In the news today

[Buffalobiian]

I eat out of cans every day. Not sure if they're aluminium though.

3.5% profit margin.. you can do better in a bank, can't you?

[Animeniax]

Yeah but you do so by choice, not because it's all that people can donate.

3.5% of the $1000 you have in the bank is diddly. 3.5% of billion$$ is a lot of money.

[shinta|hikari]

I eat out of cans every day. Not sure if they're aluminium though.

I'd probably die before a week.

Even at the poorest point in my life I only ate out of cans about 4-5 days a week. Making vegetable curry in mass amounts or eating umeboshi/furikake and rice is cheaper and tastes better.

[Animeniax]

Spaghetti and meat sauce is another good multiple meal solution for cheap. Rice with anything is a great idea too. It's how poor people in Asian countries have survived for so long.

Eating out of cans is bad for your health. Besides the preservatives and generally low quality of canned foodstuffs, the cans are lined with chemical layers to prevent interaction between the food and the aluminum/steel.

[Buffalobiian]

The canning process is supposed to rid the need for preservatives if done properly. I'm more concerned about mercury poisoning though since they're all tins of tuna. Not sure about the rest of the claims regarding chemicals.

[Animeniax]

Yeah large fish come with large doses of mercury and other heavy elements that are bad for humans. At least you could get the tuna in pouches to further negate the effect of poisoning from the can as well.

Here's a warning from the folks at GoodHouseKeeping.com, with an apropos picture of a can of tuna:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy...s-0330#slide-5

Though I'm being a debby downer here, as I could care less what I eat or how it's packaged most of the time.

[Carnage]

Yeah but you do so by choice, not because it's all that people can donate.

3.5% of the $1000 you have in the bank is diddly. 3.5% of billion$$ is a lot of money.

Not if you're a shareholder who only holds $10k worth of shares. Then it is diddly.

It doesn't matter how large the operation is, if it's more expensive than conducting a different viable business then it will shut/scale down. People don't seem to understand that its a choice between having the job in the first place or not having it because the owners put their money into a more lucrative business. If the workers had a skill set that demanded higher wages, then that would happen (at least in this scenario).

Personally I think its the government's duty to make sure everyone is well educated enough to provide a useful skill set to the market, but that's a different story. It's not walmart's fault that the employees aren't producing anything valuable enough to demand higher wages. If they did then there would be more profits and Walmart could afford to pay them more.

[Animeniax]

Not if you're a shareholder who only holds $10k worth of shares. Then it is diddly.

It doesn't matter how large the operation is, if it's more expensive than conducting a different viable business then it will shut/scale down. People don't seem to understand that its a choice between having the job in the first place or not having it because the owners put their money into a more lucrative business. If the workers had a skill set that demanded higher wages, then that would happen (at least in this scenario).

Personally I think its the government's duty to make sure everyone is well educated enough to provide a useful skill set to the market, but that's a different story. It's not walmart's fault that the employees aren't producing anything valuable enough to demand higher wages. If they did then there would be more profits and Walmart could afford to pay them more.

A company's value on the stock market is tied to but separate from revenue. Employee wages don't come from stock value, they are paid out of the company's earnings. So if a company earns a lot of money (which again 3.5% of billions = a lot of earnings) then it's understandable that the employees want better wages, as in their minds a large part of the company's success comes from their labor. The employees aren't producing any goods (the goods come from China), but they provide service to make the sales. One could say that their service directly leads to higher profits, so they should get higher pay for their work.

Again I don't agree with them and I think if you want better pay then you need to improve your skill set and get a better job. You shouldn't expect more money for doing the same job (except maybe in terms of longevity).

[Carnage]

Except profit margin has nothing to do with stock price, its Net Profit / Revenue Cost. It is purely a representation of the return of the business, with no factors of how the market values the operations. The raw amount of profit is irrelevant. The actual operation itself returns 3.5%. You're thinking of other ratios that include the stock price.

The product the employees provide is their service, and because their service isn't unique or clearly that valuable, the profits are what they are. If the employees provided a greater product (service) that produced greater economic output/profits, then they would be entitled to higher wages.

[Ryllharu]

Here's a warning from the folks at GoodHouseKeeping.com, with an apropos picture of a can of tuna:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy...s-0330#slide-5

Though I'm being a debby downer here, as I could care less what I eat or how it's packaged most of the time.

Sorry to undercut you with facts, but the dangers of BPA have been hugely overblown. As it turns out, humans, and especially mothers, are really good at filtering out BPA. Monkeys, like humans, particularly show excellent capacity to metabolize BPA. Rats...not so much, and guess which one we studied first.

As usual, "There may be something in your water making you sterile. More at 11."

The tin in the can itself, leeching into the food (the reason we coat them) can make you sick. But since they are mostly aluminum these days, it's not that bad.

Canned foods are safe. What's not so great about them is the amount of salt in them, high for most foods.

What kills you with cans is botulism, one of the most powerful toxins known to humans...which is routinely injected (heavily diluted) into people's faces.

edit:
tl;dr or never bothered to look at the links - I'm going to trust the FDA and NIH over GoodHouseKeeping.

[Animeniax]

Sorry to undercut you with "facts"...

Your "facts" are still under investigation and require more study so they are as reliable as any I cited (which if you had bothered to check the link also cites a study conducted by the NIH). Given our food industry's propensity for expediency and cost savings, I prefer to err on the side of safety and tend towards moderation, including with the amount of canned foodstuffs I consume.

Except profit margin has nothing to do with stock price, its Net Profit / Revenue Cost. It is purely a representation of the return of the business, with no factors of how the market values the operations. The raw amount of profit is irrelevant. The actual operation itself returns 3.5%. You're thinking of other ratios that include the stock price.

The product the employees provide is their service, and because their service isn't unique or clearly that valuable, the profits are what they are. If the employees provided a greater product (service) that produced greater economic output/profits, then they would be entitled to higher wages.

I don't think I implied that profit margin affects stock price, but it's good to know how market valuation is measured.

I think the value of their service is undercut by the fact that pretty much anyone else could come in and provide the same service. You would find the same service at any similar store. So the employees don't offer anything to a store that would make them deserve any better pay.

[Ryllharu]

Your "facts" are still under investigation and require more study so they are as reliable as any I cited (which if you had bothered to check the link also cites a study conducted by the NIH).

You may also note that your linked study (I did in fact read it, why else would I have called out BPA when you were generic?) is from 2011. My links are from 2012 (FDA) and 2013 (NIH and the summary article).

Citations 101.

edit:
Furthermore, all the study you posted shows is that, surprise, by intervening in the diet of five families who tested positive for BPA and giving them food that hasn't come in contact with packaging and plastic storage containers, they can reduce the levels of BPA that show up in urine. It only shows that BPA comes from exposure to food packaging and storage, not what the body does to it. Only where it comes from.

The studies I posted actually focus on how much BPA is absorbed, and how much is simply passed directly after metabolic processes. They couldn't even detect levels of BPA in a child from its mother, that's how good at processing BPA monkeys and humans are.

[Carnage]

I don't think I implied that profit margin affects stock price, but it's good to know how market valuation is measured.

Nevermind, I looked back and understood what you originally meant. Yeah a regular employee seeing billions in revenue won't understand the difference and that the revenue is actually relatively little.

[Animeniax]

You may also note that your linked study (I did in fact read it, why else would I have called out BPA when you were generic?) is from 2011. My links are from 2012 (FDA) and 2013 (NIH and the summary article).

Citations 101.

edit:
Furthermore, all the study you posted shows is that, surprise, by intervening in the diet of five families who tested positive for BPA and giving them food that hasn't come in contact with packaging and plastic storage containers, they can reduce the levels of BPA that show up in urine. It only shows that BPA comes from exposure to food packaging and storage, not what the body does to it. Only where it comes from.

The studies I posted actually focus on how much BPA is absorbed, and how much is simply passed directly after metabolic processes. They couldn't even detect levels of BPA in a child from its mother, that's how good at processing BPA monkeys and humans are.

And you prove my point exactly. One year a study shows something is harmful, the next it shows it's not as bad as we thought. What will the future hold??? So go ahead and eat all the processed and canned foods you like, since the science of the day says there's little harm. Hopefully another study next year doesn't flop back to showing these substances are bad for you.

Also, alcohol processes just fine through the human body... and we know alcohol is completely harmless.

[Ryllharu]

No, I'm afraid you just don't know how to comprehend.

You posted:

Eating out of cans is bad for your health. Besides the preservatives and generally low quality of canned foodstuffs,the cans are lined with chemical layers to prevent interaction between the food and the aluminum/steel.

And then failed to connect any of the dots in my subsequent posts.

The studies don't show what BPA actually does to the body. In rodents, who can't process it as well, overloaded with the stuff, it disrupts their endocrine system, which was reported widely by the media as something harmful to humans and what you alluded to here.

The truth is, as the FDA put it, that we have no idea about the effects of BPA on humans because so very little of it stays in the body. The levels that are not processed out by our liver or renal system are barely detectable.

Also at no point did you ever attempt to even make the point that studies will frequently show different results. Nor to the reports actually show conflicting results. It's the media, just like you, not understanding what the studies actually say any throwing out a lot of words like "may" and "could be harmful." Except you leave out the "may" and just say "are".

Even the goodhousekeeping article you originally posted goes into detail about what the diet intervention study shows and what it doesn't, in plain English, sectioned off for easy reading comprehension. Something you never noticed.

[Kraco]

Looking at EFSA's page on Bisphenol A, it indeed looks like no study so far suggests it has any effects in (adult) humans, within the currently acceptable doses, but more studies are being made all the time to verify the situation. Regardless, there seems to be some worry since EU has banned its use in manufacturing infant feeding bottles. I doubt they would do that if it was all nonsense.

Maybe we won't know for sure before Bill's autopsy in the future.

[Ryllharu]

Regardless, there seems to be some worry since EU has banned its use in manufacturing infant feeding bottles.

Many states in the US have as well. It's just one of those things politicians will do to look like they are actually doing their job while still having no clue what is going on.

Lawmaker A: People are upset about something.
Lawmaker B: What is it, something that we're doing that's illegal for the norms?
Lawmaker A: I don't know, but none of my lobbyists are concerned about whatever it is.
Lawmaker B: So who cares? Let's ignore it.
Lawmaker A: But my interns are getting a lot of calls on it, it's harder for my lobbyists to make appointments.
Lawmaker B: Let's ban, tax, or require licenses for it!

[Animeniax]

Many states in the US have as well. It's just one of those things politicians will do to look like they are actually doing their job while still having no clue what is going on.

Lawmaker A: People are upset about something.
Lawmaker B: What is it, something that we're doing that's illegal for the norms?
Lawmaker A: I don't know, but none of my lobbyists are concerned about whatever it is.
Lawmaker B: So who cares? Let's ignore it.
Lawmaker A: But my interns are getting a lot of calls on it, it's harder for my lobbyists to make appointments.
Lawmaker B: Let's ban, tax, or require licenses for it!

Spoken like a card carrying Republican... you think there's too much regulation and government intervention. "People should just be left to their own devices and deal with the consequences, nevermind that big businesses frequently try to cut corners at the expense of the consumer. We don't need any government regulation for a potentially hazardous substance, it just gets in the way of business and making money. Since no one can say for certain that this chemical is bad for you, it's just the liberal media trying to stifle business."

Back to the point, canned foods are heavily processed and still have to be preserved for extended shelf life. Whether its BPA or some other substances leaching into food, it's a bad idea to eat canned food when fresh stuff is available. I did support my point that studies can't always be relied on, as the studies you posted are no more "fact" than the one I cited, given that subsequent studies show something different.

[Buffalobiian]

I did support my point that studies can't always be relied on, as the studies you posted are no more "fact" than the one I cited, given that subsequent studies show something different.

Animeniax, let's get something straight (Ryll's already said this before, but I'll just go over).

The three studies you guys have cited don't conflict with each other. They show different things. Your study shows that by reducing BPA packaged foods, you can reduce your exposure to BPA. Ryll's studies show that BPA has tiny amounts in the body with most of it being excreted.

Neither of those studies answer the question of What does BPA do to the human body?, only that the more you eat the more you pee out, and that not a lot is left in the body regardless.

Innocence gets the benefit of doubt. If it's not known to kill/harm you, it should be allowed.

[lelouch]

If you go to BJs or Costco, you can get a fresh product bunduru inexpensively.


Winter is coming.