Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 October 2
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 1 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 3 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
October 2
[edit]Carmen on ice - Katarina Witt
[edit]Does anyone know where I can buy this DVD in the UK please?--85.211.142.22 (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Amazon stock it. Richard Avery (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Amazon.co.uk only seem to be selling a used VHS tape of the version starring Witt. I suggest you buy this and copy it to DVD.--Shantavira|feed me 07:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It's ordered, many thanks for the advices.--85.211.142.22 (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Plural of advice is still advice. Vranak (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Now it's already advice3. --Nepenthes (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Also, Amazon stocks it. Unless he's talking about jungle women, in which case it would be Amazons stock it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- One store I checked for this product was Amazon. I discovered that they stock it. Thus I conclude that Amazon stock it. Don't the singulat and plural verb forms work equally well here? Not trying to start anything big here, just askin'. :) Franamax (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's fine. Bugs was out of line in making his incorrect "correction". --Viennese Waltz 07:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I was making fun of the other editor for lecturing the OP about "advices". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's fine. Bugs was out of line in making his incorrect "correction". --Viennese Waltz 07:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Also, Amazon stocks it. Unless he's talking about jungle women, in which case it would be Amazons stock it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Now it's already advice3. --Nepenthes (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright 85.211.142.22 if you want to be picky, at least I said thank you, which most people don't.--85.211.142.22 (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- You talking to yourself there, 85.211? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
This silly British insistence on making singular nouns agree with plural verbs is a pretentious innovation. Shakespeare didn't do it. The Brits have forgotten the subjunctive, and most couldn't find their ars were they handed them. Next they'll insist we use the possessive form to indicate animate masculine nouns in the accusative case. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- "You say tomayto, I say tomahto..." Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Wingdings
[edit]Typing anything in Wingdings makes it look like gibberish,so why would anyone want to use that font? Why does it exist?? 117.97.193.2 (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wingdings are dingbats. They enable people to use non-standard symbols or figures in text (usually for ornamental purposes), like this ☺. They're not meant to represent sounds, obviously. Though you can use it that way if you wish. See Wingdings for what it actually looks like. It probably looks like gibberish in your computer, because you do not have the font installed. In which case, see Help:Special characters. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Food coloring
[edit]What's the point of putting food coloring in canned energy drinks or drinkable yogurt smoothies? The containers are opaque and most consumers are never going to look at it. It seems totally unnecessary. Please don't respond with "market research shows consumers prefer their drinks purple and their yogurt red". Like I said, most people are never going to look at these two things, they are just going to drink and eat them. Why is there food coloring in such items? It doesn't make sense to me at all. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Some of us civilised people still like their drink in a glass, so the colour does matter!--85.211.142.22 (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was going to also add, "don't respond with 'some people pour canned energy drinks in a glass'", but I thought that nobody would actually respond with such a comment, but here it is. Listen, nobody pours an energy drink into a glass unless they are in a bar, and it is usually dark in a nightclub. So, I'm not buying it. If you're in a dark nightclub, you're not going to see the color of your energy drink, which is already mixed as it is, so that answer doesn't hold water. Take for example Rockstar Zero Carb.[1] People do not buy that to pour it in a glass. It just doesn't happen. They drink it out of a can and that's that. However, it is colored like a "wild berry". Why?? And nobody is going to pour a drinkable yogurt smoothie out of its plastic container into a glass, because it would take way too long. Ever try to pour yogurt? So your answer isn't satisfactory. Don't get me wrong. I'm very familiar with the stock answers of "market research shows consumers want their drinks colored" and "it's because people pour it into a glass", but I'm not buying it. It's just not true, and I don't believe it. The fact of the matter is, consumers favor products without food coloring, which is why you see more and more products labeled with "no artificial colors". So why is food coloring still added to products, especially to products that are unlikely to be seen by the consumer outside of their original containers, such as energy drinks and drinkable yogurts? Mr. Green (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Some consumers may care about artificial colouring but realisticly most people who drink energy drinks aren't going to. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I accept that answer, but notice I did not offer these reasons alone or in isolation. There is simply no single good reason why these drinks are artificially colored. And, I can prove it. The target market for energy drinks, for example, are young males who are active with sports, video games, or studying.[2] Do you think these men are going to get out their dainty little glass and pour this can into it with their little pinky finger raised? I think not. They are going to rip open the can, drink it, and get back to their game. The manufacturers also sell a great deal of these drinks to convenience stores attached to gas stations because they know their target market drinks it "on the go". In other words, there is good data showing that this particular kind of drink is consumed straight out of the can, an opaque can that cannot reveal the color. And yet, it is colored like its flavor, a purplish "wild berry" color. Why? There is not a single good reason. We know, looking at the distribution network for this drink and the target demographic, that the vast majority of consumers who buy it never look at the color. Therefore, it makes no sense to add an artificial color to this drink, combined with the fact that many consumers avoid food coloring in the first place. So then, why is it added? Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that most consumers are usually going to consume the product without looking at the colour, but, at some stage, either when they first try it, or when they accidentally spill some, most people will notice the colour. The manufacturers presumably believe that a "healthy" colour makes people think that their product is a "healthy" drink. Dbfirs 12:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Could you do me a favor? Find me a single, reliable energy drink review that talks about the importance of the color, or even mentions it. Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed my point. The target market for energy drinks, as me and several people have said, and you apparently agree aren't the type who will avoid artificial colouring. Therefore your key reason not to colour the products is gone. (The only thing you have left is don't do it because it doesn't matter.) You then have to consider whether there is a reason to colour the products. The answer is there is, since as several people have said, many people do actually notice the colour at some stage despite your claims to the contrary and for some of them it is going to make a difference. As others have said, it's also part of the wider branding of the product (like how it's promoted). I note you have brought up Red Bull but it seems you've missed the point it's clear one of their intentions is to differentiate themselves from Red Bull and also their products from one another. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that most consumers are usually going to consume the product without looking at the colour, but, at some stage, either when they first try it, or when they accidentally spill some, most people will notice the colour. The manufacturers presumably believe that a "healthy" colour makes people think that their product is a "healthy" drink. Dbfirs 12:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I accept that answer, but notice I did not offer these reasons alone or in isolation. There is simply no single good reason why these drinks are artificially colored. And, I can prove it. The target market for energy drinks, for example, are young males who are active with sports, video games, or studying.[2] Do you think these men are going to get out their dainty little glass and pour this can into it with their little pinky finger raised? I think not. They are going to rip open the can, drink it, and get back to their game. The manufacturers also sell a great deal of these drinks to convenience stores attached to gas stations because they know their target market drinks it "on the go". In other words, there is good data showing that this particular kind of drink is consumed straight out of the can, an opaque can that cannot reveal the color. And yet, it is colored like its flavor, a purplish "wild berry" color. Why? There is not a single good reason. We know, looking at the distribution network for this drink and the target demographic, that the vast majority of consumers who buy it never look at the color. Therefore, it makes no sense to add an artificial color to this drink, combined with the fact that many consumers avoid food coloring in the first place. So then, why is it added? Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Some consumers may care about artificial colouring but realisticly most people who drink energy drinks aren't going to. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was going to also add, "don't respond with 'some people pour canned energy drinks in a glass'", but I thought that nobody would actually respond with such a comment, but here it is. Listen, nobody pours an energy drink into a glass unless they are in a bar, and it is usually dark in a nightclub. So, I'm not buying it. If you're in a dark nightclub, you're not going to see the color of your energy drink, which is already mixed as it is, so that answer doesn't hold water. Take for example Rockstar Zero Carb.[1] People do not buy that to pour it in a glass. It just doesn't happen. They drink it out of a can and that's that. However, it is colored like a "wild berry". Why?? And nobody is going to pour a drinkable yogurt smoothie out of its plastic container into a glass, because it would take way too long. Ever try to pour yogurt? So your answer isn't satisfactory. Don't get me wrong. I'm very familiar with the stock answers of "market research shows consumers want their drinks colored" and "it's because people pour it into a glass", but I'm not buying it. It's just not true, and I don't believe it. The fact of the matter is, consumers favor products without food coloring, which is why you see more and more products labeled with "no artificial colors". So why is food coloring still added to products, especially to products that are unlikely to be seen by the consumer outside of their original containers, such as energy drinks and drinkable yogurts? Mr. Green (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Some of us civilised people still like their drink in a glass, so the colour does matter!--85.211.142.22 (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- The assertion that "nobody pours an energy drink into a glass" is incorrect. My mother always pours drinks into a glass since she considers drinking out of the canister 'uncouth' and not something you do in polite society. I'm sure there are many others out there with similar opinions. Astronaut (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the discussion a bit more carefully. Energy drinks aren't marketed to mothers who take them home and pour them in a glass. They are sold to young males "on the go" and on the move, people who are involved in an activity. And when they are poured, they are used in dark nightclubs as an ingredient in a bomb shot. Sadly, your mother is not the target demographic for energy drinks. More to the point, the energy drink company in question has, within the last six months, begun targeting women with a new drink in their product line, which is dyed pink. And, guess what? It comes with a straw affixed to the can,[3] indicating that they intend the female user to drink it out of the can, not pour it into a glass. To quote the review: "Juice boxes, milkshakes, and fruity cocktails, all awesome, all drunk with straws. Rockstar should just include straws with all their products." Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I, User:APL, routinely pour all my drinks, including energy drinks, into a clear, double-walled frosty-glass], because I like my drinks to remain at near-freezing for as long as possible. Drinks in metal cans seem to warm up almost instantly in my experience. APL (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the discussion a bit more carefully. Energy drinks aren't marketed to mothers who take them home and pour them in a glass. They are sold to young males "on the go" and on the move, people who are involved in an activity. And when they are poured, they are used in dark nightclubs as an ingredient in a bomb shot. Sadly, your mother is not the target demographic for energy drinks. More to the point, the energy drink company in question has, within the last six months, begun targeting women with a new drink in their product line, which is dyed pink. And, guess what? It comes with a straw affixed to the can,[3] indicating that they intend the female user to drink it out of the can, not pour it into a glass. To quote the review: "Juice boxes, milkshakes, and fruity cocktails, all awesome, all drunk with straws. Rockstar should just include straws with all their products." Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Presumably the colours are there because the market research indicated that the product would sell better with them than without them. As to why this would be, there are probably as many reasons as there are people! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, yes—ye olde market research myth. I've heard that line for decades and I have yet to see any evidence it is true. I presume it is printed in textbooks and published in PR trade magazines, yet has anyone ever looked into it? I'll bet you anything it comes from a study dated from around 1955, around the time that physicians smoked and were paid to sell cigarettes in advertisements. Which means that kind of market research is probably just as bogus as medical doctors preaching the safety of tobacco and encouraging people to smoke for their "health". Let's be realistic. Is there anyone who wakes up and says, "I hope my food has the most fabulous artificial colors in it today"? No, there isn't. And, why are these colors in foods that nobody will ever look at or even care to look at? Energy drinks aren't bought for their color, and yogurt smoothies are almost impossible to pour into a glass. No matter how you look at it, there's no reasonable explanation for why these artificial colors are added. And just to prove that this whole notion of artificial colors as an appealing aspect of food is malarcky, try this as an experiment: cook two servings of macaroni and cheese, one from fresh pasta and melted cheese of your choice, and another from the packaged mix variety known for its fluorescent artificial cheese color. Now choose which is more appetizing. There goes the myth. Viriditas (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, so I didn't read all of your second comment, but with all due respect, you never mentioned a particular brand in your original question. You also mentioned 'drinkable yogurt smoothies', a product I can imagine my mother trying to pour into a glass or dessert bowl. The reason food colouring is added to anything is because customers have certain expectations of the product's appearence should they happen to see it in good light. If you found out your energy drink or drinkable yoghurt had the colour of, say, day-glo snot you might well make comments about how unappealing it looked to anybody prepared to listen. Such bad publicity is simply not worth the risk for the sake of adding a more appealing colour. Astronaut (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- The energy drink is actually clear to light yellow without coloring and the yogurt is white without color. Neither products are intended to be poured into a glass. Further, there is no evidence that consumers of energy drinks care about the color, and yogurt is, for all intents and purposes, usually served white, so adding color to it doesn't change its presentation any more than it appears normally. So, in both instances, there continues to be a lack of any reasonable explanation for why the manufacturer needed to add food coloring. The yogurt smoothies in question are actually too small for the consumer to even try to pour it into a glass or bowl, and it would be inefficient to do so, as the container is too small to allow for the transport of most of the food and the opening too narrow to allow one to scoop it out easily. Both products are normally served without any added color (regular diet Rockstar in the white bottle and white yogurt smoothie) so your argument that it would be unappealing without the color is not true. The two products I mention contain color for no reason at all, and do not appear more appealing with the added color. The argument for adding food coloring in these two instances remains without merit, and I suggest that this reflects on the larger argument for food coloring, which is actually unappealing when compared with uncolored food, contrary to your claim. Please try my macaroni and cheese experiment to experience this for yourself. Food coloring is not appealing, no matter how many times we are told that it is. Viriditas (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, so I didn't read all of your second comment, but with all due respect, you never mentioned a particular brand in your original question. You also mentioned 'drinkable yogurt smoothies', a product I can imagine my mother trying to pour into a glass or dessert bowl. The reason food colouring is added to anything is because customers have certain expectations of the product's appearence should they happen to see it in good light. If you found out your energy drink or drinkable yoghurt had the colour of, say, day-glo snot you might well make comments about how unappealing it looked to anybody prepared to listen. Such bad publicity is simply not worth the risk for the sake of adding a more appealing colour. Astronaut (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, yes—ye olde market research myth. I've heard that line for decades and I have yet to see any evidence it is true. I presume it is printed in textbooks and published in PR trade magazines, yet has anyone ever looked into it? I'll bet you anything it comes from a study dated from around 1955, around the time that physicians smoked and were paid to sell cigarettes in advertisements. Which means that kind of market research is probably just as bogus as medical doctors preaching the safety of tobacco and encouraging people to smoke for their "health". Let's be realistic. Is there anyone who wakes up and says, "I hope my food has the most fabulous artificial colors in it today"? No, there isn't. And, why are these colors in foods that nobody will ever look at or even care to look at? Energy drinks aren't bought for their color, and yogurt smoothies are almost impossible to pour into a glass. No matter how you look at it, there's no reasonable explanation for why these artificial colors are added. And just to prove that this whole notion of artificial colors as an appealing aspect of food is malarcky, try this as an experiment: cook two servings of macaroni and cheese, one from fresh pasta and melted cheese of your choice, and another from the packaged mix variety known for its fluorescent artificial cheese color. Now choose which is more appetizing. There goes the myth. Viriditas (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- A question with such gross logical fallacies can not be answered. It forms a kind of circular reasoning were one of the assumptions explicitly refutes the true answer and tries to justify this with false conclusions.--Aspro (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please provide me with the name, date, and publication of any market research indicating that consumers prefer artificial colors in their food. Or any published material for that matter. Viriditas (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Our food coloring article gives some explanation (particularly: "...make color addition commercially advantageous to maintain the color expected or preferred by the consumer.") But if you are not satisfied, why don't you ask the manufacturers. Their contact details are here. Astronaut (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Again, energy drinks aren't known or chosen for their color, and yogurt is normally white, so there is no advantage in the two examples I gave you. Further, I provided a third example, using macaroni and cheese, showing that the perceived advantage was actually a disadvantage when compared with a similar but uncolored analogue. We're dealing with a myth here, that has no substantial evidence supporting it. The consumer expects and prefers food that tastes and looks good, there is no question about that. But I have yet to see a single documented instance of food coloring contributing to this experience. We're told that we have to have it, and that we must have it, but in every case that I can see, we don't need it, and more importantly, the consumer doesn't want it. Viriditas (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well to be blunt, you're not looking hard enough. Margarine discusses the history of legislation surrounding what colouring usage, either no colouring or odd colouring (bright yellow or orange or pink) both of which put the consumer off the product. It even discusses how bootlegged butter coloured magarine existed and some people would add their own colouring. Or try asking a kid about what colour sweets they like or do a test with uncoloured sweets (which in many cases will be something fairly light) and see whether colour really doesn't make a difference. (Speaking of kids, I suspect you'd find some do prefer the cheap & nasty macaroni & cheese you mentioned.) I think you also don't appreciate what a lot of products would look like without colouring (including substances primarily added for colour but which may serve other minor purposes). And really if you're going to talk like colouring doesn't make a difference you should always exclude the use of any bleaching agents on your food products which is usually also significantly to do with colour. Don't say this doesn't relate to the energy drink or yoghurt example because you're missing the point, you keep insisting there's no evidence colouring makes a difference but that doesn't really bear scrunity. (I would agree some companies are a little to free with their colouring and end up producing stuff that looks unnecessarily artificial although in some cases I may not be the right market anyway.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- So, according to you, the reason artificial coloring is added to dog and cat food is because the color makes a difference to pets, is that correct? Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well to be blunt, you're not looking hard enough. Margarine discusses the history of legislation surrounding what colouring usage, either no colouring or odd colouring (bright yellow or orange or pink) both of which put the consumer off the product. It even discusses how bootlegged butter coloured magarine existed and some people would add their own colouring. Or try asking a kid about what colour sweets they like or do a test with uncoloured sweets (which in many cases will be something fairly light) and see whether colour really doesn't make a difference. (Speaking of kids, I suspect you'd find some do prefer the cheap & nasty macaroni & cheese you mentioned.) I think you also don't appreciate what a lot of products would look like without colouring (including substances primarily added for colour but which may serve other minor purposes). And really if you're going to talk like colouring doesn't make a difference you should always exclude the use of any bleaching agents on your food products which is usually also significantly to do with colour. Don't say this doesn't relate to the energy drink or yoghurt example because you're missing the point, you keep insisting there's no evidence colouring makes a difference but that doesn't really bear scrunity. (I would agree some companies are a little to free with their colouring and end up producing stuff that looks unnecessarily artificial although in some cases I may not be the right market anyway.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Again, energy drinks aren't known or chosen for their color, and yogurt is normally white, so there is no advantage in the two examples I gave you. Further, I provided a third example, using macaroni and cheese, showing that the perceived advantage was actually a disadvantage when compared with a similar but uncolored analogue. We're dealing with a myth here, that has no substantial evidence supporting it. The consumer expects and prefers food that tastes and looks good, there is no question about that. But I have yet to see a single documented instance of food coloring contributing to this experience. We're told that we have to have it, and that we must have it, but in every case that I can see, we don't need it, and more importantly, the consumer doesn't want it. Viriditas (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Our food coloring article gives some explanation (particularly: "...make color addition commercially advantageous to maintain the color expected or preferred by the consumer.") But if you are not satisfied, why don't you ask the manufacturers. Their contact details are here. Astronaut (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please provide me with the name, date, and publication of any market research indicating that consumers prefer artificial colors in their food. Or any published material for that matter. Viriditas (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Colour is colour, artificial or other wise. It is the visual presentation that matters, not origin. So it would unlikly be a subject for consumer testing surveys. You might as well ask for surveys to discover if people want peppermint creams to taste of peppermint- much of which today is artificial too. Same calorific food value as unflavoured mints -so from that point of view, unnecessary as well. --Aspro (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- You say that it is the visual presentation that matters. However, I've just given two examples up above—an energy drink and a packaged yogurt smoothie—that when consumed in their expected and appropriate way, do not present themselves in a visual manner. So, if the visual presentation matters, but the consumer does not experience the food visually because of the packaging, then why is food coloring added? We're back to my original question. Viriditas (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- The original question is built on confirmation bias. It may sound logical and 'reason-able' to you but it isn't. --Aspro (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're confused. My original question was, What's the point of putting food coloring in canned energy drinks or drinkable yogurt smoothies? Why is there food coloring in such items? For some reason or another, you haven't been able to answer the question. And, it is true that these drinks were intended to be consumed from their original container, not from a glass, making the use of artificial color unnecessary. This is not "confirmation bias". This is an observable fact based on their target demographic of males on the go, at athletic events, in the car on the road, etc. Further, I have provided evidence showing that their newest product, catered to females, includes the use of a straw to be consumed from the can itself, making the artificial color of the product even more unnecessary. When asked to support your contention that 1) market research shows consumers want these artificial colors, you were unable to substantiate it. It is looking more and more likely that these colors are not used because the consumer wants them, but because the company requires them, whether it is to extend the shelf life of the product or to reduce spoilage. However, the myth that the consumer wants these artificial colors in their food has no support. You are welcome to support your claims with actual published research at any time, but I'm afraid we will never see it. You see, your fallacious argument ("the consumer wants it!") has been used before, particularly by the petrochemical and automobile industry, who in decades past, claimed night and day, that they would not produced fuel efficient vehicles because the consumer didn't want it. They stopped saying that in 2008, but the claim is still alive on the Heartland Institute websites. This canard of "the consumer wants it" is one of the oldest PR gimmicks around. There are no consumers demanding artificial colors in their food, quite the opposite actually. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Consumers have wanted and cared about fuel efficiency in vehicles long before 2008 in a number of countries outside the US. Your other claim is nonsense, most colourings don't extend shelf life or reduce spoilage. If you disagree, well if I may take a page out of your book show me the published researched. As it stands, you're ignoring the examples people have already provided where colouring clearly does matter (outside of energy drinks and yoghurt smoothies). Or are you going to say consumers adding colouring themselves and the availability of bootleg margarine in banned colours and the legislation requiring uncoloured margarine and the demonstrated effect on the popularity somehow needs published research to demonstrate it had anything to do with colours and wasn't just a PR gimmick? You've also ignored the example of sweets and children, the reason why no one has bothered to provide any research is probably partially because anyone who has any experience with children immediately knows colour does make a difference. If you really want research, you could easily find it yourself, I found these in under a minute [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. In fact you seem to be contradicting yourself since you keep claiming colour doesn't matter but then you claim people don't like products which look too artifically coloured (which I agree is sometimes the case). If you don't understand why these are contradictory, I suggest you think about it, since without understanding that, you're never going to be able to understand the issue. (Hint, some times product colouring may make it look artificial to most but often the intention is the product looks natural or 'right' to the target audience. As I said earlier you need to forget about energy drinks and yoghurt smoothies for now and concentrate on what many products would look like without colouring or bleaching and how the consumer reaction would be to said products. Once you can understand that, perhaps you can have a hope understanding the energy drinks and yoghurt smoothies examples.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ridiculous! You missed the point entirely. Consumers do care about fuel efficiency in the U.S. but press release after press release from industry groups says otherwise. This was PR pushback against making smaller cars and raising fuel efficiency. They claimed the consumer didn't want it, so they could sell cars that used more gas, which made them more money. How interesting then, is it to find the same bogus arguments coming from the same industry groups, since after all, food coloring is derived from petrochemicals. We're told we have to have it in our food, and that cats and dogs have to have it too. When we ask why, we're told because we demand it. This is the same argument the oil industry insiders made when they working with the Bush admin. They said, "Everybody wants to drive a Hummer; nobody wants to drive a diesel Volkswagen that gets 45 mpg." That's a paraphrase of an actual quote. It's the same bogus argument from the same group of people selling the same chemicals. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fuel efficient vehicles were available in the US before 2008. And no one forced people to buy Hummers. Don't get me wrong, the situation in the US with regards to tax and the belief owning big cars which waste fuel and kill people more effictively was somehow more American which was helped by the lobbying and PR efforts was and is ridiculous. But you seem to be missing the point that this did work and many consumers did in fact not care that much. Ironically when the shit hit the fan, US car companies suffered greatly, Japanese (and I think South Korean car companies) in the US could bring in their stuff from Europe and elsewhere so benefited. (Personally I had long believe that those in the US who were promoting the idea that big cars were the American thing weren't doing their car manufacturers are favour and look what happened?) However as it stands, I'm pretty sure the average fuel efficiency and size of vehicles in the US is lower then in places like Europe. Again this may partially be to do with things like tax and what's available, but ultimately consumers in the US are the ones making the choice (influence by the PR and all that perhaps) to buy less fuel efficient vehicles, rather then all consumers in the US buying the most fuel efficient vehicles that are available there. Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ridiculous! You missed the point entirely. Consumers do care about fuel efficiency in the U.S. but press release after press release from industry groups says otherwise. This was PR pushback against making smaller cars and raising fuel efficiency. They claimed the consumer didn't want it, so they could sell cars that used more gas, which made them more money. How interesting then, is it to find the same bogus arguments coming from the same industry groups, since after all, food coloring is derived from petrochemicals. We're told we have to have it in our food, and that cats and dogs have to have it too. When we ask why, we're told because we demand it. This is the same argument the oil industry insiders made when they working with the Bush admin. They said, "Everybody wants to drive a Hummer; nobody wants to drive a diesel Volkswagen that gets 45 mpg." That's a paraphrase of an actual quote. It's the same bogus argument from the same group of people selling the same chemicals. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Consumers have wanted and cared about fuel efficiency in vehicles long before 2008 in a number of countries outside the US. Your other claim is nonsense, most colourings don't extend shelf life or reduce spoilage. If you disagree, well if I may take a page out of your book show me the published researched. As it stands, you're ignoring the examples people have already provided where colouring clearly does matter (outside of energy drinks and yoghurt smoothies). Or are you going to say consumers adding colouring themselves and the availability of bootleg margarine in banned colours and the legislation requiring uncoloured margarine and the demonstrated effect on the popularity somehow needs published research to demonstrate it had anything to do with colours and wasn't just a PR gimmick? You've also ignored the example of sweets and children, the reason why no one has bothered to provide any research is probably partially because anyone who has any experience with children immediately knows colour does make a difference. If you really want research, you could easily find it yourself, I found these in under a minute [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. In fact you seem to be contradicting yourself since you keep claiming colour doesn't matter but then you claim people don't like products which look too artifically coloured (which I agree is sometimes the case). If you don't understand why these are contradictory, I suggest you think about it, since without understanding that, you're never going to be able to understand the issue. (Hint, some times product colouring may make it look artificial to most but often the intention is the product looks natural or 'right' to the target audience. As I said earlier you need to forget about energy drinks and yoghurt smoothies for now and concentrate on what many products would look like without colouring or bleaching and how the consumer reaction would be to said products. Once you can understand that, perhaps you can have a hope understanding the energy drinks and yoghurt smoothies examples.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're confused. My original question was, What's the point of putting food coloring in canned energy drinks or drinkable yogurt smoothies? Why is there food coloring in such items? For some reason or another, you haven't been able to answer the question. And, it is true that these drinks were intended to be consumed from their original container, not from a glass, making the use of artificial color unnecessary. This is not "confirmation bias". This is an observable fact based on their target demographic of males on the go, at athletic events, in the car on the road, etc. Further, I have provided evidence showing that their newest product, catered to females, includes the use of a straw to be consumed from the can itself, making the artificial color of the product even more unnecessary. When asked to support your contention that 1) market research shows consumers want these artificial colors, you were unable to substantiate it. It is looking more and more likely that these colors are not used because the consumer wants them, but because the company requires them, whether it is to extend the shelf life of the product or to reduce spoilage. However, the myth that the consumer wants these artificial colors in their food has no support. You are welcome to support your claims with actual published research at any time, but I'm afraid we will never see it. You see, your fallacious argument ("the consumer wants it!") has been used before, particularly by the petrochemical and automobile industry, who in decades past, claimed night and day, that they would not produced fuel efficient vehicles because the consumer didn't want it. They stopped saying that in 2008, but the claim is still alive on the Heartland Institute websites. This canard of "the consumer wants it" is one of the oldest PR gimmicks around. There are no consumers demanding artificial colors in their food, quite the opposite actually. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- The original question is built on confirmation bias. It may sound logical and 'reason-able' to you but it isn't. --Aspro (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- You say that it is the visual presentation that matters. However, I've just given two examples up above—an energy drink and a packaged yogurt smoothie—that when consumed in their expected and appropriate way, do not present themselves in a visual manner. So, if the visual presentation matters, but the consumer does not experience the food visually because of the packaging, then why is food coloring added? We're back to my original question. Viriditas (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Colour is colour, artificial or other wise. It is the visual presentation that matters, not origin. So it would unlikly be a subject for consumer testing surveys. You might as well ask for surveys to discover if people want peppermint creams to taste of peppermint- much of which today is artificial too. Same calorific food value as unflavoured mints -so from that point of view, unnecessary as well. --Aspro (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to have made up your mind that you're not going accept certain explanations. If you're after the truth, keep an open mind. The reason that food manufacturers add artificial coloring to their products is that they, for whatever reason, think that it helps them sell their products. There might have been privately commissioned studies, or it could be just a belief not backed up by anything—I don't know. Speaking as a consumer, I don't find the practice hard to understand at all. Way back when I was a kid, our teacher showed us an educational program about the production of ice pops. Towards the end, the host asked his tour guide why they added artificial coloring to the ice pops. The tour guide passed him an ice pop with artificial orange flavoring but no color, and asked, rhetorically, "Would you believe this is an 'orange' ice pop?" I think he made his point quite effectively. Even if the product containers are opaque, consumers may still see the product while consuming it, so presentation still matters. To me, if all flavors of a product have the same color, the lack of color difference would serve as a powerful reminder that whatever flavor the product has actually comes from artificial flavoring. --72.94.148.76 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- How does adding artificial colors to dog and cat food help them sell it? How does adding artificial colors to canned drinks that are sold with straws and intended to be consumed "on the go" from the can, help them sell their products? Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Am I the only one still confused by this hypothetical 'yoghurt smoothie'? I at first thought the OP was referring to a yoghurt drink, but the OP then said it was impossible to pour one. So I take it isn't drunken. Is it just some sort of fancy name for yoghurt intended to be eaten? But any yoghurt intended to be eaten is usually seen in the container once you open it and on the spoon. Not that I ever have problems pouring normal yogurt myself (sometimes with a spoon to help), well not counting it all coming out in one go so I end up with too much. So how the heck do you consume this yoghurt smoothie if you don't eat it or drink it? Do you snort it? P.S. I didn't mention earlier but although I don't live in the US, energy drinks are fairly popular here in NZ. They're generally yellow in colour (I think mostly from the Riboflavin). You know how I know that? Because I've drunken them including in glasses before and also split some drops sometimes. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Coloring may be added to mask the natural color of the product. Without coloring some products might appear mostly clear or white, but with a slightly off tint. Food coloring is incredibly cheap relative to the other processes in food manufacturer so it doesn't take much to get someone to add dye to a product. In any case manufacturers of these products do it because they think it will help them sell more. That is the only reason they do anything. --Daniel 16:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nil, see the article on Go-Gurt. --72.94.148.76 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Presuming the OP is referring to something like that, I'm even more mystified. A product for children and they ask why it's coloured? Seriously? BTW if the OP is referring to some sort of yoghurt drink well I have no idea what sort of drinks you get there in the US but in Malaysia there are yoghurt drinks and they were often coloured but pouring them was very easy since they were drinks so not that viscous. And I did that all the time because the bottles I got were often ~450-500 ml ones which was more then I usually drunk in one go. If they are single serve, pouring them in to a cup may be less common but I still don't get what sort of product there is you can easily drink but not easily pour. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
My theories: either it's because the drink is also sold in clear bottles, so they just make the mixture and pore the same mixtureinto both the opaque cans and the clear bottles. Or it's because the natural colour is actually disgusting, like a brown. Cliko (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Like Coke? HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
At my local watering hole, it's very common for younger chaps and lasses to order these drinks during the day in bright conditions and they are served in a glass, often with ice and perhaps an addition of good old russian vodka. Your initial assertion is based on a false premise old boy - and another good reason for the drinks being the colour(s) they are is quite simple - to differentiate them from other drinks. If you order a coca-cola based drink, a lemonade based drink and a energy drink based drink they will all look different making it easier to hand them round to your drinking partners. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Remember Crystal Pepsi? No? It's because it didn't take off. People have expectations that sodas and the like have ridiculous colors. The connection between appearance and perceived flavor has been demonstrated a million times over by tests. (Heck, you can do it yourself with Froot Loops, which, if you don't know any better, seem to have different flavors based on their coloration, but if you try them with your eyes closed, you quickly discover they all have the exact same vaguely fruity taste. It is a common science fair experiment.) The idea that they never see the colors is absurd. I know what color half of those drinks have; I can't be unusual. People drink them in a lot of different contexts. Food coloring is absurdly cheap. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Crystal Pepsi was killed by Tab Clear in a targeted campaign to eliminate the competition.[9] Further, people drink Pepsi for the taste and the caffeine, both of which Crystal Pepsi lacked. Its demise had nothing to do with color. Read the sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- The funny thing is the OP keeps insisting that the colour doesn't matter because it isn't seen yet it's readily apparent they know the colour otherwise they wouldn't be asking the question and it's readily apparent most people here who've ever consumed or seen an energy drink know the colour. BTW speaking of Froot Loops, there are sweets which have different flavours which are usually in different colours. I guess the OP is going to claim the manufacturers should let them all be the same colour (which as several people have said, it likely to be some sort of offwhite or clearish.). Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- My question (why is food coloring added to canned energy drinks and yogurt smoothies?) is based on reviewing the product ingredients, not on my personal knowledge of a color. Since you've bought into the urban legend being promoted about food coloring and about how the consumer demands for it to be added to their food (a statement that remains without any evidence) why don't you explain why the pet food industry adds food coloring to pet food? Is it because the dog and cat lobby demands it? Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not an urban legend since examples have been provided including studies showing how colour influences food choice as well as other things like margarine which has plenty of refs in the article and that was provided a long time ago. I have found another example while looking for something else [10] and this one actually discusses including with pictures what people have said, but you seem to have continually ignored. Completely uncoloured food, is often rather unappertising particularly when it's the highly processed variety. The article gives some examples for example, a taste test where uncoloured Cheetos were found to taste bland. I particularly like the description of them looking like the 'shriveled larvae of a large insect'. It also mentions another interesting example, evidentally there is a 'Kraft Macaroni and Cheese Organic White Cheddar'. I'm guessing it normally costs more (since Kraft correctly figured those who do care would be willing to pay more) but again another nail in your coffin. If everyone really cared that much about the colours of the other stuff, they would be buying this and Kraft would phase out their artificially coloured stuff. (The US also has a relatively free and vibrant market so competitors could take advantage if one company refuses to give consumers what they want.) Incidentally this reminds me that you still haven't explained why you believe consumers don't like food which looks artificially coloured but then you also believe colours don't matter. Also I was thinking of this earlier and decided to to mention it having read that ref (since it mentions the related case of pickles). I was looking in to corned beef is made a few weeks ago and learnt something. Nitrates or nitrites are used in the prepration of corned beef and some other cured meat products. (Traditionally Potassium nitrate.) Although these have been used for a long time, in recent times their usage has come under scrutiny because of nitrosamine formation. Anyway nitrates or nitrites are useful as a preservative, they slow the growth of botulism and other problems see [11]. But they also help to give the food a pink colour which is usually suggested to be one of the reasons why they were and are used. If you look for instructions for making corned beef from scratch you'll see people do discuss the colour and how the greyish-brown colour if you don't use nitrites/nitrates may seem unappertising compared to the pinkish colour. (I know because I came across them in the aforementioned research.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- My question (why is food coloring added to canned energy drinks and yogurt smoothies?) is based on reviewing the product ingredients, not on my personal knowledge of a color. Since you've bought into the urban legend being promoted about food coloring and about how the consumer demands for it to be added to their food (a statement that remains without any evidence) why don't you explain why the pet food industry adds food coloring to pet food? Is it because the dog and cat lobby demands it? Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Because adding coloration is cheaper than an advertising campaign explaining why your drink, should you spill it. looks looks like the urine of someone with rhabdomyolosis. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I believe you've just described the color of beer and ginger ale, which nobody has ever had a problem with before. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt you are 'that credulous, Greenity, to identify clear beverages with proteinaceous ones.μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quick, what color is Red Bull? That's right, amber. What else is amber colored? That's right, lager and ginger ale. You're welcome, come again. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt you are 'that credulous, Greenity, to identify clear beverages with proteinaceous ones.μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, both piss and gold are the same "color" but they don't look the same in all aspects, do they? If you want to identify yourself as blind to the difference between opaque urine and clear beer, I won;t deny your blindness. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The primary objective when creating a food or beverage product, like any other product, is to sell it and presumably make a profit. Many many research studies have shown that the way to do that is effective branding. You want a catchy name, a cool logo, slick packaging, a hip image, and good telegenics. If you get all that right, it turns out most people (especially in this target demographic) don't really give a shit about artificial this or that. They're about to ride a mountain bike down an insane slope and ask for the knee replacement 30 years later, or drink their face off in a bar and drive home after. So forget about the "artificial" aspect. The branding aspect though - part of the branding is the look of the product itself. You will be showing it pouring out in the TV ads and on the billboards, and you need something as equally distinctive, hip and youthful as the rest of the marketing workup. So you need a certain colour. And you can't just fake it for the ads, people will spill, wipe their mouths off, yes, occasionally pour the drink out (in my case, probably on the ground). So you spend the extra few micro-cents per serving to get your own particular colour. Selling food and beverages is not about actually providing people with food or beverages, which make up a small fraction of the selling price. You are selling a brand image and an experience, with s small food/beverage component to justify your effort. Not many people get rich with a pile of raw potatoes on a street corner - but turn that into a sexy model holding a bottle of vodka and murmuring on TV, slightly better business model. You might reject all that, but 'tis reality. Franamax (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't reject what you've said all, I just find arguments from ignorance annoying and unhelpful. The fact of the matter is, regardless of how many times this myth is repeated in this thread, the consumer does not prefer artificial colors in their food and contrary to what you've claimed, apathy is not the order of the day. Many people do in fact care, with major U.S. corporations making two sets of products, one with artificial colors for consumption at home, and another without it for sale abroad in Europe. Why would major companies commit to two different sets of products if people didn't care? In the U.S., natural food supermarkets like Whole Foods and Trader Joes have all but banned such products from their shelves. The reality is, consumers are choosing products without artificial food coloring and the food industry can't defend its continued use. Care to tell me why cat and dog food contains artificial colors? Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- For more information on this topic, see Bee Wilson, Swindled: the dark history of food fraud. In my opinion she lets today's food companies off the hook by stressing the continuity with past adulteration, but it's still a great read and a useful reference. You might also like Harvey Levenstein, Revolution at the table: the transformation of the American diet. You are right to say that many consumers question the purpose of food colouring, but as pointed out above, that doesn't so far include all consumers. And in the UK artificial colours are generally being replaced by "natural" ones like beetroot and anatto, but it's still processed food. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Dogs and cats don't buy food, their owners buy it for them, and many owners treat their pets like children, so they (perhaps mistakenly) assume that their pets will find strong colours more attractive. Most of us still retain this childhood preference for differently-coloured food, and manufacturers just play to this "weakness" in our psychology. Once the majority of the population joins Viriditas in rejecting artificial colours, the manufacturers will either switch to natural colouring or miss out the colouring completely. Dbfirs 08:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Pouch drinks are generally clear. It would be most unusual to consume those from a glass as you would litterally need to rip open the pouch. Googlemeister (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I suspect it isn't just about people thinking their pets would prefer strong colours but the natural colour of a lot of highly processed pet foods is going to look fairly wrong and unappertising to their owners. Not that pet food tend to look particularly appertising but it's likely to be worse without colours. BTW some other pets do occasionally care about the colour of their food [12]. (I guess the OP is going to suggest the above message was sent by big oil not a real bird owner.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you thinking about this properly? The reason why companies would make different products for the European and US market would be because they have in fact done market research and know that their are different demands from their consumers in Europe and in the US. Clearly enough of their consumers in Europe (perhaps combined with local regulations) care that they've decide it best not to use certain colourings. However the situation in the US is different. Obviously some consumers in the US care, but not enough for it to be worth their while to stop their usage, after all those speciality stores can always buy their products destined for the European markets. Again you seemed to have missed the big and obvious hint: The fact that those stores do exist in the US, but plenty of people still buy the other stuff should tell you that a lot of people don't care that much. Incidentally, as with Itsmejudith, and a what others have said earlier, you seem to be missing the fact that even when artificial colours aren't used, natural colours are still usually used. I come from NZ which has some similarities to Europe in consumer preference and where there is a move away from artificial colours so can affirm this. E.g. this brand [13] advertises their products on TV and on the packaging fairly prominent as having no artificial colours. A quick look at their products should tell you their products are still usually coloured and not the clearish offwhite or whatever they are likely to be without colouring. I wonder whether you still don't get a point me and others have been saying for a while, a lot of fairly processed food would look rather unappertising without colours (natural or artificial). If your rant is solely about artificial colours then that's another thing entirely. Either way, since you seemm to be ignoring everything people have said when it puts a hole in your argument, I have come to the conclusion you're just here to rant rather then learn so won't be responding further. Plenty of people have provided a lot of stuff which would be useful if you really want to learn. Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Your dogs/cats example is poor - the owner of a pet purchases the product not the pet, and if you've ever watched a cat food commercial it's pretty clear they're trying to make the food sound appetising to the owner (or at least the owner's projection of what their cat/dog will like). Colour of the food will affect this so inevitably they'll colour food. On to your main question - what matters is not whether or not research is available to show that consumers prefer food coloured in set ways but the perception of the marketing/development divisions of the country selling the product. If a business believes that X coloured-food = better sales (rightly or wrongly) then they will likely implement that policy. Other factors for colour could include brand-recognition. I'm pretty certain Gatorade chooses very vivid colours as a branding aid. Finally even though it seems you won't accept it - here's some research into the importance of colour in food (it specifically mentions coloured drinks) http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/758/Burrows06_redacted.pdf ny156uk (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, my example is apropos. Responsible and informed pet owners, like any responsible and informed consumer, purchase pet foods based on the highest quality of ingredients appropriate to their pet, not on the basis of artificial color, which any responsible pet owner will tell you is absent from the highest quality pet foods. The sick and twisted argument I keep seeing in this discussion is that the primary goal of the processed food industry is not to provide the public with the highest quality service and product in the marketplace, but to deceive their customers into believing that their shit is shinola. If this is the kind of nonsense the business schools are turning out (and that appears to be true given the state of the global economy) then it is time to shut down the academies and call it a day. It is my understanding that the relationship between unethical business practice and the academy is as close as it has ever been, with the financial leaders responsible for the economic global crisis in the top positions of major universities around the world. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- No true Scotsman seems like a relevant link at this point. "Pet owners purchase based on appearance." "But no responsible pet owner purchases food based solely on appearance." - The conclusion we're left to draw is that a large number of pet food companies are making good money selling food to "irresponsible" pet owners. You seem to be wanting reality to match up with some notion you have of philosophical purity. We apologize that it doesn't. Not all pet owners base their purchasing on the quality of ingredients, even if you think they should. Not everyone eschews artificial colors, even if you believe people should. You may call them "irresponsible" or "unethical", but that's the way it is. People do stupid things, and what's more, people disagree with what the stupid thing is. You may think it's worth paying three times the amount to get a product that is labeled "no artificial coloring", and that anyone who buys the stuff with the artificial coloring is an irresponsible idiot, but I personally think, given the lack of credible evidence proving the harm of artificial coloring, that anyone who pays a premium for products simply because they are labeled "no artificial coloring" is being fiscally irresponsible, and is being manipulated by the unethical "natural food" industry who is preying off of peoples' fear and ignorance. I understand that you disagree with that assessment. Please understand when other people disagree with yours. -- 174.24.217.108 (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- A responsible and informed consumer does not make a purchase based on appearance, and a responsible and informed pet owner does not buy pet food based on appearance. That the food industry is actively trying to deceive consumers by using artificial coloring to improve a bad product is a sign that there is a disconnect between ethical business practice and the demands of the marketplace. Your claim that the ethical food industry is at fault by eliminating unnecessary artificial colors in pet food is not just ignorant, it is absurd. Buying a natural pet food that contains no grain, for example, is not irresponsible, it is recommended by veterinarians. So then why does most commercial pet food contain grain? I can go down the line, from artificial colors and fillers, and show you that the entire processed food industry operates in an unethical and immoral fashion, using poor business practices to place profit over human and animal health. How it is that business schools got caught up in teaching students and people like yourself that bad business is good business goes a long way at explaining their role in the current financial crisis. Your philosophy has no redeeming social value and must be seen for what it truly is. Nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I thnk that the point of putting food coloring in canned energy drinks or drinkable yogurt smoothies may have to do with aesthetic reasons. I think that food coloring makes the drinks look more interesting and appealing to the eye. Willminator (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- All else being equal, I would buy pet food that looked appetizing and/or that I imagined looked appetizing to my cat. Or at the very least, I would avoid pet food that looked conspicuously unappetizing. Right or wrong, I don't think that's unusual behavior. (It's based on million year old human instincts after all, even if they don't apply anymore.) Pet food manufacturers would be insane not to take advantage of that common, if illogical, reaction. APL (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- A responsible and informed consumer does not make a purchase based on appearance, and a responsible and informed pet owner does not buy pet food based on appearance. That the food industry is actively trying to deceive consumers by using artificial coloring to improve a bad product is a sign that there is a disconnect between ethical business practice and the demands of the marketplace. Your claim that the ethical food industry is at fault by eliminating unnecessary artificial colors in pet food is not just ignorant, it is absurd. Buying a natural pet food that contains no grain, for example, is not irresponsible, it is recommended by veterinarians. So then why does most commercial pet food contain grain? I can go down the line, from artificial colors and fillers, and show you that the entire processed food industry operates in an unethical and immoral fashion, using poor business practices to place profit over human and animal health. How it is that business schools got caught up in teaching students and people like yourself that bad business is good business goes a long way at explaining their role in the current financial crisis. Your philosophy has no redeeming social value and must be seen for what it truly is. Nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- No true Scotsman seems like a relevant link at this point. "Pet owners purchase based on appearance." "But no responsible pet owner purchases food based solely on appearance." - The conclusion we're left to draw is that a large number of pet food companies are making good money selling food to "irresponsible" pet owners. You seem to be wanting reality to match up with some notion you have of philosophical purity. We apologize that it doesn't. Not all pet owners base their purchasing on the quality of ingredients, even if you think they should. Not everyone eschews artificial colors, even if you believe people should. You may call them "irresponsible" or "unethical", but that's the way it is. People do stupid things, and what's more, people disagree with what the stupid thing is. You may think it's worth paying three times the amount to get a product that is labeled "no artificial coloring", and that anyone who buys the stuff with the artificial coloring is an irresponsible idiot, but I personally think, given the lack of credible evidence proving the harm of artificial coloring, that anyone who pays a premium for products simply because they are labeled "no artificial coloring" is being fiscally irresponsible, and is being manipulated by the unethical "natural food" industry who is preying off of peoples' fear and ignorance. I understand that you disagree with that assessment. Please understand when other people disagree with yours. -- 174.24.217.108 (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I had planned to leave this discussion for good but just wanted to mention Ny has a good point which I and probably other had been thinking of, but in my case never mentioned mostly because of the distraction of the ridiculous notion colour didn't matter to consumers. Ultimately if the marketing department believe it will make a difference, they will like do it regardless of whether their beliefs are right or wrong.
- And something which APL hints at above and perhaps others have mentioned (I stopped reading after my last message), a key point is how people actually behave not what they say. A consumer can believe food colouring is evil and say they would prefer uncoloured food, but if when it comes down to it the consumer actually prefers the coloured food, e.g. is more likely to choose it or find it tastes better the company making the product is going to go by what the consumer does not what they say. (Any dichotomy between what people say and how they act wouldn't be unique to artificial colouring or food, it's fairly common. For a marketing department, it is important to know the difference.) As APL said, it isn't surprising that people prefer food they find looks more appetising whether for their pets or themselves, and discussions about the immorality of it all are missing the point. For the case of us humans in particular, as plenty of people have said, some with sources, our perception of our food including the colour (when we aren't eating blind) can in fact make a difference to how it tastes to us. (If all the stuff is harmful it's surely primarily either the governments responsibility to regulate or the consumers responsibility to make decisions which go against their natural reactions rather then for companies to lose market share because of it.)
- Incidentally I'm with 174.24.217.108 here, the idea that artificial colours are all bad and natural colours are okay is flawed, as are most natural=good/ok, artifical=bad arguments. It does seem to me Viriditas has somewhat changed his tune. Now rather then insisting all consumers are like him seems to accept that many are not but is saying they are bad consumers so for some reason companies should ignore their demands or something. I do find ironic, as I'm sure do others, that one of issues that started this was energy drinks, in particular a brand of energy drink that seems to produce insanely sized cans. I'm sure quite a few here would suggest that the best thing to do is simply not to consume those products and not because of the artificial colouring.
- Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
2010 DST iPhone Bug in the EU and Economic Costs?
[edit]In 2010 there was a bug in the Apple iPhone that caused the alarms to go off an hour later than they should have after the change of the clocks due to daylight saving time. Is there any estimate to the amount of productivity lost to the economy because of that? --CGPGrey (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Dr Michael BAden
[edit]I am doing a science paper and I can't find several answers that i need.I am in the 6th grade. 1. Michael Baden's childhood education.(I have his college education)
2. Who mentored him or encouraged him to follow his profession.
3. His mother/father & siblings.( I have his wife & children)
4. Has he had discoveries that actually led to organizations that still continue to work. Like a specific contribution to science.( Ialready have "Assasination Records Review Board)
5. I want to use his JFK and OJ simpson cases that he worked on. But as I read them, I can't tell how his testimony & discoveries set an example for others to come that would be so different than others.
I know these are tough questions, but if anyone could help with pointing me in the right direction for these answers, I would be very thankful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.8.86.213 (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I assume you have already looked at the Michael Baden article. Did you follow up any of the references used by that article? This Google search shows lots of hits, though I'm unsure how useful they may be - the couple I looked at were not much use for your questions. It is possible that such information is not readily available in published reliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that there is some coverage of your question #2 in his book, Unnatural Death, and it may help with some of your other questions too. John M Baker (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Requests for financial help
[edit]I was intrigued by this help desk query and the similar requests for financial help that I have noticed recently here on Wikipedia. While John of Reading's response was appropriate and correct, I wonder why Danny (the OP in this case) ever imagined his request might be successful. I just can't help thinking these requests are all scams. Are these requests ever genuine and are there really people out there with $100,000 to spare that they would donate based on this type of request? Astronaut (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps Crowdfunding (e.g. Kickstarter) will be useful here. 69.171.160.9 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- There are so many begging letters written that I'm sure some are genuine, but it's impossible to know how many. Like spam emails they cost very little to produce and with enough perseverance will prove profitable. And yes, there are many millions of suckers out there, with massive businesses and churches built from their donations.--Shantavira|feed me 07:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
History of Wachovia Bank-slave dealing?
[edit]Recently I heard that Wachovia Bank , in it's early years actually dealt in the slave trade making millions of dollars. Is this accurate? Or is my source mistaken? Can the history of Wachovia be traced as far back as pre civil war?173.79.212.93 (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Our article on Wachovia says that Wachovia qua Wachovia didn't start up until 1879, so that's too late for the Civil War. However it has merged with a huge number of banks over the years, some of which are quite old. So any connections it has with slavery are because they've been merging with banks that have themselves been merged with other banks. Indeed, this apology by Wachovia seems to tell more or less that story (albeit with different institutions than the ones: it acquired two companies which had ties to the slave trade (no surprise, that, given how old they were and how large the slave trade was) over a century ago. Seems kind of a non-issue to me, to be frank, unless one is afraid of acknowledging the U.S.'s history of slavery. It doesn't not appear that Wachovia has ever made any direct profit from slavery. For centuries, Blacks were considered a form of property. That banks thus used them as collateral and ended up owning them is not surprising. Whatever shame there is in that is hardly limited to the banks. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- For more information, see Jewphone and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- What do those have to do with this question?!? 69.171.160.45 (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- For more information, see Jewphone and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- A quick search finds some more discussions [14] [15] [16] (which includes a link to the report) Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Marshal Tolbukhin boulevard, Sofia
[edit]I'm looking for a street in Sofia that used to be called Marshal Tolbukhin in the 1970s. I can't find it on any modern maps so I wonder whether it has had its name changed following the end of Soviet influence. Ericoides (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)