer your question - absolutely for their own betterment, specifically for the betterment of their financial situation.
I think they're fighting maintain a good image
When it's obviously a lie
And they're going to make the products smaller, but keep the same price, increasing their margins because marketing psychology shows people will pay more for less junk if there's a wrapper that makes them think it's slightly better for them... SMH2 -
I think they make the packages smaller while keeping the prices of all the same, and the "smaller portions for the people" is a simple excuse to make more $$$ with less of a product. Anyone else not notice that a lot of the prepared food now has the same price but its smaller (ie. milk) etc.
This is correct...I work in the Consumer Packaged Goods industry and the practice is commonplace to reduce package size instead of taking a price increase for internal or commodities price increases.1 -
beautifulwarrior18 wrote: »Let's be clear about something, businesses only care about one thing and that's their bottom line. A company would never do something that would be bad for sales. The reason they're doing this is because it makes them look good. It makes them look moral like they have social values and that will lead to more people buying their products. It's the same reason pepsi and coke are funding Michelle Obama's campaign to get kids healthier. They don't care if kids are healthier they just want to make it look like they're "good companies" and that when they lobby in the government to ban having to put added sugars on their label mothers don't go up in arms because they're helping the fight against childhood obesity. But let's be real, no they're not.
So?
No, really. What does that matter? Does it change the thing itself in any way? Are you going to go throw rocks at them because they dare back a good cause with the hopes of getting something out of it for themselves?
A lot of things are wrong with companies, but helping fund positive organizations and movements is not one of them.5 -
beautifulwarrior18 wrote: »Let's be clear about something, businesses only care about one thing and that's their bottom line. A company would never do something that would be bad for sales. The reason they're doing this is because it makes them look good. It makes them look moral like they have social values and that will lead to more people buying their products. It's the same reason pepsi and coke are funding Michelle Obama's campaign to get kids healthier. They don't care if kids are healthier they just want to make it look like they're "good companies" and that when they lobby in the government to ban having to put added sugars on their label mothers don't go up in arms because they're helping the fight against childhood obesity. But let's be real, no they're not.
Corporations, businesses, companies are abstract legal constructions that are composed of actual real people. And many, if not most, of the actual real people who work for the companies DO care greatly about helping other people. My company invests millions of dollars into the community, and its individual employees give millions more and contribute thousands upon thousands of volunteer hours, both through company campaigns and on their own. I guess you could say that anyone who gives a donation to any needy organization or person is only doing it for utterly selfish purposes and just to "look moral like they have social values," but what a sick, cynical worldview, whether it is a company of 10,000 people supporting numerous nonprofits, a small mom-and-pop business pooling donations of Christmas presents for kids, or just one person buying a membership to support a local museum. "THat jerk just gave $50 to United Way because he just wanted his name to be in the annual report. He's not actually moral and caring."
Obviously you don't have a job at either a for-profit or non-profit organization, because if you did, your perspective on how businesses contribute powerfully to the social welfare of a community wouldn't be so shallow and thoughtless.10 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »beautifulwarrior18 wrote: »Let's be clear about something, businesses only care about one thing and that's their bottom line. A company would never do something that would be bad for sales. The reason they're doing this is because it makes them look good. It makes them look moral like they have social values and that will lead to more people buying their products. It's the same reason pepsi and coke are funding Michelle Obama's campaign to get kids healthier. They don't care if kids are healthier they just want to make it look like they're "good companies" and that when they lobby in the government to ban having to put added sugars on their label mothers don't go up in arms because they're helping the fight against childhood obesity. But let's be real, no they're not.
Corporations, businesses, companies are abstract legal constructions that are composed of actual real people. And many, if not most, of the actual real people who work for the companies DO care greatly about helping other people. My company invests millions of dollars into the community, and its individual employees give millions more and contribute thousands upon thousands of volunteer hours, both through company campaigns and on their own. I guess you could say that anyone who gives a donation to any needy organization or person is only doing it for utterly selfish purposes and just to "look moral like they have social values," but what a sick, cynical worldview, whether it is a company of 10,000 people supporting numerous nonprofits, a small mom-and-pop business pooling donations of Christmas presents for kids, or just one person buying a membership to support a local museum. "THat jerk just gave $50 to United Way because he just wanted his name to be in the annual report. He's not actually moral and caring."
Obviously you don't have a job at either a for-profit or non-profit organization, because if you did, your perspective on how businesses contribute powerfully to the social welfare of a community wouldn't be so shallow and thoughtless.
I like you!! well said!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions