Re: Another reason to reduce glycemic load
- From: Quentin Grady <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:45:32 +1200
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:58:00 +0100, Nicky <ukc802466929@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:02:51 -0400, "bgl" <bjones44@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Trinkwasser" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:evmf641tgrtlb97nttg0v41hbvagt7blmh@xxxxxxxxxx
Sadly it could also be because the company finds there isn't
sufficient profit in it.
Well yes that was the point, if the ingredients were too costly and
the selling price couldn't be increased to cover them at their usual
rate of profit, shelve it.
As I understood it companies invest money in blocks of $10 or $100
million. They discard those ventures that are likely to bring in the
least profit. The breast cancer "cure" was likely to be less
profitable than another product. The good of women kind didn't enter
into the equation.
Um, if you were in business, what would you do?
Perhaps blue sky research to find cures for breast cancer (which is
how Quentin started this part of the thread off) shouldn't be business
funded.
Nicky.
I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that. However I do believe there is
a place for governments to invest in the health of half their voters.
Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Curry vs. obesity and diabetes (in mice, anyway)
- Next by Date: Re: Another reason to reduce glycemic load
- Previous by thread: Re: Curry vs. obesity and diabetes (in mice, anyway)
- Next by thread: Re: Another reason to reduce glycemic load
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
