[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Care to explain why in the instance of trans fat this benefit to the producer does not result in a benefit to the consumer? Unless you somehow know what exactly other people value, I'm at a loss for how you can declare there is no benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

well , why don't you tell me the benefit? it isn't lower cost to the consumer, since trans free chips cost the same as "regular chips".

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, rather than answer my question, ask one of your own.

I don't know anything about the science of trans fat or the price of potato chips at your local gas station. But I'm not the one running my mouth about why it's a good idea to force people not to use them. So I don't feel like this is a problem on my part. You're the one claiming the position, so I'm asking you to elaborate.

I'll address your question anyways though.

Just because two bags of chips are priced equally when they sit on store shelves, that doesn't mean that there wasn't still some cost associated with the use of non-trans fats. If you concede that trans fats are cheaper for producers, I don't see how this could possibly not be the case.

The reason those bags of Lays at your gas station are the same price (if that is indeed the case) could be a result of lower quality ingredients going into the rest of the chip, or simply less weight per bag. Or it could just be a temporary decision made with the benefit of not confusing consumers or whatever marketing strategy they have in mind.

How do *you* think it works? Do Lays owners say "Hey, let's take that money we save from using trans fats, and rather than use it in ways that will improve our product and help generate *more* money in the future like we choose to do with all our other equitable decisions, we just pretend those savings don't exist, and take them right out of the business model"?