Weighing in on yesterday’s story about not being able to get Kraft’s new trans-fat-free Oreos in the near term because the company has to sell off the old stock first, one MNB user wrote:
Why doesn't Kraft do what other manufacturers do when they need to eliminate obsolete inventory? All they have to do is marked down the price low enough to move the product. When Dannon changed the yogurt size from 8 oz to 6 oz almost every retailer in our area had Dannon yogurt for 50% off. Within a week (or less) the new 6 oz size was on the shelf.
A second option would be to sell off the old inventory to a retailer such as Big Lots that sells products that are on the decline.
Sounds like a bunch of weak excuses from Kraft. It seems to me that "out with the old" and "in with the new" isn't that hard in this day and age.
MNB user Matt Weeks wrote:
Oreos are probably the best example to use because practically no "foodie" I know has not enjoyed Oreos and their now-extinct but equally delicious kin, Hydrox.
Recently we have been given fresh incentive and energy to be mostly Oreo free, or at least only partaking of "other people's" Oreos... much like a smoker taking that first step in cutting down, by only smoking cigarettes that are bummed from others (refusing to buy a pack). I only eat "OPO's" (other people's Oreos). The trans-fat issue has successfully given us strength to refrain from purchasing a package of Oreos at the store. We have been seen struggling to find and read the microscopic print on the labels, searching for the "partially hydrogenated" and other Trans-fat flags. Labeling is far overdue, especially for those of us who don't bring our reading glasses to the market. But that's another topic.
Willpower however, abandons us when we are in the presence of said devil inspired treat, and we almost always succumb to temptation when offered an Oreo. And that wouldn't be so bad if we could restrain ourselves to a "normal" portion. Which is my point. What is a "normal" portion for Oreos/DoubleStuff etc?
The Oreo, Double-Stuff, Giant, Inside-out and the other goodies that bear the Oreo brand (can you tell that this is being written mid-morning before lunch?) will still be loaded with Regular fat and calories. So you might say, better to eat "regular" fat than trans-fat. OK, perhaps.
But I wonder if that eleven-year old girl who knows to avoid trans-fat also understands the trade-off between consuming five hundred calories of cookies ("normal fat and all), versus what she has to do today (and what she will have to do in several decades after her metabolism slows) to work off those same five hundred calories. I can tell you that sadly it requires only a few of those cookies to stack up several hundred calories. So much for the point system at weight watchers. Yeah right.
I think I have to jog for something like an hour to burn off the handful of Oreos that I ate at my brother's house (OPO's), and of course washed down with a glass of low-fat milk. Got to be low-fat. Kind of like diet soda with a cheeseburger.
What we are missing here is that we need to be equally vigilant in empowering our kids with the concept of portion control and trade-offs. Trans fat is a red herring here. We don't do a great job at portion control and food trade offs ourselves, which is why our kids, following our lead, seem to be getting fatter and sicker in this Nation.
I'm not the nutrition police. Far from it. I just mean to be pointing out that by removing the trans-fat from Oreos (and anything else that is wonderfully tasty), it does not give us a free pass to "consume mass quantities" (for those old enough to remember Dan Akroyd's alien character in SNL).
And yes, I'm looking forward to seeing Oreos back in my ice cream at ColdStone Creamery. See-- here we are again... taking our kids to a 1,500 calorie dessert place and feeling "OK" because it is home-made and thus somehow "healthy." Mixed signals all the way.
MNB user Amy Haefele wrote:
It sounds like I'll be stocking up on the trans-fat-full Oreos in the event that the new ones don't live up to the original taste. I don't eat Oreos with the idea that it's healthy for me - I eat them for the taste. (Same goes for fast food - I'm a firm believer in moderation.) Mess with the taste, and you lose me as a customer.
Wonder if there will be a black market for trans-fat-laden Oreos? Hmmm….maybe it’d be worth a trip to Costco and Stew Leonard’s to buy up all they have.
We could sell them on street corners and in parking lots, or maybe over the Internet.
Until, of course, the food police caught up with us…
We had a story yesterday about how Wal-Mart plans to get tough with suppliers who are resisting RFID, and that quoted the company’s CIO, Linda Dillman, as saying: "We've started communicating to some of the suppliers who have been reluctant – which is a nice way of saying it – to say, 'We can't invest any more time in you'.”
Which led MNB user Richard Bernstein to observe:
It is statements like this that explain why a growing number of people love to hate Wal-Mart. No retailer ever prospers or even survives without the support of their suppliers. Mr. Sam must be turning over in his grave.
One MNB user had some thoughts about the possible acquisition of Marsh by Giant Eagle:
I don't know why Giant Eagle would want to buy Marsh. Giant Eagle is a good operator in their home markets of Pittsburgh and Cleveland. But when they expanded out to Columbus and Toledo to face Wal-Mart, Meijer, and Kroger the results have not been so pretty. Going to Indianapolis will be just more of the same. Cleveland has done a good job in keeping Meijer and Wal-Mart Supercenters out. They don't have that luxury in Indy.
Marsh operates some worn out LoBill bare-bones stores, a box store, a couple of those goofy Arthurs stores that have not worked out, and the failed Lifestyles stores, including one near Chicago. Why would Giant Eagle want to try to piece that jigsaw puzzle together? Indy is a very competitive market with Meijer, Wal-Mart Supercenter, Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market, SuperTarget, Whole Foods, and Trader Joes. Giant Eagle dipped their toe in the water in Toledo and got burned. I doubt they will dive into Indy.
Giant Eagle go public? That seems to be the downfall of many grocery chains. Remaining private like Hy-Vee, Publix, Wegmans, HEB, etc allows retailers to focus on dancing for the customers and not "the man" on Wall Street.
We also got a ton of email about our story concerning the contest run by an Australian magazine and entered by more than 2,700 people from 41 countries that came up with a new name for kangaroo meat that is designed to make it more palatable to consumers: Australus.
The magazine concluded that “australus” sounded more dignified – as opposed to cute - and would get people to eat more kangaroo meat. Among the losing suggestions: "kangarly," "maroo," and "kangasaurus."
MNB user Katherine Whelen wrote:
And the grass-fed, leaner, healthier version would be "Australite"?
MNB user Roby McNeely wrote:
How about "KangrAngus"?
MNB user Mike Gantt chimed in:
How about "Jump Steak?" "Hopburger?" "Marsupialroo?"
And finally, one MNB user brought the discussion to an inevitable conclusion:
Coming soon…your child's "Hoppy Meal?"
It is a good day when you folks bring your own jokes (BYOJ)…
Why doesn't Kraft do what other manufacturers do when they need to eliminate obsolete inventory? All they have to do is marked down the price low enough to move the product. When Dannon changed the yogurt size from 8 oz to 6 oz almost every retailer in our area had Dannon yogurt for 50% off. Within a week (or less) the new 6 oz size was on the shelf.
A second option would be to sell off the old inventory to a retailer such as Big Lots that sells products that are on the decline.
Sounds like a bunch of weak excuses from Kraft. It seems to me that "out with the old" and "in with the new" isn't that hard in this day and age.
MNB user Matt Weeks wrote:
Oreos are probably the best example to use because practically no "foodie" I know has not enjoyed Oreos and their now-extinct but equally delicious kin, Hydrox.
Recently we have been given fresh incentive and energy to be mostly Oreo free, or at least only partaking of "other people's" Oreos... much like a smoker taking that first step in cutting down, by only smoking cigarettes that are bummed from others (refusing to buy a pack). I only eat "OPO's" (other people's Oreos). The trans-fat issue has successfully given us strength to refrain from purchasing a package of Oreos at the store. We have been seen struggling to find and read the microscopic print on the labels, searching for the "partially hydrogenated" and other Trans-fat flags. Labeling is far overdue, especially for those of us who don't bring our reading glasses to the market. But that's another topic.
Willpower however, abandons us when we are in the presence of said devil inspired treat, and we almost always succumb to temptation when offered an Oreo. And that wouldn't be so bad if we could restrain ourselves to a "normal" portion. Which is my point. What is a "normal" portion for Oreos/DoubleStuff etc?
The Oreo, Double-Stuff, Giant, Inside-out and the other goodies that bear the Oreo brand (can you tell that this is being written mid-morning before lunch?) will still be loaded with Regular fat and calories. So you might say, better to eat "regular" fat than trans-fat. OK, perhaps.
But I wonder if that eleven-year old girl who knows to avoid trans-fat also understands the trade-off between consuming five hundred calories of cookies ("normal fat and all), versus what she has to do today (and what she will have to do in several decades after her metabolism slows) to work off those same five hundred calories. I can tell you that sadly it requires only a few of those cookies to stack up several hundred calories. So much for the point system at weight watchers. Yeah right.
I think I have to jog for something like an hour to burn off the handful of Oreos that I ate at my brother's house (OPO's), and of course washed down with a glass of low-fat milk. Got to be low-fat. Kind of like diet soda with a cheeseburger.
What we are missing here is that we need to be equally vigilant in empowering our kids with the concept of portion control and trade-offs. Trans fat is a red herring here. We don't do a great job at portion control and food trade offs ourselves, which is why our kids, following our lead, seem to be getting fatter and sicker in this Nation.
I'm not the nutrition police. Far from it. I just mean to be pointing out that by removing the trans-fat from Oreos (and anything else that is wonderfully tasty), it does not give us a free pass to "consume mass quantities" (for those old enough to remember Dan Akroyd's alien character in SNL).
And yes, I'm looking forward to seeing Oreos back in my ice cream at ColdStone Creamery. See-- here we are again... taking our kids to a 1,500 calorie dessert place and feeling "OK" because it is home-made and thus somehow "healthy." Mixed signals all the way.
MNB user Amy Haefele wrote:
It sounds like I'll be stocking up on the trans-fat-full Oreos in the event that the new ones don't live up to the original taste. I don't eat Oreos with the idea that it's healthy for me - I eat them for the taste. (Same goes for fast food - I'm a firm believer in moderation.) Mess with the taste, and you lose me as a customer.
Wonder if there will be a black market for trans-fat-laden Oreos? Hmmm….maybe it’d be worth a trip to Costco and Stew Leonard’s to buy up all they have.
We could sell them on street corners and in parking lots, or maybe over the Internet.
Until, of course, the food police caught up with us…
We had a story yesterday about how Wal-Mart plans to get tough with suppliers who are resisting RFID, and that quoted the company’s CIO, Linda Dillman, as saying: "We've started communicating to some of the suppliers who have been reluctant – which is a nice way of saying it – to say, 'We can't invest any more time in you'.”
Which led MNB user Richard Bernstein to observe:
It is statements like this that explain why a growing number of people love to hate Wal-Mart. No retailer ever prospers or even survives without the support of their suppliers. Mr. Sam must be turning over in his grave.
One MNB user had some thoughts about the possible acquisition of Marsh by Giant Eagle:
I don't know why Giant Eagle would want to buy Marsh. Giant Eagle is a good operator in their home markets of Pittsburgh and Cleveland. But when they expanded out to Columbus and Toledo to face Wal-Mart, Meijer, and Kroger the results have not been so pretty. Going to Indianapolis will be just more of the same. Cleveland has done a good job in keeping Meijer and Wal-Mart Supercenters out. They don't have that luxury in Indy.
Marsh operates some worn out LoBill bare-bones stores, a box store, a couple of those goofy Arthurs stores that have not worked out, and the failed Lifestyles stores, including one near Chicago. Why would Giant Eagle want to try to piece that jigsaw puzzle together? Indy is a very competitive market with Meijer, Wal-Mart Supercenter, Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market, SuperTarget, Whole Foods, and Trader Joes. Giant Eagle dipped their toe in the water in Toledo and got burned. I doubt they will dive into Indy.
Giant Eagle go public? That seems to be the downfall of many grocery chains. Remaining private like Hy-Vee, Publix, Wegmans, HEB, etc allows retailers to focus on dancing for the customers and not "the man" on Wall Street.
We also got a ton of email about our story concerning the contest run by an Australian magazine and entered by more than 2,700 people from 41 countries that came up with a new name for kangaroo meat that is designed to make it more palatable to consumers: Australus.
The magazine concluded that “australus” sounded more dignified – as opposed to cute - and would get people to eat more kangaroo meat. Among the losing suggestions: "kangarly," "maroo," and "kangasaurus."
MNB user Katherine Whelen wrote:
And the grass-fed, leaner, healthier version would be "Australite"?
MNB user Roby McNeely wrote:
How about "KangrAngus"?
MNB user Mike Gantt chimed in:
How about "Jump Steak?" "Hopburger?" "Marsupialroo?"
And finally, one MNB user brought the discussion to an inevitable conclusion:
Coming soon…your child's "Hoppy Meal?"
It is a good day when you folks bring your own jokes (BYOJ)…
- KC's View:
