Showing posts with label Business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Business. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Satellite Data Cheaper than Sending Text Messages
Look, Pound360 doesn't want to get into a protracted argument about profit margins, market forces and all that, but let's face it, cell phone companies gouge us. Especially when it comes to text messages. According to a British researcher, $.10 per text is the equivalent of $749 per megabyte, reports Popular Mechanics. Satellite data by comparison costs $12 per megabyte to retrieve.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Analyst: $7 Gas by 2012
The global oil situation is pretty bleak, reports the NY Times. Oil demand is going up, of course, because Americans need bigger SUVs and China, India and the Middle East are sprinting to catch up with us.
As demand goes up, so do prices. That’s normal.
But according to the International Energy Agency chief economist, what's not normal is that, as prices have been rising recently, demand has not been ebbing and oil production has not been going up. That's why prices keep rising and rising.
How high will they go? CIBC World Markets analyst Jeff Rubin told The Times, oil may hit $200 a barrel in 2012 pushing the price-per-gallon of gas to $7 in the US.
Two problems. Supply and demand. Regarding demand, Pound360 believes developing nations are scurrying aboard the oil train to a higher quality of life because it's the fastest, simplest, easiest way to do it. They should expect big brother (the developed nation that's benefited the most from a century of oil) to innovate and come up with a clean, renewable energy source to take us all into the next act. But we (the US) aren't into that. Of course, we expect prices will come down (like they always have), so why innovate? But that's a fading possibility.
According to the NY Times piece, we're simply running out of oil reserves in many places (Alaska, Britain and Norway, for example), while political instability and market wrangling is stalling production in others (Iran, Iraq and Russia, for example).
As demand goes up, so do prices. That’s normal.
But according to the International Energy Agency chief economist, what's not normal is that, as prices have been rising recently, demand has not been ebbing and oil production has not been going up. That's why prices keep rising and rising.
How high will they go? CIBC World Markets analyst Jeff Rubin told The Times, oil may hit $200 a barrel in 2012 pushing the price-per-gallon of gas to $7 in the US.
Two problems. Supply and demand. Regarding demand, Pound360 believes developing nations are scurrying aboard the oil train to a higher quality of life because it's the fastest, simplest, easiest way to do it. They should expect big brother (the developed nation that's benefited the most from a century of oil) to innovate and come up with a clean, renewable energy source to take us all into the next act. But we (the US) aren't into that. Of course, we expect prices will come down (like they always have), so why innovate? But that's a fading possibility.
According to the NY Times piece, we're simply running out of oil reserves in many places (Alaska, Britain and Norway, for example), while political instability and market wrangling is stalling production in others (Iran, Iraq and Russia, for example).
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
(Another) Conservation Program Falls to Pieces Under Market Pressure
A government program that paid farmers not to farm land is falling to pieces, reports the NY Times. Since it's inception with the 1985 Farm Bill, the conservation program preserved acreage equal to the state of New York. But just last fall, farmers gave up "as many acres as are in Rhode Island and Delaware combined."
Why would the government pay farmers not to farm? To keep food prices up, of course. Historically, we've had too much land on our hands. So by tightening the supply of land, the idea was to tighten the supply of food, and thus keep prices at a level where farmers could earn a decent living.
As a side benefit, to the delight of environmentalists and hunters (the program has boosted the nation's duck population by 2 million), pristine prairieland was preserved. In some areas, erosion was stopped dead in its tracks. The government didn't just preserve any land, it saved "the acres most at risk environmentally."
Again, acreage equal to the state of New York was saved. But now, as global food prices skyrocket, and the demand for biofuel mounts, it's suddenly more profitable to farm the land than what the government's paying ($51 per acre).
But don't curse the farmers. I'd probably do the same thing. It's not like the land is being tilled in exchange for yachts and mansions. Well, maybe not at the farm level. According to the NY Times, "a broad coalition of baking, poultry, snack food, ethanol and livestock groups" are pressuring farmers to withdraw from the conservation program.
Pound360 is simply not okay with that. Why should "snack food" interests have a say in whether or not wilderness gets wiped out?
We understand that this land belongs to farmers. We get how crazy it is to pay farmers not to farm. We realize how cold blooded it would be to simply seize the land.
But when are we going to draw the line?
Why can't we decide right now that the last acre of land we develop will not be the last acre of wilderness? Why not protect another acre of land someplace for every acre of land that farmers pull from the 1985 Farm Bill conservation program?
Quite frankly, Pound360 is bored with hearing stories about more wilderness being wiped out.
We're ready to start seeing stories about the surprising benefits of preserved land, 50 years "after we drew the line." We're ready to start reading stories about how, since we drew the line, amazing technological advancements have given us the ability to pull more from the land we've already developed. We're so ready to read stories about how, since we drew the line, incredible new conservation programs have shown we can live better on less. And we're also ready to read how one of these technological breakthroughs or programs led to a cure for the common cold, a phone that never needs to be charged or an iPod that holds a billion songs.
Why would the government pay farmers not to farm? To keep food prices up, of course. Historically, we've had too much land on our hands. So by tightening the supply of land, the idea was to tighten the supply of food, and thus keep prices at a level where farmers could earn a decent living.
As a side benefit, to the delight of environmentalists and hunters (the program has boosted the nation's duck population by 2 million), pristine prairieland was preserved. In some areas, erosion was stopped dead in its tracks. The government didn't just preserve any land, it saved "the acres most at risk environmentally."
Again, acreage equal to the state of New York was saved. But now, as global food prices skyrocket, and the demand for biofuel mounts, it's suddenly more profitable to farm the land than what the government's paying ($51 per acre).
But don't curse the farmers. I'd probably do the same thing. It's not like the land is being tilled in exchange for yachts and mansions. Well, maybe not at the farm level. According to the NY Times, "a broad coalition of baking, poultry, snack food, ethanol and livestock groups" are pressuring farmers to withdraw from the conservation program.
Pound360 is simply not okay with that. Why should "snack food" interests have a say in whether or not wilderness gets wiped out?
We understand that this land belongs to farmers. We get how crazy it is to pay farmers not to farm. We realize how cold blooded it would be to simply seize the land.
But when are we going to draw the line?
Why can't we decide right now that the last acre of land we develop will not be the last acre of wilderness? Why not protect another acre of land someplace for every acre of land that farmers pull from the 1985 Farm Bill conservation program?
Quite frankly, Pound360 is bored with hearing stories about more wilderness being wiped out.
We're ready to start seeing stories about the surprising benefits of preserved land, 50 years "after we drew the line." We're ready to start reading stories about how, since we drew the line, amazing technological advancements have given us the ability to pull more from the land we've already developed. We're so ready to read stories about how, since we drew the line, incredible new conservation programs have shown we can live better on less. And we're also ready to read how one of these technological breakthroughs or programs led to a cure for the common cold, a phone that never needs to be charged or an iPod that holds a billion songs.
Green Fight: Planes vs. Trains and the Surprise Heavyweight
For the past couple of years, air travel has been cast as the lead villain in the climate change drama that's unfolded. But according to a piece at the NY Times today, jet manufacturers are starting to turn that around.
But not entirely because they're interested in saving the planet. It's mostly a money issue. "Jet fuel is now the largest expense for most airlines, and for American carriers each penny increase in price per gallon costs nearly $200 million a year."
To lower the impact of fuel prices on airlines, the Times' piece notes three key innovations. First, jet engines are being designed to consume less fuel and weight less. Second, lighter, sturdier composites are replacing the aluminum that makes up most of a plane. And finally, hydraulic systems are being switched out for more efficient electric motors.
These innovations should take to the air in 2013. In the meantime, should you feel guilty every time you step on a plane? Not necessarily.
According to charts available at the Sightline institute (a sustainability think tank in Seattle), cars still pollute more than planes. That's based on a calculation of CO2 pounds-per-passenger-mile. On the chart, trains are the most efficient, per passenger mile. But what if the train's not full?
On the latest Guardian Science Weekly podcast, environmental journalist Fred Pearce wonders how green trains are, since every time he's on one, it's not full. In fact, in a blog posting of his from last summer, he looks at this issue and notes one UK rail operator, National Express, typically only runs half-full. He runs a couple calculations in the piece and finds one trip through the English countryside probably cost as much in emissions as a plane trip to Hong Kong.
In researching this issue, I happened across a surprising fact at the Guardian. The carbon emissions of planes and trains are dwarfed by another form of non-automobile transportation: boats. Global shipping cranks 200 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. That's about five percent of the total global output. Air transport only accounts for 2 percent. What's worse, as global trade increases, pollution from shipping may increase as much as 75 percent (reaching a total of 350 million tons by 2020, reports BP Marine).
Another fact to consider. According to the Little Green Data Book (a joint Development Economics Data Group and Environment Department of the World Bank project), transportation is a distant second (3,386 metric tons) to the leading cause of CO2 emissions: electricity and heat (6,243 metric tons). So if you really want to reduce your carbon footprint, turn down your thermostat and shut down your electronics (like TVs, stereos and computers) instead of putting them on standby (this is responsible for millions of tons of CO2 each year).
But not entirely because they're interested in saving the planet. It's mostly a money issue. "Jet fuel is now the largest expense for most airlines, and for American carriers each penny increase in price per gallon costs nearly $200 million a year."
To lower the impact of fuel prices on airlines, the Times' piece notes three key innovations. First, jet engines are being designed to consume less fuel and weight less. Second, lighter, sturdier composites are replacing the aluminum that makes up most of a plane. And finally, hydraulic systems are being switched out for more efficient electric motors.
These innovations should take to the air in 2013. In the meantime, should you feel guilty every time you step on a plane? Not necessarily.
According to charts available at the Sightline institute (a sustainability think tank in Seattle), cars still pollute more than planes. That's based on a calculation of CO2 pounds-per-passenger-mile. On the chart, trains are the most efficient, per passenger mile. But what if the train's not full?
On the latest Guardian Science Weekly podcast, environmental journalist Fred Pearce wonders how green trains are, since every time he's on one, it's not full. In fact, in a blog posting of his from last summer, he looks at this issue and notes one UK rail operator, National Express, typically only runs half-full. He runs a couple calculations in the piece and finds one trip through the English countryside probably cost as much in emissions as a plane trip to Hong Kong.
In researching this issue, I happened across a surprising fact at the Guardian. The carbon emissions of planes and trains are dwarfed by another form of non-automobile transportation: boats. Global shipping cranks 200 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. That's about five percent of the total global output. Air transport only accounts for 2 percent. What's worse, as global trade increases, pollution from shipping may increase as much as 75 percent (reaching a total of 350 million tons by 2020, reports BP Marine).
Another fact to consider. According to the Little Green Data Book (a joint Development Economics Data Group and Environment Department of the World Bank project), transportation is a distant second (3,386 metric tons) to the leading cause of CO2 emissions: electricity and heat (6,243 metric tons). So if you really want to reduce your carbon footprint, turn down your thermostat and shut down your electronics (like TVs, stereos and computers) instead of putting them on standby (this is responsible for millions of tons of CO2 each year).
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Seattle to Charge For Paper & Plastic Bags in 2009
Starting in 2009, Seattle is doing the only thing (Pound 360 believes) will make people conserve shopping bags: make them pay. This according to a feature at the NY Times. Sorry, I think the recent green trend -- all these Priuses you see popping up on the roads, for example -- is a fad. Didn't the exact same thing happen in the Seventies?
It's hip to conserve in 2008. But it won't be in 2010. And that's a problem because conservation is crucial to what Pound360 believes is the essential duty of each generation: to leave the Earth in better shape than it was when they got there.
But that's a tall order. Humans (including the staff here at Pound360… probably more so than average… you should see how fast a box of doughnuts disappears around here) are selfish. Indeed, self-interested primates are the ones, over millions of years of evolution, that were more likely to survive. It's not fair. But the chimp that shared its food with a neighbor was probably more likely to die in times of shortage than the one that horded its food and devoured it in private.
Again, it's not fair. I don't like it. But that's the hand we're dealt.
So how do you get people to conserve, to leave the world in better shape, when by nature, humans are selfish? One way is to hit them where it really stings: the pocket book. In that spirit, Seattle will charge shoppers a $.20 fee for each paper or plastic bag they take at a store in 2009.
That may not add up to much over the course of a year. What, 50 bucks or so per person? (Pound360 wants grocery stores to charge $5 per bag) But it's a start.
The City of Seattle estimates $10 million in new revenue from the program. One million of that will go to handing out reusable bags to every household.
Seattle's not the first city to force conservation of shopping bags with government action. San Francisco, for example, has banned plastic grocery bags. So has Annapolis, Maryland. But they don't enforce conservation of paper bags, which Seattle found can be "worse" for the environment (when you figure the costs of producing, shipping them), according to the Times.
Discover more: Find out how much oil we use to make plastic shopping bags each year. (It's measured in the hundreds-of-millions of gallons).
It's hip to conserve in 2008. But it won't be in 2010. And that's a problem because conservation is crucial to what Pound360 believes is the essential duty of each generation: to leave the Earth in better shape than it was when they got there.
But that's a tall order. Humans (including the staff here at Pound360… probably more so than average… you should see how fast a box of doughnuts disappears around here) are selfish. Indeed, self-interested primates are the ones, over millions of years of evolution, that were more likely to survive. It's not fair. But the chimp that shared its food with a neighbor was probably more likely to die in times of shortage than the one that horded its food and devoured it in private.
Again, it's not fair. I don't like it. But that's the hand we're dealt.
So how do you get people to conserve, to leave the world in better shape, when by nature, humans are selfish? One way is to hit them where it really stings: the pocket book. In that spirit, Seattle will charge shoppers a $.20 fee for each paper or plastic bag they take at a store in 2009.
That may not add up to much over the course of a year. What, 50 bucks or so per person? (Pound360 wants grocery stores to charge $5 per bag) But it's a start.
The City of Seattle estimates $10 million in new revenue from the program. One million of that will go to handing out reusable bags to every household.
Seattle's not the first city to force conservation of shopping bags with government action. San Francisco, for example, has banned plastic grocery bags. So has Annapolis, Maryland. But they don't enforce conservation of paper bags, which Seattle found can be "worse" for the environment (when you figure the costs of producing, shipping them), according to the Times.
Discover more: Find out how much oil we use to make plastic shopping bags each year. (It's measured in the hundreds-of-millions of gallons).
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Morbid Twist in Leaded Chinese Toy Fiasco
Earlier this month I blogged about a Fischer-Price recall of Chinese-made toys containing “excessive amounts of lead.” The Chinese company that manufactured these toys was Lee Der Industrial. Its owner’s name: Zhang Shuhong. And he was recently found dead of an apparent suicide at a company warehouse. Shuhong decided to hang himself, reports the Washington Post.
It appears that Shuhong was the victim of, “an increasingly vigorous government crackdown designed to restore confidence in the export industry.” Shortly before he killed himself, the Chinese government shut down his factory due to the massive toy recall.
But are we any closer to safer food and (tolerably) toxic-free products from China? Not just yet, but they’re trying. According to the Post report, “One recent sequence on the official China Central Television news showed smartly uniformed food-safety inspectors running out of their offices like firemen responding to an alarm.
It appears that Shuhong was the victim of, “an increasingly vigorous government crackdown designed to restore confidence in the export industry.” Shortly before he killed himself, the Chinese government shut down his factory due to the massive toy recall.
But are we any closer to safer food and (tolerably) toxic-free products from China? Not just yet, but they’re trying. According to the Post report, “One recent sequence on the official China Central Television news showed smartly uniformed food-safety inspectors running out of their offices like firemen responding to an alarm.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
A Million China-Made Toys Laced with Lead
It looks like parents need to add “Lead in Toys” to their “Threats to My Child’s Health” lists. And no, this isn’t some obscure, generic-knockoff toy manufacturer. Fisher-Price is at the center of the latest scare.
According to an AP report, “Toy-maker Fisher-Price is recalling 83 types of toys - including the popular Big Bird, Elmo, Dora and Diego characters - because their paint contains excessive amounts of lead.”
The US government considers toys with greater than .06 percent lead “accessible to users” as dangerous. But no word is yet available on how much was accessible through cute, cuddly pals like Big Bird and Dora.
This is the first time Fischer-Price, or parent company Mattel, have conducted a recall because of lead. And this is a big one. At least 967,000 toys are on their way back to the manufacturer. I wonder what they’re going to do with all of them? What’s the socially, environmentally responsible way to dispose of
As you may have guessed, a “Chinese vendor” is to blame. And it’s particularly embarrassing for Fischer-Price, which is “considered a role model in the toy industry for how it operates in China.”
In case you haven’t been keeping up with the news, products manufactured in China have had a rough year. Everything from tires (450,000 of them in June) to pet food (the largest recall in history occurred earlier this year) have been recalled this year because of faulty manufacturing in China.
How bad are China’s quality control woes? In May, the head of China’s food and drug administration was put to death for taking bribes. The payoffs led to the approval of drugs that caused at least 10 deaths.
According to an AP report, “Toy-maker Fisher-Price is recalling 83 types of toys - including the popular Big Bird, Elmo, Dora and Diego characters - because their paint contains excessive amounts of lead.”
The US government considers toys with greater than .06 percent lead “accessible to users” as dangerous. But no word is yet available on how much was accessible through cute, cuddly pals like Big Bird and Dora.
This is the first time Fischer-Price, or parent company Mattel, have conducted a recall because of lead. And this is a big one. At least 967,000 toys are on their way back to the manufacturer. I wonder what they’re going to do with all of them? What’s the socially, environmentally responsible way to dispose of
As you may have guessed, a “Chinese vendor” is to blame. And it’s particularly embarrassing for Fischer-Price, which is “considered a role model in the toy industry for how it operates in China.”
In case you haven’t been keeping up with the news, products manufactured in China have had a rough year. Everything from tires (450,000 of them in June) to pet food (the largest recall in history occurred earlier this year) have been recalled this year because of faulty manufacturing in China.
How bad are China’s quality control woes? In May, the head of China’s food and drug administration was put to death for taking bribes. The payoffs led to the approval of drugs that caused at least 10 deaths.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
What’s AIDS have to do With the Price of Gold?
Something that’s always fascinated me is the impact of health on economy. I’ve read enough on this issue to believe that good health is a civic responsibility. Think of the billions spent in the United States on preventable health problems (obesity and smoking-related ones). Imagine what we could do with the savings. I’d pour the money into space exploration. A more righteous person would house all the homeless. George Bush could hire a mercenary army to occupy the rest of the Middle East. Well, maybe we wouldn’t save that much money, but you get the point. Good health is good for a nation’s wallet.
Across the Atlantic, countries in Africa and Asia are starting to notice the impact of AIDS on their mining industries. This according to a report by Reuters.
In South Africa, compared to the general population, the rate of HIV infection is double among miners. One mining group, Anglo, reports a third of its workers (about 6,000 people) are infected with HIV.
Mining firm Gold Fields estimates HIV has increased the price of gold $5 per ounce.
Five bucks doesn’t sound like much when you consider gold sells for $640 an ounce. But HIV doesn’t seem to be slowing down. So unless something changes, we can expect that number to grow.
According to UN figures, HIV infection numbers are up 20-fold in Eastern Europe and Central Asia over the last decade. Numbers have doubled in Russia over the past two years. During that same period, infections are up 23 percent to 650,000 in China. Taken as a whole, Asia is responsible for 44 percent of all gold production and 33 percent of all copper.
While nobody has put a price of the total impact of HIV on the mining industry, big companies aren’t waiting to find out. According to Reuters, “In May this year health experts from seven mining giants met for the first time in London, forming a group to come up with an improved strategy on how to halt the spread of AIDS.”
Early steps to slow the disease include prizes for taking tests, distributing condoms and dispatching mobile treatment units.
For mining companies, an ounce of prevention equals about four ounces of cure. According to a statement from mining company BHP Billiton, “for every dollar it invests in HIV training, education and medical programs the return is four-fold in terms of benefits such as re-training, absenteeism and productivity,” reports Reuters.
Across the Atlantic, countries in Africa and Asia are starting to notice the impact of AIDS on their mining industries. This according to a report by Reuters.
In South Africa, compared to the general population, the rate of HIV infection is double among miners. One mining group, Anglo, reports a third of its workers (about 6,000 people) are infected with HIV.
Mining firm Gold Fields estimates HIV has increased the price of gold $5 per ounce.
Five bucks doesn’t sound like much when you consider gold sells for $640 an ounce. But HIV doesn’t seem to be slowing down. So unless something changes, we can expect that number to grow.
According to UN figures, HIV infection numbers are up 20-fold in Eastern Europe and Central Asia over the last decade. Numbers have doubled in Russia over the past two years. During that same period, infections are up 23 percent to 650,000 in China. Taken as a whole, Asia is responsible for 44 percent of all gold production and 33 percent of all copper.
While nobody has put a price of the total impact of HIV on the mining industry, big companies aren’t waiting to find out. According to Reuters, “In May this year health experts from seven mining giants met for the first time in London, forming a group to come up with an improved strategy on how to halt the spread of AIDS.”
Early steps to slow the disease include prizes for taking tests, distributing condoms and dispatching mobile treatment units.
For mining companies, an ounce of prevention equals about four ounces of cure. According to a statement from mining company BHP Billiton, “for every dollar it invests in HIV training, education and medical programs the return is four-fold in terms of benefits such as re-training, absenteeism and productivity,” reports Reuters.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Cocaine Pulled from Shelves
The FDA sprung into action recently when a beverage called "Cocaine" hit store shelves across the nation. According to a CNN report, the FDA was disappointed in Redux Beverages, makers of Cocaine, for "illegally marketing the drink as a street drug alternative."
Said a Redux spokesman, "we intended for Cocaine energy drink to be a legal alternative the same way that celibacy is an alternative to premarital sex."
With all the food poisoning problems we had last year, I wonder if the FDA shouldn't be spending their time doing more important things.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal also seems to have a lot of time on his hands these days, he actually had time to issue a statement on this matter, "Our main complaint about Cocaine is its name and marketing strategy seeking to glorify illegal drug use."
Doesn't he have a terror plot to disrupt, or something more important he could be doing?
According to the CNN article, the legal systems of Texas and Illinois are also spending precious time and tax payer money to remove the alcohol, narcotic and nicotine-free beverage from store shelves.
Said a Redux spokesman, "we intended for Cocaine energy drink to be a legal alternative the same way that celibacy is an alternative to premarital sex."
With all the food poisoning problems we had last year, I wonder if the FDA shouldn't be spending their time doing more important things.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal also seems to have a lot of time on his hands these days, he actually had time to issue a statement on this matter, "Our main complaint about Cocaine is its name and marketing strategy seeking to glorify illegal drug use."
Doesn't he have a terror plot to disrupt, or something more important he could be doing?
According to the CNN article, the legal systems of Texas and Illinois are also spending precious time and tax payer money to remove the alcohol, narcotic and nicotine-free beverage from store shelves.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
It's a Great Time to Be a Pot, Cokehead
Reports last week show the potency of pot and cocaine are on the rise. Good news if you're into that kind of thing. But you should never use drugs. Drugs are dangerous. They can cause brain damage (then again, so can migraines).
Anyway, if you're into grass, a University of Mississippi study shows average THC levels are at 8.5 percent, compared to 3.5 percent in 1988. (Read full story from Reuters here.)
As far as blow, if you're into this stuff, there's good news and really good news. First, potency is up, according to the latest DEA numbers. (Read full story at ABC News.) They don't have a percentage, like our friend from the University of Mississippi have for pot, but the DEA says that purity has "trended somewhat toward former levels." Purity levels had been sliding since the US launched its $5 billion Plan Columbia to fight the coke trade. Initially, the plan seemed to be working as cocaine prices rose and purity dropped. But all that has changed. Thus the really good news for coke fans, "retail" prices have dropped by 11 percent since February 2005. Sounds like the DEA needs a new Plan.
For all you fans of marijuana and cocaine, be careful. This ain't your poppa's bag.
Anyway, if you're into grass, a University of Mississippi study shows average THC levels are at 8.5 percent, compared to 3.5 percent in 1988. (Read full story from Reuters here.)
As far as blow, if you're into this stuff, there's good news and really good news. First, potency is up, according to the latest DEA numbers. (Read full story at ABC News.) They don't have a percentage, like our friend from the University of Mississippi have for pot, but the DEA says that purity has "trended somewhat toward former levels." Purity levels had been sliding since the US launched its $5 billion Plan Columbia to fight the coke trade. Initially, the plan seemed to be working as cocaine prices rose and purity dropped. But all that has changed. Thus the really good news for coke fans, "retail" prices have dropped by 11 percent since February 2005. Sounds like the DEA needs a new Plan.
For all you fans of marijuana and cocaine, be careful. This ain't your poppa's bag.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
The Big Challenge Facing McDonald's
After reading about McDonald's official announcement to cut out trans-fat, I recalled a story I had heard about their initial announcement to look into the issue. But I couldn't find a news report until now, so here you go.
Back in 2002, McDonald's said they would start looking at ways to reduce trans-fats from their fries. Almost immediately, customers started calling in and complaining about the new taste, reported the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in January. The problem, of course, is that McDonald's hadn't changed anything -- yet. Of course, the official announcement came yesterday.
Trans-fat gives foods a more appealing texture. Unfortunately, they also boost bad cholesterol and cut the good stuff. This represent's such a serious health danger, that New York City moved to ban the stuff from restaurants last fall.
Since so much of McDonald's reputation is based on its fries, its work is cut out for it. As I mentioned in yesterday's post, fry sales in Denmark dropped after McDonald's cut trans-fat, and they never recovered.
Would that be a bad thing? Of course not. Hopefully, people will find other, more nutrient-rich sources of calories.
On a side note: In an article on the challenge's chefs face in New York under the new ban, they note that trans fat was first introduced in 1911 by our friends at Crisco. Why did it take almost a century to ban them if they're so bad? It's because trans fat didn't become a "staple of the American diet" until the "rise of fast food" in the 70s.
On another interesting side note: Crisco originally introduced a trans-fat free shortening in 2004, but it was pulled back because of "production and performance problem." It wasn't until this year that they tried again.
Back in 2002, McDonald's said they would start looking at ways to reduce trans-fats from their fries. Almost immediately, customers started calling in and complaining about the new taste, reported the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in January. The problem, of course, is that McDonald's hadn't changed anything -- yet. Of course, the official announcement came yesterday.
Trans-fat gives foods a more appealing texture. Unfortunately, they also boost bad cholesterol and cut the good stuff. This represent's such a serious health danger, that New York City moved to ban the stuff from restaurants last fall.
Since so much of McDonald's reputation is based on its fries, its work is cut out for it. As I mentioned in yesterday's post, fry sales in Denmark dropped after McDonald's cut trans-fat, and they never recovered.
Would that be a bad thing? Of course not. Hopefully, people will find other, more nutrient-rich sources of calories.
On a side note: In an article on the challenge's chefs face in New York under the new ban, they note that trans fat was first introduced in 1911 by our friends at Crisco. Why did it take almost a century to ban them if they're so bad? It's because trans fat didn't become a "staple of the American diet" until the "rise of fast food" in the 70s.
On another interesting side note: Crisco originally introduced a trans-fat free shortening in 2004, but it was pulled back because of "production and performance problem." It wasn't until this year that they tried again.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
McDonald's Cuts Trans-Fat
First this month it was Starbuck's (reported NPR), then Crisco (see my post here), now McDonald's is dropping trans-fat, reports the Chicago Sun-Times.
Competitors like KFC, Taco Bell and Wendy's already began phasing out trans-fat, which boosts bad cholesterol.
Whereas it took Starbucks two years to put together a plan for cutting trans-fat, reported NPR, McDonald's took four years. What does Starbuck's have to worry about anyway? Well, one of their cranberry-orange scones has 7g of trans-fat, about as much as a large order of McDonald's fries.
But damn, they taste good. And that's part of the reason it took McDonald's so long to figure out a phase-out plan for the ferocious fat. Let's face it, McDonald's fries are perhaps McDonald's most popular menu item. Can you blame the $22 billion dollar, 13,700 restaurant-strong company for making sure it got the new fry oil formula right? According to the Sun-Times report, McDonald's tested 18 varieties and 50 different blends of oils.
The end result? We'll have to wait and see. And though McDonald's shares closed up 30 cents on the news, it should be noted that McDonald's move from trans-fat hurt sales in Denmark. In a podcast interview with BusinessWeek reporter Michael Arndt, who wrote this week's cover story on McDonald's, I learned that sales of McDonald's fries dropped after it switched from trans-fat, and never recovered.
But I wouldn't worry about the fast food giant. Read the BusinessWeek story, McDonald's is on the rebound after years of sagging sales.
Some interesting McDonald's facts from the BusinessWeek podcast:
Competitors like KFC, Taco Bell and Wendy's already began phasing out trans-fat, which boosts bad cholesterol.
Whereas it took Starbucks two years to put together a plan for cutting trans-fat, reported NPR, McDonald's took four years. What does Starbuck's have to worry about anyway? Well, one of their cranberry-orange scones has 7g of trans-fat, about as much as a large order of McDonald's fries.
But damn, they taste good. And that's part of the reason it took McDonald's so long to figure out a phase-out plan for the ferocious fat. Let's face it, McDonald's fries are perhaps McDonald's most popular menu item. Can you blame the $22 billion dollar, 13,700 restaurant-strong company for making sure it got the new fry oil formula right? According to the Sun-Times report, McDonald's tested 18 varieties and 50 different blends of oils.
The end result? We'll have to wait and see. And though McDonald's shares closed up 30 cents on the news, it should be noted that McDonald's move from trans-fat hurt sales in Denmark. In a podcast interview with BusinessWeek reporter Michael Arndt, who wrote this week's cover story on McDonald's, I learned that sales of McDonald's fries dropped after it switched from trans-fat, and never recovered.
But I wouldn't worry about the fast food giant. Read the BusinessWeek story, McDonald's is on the rebound after years of sagging sales.
Some interesting McDonald's facts from the BusinessWeek podcast:
- 25 million Americans visit McDonald's every day
- Over the course of a year, almost every American visits a McDonald's every year
- McDonald's owns half of the hamburger market (three-times Burger King or Wendy's)
- More chicken is sold by McDonald's than KFC
- The double cheeseburger is the best selling menu item
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- pound360
- I started pound360 to channel my obsession with vitamins, running and the five senses. Eventually, I got bored focusing on all that stuff, so I came back from a one month hiatus in May of 2007 (one year after launching Pound360) and broadened my mumblings here to include all science.
