zlacker

I feel that analysing details and consequences based on the article is premature and marginal. The reduction of 5-8% of medication using households is barely beyond measurable (we have higher variation by the season). Yet they use the words 'striking', 'steep'. Also saying 'clear changes' in one part then admitting 'the reduction becomes smaller over time' (without specifics this time). The highest decrease of 10% for savory snacks is also modest at most (e.g. still consuming 9 pack instead of 10 in a reference period. having nothing good to watch on TV might have higher effect).

The data might really be useful for the food industry once, but only after the usage of the medicine goes beyond 16% currently. 5-8% change, even 10%, for 16% of the population is tiny.

To me the study sounds desperate to project significance, using adjectives rather than data for seeking attention.

>>mihaal+(OP)
Considering that only one person in a household might have gone on a medication, these percentages are actually more sizable than they might seem.

It would have been useful if this were broken out differently, to highlight the different impact in single-person households and larger households.