In the news today

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.