Everything about "low cost" food

Consumption and sustainable and responsible diet tips daily to reduce energy and water consumption, waste ... Eat: preparations and recipes, find healthy food, seasonal and local conservation information food ...
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 03/08/13, 16:51

Yes. Everything always depends on the quantities. I was in the perspective where thinking that it was "organic" and expensive, we make it the basic fat in our diet ...

Yes, the sea is polluted. But the breeding is intensive ... We can, if we decimate 95% of the world population, become a "hunter-gatherer" again! Sardine is an oily fish at the start of the food chain, so one of those which has the least concentration of pollutants - compared to tuna ... or salmon ...
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 03/08/13, 17:58

Did67 wrote:I would just like to draw attention to the somewhat misleading title:

a) there are great products at a hard-discounter like Norma ("organic" range)

b) we find great crap in chic "upscale" stores

It is of course the intrinsic quality of the food that we must look into, not a "hut of range" / "low cost".

I recently saw "organic" coconut fats and with all the labels, the "top" what, and expensive of course. Except that it remains saturated fat at 95% ...

The sardines or mackerel from Lidl are excellent next door ... (not expensive at all).


1) It is not obvious at first reading, but it mainly concerns meat products. The first quote should be read.

2) An organic product is precisely not "low cost"(compared to a non-organic) ...

3) You have this opinion because you haven't seen the D8 report, wait until you see it: when they say "low cost", it's the "low cost" in the "low cost": and this is precisely the danger, or what the low cost leads: a spiral of a qualitative sub-auction (notwithstanding the imposed standards, which are then diverted ...).

4) In principle yes, we find - no great products - but products that are just as suitable in hard discount stores as in mass retail, since health standards are the same for everyone. Except that there, we will learn what they feed on, and what is best to avoid at home. Since for me, an "excellent product" must have a certain number of qualities: great freshness (not only in appearance) taste VS tastelessness, seasonal product, having grown in principle without chemistry or the minimum respecting the soil, cultivated close from home to avoid the degassing of Co2 due to transport, etc., Qualities which are rarely all combined in the hard-discount (sometimes at Dia or Lidl).

5) Regarding fruits and vegetables, the taste informs (if the product was pushed outrageously, it can be felt). The fact is that hard-discounters sell us seasonal products, in the vast majority of cases, since it is precisely these that require the minimum amount of chemicals, and therefore that cost the least to grow! So if we know how to choose them, we don't come out so disappointed. Indeed, you do well to say it.

6) Of the 5 hard-discounters I know (Lidl, Aldi, Ed, Dia, Norma), it is the latter that has the lowest quality of products (apart from organic, of course). These are the two Germans (Lidl, Aldi) who seem to me to be the best placed (except for fruit and vegetables where Dia is followed by Lidl, Aldi is not terrible: but let's wait to see this / s report / s).

7) The scandal of horse meat sold for beef is undoubtedly what has reopened the debate, and I have no doubt that they will talk about it.

8} Hard-discounts are interesting for small budgets (on condition that you don't buy anything there), because for those who know how to "buy smart" in fresh products (much of the rest is to be avoided), they are allow you not to deprive yourself of the essential, and therefore to avoid deficiencies (because eating non-deficient is much more important than eating organic, but being deficient).

9) “Organic” products are certainly better than non-organic products, but this label is not everything. If you really want the high end, you should rather see it under the Demeter label (for first pressure oils, for example, since this high quality product should not suffer from any compromise ...)

10) And yes: "We find great crap in chic" upscale "stores"
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 03/08/13, 22:19

Obamot wrote: a spiral of a qualitative sub-auction (notwithstanding the imposed standards, which are then diverted ...).


This is a fundamental point!
Indeed, with the emergence of mechanization, then of the "green revolution" (chemical would be fairer!), New agricultural methods have made it possible to considerably improve yields and to lower prices, creating in fact a illusion of abundance.
This process to "coincide" (sic!) With the financialization of the agricultural world, rapidly eradicating the peasant class and transforming its artisans into simple farmers, then, more recently still, into agricultural technicians, (see trader for certain!).

Its economic methods coupled with cultivation techniques quickly turned into a trap for farmers, customers, and of course the environment!
If in the 70s there were more than 2 million farmers, there are only 700 nowadays, and many have no choice but to close their doors in the face of commercial pressures.

From its practices to result in an increase in production volumes, leading to a drop in price, this quickly caught up by the additional cost of inputs, mechanical means, consequences of intensive monoculture, but also, the practices of mass distribution ( early 1970) and market speculation.

In the end, all the initial gains disappeared, and now, we have effectively entered a retroactive spiral of under auction which leads us, ultimately to pay very dearly for poop products dangerous to health.

By simplifying, this retroactive spiral acts according to the following principle:

More yields = intensive monoculture + chemical and / or GMO inputs = health risk shared on the populations = additional health expenditure = fewer farmers = more unemployment = fiscal pressure to "fill" the deficit = decrease in purchasing power = customers seek low prices which pushes farmers to ... More yields = intensive monoculture + chemical and / or GMO inputs = health risk shared on the populations = additional health expenditure = fewer farmers = more unemployment = fiscal pressure ... and so on!

In the absence of a serious solution on the subject, we will quickly come to eat products that will no longer have much to do with the idea that we made of food ...
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 04/08/13, 09:02

Obamot wrote:
3) You have this opinion because you haven't seen the D8 report, wait until you see it: when they say "low cost", it's the "low cost" in the "low cost": and this is precisely the danger, or what the low cost leads: a spiral of a qualitative sub-auction (notwithstanding the imposed standards, which are then diverted ...).



Yes. You are right.

"Reasoning", I had lost sight of the fact that the title was linked to this program and that it actually concerns the "search for the lowest cost at any price" ...

This is found, as we know, in various brands, even those that the public assimilates to high-end or at least mid-range ... (I am thinking of the brand that has become famous for its "horse" lasagna).

It was I who got lost on the side of "hard discount", which is another concept.
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 04/08/13, 09:11

Obamot wrote:
6) Of the 5 hard-discounters I know (Lidl, Aldi, Ed, Dia, Norma), it is the latter that has the lowest quality of products (apart from organic, of course). These are the two Germans (Lidl, Aldi) who seem to me to be the best placed (except for fruit and vegetables where Dia is followed by Lidl, Aldi is not terrible: but let's wait to see this / s report / s).

7) The scandal of horse meat sold for beef is undoubtedly what has reopened the debate, and I have no doubt that they will talk about it.


To continue our discussions on "hard discount" therefore, I indeed find the range "Being organic" from Norma, which brings together a majority of criteria among those you enact ...

And as said in one of my previous messages, you can add "non-organic" sardines and some (rare) other products.

It should also be noted that often in the tests of Que Choisir or 60 millions, the products type "detergents" of a hard discounter are found in 1st position where among the first: the fact of pulling the prices leads to bypass full "additives" which are in fact crap, while keeping the essential (the active principle). So in general, the quality / price ratio is unbeatable!

Finally, note that now, manufacturers offer "chic ranges" like 0% of everything, in a beautiful packaging, for more ... This is what the hard discounter sold previously under the brand "trucmuche "!!!

On the horse meat scandal: note that this is just a deception. Horse meat is very good, less fat than beef. So other than that it's a deception to increase profits, it's not at all safe to be detrimental to health. Maybe even the opposite !!! Maybe it would be better to eat "low cost" lasagna more often?
0 x
User avatar
1360
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 447
Registration: 26/07/13, 07:30
Location: Switzerland
x 36




by 1360 » 04/08/13, 09:18

Did67 wrote:... (I am thinking of the brand that has become famous for its "horse" lasagna).


Note, however, that this brand, like many others, was the victim of a scam. When the said brand makes its lasagna in Switzerland, it is really beef, and the latter comes only from Switzerland (very many tests have been done).

So, it is indeed a deception coming from a supplier of unscrupulous meat, but it should not be all in one package, if I dare say.
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 04/08/13, 09:39

Yes, you're right too. It is a chain deception. It is still not known whether the company that prepared the product was an accomplice or not. No doubt it was because it seems difficult that professionals do not at least have doubts about a meat ...

Even in France, the majority of batches were compliant.

That said, the brand is not 100% innocent either, because it - like many others - exerts such pressure on prices [I once met a salesperson from a sugar brand who told me. told how it happens to "place" their product in the purchasing center of such a large group !!!].

My point was to say that it is not obvious that there was a prejudice in terms of consumer health: compared to compliant lasagna, this product was a priori as edible and healthy, perhaps even more ( traditionally, the meat of chaval is much less fat than that of beef - knowing that beef fat is not a "good" fat ...).

It is therefore funny that it is this deception that launches reflection around the quality (in the health sense) of products from the food industry.

It should be noted that their success is mainly linked to a change in the way of life: women's work, men not much more active when it comes to "cooking and dishes" and therefore ... increased use of "ready-made" / frozen dishes. And since we also want a nice car, the latest iPhone, a 3D flat screen, it must not cost more than mom's grub before! This is the basic equation!
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 04/08/13, 11:44

Did67 wrote:
Obamot wrote:
3) You have this opinion because you haven't seen the D8 report, wait until you see it: when they say "low cost", it's the "low cost" in the "low cost": and this is precisely the danger, or what the low cost leads: a spiral of a qualitative sub-auction (notwithstanding the imposed standards, which are then diverted ...).



Yes. You are right.

"Reasoning", I had lost sight of the fact that the title was linked to this program and that it actually concerns the "search for the lowest cost at any price" ...

This is found, as we know, in various brands, even those that the public assimilates to high-end or at least mid-range ... (I am thinking of the brand that has become famous for its "horse" lasagna).

It was I who got lost on the side of "hard discount", which is another concept.

Not really "lost", I really found that your post made sense, I just modestly wanted to complete the proposal from another angle. It has also been confirmed the strengths of it. This thread is intended to be constructive, and as you correctly note here, there are "for" and "against" in these sectors! (The goal is not really to do fundamentalism, nor die-hard)

Indeed, to come back to what Norma does (and also Dia, Aldi and Lidl who also have an organic range) the more the offer will expand, the more consumers will indicate their preference, the faster we will get out of non-respectful productions. of the environment (although the term "organic" is questionable in itself, it is better than non-organic).

For horse meat, at first I really did not understand what shocked consumers, since horse and more expensive than beef in beef (at least in my corner) ° _O except that obviously it is a matter of principle and transparency: why the hell then not simply have announced the color to consumers by clearly indicating the proportion of horse: even if those who take offense at eating the meat of a domestic animal, pay more to exclude this choice, which would be a little strong coffee anyway! (Do not mean that I encourage the consumption of meat, I understand that the scandal was based on a question of principle!). No, they preferred to drag the ball of omerta: the good deal!

As for additives, all of these tips are made to extend the expiration date as much as possible, or to mask the taste or smell of products put there without the consumers' full knowledge (we'll see what on Monday). But all this is harmful, because it distorts / devitalizes food and goes against public health objectives! Basically it is very practical for mass distribution, but against the interest of consumers, even with today's IT and traceability management, we could on the contrary very well reduce the consumption limit date without risk, manufacturers would gain in production costs (since there would be a need for much less ersatz) and consumers would benefit from higher intrinsic product quality! (On average)

As you say, nothing is 100% innocent L0L.
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 04/08/13, 12:32

Obamot wrote:
For horse meat, at first I really did not understand what shocked consumers, since horse and more expensive than beef in beef (at least in my corner) ° _O except that obviously it is a matter of principle and transparency: why the hell then not simply have announced the color to consumers by clearly indicating the proportion of horse: even if those who take offense to eating the meat of a domesticated animal, pay more



If horse butchery (rare!) Is more expensive, horse meat from two dominant origins is not worth a nail: Romania (the ban on riding in a horse cart on roads - national, I believe? - that people get rid of their horses [this was the case in the case we are talking about], Canada [France's leading supplier], from horses of "cowboys", often of American origin, bought from a bite of bread on huge "auctions" ...

This was the "engine" of this traffic.

Moreover, most consumers are revolted at the idea of ​​eating horses, "man's best friend". Especially the women. And who is it that dominates the races? (supermarket shopping, I'm not talking about horse racing!).

Let us repeat it, it is about a commercial deception aiming to sell at the price of "pure beef" (higher), of the viance of horse (which, in "ore", is not worth a nail)! Without telling the consumer, otherwise, the vast majority would no longer buy!

[to note that they could do it legally by indicating in large "With beef meat" and by putting, in very small, in the ingredients, in 3rd or 4th position according to the quantity put: "horse meat"]

[The question of whether the mark has been "deceived" remains open. Or was "unwittingly cheated on her own accord". Or simply lacked curiosity as to why a supplier could offer him a product of so-called "such quality" for such a low price? No doubt it did not dig, too happy to round its margins ... Of course, it may be that it was simply the importing company that was tempted to round its margins]
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 04/08/13, 12:45

Indeed, I speak well for the revulsion horse to eat an animal "domesticated».

Janic must at least think that this affair reveals the hypocisia of our selective justifications for eating meat (tolerable in one case, intolerable in the other) ° _0. Since in both cases we still kill the animal coldly at the end of the day! If his sacrifice is useful for anything ...

It is however what seems to me the most caricatural.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Sustainable consumption: responsible consumption, diet tips and tricks"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 114 guests