Are we protected from Junk Food Corporations?
DonQuijote1954
food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of
the public? Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to
say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that
whoever eats junk food is responsible for it...
It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes,
whose manufacturers are very much liable for it. And then there's the
other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an
adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's
bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda.
Sure enough, there's legislation banning advertising on children
television in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. Should others
be protected as well?
Eateries Push for Obesity Suit Protection
Sat Aug 28, 4:33 PM ET
By IRA DREYFUSS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Bills to protect restaurants and food companies against
lawsuits by people who claim the meals or snacks made them fat are
moving ahead in the states like hamburgers passed out a drive-thru
window.
Measures known as "cheeseburger bills" bar people from seeking damages
in court from food companies for weight gain and associated medical
conditions, including heart disease and diabetes.
Supporters say the proposals shield businesses from having to pay to
defend themselves against frivolous suits. Opponents contend the
claims often are valid and ought to be heard in court.
Two cases against McDonald's accused the company of causing obesity in
thousands of children. In dismissing the cases last year, U.S.
District Judge Robert Sweet in New York said consumers ought to know
that eating lots of fast food can make them fat and that they cannot
ask courts to "protect them from their own excesses."
That ruling has not stopped lawyers from holding conferences on how to
win such claims. Also, the possibility of a legal defeat haunts the
food industry, whose leaders say they should not be held responsible
for people's eating decisions.
Many lawmakers agree.
So far this year, a dozen states have enacted laws against such suits,
according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
A Washington state law prohibits people from suing food manufacturers,
sellers and advertisers based on claims arising from people's weight
gain, obesity, or related health conditions.
The law, backed by the state restaurant association, keeps the
responsibility for eating where it belongs, said Democratic state Rep.
Patricia Lantz.
"It was so common sense," said Lantz, a trial lawyer who heads the
House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) in her state. "Most
people don't see any reason to impose liability for an individual's
inability to push himself away from the dinner table."
Similar bills have won approval in other states. But efforts at
passing a national shield have faltered in Congress.
One bill, sponsored by Rep. Ric Keller (news, bio, voting record),
R-Fla., was passed by the House. A second, sponsored by Sen. Mitch
McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky., is before a Senate
Judiciary Committee subcommittee.
The prospects that a ban will pass are not good because time is
running out on the congressional calendar and lawmakers are facing
re-election in November.
The issue is politically charged. Republicans say companies need
protection from greedy lawyers. Democrats say that the courts should
decide whether the cases are worth hearing.
Some consumer advocates also oppose the laws. "These cheeseburger
bills are shameful efforts to deprive the public of the right to have
a day in court if they feel they have been aggrieved," said Michael
Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest.
Class-action lawyers will find ways around the state laws, and big
fast-food companies could be their targets, predicts John Banzhaf,
professor of public interest law at George Washington University.
Banzhaf, who favors the suits, said companies could be vulnerable for
failing to tell customers how much fat is in their food.
"Is it a shoo-in? No," said Banzhaf, who helped mastermind suits
against the tobacco industry. "But if we pick our plaintiffs
carefully, the guy who eats there every day, we can make our cases
stick."
http://committed.to/justiceforpeace
more...
Jeff
"DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e4a3f58.04082...@posting.google.com...
> The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the
> food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of
> the public?
They are. They require that food ingredients and nutrition content be given
to costumers who as for it. And the chains usually post this on their
websites.
The government requires that restaurant workers not touch the food (wear
gloves), not have rats running around, not advertise falsely, keep the food
either below 40 F or above 140 F (to prevent bacterial growth), etc.
I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from not
being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the public.
Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other
negative things for people not using their brains.
> Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to
> say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that
> whoever eats junk food is responsible for it...
Yeah. I have seen a lot of managers at fast food stores forcing people to
eat their junk. And all that candy, soda, etc., they eat at home is not at
fault.
Bottom line is that people have nutrition info available. They are the ones
who benefit when they follow it and the ones who suffer when they don't.
> It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes,
> whose manufacturers are very much liable for it.
Cigarette makers are only responsible for not telling costumers about the
dangers of smoking. Not for making cigerettes dangerous.
> And then there's the
> other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an
> adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's
> bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda.
And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and learn
how to make them well.
> Sure enough, there's legislation banning advertising on children
> television in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. Should others
> be protected as well?
No arguement here.
Illegally copied article deleted.
Jeff
Piezzo Guru
"Ignoramus17461" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.17461.invalid> wrote in message
news:cgu16a$out$1...@pita.alt.net...
> I feel completely protected from those businesses. I do not eat junk
> food.
>
> i
DonQuijote1954
> "DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4e4a3f58.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the
> > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of
> > the public?
>
> They are. They require that food ingredients and nutrition content be given
> to costumers who as for it. And the chains usually post this on their
> websites.
That's like old Greek to the poor who don't know things like
"hydrogenated oil"...
>
> The government requires that restaurant workers not touch the food (wear
> gloves), not have rats running around, not advertise falsely, keep the food
> either below 40 F or above 140 F (to prevent bacterial growth), etc.
That's food safety. Probably required in Bangladesh too.
>
> I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from not
> being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the public.
> Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other
> negative things for people not using their brains.
Raising prices dramatically would only make them lose customers.
Perhaps they can come up with healthier alternatives for some pennies
more. Try the veggie burgers at Wild Oats or Whole Foods and you won't
be disappointed. "Terra Frites" (bagged french fries) are heavenly.
Their cola soda (at $1.99 the six pack) is even better than "the real
thing"... ;)
>
> > Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to
> > say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that
> > whoever eats junk food is responsible for it...
>
> Yeah. I have seen a lot of managers at fast food stores forcing people to
> eat their junk. And all that candy, soda, etc., they eat at home is not at
> fault.
Monkey see, monkey do.
>
> Bottom line is that people have nutrition info available. They are the ones
> who benefit when they follow it and the ones who suffer when they don't.
I know, but to the blind, the whole world is dark.
>
> > It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes,
> > whose manufacturers are very much liable for it.
>
> Cigarette makers are only responsible for not telling costumers about the
> dangers of smoking. Not for making cigerettes dangerous.
It says it in the package. Is people blind? ;)
>
> > And then there's the
> > other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an
> > adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's
> > bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda.
>
> And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and learn
> how to make them well.
The parents--being uneducated--are just as victims as the kids. And
blaming them would amount to never ever doing something.
Jeff
"DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e4a3f58.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<cgtk92$d...@library1.airnews.net>...
> > "DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4e4a3f58.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the
> > > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of
> > > the public?
> >
> > They are. They require that food ingredients and nutrition content be
given
> > to costumers who as for it. And the chains usually post this on their
> > websites.
>
> That's like old Greek to the poor who don't know things like
> "hydrogenated oil"...
There are these places called "libraries" that have books with information
about this.
And, of course, the internet.
> >
> > The government requires that restaurant workers not touch the food (wear
> > gloves), not have rats running around, not advertise falsely, keep the
food
> > either below 40 F or above 140 F (to prevent bacterial growth), etc.
>
> That's food safety. Probably required in Bangladesh too.
> >
> > I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from
not
> > being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the
public.
> > Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other
> > negative things for people not using their brains.
>
> Raising prices dramatically would only make them lose customers.
> Perhaps they can come up with healthier alternatives for some pennies
> more. Try the veggie burgers at Wild Oats or Whole Foods and you won't
> be disappointed. "Terra Frites" (bagged french fries) are heavenly.
> Their cola soda (at $1.99 the six pack) is even better than "the real
> thing"... ;)
The only reason why they sell the stuff they do is that people buy it.
> >
> > > Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to
> > > say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that
> > > whoever eats junk food is responsible for it...
> >
> > Yeah. I have seen a lot of managers at fast food stores forcing people
to
> > eat their junk. And all that candy, soda, etc., they eat at home is not
at
> > fault.
>
> Monkey see, monkey do.
> >
> > Bottom line is that people have nutrition info available. They are the
ones
> > who benefit when they follow it and the ones who suffer when they don't.
>
> I know, but to the blind, the whole world is dark.
Yeah, but the blind can access the internet and learn.
And sighted people, too.
> >
> > > It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes,
> > > whose manufacturers are very much liable for it.
> >
> > Cigarette makers are only responsible for not telling costumers about
the
> > dangers of smoking. Not for making cigerettes dangerous.
>
> It says it in the package. Is people blind? ;)
The cigarette companies have been sued by people who started smoking in the
50s and 60s, IIRC. No one who started suing the cigarette makers since then,
TTBMK, have sued them.
> >
> > > And then there's the
> > > other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an
> > > adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's
> > > bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda.
> >
> > And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and
learn
> > how to make them well.
>
> The parents--being uneducated--are just as victims as the kids. And
> blaming them would amount to never ever doing something.
Yeah, but the key is education, not stupid laws.
Jeff
Wolfbrother
> how to make them well.
>
millions of unfit parents in the world? FACE THE FACTS!! THERE ARE
UNFIT PARENTS!!!! That will never change! That is no excuse to let
immoral corporations pray off them!! Bombarding easily manipulated
children with their mind control. I can not even describe how moronic
your logic is. Do you even think about the absurd argument you are
making? We are talking about innocent impressionable children here
who have no control over what kind of parents they have. How about
instead forcing these corporations to pay for adds during cartoons
that explain to children the dangers of eating those foods. The fact
is children really ARE impressionable and good influence can have just
as much of an impact as bad. They could make the adds just as
entertaining as the despicable adds making children want to eat junk
that will DESTROY THEIR HEALTH. This is the moral thing to do. This
is what would save millions of lives. This is why other LESS CORRUPT
countries ban advertising to children moron. Why dont you think a
little deeper about things next time. Im sorry but when it comes to
children there really is no excuse for not protecting them with
whatever mesures are required. It is sad and disturbing that you and
many others think otherwise. Greed and Profit is the excuse of
industry. What is yours.
> I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from not
> being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the public.
> Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other
> negative things for people not using their brains.
The only interests this legislation(like most other legislation)
serves are those of the corporate pay masters who own our supposed
representatives. This only further enhances powerlessness of the
public over the ever increasing dominance of corporate entities and
industries.
Wolfbrother
> And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and learn
> how to make them well.
What a dumb ass. So MILLIONS of kids must suffer because of the
millions of unfit parents in the world? FACE THE FACTS!! THERE ARE
UNFIT PARENTS!!!! That will never change! That is no excuse to let
immoral corporations pray off their children!! What an absurdity. I
can not even begin to describe how moronic and thoughtless your logic
is. Do you even think about the absurd argument you are making? How
about the children WHO HAVE NO PARENTS!! We are talking about innocent
impressionable, easily manipulated children here who have no control
over what kind of parents they have and in many cases nothing to
counter the constant bombardment of corporate mind control. How about
instead forcing these corporations to pay for adds that explain to
children the dangers of eating those foods. The fact is children
really ARE impressionable and good influence can have just as much of
an impact as bad. They could make the adds just as entertaining as
the despicable adds making children want to eat junk that will DESTROY
THEIR HEALTH. This is the moral thing to do. This is what would save
millions of lives. This is why other LESS CORRUPT countries ban
advertising to children(among many other public policies that benefit
PEOPLE over industry). Something that does not happen in the US. Why
dont you think a little deeper about things next time. Im sorry but
when it comes to children there really is no excuse for not protecting
them with whatever mesures are required. It is sad and disturbing
that you and many others think otherwise. Greed and Profit is the
excuse of industry. What is yours.
> I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from not
> being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the public.
> Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other
> negative things for people not using their brains.
The only interests this legislation(like most other legislation)
john
corporations) of robbing us too http://www.whale.to/b/junk.html
"DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e4a3f58.04082...@posting.google.com...
cde
> "DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4e4a3f58.04082...@posting.google.com...
>>blaming them would amount to never ever doing something.
>
>
> Yeah, but the key is education, not stupid laws.
>
> Jeff
Stupid laws created the problem. Revision of stupid laws might perhaps
helps to solve it. Here are some key quotes from a recent article
Harvard Magazine Online:
http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/050465.html
Ludwig:
"There's the incessant advertising and marketing of the poorest
quality foods imaginable. To address this epidemic, you'd want to make
healthful foods widely available, inexpensive, and convenient, and
unhealthful foods relatively less so. Instead, we've done the opposite."
Gortmaker:
"The food industry's major objective is to get us to intake more food,"
says . "And the TV industry's objective is to get us to watch more
television, to be sedentary. Advertising is the action that keeps them
both successful. So you've got two huge industries being successful at
what they are supposed to do: creating more intake and less activity.
And since larger people require more food energy just to sustain
themselves, the food industry is growing a larger market for itself."
Willett:
"That industry spends billions of dollars on research... What we spend
on nutrition education is only in the tens of millions of dollars
annually. There's a huge imbalance, and it tips more and more in favor
of the food industry every year. Food executives like to say, 'Just
educate the consumer-- when they create the demand for healthier food,
we'll supply it!' That's a bit disingenuous when you consider that they
are already spending billions to 'educate' consumers."
Ludwig questions farm subsidies of "billions to the lowest-quality
foods"--for example, grains like corn ("for corn sweeteners and animal
feed to make Big Macs") and wheat ("refined carbohydrates.") Meanwhile,
the government does *not* subsidize far healthier items like fruits,
vegetables, beans, and nuts.
Ludwig :
"It's a perverse situation," he says. "The foods that are the worst for
us have an artificially low price, and the best foods cost more. This
is worse than a free market: we are creating a mirror-world here."
Jeff
"cde" <c...@cde.org> wrote in message
news:B3DYc.658$Fg2.2...@newshog.newsread.com...
> Jeff wrote:
> > "DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4e4a3f58.04082...@posting.google.com...
> parents--being uneducated--are just as victims as the kids. And
> >>blaming them would amount to never ever doing something.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, but the key is education, not stupid laws.
> >
> > Jeff
>
>
> Stupid laws created the problem. Revision of stupid laws might perhaps
> helps to solve it. Here are some key quotes from a recent article
> Harvard Magazine Online:
>
> http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/050465.html
>
> Ludwig:
> "There's the incessant advertising and marketing of the poorest
> quality foods imaginable. To address this epidemic, you'd want to make
> healthful foods widely available, inexpensive, and convenient, and
> unhealthful foods relatively less so. Instead, we've done the opposite."
Because people buy the unhealthy foods.
> Gortmaker:
> "The food industry's major objective is to get us to intake more food,"
> says . "And the TV industry's objective is to get us to watch more
> television, to be sedentary. Advertising is the action that keeps them
> both successful. So you've got two huge industries being successful at
> what they are supposed to do: creating more intake and less activity.
> And since larger people require more food energy just to sustain
> themselves, the food industry is growing a larger market for itself."
And I don't remember anyone forcing people to watch TV or go to eat
unhealthy food.
> Willett:
> "That industry spends billions of dollars on research... What we spend
> on nutrition education is only in the tens of millions of dollars
> annually. There's a huge imbalance, and it tips more and more in favor
> of the food industry every year. Food executives like to say, 'Just
> educate the consumer-- when they create the demand for healthier food,
> we'll supply it!' That's a bit disingenuous when you consider that they
> are already spending billions to 'educate' consumers."
>
> Ludwig questions farm subsidies of "billions to the lowest-quality
> foods"--for example, grains like corn ("for corn sweeteners and animal
> feed to make Big Macs") and wheat ("refined carbohydrates.") Meanwhile,
> the government does *not* subsidize far healthier items like fruits,
> vegetables, beans, and nuts.
I have no problem with subsidizing farmers. Just with making suing
restaurants for providing a legal and safe product, when taken in
moderation.
> Ludwig :
> "It's a perverse situation," he says. "The foods that are the worst for
> us have an artificially low price, and the best foods cost more. This
> is worse than a free market: we are creating a mirror-world here."
Then fix the problem with the price of the food.
Jeff
Jeff
"Wolfbrother" <ranger...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cgtk92
> >
> > And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and
learn
> > how to make them well.
> >
> What a dumb ass. So MILLIONS of kids must suffer because of the
> millions of unfit parents in the world? FACE THE FACTS!! THERE ARE
> UNFIT PARENTS!!!! That will never change! That is no excuse to let
> immoral corporations pray off them!!
You mean immoral corporations are going to chruch?
> Bombarding easily manipulated
> children with their mind control. I can not even describe how moronic
> your logic is. Do you even think about the absurd argument you are
> making? We are talking about innocent impressionable children here
> who have no control over what kind of parents they have. How about
> instead forcing these corporations to pay for adds during cartoons
> that explain to children the dangers of eating those foods. The fact
> is children really ARE impressionable and good influence can have just
> as much of an impact as bad. They could make the adds just as
> entertaining as the despicable adds making children want to eat junk
> that will DESTROY THEIR HEALTH. This is the moral thing to do. This
> is what would save millions of lives. This is why other LESS CORRUPT
> countries ban advertising to children moron. Why dont you think a
> little deeper about things next time. Im sorry but when it comes to
> children there really is no excuse for not protecting them with
> whatever mesures are required. It is sad and disturbing that you and
> many others think otherwise. Greed and Profit is the excuse of
> industry. What is yours.
The health of kids.
However, lettting people sue corporations for something the corporations are
not responsible for is stupid, IMHO.
> > I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from
not
> > being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the
public.
> > Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other
> > negative things for people not using their brains.
>
> The only interests this legislation(like most other legislation)
> serves are those of the corporate pay masters who own our supposed
> representatives. This only further enhances powerlessness of the
> public over the ever increasing dominance of corporate entities and
> industries.
The public has the power to vote the legislations out of office.
However, I think the legislation is good legislation. It would be much
better to ban fat food from schools - no soda, chips, candy, etc., sold in
schools. Make schools a healthier place to be.
That would be a positive start.
Jeff
Jeff
"john" <nospamo...@vaccine.com> wrote in message
news:cguttd$6ma$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> it's a conspiracy to poison us with added benefit to them (Illuminati
> corporations) of robbing us too http://www.whale.to/b/junk.html
The whale to site is the biggest joke on the internet. The author doesn't
even put her name on it. Who can blame her? The site is clearly written by
someone who doesn't have a clue about medicine, scinece or vaccines.
DonQuijote1954
Nice quotes, and nice link. We must be aware of what's at stake here:
Some greedy corporations--and even a few school boards--preying on
small children. I'd venture an epithet: CHILD ABUSE.
Isn't this Child Abuse?
Schools Peddling Junk Food to Kids
By David Nakamura
Through contracts with soft drink companies and other vendors, some
schools are raising as much as $100,000 a year, money that pays for
such
things as computer rewiring, teacher training and Black History Month
activities.
Read the fine print of those contracts, though, and the costs start to
sink in: One school in Prince George's County guaranteed sales of
4,500
cases of soda a year -- or about 50 sodas a student.
Some contracts state that schools could lose money if they turn off
the
machines at lunchtime, as required by state and federal law.
The biggest cost, some parents and health advocates say, is the health
risk to students in a system that gives schools a financial interest
in
selling them more snacks.
One recent study linked soft drinks to childhood obesity, and others
point to tooth decay and caffeine dependence -- findings that the soda
industry disputes.-
The U.S. Agriculture Department delivered a stinging report to
Congress
last month recommending that all snacks sold in schools meet the
federal
government's nutritional standards.
"One of the biggest challenges school meal program managers face is
the
competition with foods that are marketed to children through
multimillion-dollar, glitzy and sophisticated advertising campaigns,"
the report stated.
The explosion of vending machines in public schools is a relatively
new
phenomenon.
As recently as a decade ago, such machines were uncommon on campus.
But
as principals and PTAs began to recognize the potential payoff of
vending revenue during a time of increasingly tight school budgets,
the
number grew quickly.
Increasingly, school districts are signing exclusive deals with one
soda
company or vendor. Charles County, for instance, signed a 10-year,
$1.75
million deal last year to sell only Coke products in its schools.
Some communities, though, have fought against the proliferation of
snack
machines in schools. In Philadelphia last year, parent activists
successfully blocked a proposed 10-year, $43 million deal between the
school system and Coca-Cola. Last week, the New York Board of
Education
settled a 1999 class-action lawsuit brought by parents. An agreement
was
reached that schools can sell only nutritious snacks during lunch
hour.
In exchange, Blair promised to place a minimum of 18 soft drink
machines
throughout the school and ensure that the student population remained
above 2,100. The machines are on all day, despite a federal law
prohibiting schools from selling such products during lunch hours and
a
Maryland law prohibiting schools from turning on vending machines
until
after the final lunch period.
Small wonder. The contract contains a clause that reads: "If the Board
of Education actively enforces the policy in which vending machines
are
turned off during the school day, the commission guarantee will be
suspended."
To many parents, the vending machine contracts are a necessary evil.
But
these are the parents who are clueless about the importance of diet as
it relates to health.
Washington Post February 27, 2001; Page A01
DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:
This report, along with the published scientific evidence, should
serve
as a rallying cry to parents who want their children to be educated in
an environment conducive to learning and free of junk food that will
hinder their health, both physically and mentally.
Even if your child avoids the soda machines, if other kids are
drinking
it, this may affect other kids, since the tremendous amounts of sugar
will cause behavioral problems or worsen existing ones.
I would encourage everyone concerned about this issue to contact your
local Board of Education, as well as local state representatives.
DEMAND
that our childrens' health be put before profit.
Helena
whose manufacturers are very much liable for it. And then there's the
other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an
adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's
bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda.
>>Sure enough, there's legislation banning advertising on children
television in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. Should others
be protected as well?
Interesting question- I do wonder though when the responsibility lies
on the parents. At the end they are the ones paying for what their
kids consume, and also are the ones setting the example for thier
children. IMO it's hard to point the blame at these companies when it
is the parents who should be teaching their children about the
importance of nutrition and exercise.
DonQuijote1954
A most important article. It shows that Americans have little chance
against advertising, which outspends government "healthy guidelines"
hundreds of times.
This is no joke...
"The government's entire budget on nutrition education is estimated at
just a fifth of the advertising budget for Altoids mints"
And I hope this is serious...
"No matter how it happens, though, nutrition activists say corporate
America must bear some responsibility for obesity."
Whose Fault Is Fat?
Experts Weigh Holding Food Companies Responsible for Obesity
By Geraldine Sealey
So we're fat --61 percent of us. We're gluttons, supersizing our fries
and indulging in whopper-sized cinnamon buns at the mall.
But obesity is not just an American image crisis --it's fast becoming
our most serious public health problem. Indeed, obesity now rivals
smoking in its deadliness and is linked to diseases such as type-2
diabetes, heart disease, and certain types of cancer.
An estimated 300,000 Americans die each year from fat-related causes,
and we spent $117 billion in obesity-related economic costs just last
year, U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher reported last month.
Conventional wisdom says our obesity stems from laziness, lack of
willpower or a fast-paced lifestyle that prevents healthy eating and
exercise. We already spend up to an estimated $50 billion a year on
diet and weight loss products --are we really just not trying hard
enough?
While individuals surely bear responsibility for what they eat and
whether they move, some nutrition and legal experts say we may not be
entirely at fault.
Some say the food industry --particularly fast food, vending machine
and processed food companies-- should be held accountable for playing
a role in the declining health of the nation, just as the tobacco
industry ultimately was forced to bear responsibility for public
health costs associated with smoking in its landmark $206 billion
settlement with the states.
Although no one is taking such legal action against the food industry,
nutrition and legal experts say it is reasonable to think that
someday, it may come to that.
"There is a movement afoot to do something about the obesity problem,
not just as a visual blight but to see it in terms of costs," says
John Banzhaf, a George Washington University Law School professor.
The Case for Fat Suits
Most public health experts agree that regulations or taxes would be
better than legal action, but they are mindful that after years of
going after Big Tobacco, anti-smoking forces only achieved success
when plaintiffs and lawyers stepped in.
No matter how it happens, though, nutrition activists say corporate
America must bear some responsibility for obesity.
They point to a David and Goliath-like imbalance between the
government's nutrition education spending and the food industry's $30
billion advertising budget. Only 2 percent of the industry's ad
dollars go to promote fruits, vegetables, whole grains and beans,
according to watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Most ads lure Americans toward high-fat, high-calorie, large-portion
food.
While McDonald's reportedly spent $500 million on the "We love to see
you smile" ad campaign, the National Cancer Institute's "5-a-Day"
campaign spends about $1 million a year to promote eating five daily
servings of fruits and vegetables.
The government's entire budget on nutrition education is estimated at
just a fifth of the advertising budget for Altoids mints, says Marion
Nestle, a New York University professor and author of the soon-to-be
released Food Politics: How the Food Industry Manipulates What We Eat
to the Detriment of Our Health.
"It's not fair," Nestle said. "People are confronted with food in
every possible way to eat more. The function of the food industry is
to get people to eat more, not less."
to be continued...
DonQuijote1954
Some said here that junk food corporations don't mislead the public?
"For its part, the food industry claims that its products are not
directly linked to obesity and have pointed to Americans' lack of
exercise as a major factor contributing to our fatness."
Targeting Saturday Morning Fare
The purpose behind suing food companies would be both philosophical
and economic and resembles the logic of the tobacco litigation,
explains Banzhaf, who helped craft the tobacco lawsuits. "If there are
products the use of which cause large costs, grave costs, it is better
that the burden of those costs fall on people who use and make the
products rather than third parties or the general public," he said.
For some, it may be difficult to buy the argument that companies
should be blamed for what adults eat. For that reason, some health
experts suggest that a campaign against marketing junk food to
children would be more successful, just as the anti-smoking forces
went after Joe Camel ads.
Four out of five food ads market products attractive to kids, CSPI
says, such as sugary cereal, snack food, soft drinks and fast food.
For years, nutrition activists have attempted, unsuccessfully, to get
junk food ads off Saturday morning television, long the domain of
commercials featuring kid-friendly characters hawking sugary,
high-calorie foods.
Junk food in schools has also been the longtime bane of many nutrition
experts. Although school lunches must meet federal dietary standards,
vending machines and snack bars are not required to withstand
nutritional scrutiny and often bring multi-million dollar contracts
between corporations and school districts.
"Certainly, fast food is marketed overtly to children and my guess is
if you looked closely around the internal documents of the fast food
industry and processed food industry it would shock me if they didn't
have very sophisticated studies about their consumers," said Richard
Nagareda, Vanderbilt University Law School professor. "Whether you can
take that to the level of a successful lawsuit is not so clear."
Message from Government: 'Just Do It'
For its part, the food industry claims that its products are not
directly linked to obesity and have pointed to Americans' lack of
exercise as a major factor contributing to our fatness. Less than a
third of all Americans exercise as much as doctors advise.
The American Dietetic Association also stresses that a healthy diet
depends on variety, balance and moderation for all foods and
beverages, and does not recommend restricting specific foods or
ingredients for weight management.
Even surgeon general Satcher did not recommend policy changes aimed at
the food industry when he released his report last month, although he
told an interviewer: "That doesn't mean Congress can't read the report
and decide that we need it."
Instead, Satcher's report recommended that families, communities,
businesses, the health care system and the media all work together to
get America eating right and exercising. The official message from the
government: It is our responsibility to stay healthy and help others
to do so, too.
This message is especially pertinent in lower-income communities,
then, where it is most often easier to find a greasy burger and fries
than a fresh head of lettuce. According to the surgeon general, women
of lower socioeconomic status are about 50 percent more likely to be
obese than their better-off counterparts.
[And so poverty and lack of education do play a major role in having
no food choices and obesity.]
DonQuijote1954
So many things we can do, so little time...
"effective government regulation may never come as long as food
companies continue donating money to politicians"
'Equal Time' for Veggies, Junk
Lawsuits against food companies are currently legal long shots,
experts say. Some say government regulations, taxes and changes in
insurance premiums are preferable and would achieve the same goals.
Potential regulations could include requiring "equal time" for junk
food and healthy food in vending machines, banning sugary drinks and
high-calorie foods from schools, and requiring all restaurants to
include nutritional information on their menus.
The non-profit group Center for Science in the Public Interest has
proposed a small tax on soft drinks. A penny tax on every 12 ounces of
soda or sugary soft drink sold would yield $1.5 billion in revenues to
pay for nutrition or physical education programs, says Margo Wootan of
CSPI.
Another option is differential health insurance rates for those who
cannot control their weight, says law professor John Banzhaf, just as
life insurance premiums are higher for smokers. "That doesn't get back
at the manufacturers, but it gets back at the people who use," he
said, "If life insurance companies were not charging smokers more we
would be outraged."
Changes in laws, policies and taxes might help Americans recognize the
gravity of obesity, experts say.
"I want to get to the point where people are in the hallway and see a
vending machine and say, 'That's bad, that shouldn't be there,' in the
same way as if they saw a cigarette vending machine," says Tom Farley
of the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical
Medicine.
But as with the tobacco case, effective government regulation may
never come as long as food companies continue donating money to
politicians, some say. "The food industry may well turn out to be as
entrenched [as the tobacco industry]," says Richard Daynard, a law
professor at Northeastern University who was involved in the tobacco
litigation.
Lictor
news:cgvmri$8kg$0...@pita.alt.net...
> But, advertising is not necessarily as all powerful as you may
> think. All that is necessary to be immune to it is not watching TV.
> TV is designed to make people stuipd and receptive to advertising.
I think you have to make the distinction between grown up adults and kids.
Kids tend to be more permeable to "fashion", including in food, because they
have a strong urge to fit in. You can always ban the TV at home, but you
can't ban it from their friends houses. I don't think adds for junk food are
a problem with adults, but it *is* a problem when you get a flood of it
while kids are watching TV. It's also a problem when you even have it on
educationnal programs that kids sometimes watch in school.
Another problem is that many ads are borderline scams. They hint to
properties such as "full of energy" (yes, hydrogenated fats), "healthy",
"full of iron" (which most people do not need), "with a bunch of vitamins"
(which you probably don't need, and also a bunch of corn syrup, hyd. fats,
sodium...). France and Europe *almost* passed a law to restrict such claims
*very* harshly (compared to the mild restriction we currently have that bans
food products from masquerading as health enhancing drugs), but the
politicians backed off when the food industry started to complain. These ads
are a real problem on kids and uneducated adults. Who wouldn't want to be
"full of energy" and "healthy"?
> Similarly, all that is necessary to be safe from junk food
> corporations as far as nutrition is concerned, is not eating junk
> food.
The whole problem is that junk food themselves is not bad. I mean, you can
have a Big Mac once a month, it won't prevent you from having a healthy diet
and a normal weight. Or you can have some industrial cookie once in a while.
There are ways to fit a reasonnable amount of these food into a reasonnable
diet. Especially with over-active kids who burn a lot of calories. If you
ban these foods totally, you're going to create a taboo effect that will
make them all the more attractive, especially to kids. Just like cigarettes
are attractive to them. Or like alcohol was during the prohibition. Creating
"bad food" (which you should *never* eat) and "good food" (which you can eat
in unlimited amounts) categories is a dangerous concept, and a mechanism at
the root of eating disorders such as bingeing.
What you must ban is the over-consumption of these food that ads contribute
to create. False or innacurate or unproven claims, especially health claims,
should be tracked and punished as a form of fraud, because that's exactly
what it is. Something that is loaded with trans fats and/or corn syrup
should not be able to claim any positive health or energy effect, just
because it has some vitamin C added as an anti-oxydant.
DonQuijote1954
> > "It's a perverse situation," he says. "The foods that are the worst for
> > us have an artificially low price, and the best foods cost more. This
> > is worse than a free market: we are creating a mirror-world here."
>
> Then fix the problem with the price of the food.
>
> Jeff
OK, it's a deal. And the lawyers don't get any money with that, to boot.
DonQuijote1954
> The public has the power to vote the legislations out of office.
>
> However, I think the legislation is good legislation. It would be much
> better to ban fat food from schools - no soda, chips, candy, etc., sold in
> schools. Make schools a healthier place to be.
>
> That would be a positive start.
>
> Jeff
OK, I'm not going to argue either about the corporations'
responsibility, since I also agree on this solution. ;)
DrumLib
> > immoral corporations pray off them!!
>
> You mean immoral corporations are going to chruch?
>
> > Bombarding easily manipulated
> > children with their mind control.
Hmm... So corporations are praying and going to church (when they are
not busy controlling our minds, of course). I think this thread needs
an Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie ;-)
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
Live Long and Prosper!
DrumLib
Vitamin Price Comparison
(including price based on standardized dose)
http://www.drumlib.com/bestprice.htm
Lictor
>
Anyway, we will be required to phase out our subsides to agriculture sooner
or later. We won't be able to compete with the Third World on the matter of
prices, because once the subsides are lowered, they will be way cheaper than
us. The only sustainable goal is to produce *quality* rather than quantity.
We should be pouring *all* our subsides towards farmers who are willing to
switch to sustainable or organic agriculture, who are willing to get the
animals back to the fields and proper food instead of powders. And *no*
subside should go to the farmers who are merely producing good to use in
industrial processes (corn, low quality soya...).
That would be a first step in increasing the availability of quality food.
If we can't tax junk food, at least we can stop giving tax money to the
manufacturers.
Mark
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cgtk92$d...@library1.airnews.net>...
> > "DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4e4a3f58.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the
> > > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of
> > > the public?
> >
> > They are. They require that food ingredients and nutrition content be given
> > to costumers who as for it. And the chains usually post this on their
> > websites.
>
> That's like old Greek to the poor who don't know things like
> "hydrogenated oil"...
How many people do you know who can truthfully say that they "had no
idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going
to make you fat?
Should I be able to sue the manufacturer of my hair dryer if I
stupidly use it in the tub? I'm sure it's been tried, because there's
a little warning label on the side of the dryer telling me not to do
just that. Should Ford Motor Company be liable if I use their product
to drive 100 mph and crash into a bridge?
I get a little annoyed when people suggest that the public needs
governmental protection from what they eat. What would it logically
come to, if followed to its most ludicrous conclusion? Oat bran for
everyone? No beef allowed? Bacon being classified as a controlled
substance?
Where is the concept of personal responsibility in all this?
Mark, MD
bencon
about simple nutritional basics, but that is why we need to focus on
teaching children these things in schools... Why the hell should we
make laws to ban Junk food. I exercise, I like some types of junk
food, I am fit. So are many kids that enjoy a burger here and there.
Who decides what is bad? Are you going to ban orange juice b/c of
it's high sugar/calorie content? Are you going to shut down all steak
houses b/c they serve extremely high fat foods. Get with the program,
we need to TEACH these things to people, because individuals need to
be prepared to make their own decisions. I do not want the government
deciding what I am having for dinner... Want that? Move to France...
Wolfbrother
Again just go ahead and ignore the fact that so many parents are
irresponsible and unfit. Does that mean that their children must
suffer? OF COURSE the responsibility lies with the parents!!! BUT
THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT SO! That does not change the fact that some
parents are simply not responsible. So you are saying oh well those
kids are fucked, too bad?? That is exactly what you and others are
saying. Not to mention the children that have no parents in the first
place. Many unfit parents simply cave into their childrens nagging
because they dont give a fuck they just want to shut their kids up.
It is those children who need to be protected from unethical
advertising. This should not even be an issue at all. The fact that
you call it an "interesting question" is ridiculous. Heaven forbid we
should make those poor innocent corporations who are just trying to
make a buck to feed their families, stop polluting the minds of
innocent children. We would not want their profits to be reduced from
20% to 15% now would we? God forbid they should lose a few million
dollars out of their multi billion dollars of profits. Those poor
screwed children with bad parents that dont care and are not
responsible will just have to suffer. People really need to put this
issue into proper perspective. The profits of these industries are
already out of control and to weigh those out of control profits
against the well being of CHILDREN is fucked up.
Jeff
> "David vs. Goliath"
> The government's entire budget on nutrition education is estimated at
> just a fifth of the advertising budget for Altoids mints, says Marion
> Nestle, a New York University professor and author of the soon-to-be
> released Food Politics: How the Food Industry Manipulates What We Eat
> to the Detriment of Our Health.
It sounds like the problem is not the amount of money the food makers spend,
but the amount of money spent on education.
Jeff
Piezzo Guru
Wheat and most grains stop my digestion giving me malnutrition results from
other foods. Milk with it undigestible calcium, irritates the hell out of
95% of the world's population's stomache linings and further reduced
absoption, especially calcium. This is usually the reason people gulping
milk down get osteoporosis.
They are technically worse than junk foods for most people.
Ever see an advert that said "Milk, does a body good"? Do you see it
anymore? Ever wonder why they don't say anything anymore?
"Ignoramus17461" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.17461.invalid> wrote in message
news:cgu6is$63l$1...@pita.alt.net...
> In article <4ewYc.28650$JG7....@hydra.nntpserver.com>, Piezzo Guru wrote:
> > Dairy and grains?
>
> Actually, currently, I do not eat grains, and very little dairy (that
> might change). Dairy and most grain products such as bread or hot
> cereal, are not what I call junk food though.
>
> i
>
> > "Ignoramus17461" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.17461.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:cgu16a$out$1...@pita.alt.net...
> >> I feel completely protected from those businesses. I do not eat junk
> >> food.
> >>
> >> i
> >
> >
MikeL
wrote:
>helena...@hotmail.com (Helena) wrote in message news:<a2bbebb7.04083...@posting.google.com>...
>> >>It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes,
>> whose manufacturers are very much liable for it. And then there's the
>> other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an
>> adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's
>> bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda.
>>
>> >>Sure enough, there's legislation banning advertising on children
>> television in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. Should others
>> be protected as well?
>>
>>
>> Interesting question- I do wonder though when the responsibility lies
>> on the parents. At the end they are the ones paying for what their
>> kids consume, and also are the ones setting the example for thier
>> children. IMO it's hard to point the blame at these companies when it
>> is the parents who should be teaching their children about the
>> importance of nutrition and exercise.
>
>Again just go ahead and ignore the fact that so many parents are
>irresponsible and unfit. Does that mean that their children must
>suffer? OF COURSE the responsibility lies with the parents!!! BUT
>THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT SO! That does not change the fact that some
>parents are simply not responsible. So you are saying oh well those
>kids are fucked, too bad??
Yes, they are fucked as well as their grandchildren's' grandchildren.
After you regulate food then what? Ban television sets because bad
parents use the tv as a babysitter? Regulate video games because bad
parents let their children turn into uneducated sedentary couch
potatoes? Ban Music?
>That is exactly what you and others are
>saying.
Bad parents will ruin their children's lives unless they are strong
enough to rise above it, most don't obviously as the apple doesn't
fall far from the tree.
> Not to mention the children that have no parents in the first
>place. Many unfit parents simply cave into their childrens nagging
>because they dont give a fuck they just want to shut their kids up.
Exactly give them a candy bar, turn on the tv etc etc.
>It is those children who need to be protected from unethical
>advertising.
You can't punish everyone just because the most stupid and
irresponsible in society can't use good judgement.
> This should not even be an issue at all. The fact that
>you call it an "interesting question" is ridiculous. Heaven forbid we
>should make those poor innocent corporations who are just trying to
>make a buck to feed their families, stop polluting the minds of
>innocent children.
Forget it, you can't shield someone from everything. The only option
is to teach children to think and give them a good BS filter. People
that are successful in shielding their children just have fucked up
grown children who don't have any ability to think.
> We would not want their profits to be reduced from
>20% to 15% now would we? God forbid they should lose a few million
>dollars out of their multi billion dollars of profits. Those poor
>screwed children with bad parents that dont care and are not
>responsible will just have to suffer.
Yes
> People really need to put this
>issue into proper perspective. The profits of these industries are
>already out of control and to weigh those out of control profits
>against the well being of CHILDREN is fucked up.
It is a band-aid solution. Bad parents will find a way to screw their
children up.
DonQuijote1954
> "Ignoramus4234" <ignora...@NOSPAM.4234.invalid> wrote in message
> news:cgvmri$8kg$0...@pita.alt.net...
> > But, advertising is not necessarily as all powerful as you may
> > think. All that is necessary to be immune to it is not watching TV.
> > TV is designed to make people stuipd and receptive to advertising.
>
> I think you have to make the distinction between grown up adults and kids.
> Kids tend to be more permeable to "fashion", including in food, because they
> have a strong urge to fit in. You can always ban the TV at home, but you
> can't ban it from their friends houses. I don't think adds for junk food are
> a problem with adults, but it *is* a problem when you get a flood of it
> while kids are watching TV. It's also a problem when you even have it on
> educationnal programs that kids sometimes watch in school.
> Another problem is that many ads are borderline scams. They hint to
> properties such as "full of energy" (yes, hydrogenated fats), "healthy",
> "full of iron" (which most people do not need), "with a bunch of vitamins"
> (which you probably don't need, and also a bunch of corn syrup, hyd. fats,
> sodium...). France and Europe *almost* passed a law to restrict such claims
> *very* harshly (compared to the mild restriction we currently have that bans
> food products from masquerading as health enhancing drugs), but the
> politicians backed off when the food industry started to complain. These ads
> are a real problem on kids and uneducated adults. Who wouldn't want to be
> "full of energy" and "healthy"?
Howdy, the following excerpts tell us about the Swedish experience,
that's the most advanced in the field in the world. The terminology
about the jungle at the end is found in my website
(http://committed.to/justiceforpeace), but the lion in this case would
be the corporations that in the Scandinavian countries has been been
regulated into not preying on children, or simply it has
self-regulated into responsible behavior. Of course, the latter is the
best possible outcome.
Needless to say we are facing a hungry lion this side of the
Atlantic... ;)
the Swedish ban on advertising
The Swedish sure know how to protect their young ones from predatory
corporations...
Advertising ban and children: "Children have the right to safe zones"
by Ingrid Jacobsson, freelance journalist specializing in consumer
questions
In today's world, commercial influences surround us everywhere we go.
Advertising slogans greet us on TV, the radio, newspapers, the
Internet, billboards, advertising kiosks, trains, airplanes, buses,
and subways. However, Sweden has tried to limit advertising directed
at children in a variety of ways. Advertising aimed at children under
the age of twelve is forbidden on Swedish television stations, as are
direct mail advertising campaigns to children under the age of
sixteen. The bans on alcohol and tobacco advertising also came into
effect in part to protect children. In the opinion of the Swedish
government, "children have the right to safe zones."
(snip)
Then, as now, one of the reasons for the ban on TV advertising
directed at children was that young children should have zones where
they are protected from commercial influences. As they are incapable
of understanding the value of money, they should not be treated like
adult consumers. Advertising can awaken strong needs in children to
own things, needs that they cannot manage in any other way than by
pestering their parents. This "pester power" can give rise to problems
within families, something that Swedish parents would like to avoid.
[So your children don't see you as the authoritarian lion.]
(snip)
While the TV ban on advertising directed at children has received the
most international attention, Sweden has also been trying to protect
children from the effects of commercialism in other ways. As early as
1989, an agreement was reached between the then National Child
Environment Council--now known as the Children's Ombudsman--the
Consumer Agency, the Swedish Toy Dealers' Association, and the
Association of Swedish Suppliers of Toys and Hobby Articles. This
agreement comprised a ban on advertising and marketing of violent and
war toys that represent modern weapons or other products that are used
in wars. Models of older weapons such as tin soldiers and the like,
which were used prior to the First World War, are not included in the
ban, as they are generally considered collectors' items. The
agreement, which was not made law, is an example of effective
self-regulation: war toys are not marketed in Sweden.
[Well, that lion is also capable of self-regulation--nice.]
(snip)
Industry and consumer authorities and organizations often "sit on
opposite sides of the fence" when it comes to their views on what
constitutes good marketing. However, they also cooperate and arrive at
regulations that, as much as possible, satisfy both parties. As far
back as 1937, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) published
its Code of Advertising Practices, which have been continually revised
since then. The ICC Council adopted the most recent edition?the
seventh?in 1997. Not only does this code constitute the framework for
the self-regulatory measures that Swedish industry applies; it also
complements the Marketing Act, as well as other laws governing that
sector. ICC regulations, which are applied in a large number of other
countries, are intended to lay the groundwork for sound ethics and
good business practices regarding sales and marketing. The Council on
Marketing Ethics is responsible for the interpretation and application
of the ICC regulations in Sweden.
(read the whole article if you can)
http://www.sweden.se/templates/Article____3143.asp
I think that's a nice strategy with the lion: Either he can
self-regulate or he's tamed by regulation brought down on him. That's
sure to please libertarians and socialists alike...
Piezzo Guru
flush for a few weeks will cure that for me. Blood lipids? No idea..years
ago they were always on the edge of being high, triglycerides of course.
Weight, slightly overweight right now. 200 lb. @ 6'0", 52 YOA. Eat the
occasional grains and way too much dairy.
"Ignoramus4234" <ignora...@NOSPAM.4234.invalid> wrote in message
news:ch0f92$116$0...@pita.alt.net...
> In article <G4PYc.34567$JG7....@hydra.nntpserver.com>, Piezzo Guru
wrote:
> > I do!
> >
> > Wheat and most grains stop my digestion giving me malnutrition results
from
> > other foods. Milk with it undigestible calcium, irritates the hell out
of
> > 95% of the world's population's stomache linings and further reduced
> > absoption, especially calcium. This is usually the reason people gulping
> > milk down get osteoporosis.
> >
>
> So, what is it that you eat, how are you feeling, are you slim, and
> what are your blood lipids? The reason for my question goes beyod
> curiosity, as I would like to know what happens to people who are on
> diets similar to mine.
>
> Thanks!
>
> i
DonQuijote1954
Hey, we are talking big companies preying on little kids, and people
getting sick who then pose a burden for the whole of society...
What would be position of the AMA on this? Perhaps they encourage
personal responsibility in order to have more patients?
DonQuijote1954
> > > UNFIT PARENTS!!!! That will never change! That is no excuse to let
> > > immoral corporations pray off them!!
> >
> > You mean immoral corporations are going to chruch?
> >
> > > Bombarding easily manipulated
> > > children with their mind control.
>
> Hmm... So corporations are praying and going to church (when they are
> not busy controlling our minds, of course). I think this thread needs
> an Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie ;-)
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
>
Nice. Are they made in China? If they offer good protection for
communist ideology, they should work here too.
I like things made in China, they are cheap and they make me feel
American, particularly the flag... ;)
When even Old Glory is made in China
By Leita Walker | Special to The Christian Science Monitor
Thirteen stripes, 50 stars, and a tiny, often unnoticed label: Made in
China.
Thank heavens Betsy Ross isn't here to see it.
More than 200 years ago, the Philadelphia seamstress helped create the
first American flag. Legend says she impressed Gen. George Washington
by fashioning a five-pointed star with a single snip of her scissors.
Today Old Glory, like most products, has gone global. And as the
flag-waving season gets under way, consumers might expect some
discussion about country of origin.
Rest assured, the vast majority of American flags are still made in
the good old USA. But after Sept. 11, 2001, when feelings of
patriotism caused demand for flags to skyrocket, foreign manufacturers
saw opportunity. Appealing to price-conscious shoppers, they outfitted
thousands with hand-held flags.
The United States imported $7.9 million worth of American flags in
2002, according to the Census Bureau. Some of those flags have left
consumers baffled.
"We've actually gotten questions from people who had 53-star flags ...
and they wondered if there was a special significance to that," says
Joyce Doody, director of membership services at the National Flag
Foundation, a patriotic education association in Pittsburgh. "We
presume that they were made in another country."
Most imported flags come from China - about $5 million worth last year
- but Taiwan and Korea have also made hundreds of thousands in recent
years, according to data from the US Department of Commerce, the US
Treasury, and the US International Trade Commission.
Shanghai Flag & Tent Works, for example, exported about $1 million
worth of merchandise to the United States last year, with American
flags accounting for about 80 percent of the total, says Zheng
Banglin, general manager for the firm, which claims to control about
one-third of the Chinese-made flag market in the US.
DonQuijote1954
> > "hydrogenated oil"...
>
> How many people do you know who can truthfully say that they "had no
> idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going
> to make you fat?
They get into your house and tell your child that they have a clown,
and toys, and colorful packaging, what do you expect your child to do,
ask you for home made soup?
DonQuijote1954
"This website was designed as a resource for those who wish to create
a healthier learning environment for our youth. Despite the lobbying
efforts of big soda and junk food companies, a tremendous wave of
healthier alternatives in school vending machines and cafeterias is
sweeping the nation. Legislators, community activists, teachers,
parents, vendors, administrators, and most importantly, students, are
stepping up to plate, and creating change...a change that will affect
generations to come. With soaring obesity rates for children, and a
surge in early onset diabetes, eating healthy is an idea whose time
has come."
DonQuijote1954
parents look bad... :(
CSPI Hits Marketing Junk Food to Kids
Food Companies Undermine Parents, Overfeed Kids, Says Report
Food marketing aimed at kids undermines parental authority and helps
fuel the epidemic of childhood obesity, according to a report issued
today by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest
(CSPI). The volume and variety of marketing techniques has exploded,
the group says, as food marketers seek new ways of bypassing parents
and directly influencing kids' food choices. Regrettably, most of the
foods marketed directly to children are high in calories and low in
nutrition, the group says.
"Parents are fighting a losing battle against food manufacturers and
fast-food restaurants, which use aggressive and sophisticated
techniques to get into children's heads and prompt them to pester
their parents to purchase the company's products," said Margo G.
Wootan, director of nutrition policy at CSPI and the report's author.
"SpongeBob Squarepants, Winnie the Pooh, Elmo, and even sports stars
like Jason Giambi are enlisted to push low-nutrition foods on kids."
The CSPI report identifies a plethora of ways that companies target
kids in their homes, in their schools, on the web, and wherever else
kids go. Examples highlighted in the report include:
-Campbell's "Labels for Education" program encourages families to
collect labels from Campbell products that schools can redeem for
equipment. It's hardly model philanthropy, says CSPI, seeing that
kids' parents would have to buy some $2,500 worth of soup , for the
school to qualify for a $59 stapler.
Krispy Kreme "Good Grades" program offers elementary school kids one
doughnut for each "A" on their report cards. CSPI points out that some
states wisely prohibit or discourage using food as a reward for good
behavior or academic performance.
-McDonald's Barbie has the doll dressed up as a McDonald's clerk,
feeding French fries, burgers, and Sprite to kid-sister Kelly in a
restaurant playset. "Unless McDonald's is paying you for ad space in
the playroom, leave this toy at the store," Wootan said. Same goes,
she says for other junk-food ads disguised as toys, like Play Doh's
Lunchables kit, where kids are encouraged to assemble Play Doh
versions of Oscar Mayer's notoriously fatty and salty lunch box items.
-The Oreo Adventure game on Kraft Foods' Nabiscoworld.com web site is
one of many corporate "advergames". In this video game, children's
"health" is reset to "100 percent" when kids acquire golden cookie
jars on a journey to a Temple of the Golden Oreo. The Oreo Matchin'
Middles shape-matching game, produced with Fisher Price, turns
playtime into a chance for companies to cultivate brand loyalty and
sell junk food.
-Pepsi's website profile of New York Yankees baseball star Jason
Giambi, which prominently displays the quote, "I usually have several
Pepsis each day擁t really lifts me up," is one of many examples of a
junk-food marketer linking consumption of its product with fitness.
-Cap'n Crunch Smashed Berries cereal謡hich, predictably, has no
berries at all容ncourages overeating in its magazine advertisements.
Once such ad in Nickelodeon magazine reads, "Kids smashed 粗m in the
factory so you can fit more in your mouth."
"No amount of eye-rolling can capture how hypocritical it is for food
company flacks to talk about 僧oderation, balance, and exercise," said
CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "Anyone who looks at
these marketing techniques can see that they encourage excess, not
moderation. Almost exclusively, they encourage consumption an
unbalanced diet of high-cal and low-nutrient foods. And to link junk
foods like Oreos or Pepsi to physical fitness or athletic prowess has
to be one of the most cynical and unfair marketing strategies I've
ever seen."
In the 1970s and 1980s, the Federal Trade Commission considered
restrictions on junk-food advertising aimed at kids, but those efforts
were blocked by food, toy, broadcasting, and advertising industries.
CSPI says that with rates of obesity at all-time highs in children,
now is the time to set standards on what foods may be marketed to kids
on television and in schools. CSPI also recommends that governments
sponsor media campaigns that encourage healthy eating and physical
activity, and that grocers put low-nutrition foods at parents' eye
level, not kids' eye level.
CSPI encourages state and local governments to fund their own
nutrition media campaigns by earmarking or increasing taxes on soft
drinks. More than a dozen states already have such taxes, though their
revenues typically go into general funds, and are not spent promoting
good nutrition or exercise.
Today, CSPI also called on Secretary of Health and Human Services
Tommy Thompson to make the issue of marketing junk food to kids a
central focus of the administration's anti-obesity campaign.
Lictor
news:5ee850fe.04083...@posting.google.com...
> How many people do you know who can truthfully say that they "had no
> idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going
> to make you fat?
Well, eating at McDonald three times a day *isn't* going to make you fat,
unless you you overeat. You probably saw "Supersize Me!", since that's
exactly what the guy is doing. But the guy is not eating to his appetite,
he's eating to what is sold to him, to the point that *he* doesn't decide on
the SuperSize option himself. Notice how he overeats so much that he vomits
a few time. At other points, he has nausea, fills stuffed and unwell. That's
clearly a sign that his body is disagreeing with the *amount* of food he is
trying to stuff in himself. At that point, most normal human beings would
have *stopped* eating. He would have achieved the same results by eating at
restaurants in the US, taking a whole meal (starter-entree-dessert) and
eating everything on the plate.
On the other hand, the guy he interviews who has been eating Big Mac for
decades is quite slim. If you eat only the basic hamburger and the smallest
portion of French fries (well, I don't know if McDonald US has such a thing
as a small version, they do here) and a diet coke, you won't have weight
problem. I did lose weight in the past while eating stuff like this at McDo
a few times a week.
Of course, this kind of diet will make you unhealthy. But that's a separate
matter.
> Should I be able to sue the manufacturer of my hair dryer if I
> stupidly use it in the tub? I'm sure it's been tried, because there's
> a little warning label on the side of the dryer telling me not to do
> just that.
The problem is that a judge should be able to tell you that you were
incredibly stupid and refuse to waste tax money on a court action. That's
where situations like this should be handled. If I put my cat in the
microwave oven and go to court, the judge will just tell me I was an idiot,
charge me with contempt of court and fine me with a charge for cruelty to an
animal.
But making a law that states that sueing hair driers manufacturers is just
wrong. Because some units *can* be defective and harmful, and then you have
a valid reason to sue. The same applies to the food industry. This is not
the role of the legislative branch to do that, it's the role of the
judiciary branch. What is needed is a way for the judges to use plain old
common sense and shut down stupid case suits right from the start.
> Should Ford Motor Company be liable if I use their product
> to drive 100 mph and crash into a bridge?
If it can be proven that their products have a motor designed to run at 100
mph, but that the brakes or steering system was not designed and tested to
handle that kind of speed, sure, you have a right to sue. That's why this
kind of issue *must* be addressed by a judge, who can evaluate the validity
of individual claims. If you handle that at the legislative level, you're
going to prevent both stupid and legit actions. And then, you're giving
manufacturers a free hand for sloppy testing of their stuff.
> I get a little annoyed when people suggest that the public needs
> governmental protection from what they eat.
Well, that's also the role of the government. That's why farmers are not
allowed to feed chicken with waste disposal residues that raise the dioxin
content of the flesh for instance (which is exactly what happened for real
btw).
> Oat bran for
> everyone? No beef allowed? Bacon being classified as a controlled
> substance?
Well, they're doing that for drugs... Some drugs at least, for some reason
tobacco and alcohol are excluded from the ban...
That's where common sense should be used. Some food is downright toxic, and
some food should be eaten with moderation. And some food is in the eye of
the beholder, like GMO. The role of the government should be to make sure
that consummers get *all* the information they need to make their own
choices. This includes proper and visible labelling of the products,
including trans fats content, sodium amount and GMO - including when they're
part of a restaurant menu. This includes preventing ads and packaging from
making false or inaccurate claims. This also includes protecting kids from
food ads until they are old enough to have forged their own opinion.
> Where is the concept of personal responsibility in all this?
Personal responsability can only exist if you have full access to
information and if you have not been brain washed by commercials from year
0.
Wolfbrother
> I do!
>
> Wheat and most grains stop my digestion giving me malnutrition results from
> other foods. Milk with it undigestible calcium, irritates the hell out of
> 95% of the world's population's stomache linings and further reduced
> absoption, especially calcium. This is usually the reason people gulping
> milk down get osteoporosis.
>
other raw cultured/fermented dairy. Milk has nothing to do with
osteoporosis.
Lictor
> However, I think the legislation is good legislation. It would be much
> better to ban fat food from schools - no soda, chips, candy, etc., sold in
> schools. Make schools a healthier place to be.
Actually, the concept of having food vending machine in a school feels like
a completely weird concept to me. Back when I was a kid, 15 years ago, we
had no such thing in school. If you were hungry, you would just wait for
lunch, and most of the kids survived that. Or you would go to school with an
apple or yogourt in your bag and eat it. Very small kids did have a school
provided *small meal* at 10am and 4pm. If you really had to have something,
at the 4pm meal for instance, you would just take 5 minutes off school and
buy (ok, not buy, we had shoplifting contests back then :p) a croissant or
pain au chocolat from the nearby bakery. That would not even be a problem in
the USA, since I think your kids are not supposed to study until 6-7pm. The
point is, we had no food in school outside of the lunch, and noone ever died
from that diet. Food was available outside of school, but we had to make a
conscious move to go out and buy it, rather than grab something from the
machine each time we passed in front of it. The first time I saw such a
machine in a school context was at University level.
We almost passed a law to ban these machines from the school, but the food
corporation managed to make the politicians back off. I guess profit remains
more important than anything else...
Lictor
(snip)
> I think that's a nice strategy with the lion: Either he can
> self-regulate or he's tamed by regulation brought down on him. That's
> sure to please libertarians and socialists alike...
Thanks for the article. Sweden, and the Scandinavian countries, always make
for interresting experiments. Though, they are pretty hard to translate to
the rest of the world, because these countries, as the few true welfare
states in the world, are very specific. But I think similar laws on ads
should be passed. If you don't put limit to what is open to advertisements
or not, they will just permeate everything. I'm glad to live in one of the
countries where you can still watch a movie or series on TV without
advertisement cutting it in the middle.
The only part I disagree on is the ban on violent toys. This is a trend we
see worldwide about video games too. I think people underestimate children,
there are areas where they are far superior to adults. Symbolic violence and
catharsis are among these. Children have a rich fantasy world, and they
fully perceive the difference between it and reality. But they have the
ability to go back and forth between the real and fantasy world. They are
able to discharge violent real world emotions into their fantasy world. The
only danger from violent toys come from kids who have been psychologically
(and often physically) harmed in such a way that they have lost that ability
to distinguish between and operate in these worlds. Banning violent toys is
not going to help these kids, they need deep psychological help. The large
majority of normal kids have no problem with violent toys, playing with them
is actually part of how they grow up and learn to manage their inner
violence. That's typically one of the area where we try to impose adult
moral values on kids, when kids do not even operate on these values.
Lictor
news:7cf6256f.04083...@posting.google.com...
> I do not want the government
> deciding what I am having for dinner... Want that? Move to France...
Well, you should check your own country before blaming the other
countries... For your information, my government never issued any pyramid or
anything telling the people how they should it, nor tried to enforce it on
schools. There are only guidelines that dietitians must monitor the school
menues, but what nutritionnal scheme they chose to apply is up to the
dietitian. Likewise, in lieu of a food pyramid, there are advices that olive
oil might be good for your health, but that's all, I can still buy 100% pure
cooking lard or duck fat in *any* French supermarket. If you want dietetic
advices, you turn to a doctor, not the government or the food and drug
administration here...
My government doesn't tell me how much I should heat my meat. It doesn't
tell the restaurants that either. They can serve their meat raw if they so
wishes, and many actually do. They also serve eggs raw along with the raw
steak. The hygiene services will check that the food has no trace of
bacterias, but that's the extent of it, as long as food safety is achieved,
they can do it however they please. We are just made aware of the risk of
salmonellosis, and most people don't mind risking it. Few people suffer from
it anyway, more people die from choking on their food than from salmonella
anyway.
My government doesn't prevent me from buying raw milk or cheese made with
raw milk. It doesn't block imports from these or ban farmers from
manufacturing them. Even the most modest supermarket will carry these. The
government issues warnings that pregnant women and people with AIDS *should*
avoid them, but people are free to heed these warnings or not. There again,
accidents are virtually unknown. Maybe we're getting a better immune system
from not eating sterilized food all the time...
The only few bans we had on food where for real health reasons. Like on cow
brains and spine and some glands.
MikeL
(DonQuijote1954) wrote:
>
>It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes,
>whose manufacturers are very much liable for it. And then there's the
>other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an
>adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's
>bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda.
>
Well maybe we should ban televisions since many parents use them as
babysitter. You certainly can reduce your child's exposure to this
propaganda by creating a life other than watching TV 10 hours a day.
When I was a kid I only remember watching TV after dinner or when it
was dark outside. The extra exercise certainly does not hurt either.
Another thing although old fashioned but certainly helps achieve a
positive result. Actually force kids to eat at the dinner table and
make sure they can not eat in front of the TV. Introducing the two
only leads to trouble IMO. It is easy to not notice that you have
just devoured a whole bag of chips one by one while watching TV. Take
the TV away and one will realize how much they are eating.
I just drives people like me crazy when reckless irresponsible people
try to profit from making poor decisions. Poor decisions like feeding
your kid fast food twice a day while sticking them in front of the TV
for the rest of the day. We are to reward this foolish behavior?
The fact is too much of anything can be a bad thing. It is not the
propganda that is getting these kids fat but the lousy parents who buy
the food.
Jeff
The AMA, IMHO, is not very good for patients. They seem more concerned with
doctor's needs that patients' needs.
Jeff
Jeff
"DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e4a3f58.04083...@posting.google.com...
> parents look bad... :(
Yeap, it is called advertising.
The food industry is not the only industry who does this. The car,
electronic, cable tv, telephone, soft drink, etc., industries do this.
Where do you draw the line between advertising that is permissible and not
permissible?
Jeff
DonQuijote1954
> whose manufacturers are very much liable for it. And then there's the
> other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an
> adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's
> bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda.
>
> television in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. Should others
> be protected as well?
>
>
> Interesting question- I do wonder though when the responsibility lies
> on the parents. At the end they are the ones paying for what their
> kids consume, and also are the ones setting the example for thier
> children. IMO it's hard to point the blame at these companies when it
> is the parents who should be teaching their children about the
> importance of nutrition and exercise.
The sheep are lead by shepherd, so whatever goes wrong with the herd
is to blame on who?
DonQuijote1954
It's not the government, but the corporations behind it who decide
that. Why you think they invest so much money in government?
DonQuijote1954
Only in America, we can say. We should get rid of all laws to declare
the Law of the Jungle the law of the land. At least everybody would
know what's all about, and there will be less hypocrisy and less waste
in things like the government. Let the corporations rule directly, and
let the people know to fend for themselves.
DonQuijote1954
Exactly, particularly in light of the latest cuts promoted by the
conservatives. Then the schools turn to junk food corporations for
more revenues and set up vending machines, etc and voila, our children
are f***...
bencon
many ways... My point is that I do NOT want the governemnt telling me
what I can and cannot eat. That is too "Big-Brother" for me... I was
only referring to your recent bill passed to eliminate snack machines
in schools... I feel educational classes would have worked much
better, as kids will continue to overindulge in junk once off campus
if they are not taught the importance of moderation.
Again, I love your country,and visit often. I am a fan.
Lictor
news:ch28qn$533$0...@pita.alt.net...
> In article <7cf6256f.04083...@posting.google.com>, bencon
wrote:
> > Now Lictor, I was just kidding with you, I respect your country in
> > many ways... My point is that I do NOT want the governemnt telling me
> > what I can and cannot eat. That is too "Big-Brother" for me... I was
> > only referring to your recent bill passed to eliminate snack machines
> > in schools...
Damn, news server is behaving again, and I'm getting half the posts...
I think the problem is a bit different in France, because these machines are
a pretty recent things. They didn't exist 15 years ago, and I'm pretty sure
they have been slowly introduced in the past 5 years or so. So, the law
would have only reverse 5 years of past history.
Besides, this also falls under the bundle of laicity laws and principles.
You know the one about religious symbols in school. In fact, the religious
symbols part is only a subset of them, albeit the most mediatic one. These
laws also apply to politics and trademarks. Students are mostly left alone
on that matter, they can attend school in Nikes and Che Guevara shirts
(though managing to wear both is rather politically inconsistent). But
school administration and teachers are fully subjected to them. You can't
have a class sponsored by Nike. That's also why the educational channel ("La
5") is totally ad free, otherwise is would not be legal to use it as a
support to classes. Having "coca-cola" and "M&Ms" machines in schools is
extremelly borderline when you consider these principles. Banning these
machines from school would have been totally in spirit with the principles
of the public school system.
> I feel educational classes would have worked much
Well, banning the machine certainly would not have prevented us from doing
that kind of class. ;) We already get some of them, but there are talks
about doing more. Some talk about restarting the old fashion "hygiene" class
es, though I don't like the word (hygienism brings back memories)...
The problem with machine is that people tend to automatically grab food for
them, without even considering if they're hungry. Having to make the
conscious move to leave the school and interract with a real human being to
buy the food gives you some time to consider if you're really hungry or not.
> > better, as kids will continue to overindulge in junk once off campus
> > if they are not taught the importance of moderation.
The problem is that educational classes can do as much harm as good. Eating
disorders are at least as major a problem as obesity among teenagers.
Moreover, knowing what is good for you and doing it are two opposite things.
Besides, teenagers are well known for being in opposition mode half the time
(doing sth especially because they are not supposed to do it). There is also
a problem with teaching something as the Truth, when dietetians are clueless
about so many things.
> > Again, I love your country,and visit often. I am a fan.
You're welcome :)
> When they are in school, they are actually confined
> there and cannot leave easily.
That's the theory. ;) In practice, 15 years ago, junior high school
attempted to confine you, high school didn't bother. I have no doubt that
nowadays, confinement in junior high schools is purely symbolic.
> So, one way or another, the government already decides what foods are
> available in these schools to children, and restricts choices, in
> effect.
School management actually. The government doesn't micro-manage that kind of
things ;) But it's true that the school are enclosed. Campus as they exist
in the USA are unknown here until you hit university level, and then it's
only a few universities. Most schools are just a regular building in the
city, with a door to enter it and the inside being private.
> So, it would not be inappropriate to insist that these decisions and
> choices, that are being made anyway, should be made with the health of
> children in mind, rather than with just how much money can school get
> in kickback from junk food peddlers.
Yes, exactly.
There was a proposal to allow the vending machines, but monitor the content
and replace "junk food" with "health food" like apples or milk (and here, we
already see a problem with having an official definition of junk and health
food). Another was at least to enforce mixity of foods, with both health and
junk food. But all these laws where cancelled and the industry got its way:
it's only junk food now.
severesocialanxiety
> nolionn...@hotmail.com (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message news:<4e4a3f58.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the
> > > > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of
> > > > the public?
> > >
> > > They are. They require that food ingredients and nutrition content be given
> > > to costumers who as for it. And the chains usually post this on their
> > > websites.
> >
> > That's like old Greek to the poor who don't know things like
> > "hydrogenated oil"...
>
> How many people do you know who can truthfully say that they "had no
> idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going
> to make you fat?
>
> Should I be able to sue the manufacturer of my hair dryer if I
> stupidly use it in the tub? I'm sure it's been tried, because there's
> a little warning label on the side of the dryer telling me not to do
> just that. Should Ford Motor Company be liable if I use their product
> to drive 100 mph and crash into a bridge?
>
> I get a little annoyed when people suggest that the public needs
> governmental protection from what they eat. What would it logically
> come to, if followed to its most ludicrous conclusion? Oat bran for
> everyone? No beef allowed? Bacon being classified as a controlled
> substance?
>
> Where is the concept of personal responsibility in all this?
>
> Mark, MD
My doctor has never mentioned that i should eat fruit and vegetables
or get exercise. My dentist has never said avoid simple sugars. When
you see everyone
eating at McDonalds from a young age and all the advertising it just
seems normal to eat there. Every once in awhile you might hear about
some vegetarian nut who got sick or something from lack of protein.
the message that junk food is delicious and a source of happiness
envelopes us. I certainly am going to sue my medical doctor for not at
least giving me a few warnings about junk food. Christ, i have kidney
stones now from this crap. Children are given candy as a reward. the
stores are packed with candy.
Wolfbrother
For the same reason they invest so much money in advertising and in
medical research. They expect big returns on those "investments"
because that is exactly what they are. They would not be doing it
otherwise. Only morons do not understand this. Unfortunately that is
a good majority of the public.
Piezzo Guru
it is still not a necessary product and contains very little usable
nutrition for the human.
"Wolfbrother" <ranger...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.04083...@posting.google.com...
Piezzo Guru
"Lictor" <ghostmlNOS...@online.fr> wrote in message
news:413429fb$0$19863$79c1...@nan-newsreader-04.noos.net...
Piezzo Guru
publicly about brainwashing 90% of our children with their propaganda. He
replied "We only have 10% to go then"
"DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e4a3f58.04083...@posting.google.com...
> Pepsis each day-it really lifts me up," is one of many examples of a
> junk-food marketer linking consumption of its product with fitness.
>
> -Cap'n Crunch Smashed Berries cereal-which, predictably, has no
> berries at all-encourages overeating in its magazine advertisements.
> Once such ad in Nickelodeon magazine reads, "Kids smashed 'em in the
> factory so you can fit more in your mouth."
>
> "No amount of eye-rolling can capture how hypocritical it is for food
> company flacks to talk about 'moderation, balance, and exercise," said
DonQuijote1954
> "DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4e4a3f58.04083...@posting.google.com...
> (snip)
> > I think that's a nice strategy with the lion: Either he can
> > self-regulate or he's tamed by regulation brought down on him. That's
> > sure to please libertarians and socialists alike...
>
> Thanks for the article. Sweden, and the Scandinavian countries, always make
> for interresting experiments. Though, they are pretty hard to translate to
> the rest of the world, because these countries, as the few true welfare
> states in the world, are very specific. But I think similar laws on ads
> should be passed. If you don't put limit to what is open to advertisements
> or not, they will just permeate everything. I'm glad to live in one of the
> countries where you can still watch a movie or series on TV without
> advertisement cutting it in the middle.
> The only part I disagree on is the ban on violent toys. This is a trend we
> see worldwide about video games too. I think people underestimate children,
Only one correction: There's NO ban on violent toys. The corporations
regulate themselves, and that's sure to please libertarians and offer
a good alternative to America--if the lion weren't so hungry.
You make a point about children being able to play with war toys
without being affected. I only know that in other cases like violence
on television it does have an impact.
Nice that you don't have to *endure* strident commercials. Here in
America up to 22min per hour, and they are gross... :(
DonQuijote1954
> "bencon" <conwa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7cf6256f.04083...@posting.google.com...
> > I do not want the government
> > deciding what I am having for dinner... Want that? Move to France...
>
> Well, you should check your own country before blaming the other
> countries... For your information, my government never issued any pyramid or
> anything telling the people how they should it, nor tried to enforce it on
> schools. There are only guidelines that dietitians must monitor the school
> menues, but what nutritionnal scheme they chose to apply is up to the
> dietitian. Likewise, in lieu of a food pyramid, there are advices that olive
> oil might be good for your health, but that's all, I can still buy 100% pure
> cooking lard or duck fat in *any* French supermarket. If you want dietetic
> advices, you turn to a doctor, not the government or the food and drug
> administration here...
They think you are socialist just because America is communist...
But going back to the subject, you get all the barrage of
preservatives, conservants, artificial colorants and hydrogenated oil
(trans fatty acids) there? You get complete ingredient label? The
former is very bad in America but the latter is very good.
DonQuijote1954
> > What would be position of the AMA on this? Perhaps they encourage
> > personal responsibility in order to have more patients?
>
> The AMA, IMHO, is not very good for patients. They seem more concerned with
> doctor's needs that patients' needs.
> Jeff
I wonder if they ever speak *strongly* about junk food.
I think it may become necessary to tax junk food and "subsidize" the
AMA so they go along with it... ;)
DonQuijote1954
Well, kids should be off limits, for one. And advertising should be
curtailed dramatically on TV, which should be financed by viewer fees
like in the UK.
DonQuijote1954
> Yes, exactly.
> There was a proposal to allow the vending machines, but monitor the content
> and replace "junk food" with "health food" like apples or milk (and here, we
> already see a problem with having an official definition of junk and health
> food). Another was at least to enforce mixity of foods, with both health and
> junk food. But all these laws where cancelled and the industry got its way:
> it's only junk food now.
Where I see the government playing a greater role is in taxing junk
food to subsidize healthy food. And I don't mean "tofu" by that. For
example, you find many "natural colas"--without the caffeine or
anything artificial--that are excellent alternatives to Coca-Cola and
they are very good tasting. The ingredients in the ice cream sold to
kids nowadays sounds like a bomb, but soya ice creams got nothing
artificial and taste great, plus it has none of the cholesterol. So
the government can certainly influence to give kids better options.
Once a natural cola and Coke cost the same, perhaps we can talk about
"democracy."
Try China Cola... ;)
The Voice of Reason
<snip>
Are you actually doing to debate this properly or just write a load of
flippant one-line replies?
Mark
> > > "hydrogenated oil"...
> >
> > idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going
> > to make you fat?
>
> and toys, and colorful packaging, what do you expect your child to do,
> ask you for home made soup?
No, I expect YOU to have the brains God gave a newt, and say, "No,
sweetie, Happy Meals are full of shit they wouldn't feed their own
dogs. Here's something Mommy made with her own hands." Instead of
saying, "Gosh, I have book club, and that outing with the Johnson's to
go to, and my exercise time at the club...here, here's your Happy
Meal...please be quiet and give Mommy's sedative time to take hold."
If YOU feed your kids Happy Meals, it is YOUR responsibility to own up
to being the reason you've been feeding unhealthy crap to your kids.
YOU are in charge of what they eat. If YOU let YOUR kids browbeat you
into feeding them crap, maybe YOU shouldn't have bred in the first
place.
Stop blaming somebody else for the stuff that YOU ultimately have the
control over.
Mark, MD
The Voice of Reason
>
> > idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going
> > to make you fat?
>
> They get into your house and tell your child that they have a clown,
> and toys, and colorful packaging, what do you expect your child to do,
> ask you for home made soup?
The only way they 'get into your house' is if you have them watching
TV. The corporations don't force you to make your kids watch TV. Also,
they don't force you to supply your kids with the food advertised.
You're the one who cooks and gives them the food, the buck stops at
you.
The Voice of Reason
> A local spokesman for the McDonald's restaurant chain was questioned
> publicly about brainwashing 90% of our children with their propaganda. He
> replied "We only have 10% to go then"
Well, at least he has a sense of humour.
The Voice of Reason
> Cultured dairy and more natural dairy products help the problem somewhat but
> it is still not a necessary product and contains very little usable
> nutrition for the human.
Yeah, little usable nutrition, except for the calcium, and the
protein, and sugar. I mean, who needs any of that?
Lictor
news:87bbd508.04083...@posting.google.com...
> The only way they 'get into your house' is if you have them watching
> TV. The corporations don't force you to make your kids watch TV. Also,
> they don't force you to supply your kids with the food advertised.
> You're the one who cooks and gives them the food, the buck stops at
> you.
This only works if you keep your kids locked in your home. But then, the
social services will come and take them away from you.
In the real world, kids go to school, they have friends and they eat with
them, they eat at school, they go visit their friends and their parents give
them food to eat, they have pocket money...
Unless you don't work, your kids are going to be at home more than you are.
Unless you have no TV at all, they will figure out how to operate it on
their own. Anyway, they will watch TV outside of your home too. Some schools
even have them watch TV (and ads) as part of the lessons...
Lictor
news:4e4a3f58.04083...@posting.google.com...
> preservatives, conservants, artificial colorants and hydrogenated oil
> (trans fatty acids) there?
Of course, this is a global world... The only difference is that we can no
GMO, yet.
But people on average eat less of these. I saw figures showing that the
average trans fat consumption for an American is around 20g. It's around 2g
in France, including what we get from butter (whose trans fats seem way less
harmfull). That's an average, so individual figures can vary a lot.
There are also several people who are sensibilizing the opinion about junk
food, like Coffe or Beauvais, and they tend heard more and more into the
mainstream.
> You get complete ingredient label?
We do, though it's different from the USA and less informative. We get
pretty raw information, we don't have stuff like %daily needs or maximum
daily intake. The government figured that these informations varied from
people to people and let you do the math for yourself. Vitamins and the like
are often not listen, because listing them is banned on junk food (to avoid
junk food+added vitamins mimicking healthy food). Sodium content is often
not listed, but this is improving. Some foods do not list these data when
content is obvious (i.e., olive oil).
The ingredient list itself is compulsory and legally enforced, same with GMO
content (since they are legal now it seems - never saw any at the
supermarket though).
Of course, we only get these on packaged food. I only have this kind of
information on maybe 1/3 of the food I buy. The rest is plain meat or
vegetables I buy from the grocer, no information on them, because of no
package...
DonQuijote1954
> > Should I be able to sue the manufacturer of my hair dryer if I
> > stupidly use it in the tub? I'm sure it's been tried, because there's
> > a little warning label on the side of the dryer telling me not to do
> > just that. Should Ford Motor Company be liable if I use their product
> > to drive 100 mph and crash into a bridge?
> >
> > I get a little annoyed when people suggest that the public needs
> > governmental protection from what they eat. What would it logically
> > come to, if followed to its most ludicrous conclusion? Oat bran for
> > everyone? No beef allowed? Bacon being classified as a controlled
> > substance?
> >
> > Where is the concept of personal responsibility in all this?
> >
> > Mark, MD
>
>
> My doctor has never mentioned that i should eat fruit and vegetables
> or get exercise. My dentist has never said avoid simple sugars. When
> you see everyone
> eating at McDonalds from a young age and all the advertising it just
> seems normal to eat there. Every once in awhile you might hear about
> some vegetarian nut who got sick or something from lack of protein.
> the message that junk food is delicious and a source of happiness
> envelopes us. I certainly am going to sue my medical doctor for not at
> least giving me a few warnings about junk food. Christ, i have kidney
> stones now from this crap. Children are given candy as a reward. the
> stores are packed with candy.
I see, so you never saw the connection b/ the junk food INDUSTRY and
the healthcare INDUSTRY? The word INDUSTRY should have tipped you off.
I'm glad you now see the solution lies in the lawsuit INDUSTRY... ;)
DonQuijote1954
You just need one line to destroy an stupid argument.
I've heard sound bytes get you a long way in politics nowadays. The
junk food industry is the EVIL EMPIRE... ;)
DonQuijote1954
> > and toys, and colorful packaging, what do you expect your child to do,
> > ask you for home made soup?
>
> No, I expect YOU to have the brains God gave a newt, and say, "No,
> sweetie, Happy Meals are full of shit they wouldn't feed their own
> dogs. Here's something Mommy made with her own hands." Instead of
> saying, "Gosh, I have book club, and that outing with the Johnson's to
> go to, and my exercise time at the club...here, here's your Happy
> Meal...please be quiet and give Mommy's sedative time to take hold."
>
> If YOU feed your kids Happy Meals, it is YOUR responsibility to own up
> to being the reason you've been feeding unhealthy crap to your kids.
> YOU are in charge of what they eat. If YOU let YOUR kids browbeat you
> into feeding them crap, maybe YOU shouldn't have bred in the first
> place.
>
> Stop blaming somebody else for the stuff that YOU ultimately have the
> control over.
>
> Mark, MD
I think it would be even better to tell the kids that there's a hungry
hairy lion out there who uses a lot camouflage to prey on them by
enticing them into "happy" things (here you introduce "happy meals").
And then you add, "Now I got go to work for the lion, but I warn you
that television is used by the lion to turn little furry animals--like
us--into 'happy sheep'"...
THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE
Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One
day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always taking the LION'S SHARE, and
seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all the species of
the jungle, demanded JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching,
said, "You would have to have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the
Monkey, who was very clever, devised a plan: He would go to the
costume store, and look like a lion...
When the Lion saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match for
him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the
indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how
the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time...
DonQuijote1954
And I thought you were the "voice of reason," what a disappointment.
What you want me to do, turn us into hippies, and have us head for
Oregon? I mean how can we resist society, if society itself is
brainwashed? They see nothing wrong with it...
HOW THE BLACK SHEEP WERE EXPELLED
One day the Lion, who had been thinking how to best eat the sheep,
decided to dress as a sheep... This way the sheep trusted the new
"sheep" more and more every day, some confessing to him, others voting
for him, and most allowing to be trimmed by him...
Meanwhile, the Black Sheep--who was able to see through
camouflage--thought this way: "If he got big paws and teeth, roars,
and takes the lion's share, lion he is..."
And that's the reason why from then on the Black Sheep weren't allowed
to mingle anymore with the simple and common sheep...
Mark
This reminds me of parents who bring their 7 year old children to me
and say, "All he'll eat is potato chips and candy bars!"
To which I reply: "Well, who buy him this stuff? I *guarantee* you
that if you quit buying the crap and bringing the crap home, he won't
eat the crap. He might complain and gripe for a few days, but if you
exercise your parental responsibilities, your child will end up eating
a more healthy diet."
Too bad it actually takes work to do the right thing.
Mark, MD
Piezzo Guru
dairy consumers have a calcium deficiency.
"The Voice of Reason" <i_hat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:87bbd508.04083...@posting.google.com...
Piezzo Guru
isn't good for them.
"The Voice of Reason" <i_hat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:87bbd508.04083...@posting.google.com...
alfee
> The fact is too much of anything can be a bad thing. It is not the
> propganda that is getting these kids fat but the lousy parents who buy
> the food.
Agreed. The recent increase in obesity among americans isn't to be
blamed on fast food companies -- its to blamed on large scale society
and cultural changes. Americans don't live the same way today as they
did 30 or even 20 years ago. Our culture has allowed us to become
VERY lazy (leaving our kids in front of the TV, driving 2 blocks down
the street, etc). There's much more to blame here than meets the eye.
Mark
> Again just go ahead and ignore the fact that so many parents are
> irresponsible and unfit. Does that mean that their children must
> suffer? OF COURSE the responsibility lies with the parents!!! BUT
> THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT SO! That does not change the fact that some
> parents are simply not responsible. So you are saying oh well those
> kids are fucked, too bad?? That is exactly what you and others are
> saying. Not to mention the children that have no parents in the first
> place. Many unfit parents simply cave into their childrens nagging
> because they dont give a fuck they just want to shut their kids up.
<snip>
I've long been an advocate of an aptitude test before one is allowed
to breed. Call it totalitarian if you want, but how the hell else are
you going to keep morons from breeding more morons?
Regulating fast food TV commercials isn't the answer because after you
do that, what's next? TV shows with too much violence (which the
moron parents let their too-young kids watch)? Magazine articles with
"unsuitable" content? Badmouthing of one's children? Alcohol
consumption in any amount if you happen to be a parent? Unwed
parenthood?
Idiots will always find a way to behave like idiots, often in front of
their children. The only way you can change that is to have the
government take total control of every aspect of child-rearing...i.e.
put them all in orphanages.
OR...you can expect grownups to take a little responsibility for their
actions, and NOT give them some kind of whiney "out" by letting them
sue every Tom, Dick and Harry for poor outcomes that they, the
parents, ought to have been responsible for in the first place.
Mark, MD
harpoo
and it doubles as the main contributor to this child obesity problem.
If kids would get out and play ball or hide and seek or whatever,
anything outside, they wouldn't gain weight. We used to drink soft
drinks, eat burgers, and play outside for hours everyday. We were
always thin. Now, the only thing that has changed is that kids are
watching garbage TV and playing games on the computer.... Now why is
that Junk Food Corp's fault? It isn't!!!!
Helena
> > "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cgtk92$d...@library1.airnews.net>...> > > news:4e4a3f58.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > > > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the
> > > > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of
> > > > the public?
> > >
> > > They are. They require that food ingredients and nutrition content be given
> > > to costumers who as for it. And the chains usually post this on their
> > > websites.
> >
> > That's like old Greek to the poor who don't know things like
>
> How many people do you know who can truthfully say that they "had no
> idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going
> to make you fat?
>
> stupidly use it in the tub? I'm sure it's been tried, because there's
> a little warning label on the side of the dryer telling me not to do
> just that. Should Ford Motor Company be liable if I use their product
> to drive 100 mph and crash into a bridge?
>
> I get a little annoyed when people suggest that the public needs
> governmental protection from what they eat. What would it logically
> come to, if followed to its most ludicrous conclusion? Oat bran for
> everyone? No beef allowed? Bacon being classified as a controlled
> substance?
>
> Where is the concept of personal responsibility in all this?
>
> Mark, MD
I agree with you Mark-people need to be accountable for their own
actions and for that matter what they consume, instead of putting the
blame on other folks.
DonQuijote1954
> ranger...@yahoo.com (Wolfbrother) wrote
>
>
> > Again just go ahead and ignore the fact that so many parents are
> > irresponsible and unfit. Does that mean that their children must
> > suffer? OF COURSE the responsibility lies with the parents!!! BUT
> > THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT SO! That does not change the fact that some
> > parents are simply not responsible. So you are saying oh well those
> > kids are fucked, too bad?? That is exactly what you and others are
> > saying. Not to mention the children that have no parents in the first
> > place. Many unfit parents simply cave into their childrens nagging
> > because they dont give a fuck they just want to shut their kids up.
>
> <snip>
>
> I've long been an advocate of an aptitude test before one is allowed
> to breed. Call it totalitarian if you want, but how the hell else are
> you going to keep morons from breeding more morons?
>
OK, Dr. Mengele, what else you propose? Maybe using the poor as
Guinnea pigs? You sure are an animal lover...maybe a German Shepherd?
;)
> Regulating fast food TV commercials isn't the answer because after you
> do that, what's next? TV shows with too much violence (which the
> moron parents let their too-young kids watch)? Magazine articles with
> "unsuitable" content? Badmouthing of one's children? Alcohol
> consumption in any amount if you happen to be a parent? Unwed
> parenthood?
We should allow again cigarettes in the hands of children. Oh, alcohol
too. "Play hard, live short" could be the slogan...
>
> Idiots will always find a way to behave like idiots, often in front of
> their children. The only way you can change that is to have the
> government take total control of every aspect of child-rearing...i.e.
> put them all in orphanages.
And have them work 12 hour shifts so they learn the value of hard
labor.
>
> OR...you can expect grownups to take a little responsibility for their
> actions, and NOT give them some kind of whiney "out" by letting them
> sue every Tom, Dick and Harry for poor outcomes that they, the
> parents, ought to have been responsible for in the first place.
>
> Mark, MD
The parents don't take responsibility for their actions, but does the
government? Last time I heard they were blaming everybody but
themselves in having f***ed up in Iraq, not to name on every major
social issue right here in Amerikkka... ;)
DonQuijote1954
> > getting about like walking or bicycling. "In fact, we've made it
> > *dangerous and unattractive* to do so," says Willett, recalling a
> > symposium on urban environments that the School of Public Health held
> > with the Graduate School of Design: "For the architects, designing
> > spaces to encourage physical activity wasn't even on the table."'
> > http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/050465.html
>
>
> Here we go again, blaming automobiles for every evil in the world.
> Cities are designed to make efficient use of resources - in other words,
> to allow the maximum number of people, while squeezed into the smallest
> amount of space, to get to where they need to go in the shortest amount
> of distance possible using the most effective means technology makes
> available (which these days is by car, train, or bus). Bike lanes,
> extra-wide sidewalks and buildings that give you extra room to run
> around would eat up too much space and reduce the number of people and
> businesses that a city can support, and would impact productivity in a
> negative way. The solution for sedentary lifestyles caused by this?
> Either move to the country or get an exercise machine.
>
No wonder we are in bad shape, and no wonder we went into war to get
more oil, and no wonder we are polluting everything just to please us
big fat Americans. Not a chance to introduce bike lanes or even safe
sidewalks, only SUVs cut it. And if you don't like it move elsewhere.
The problem, my friend, that's a recipe for trouble: and you may be
cooking in your own juice.
Mark
> mlo...@bellsouth.net (Mark) wrote in message news:<5ee850fe.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> > ranger...@yahoo.com (Wolfbrother) wrote
> >
> >
> > > Again just go ahead and ignore the fact that so many parents are
> > > irresponsible and unfit. Does that mean that their children must
> > > suffer? OF COURSE the responsibility lies with the parents!!! BUT
> > > THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT SO! That does not change the fact that some
> > > parents are simply not responsible. So you are saying oh well those
> > > kids are fucked, too bad?? That is exactly what you and others are
> > > saying. Not to mention the children that have no parents in the first
> > > place. Many unfit parents simply cave into their childrens nagging
> > > because they dont give a fuck they just want to shut their kids up.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I've long been an advocate of an aptitude test before one is allowed
> > to breed. Call it totalitarian if you want, but how the hell else are
> > you going to keep morons from breeding more morons?
> >
>
> OK, Dr. Mengele, what else you propose? Maybe using the poor as
> Guinnea pigs? You sure are an animal lover...maybe a German Shepherd?
> ;)
>
It was a joke. But doesn't it seem a little perverse that you have to
get a license to have a dog, but anyone is allowed to have kids? I've
seen cycles of inept people breeding more of themselves all my life.
Some call it the cycle of poverty or some such, but I think it is
simply inept people, who never saw anything different out of their
parents, instilling the same values (or lack thereof) in their own
children.
Eastern Kentucky is full of the descendants of the first
westward-bound settlers who got 100 miles into the trip and said,
"Y'all this is too hard. Let's just stop here." That's an
over-generalization, I know, but if you had spent time there you would
know what I'm talking about.
> > Regulating fast food TV commercials isn't the answer because after you
> > do that, what's next? TV shows with too much violence (which the
> > moron parents let their too-young kids watch)? Magazine articles with
> > "unsuitable" content? Badmouthing of one's children? Alcohol
> > consumption in any amount if you happen to be a parent? Unwed
> > parenthood?
>
> We should allow again cigarettes in the hands of children. Oh, alcohol
> too. "Play hard, live short" could be the slogan...
> >
> > Idiots will always find a way to behave like idiots, often in front of
> > their children. The only way you can change that is to have the
> > government take total control of every aspect of child-rearing...i.e.
> > put them all in orphanages.
>
> And have them work 12 hour shifts so they learn the value of hard
> labor.
Have you ever seen little Amish kids working in the fields? Do you
think they are being abused by, or do they benefit from, hard work?
Work is not a bad thing, you know.
> >
> > OR...you can expect grownups to take a little responsibility for their
> > actions, and NOT give them some kind of whiney "out" by letting them
> > sue every Tom, Dick and Harry for poor outcomes that they, the
> > parents, ought to have been responsible for in the first place.
> >
> > Mark, MD
>
> The parents don't take responsibility for their actions, but does the
> government? Last time I heard they were blaming everybody but
> themselves in having f***ed up in Iraq, not to name on every major
> social issue right here in Amerikkka... ;)
Just my humble opinion, but I don't believe that anyone deserving of
national office would ever actually run for it. But don't get me
started...
Mark, MD
Lictor
news:3rd8j0lened2a1l0o...@4ax.com...
> Well maybe we should ban televisions since many parents use them as
> babysitter. You certainly can reduce your child's exposure to this
> propaganda by creating a life other than watching TV 10 hours a day.
Well, the problem is that things are not always that easy.
For instance, I always had the TV in my bedroom as a kid. So, I could pick
whatever I wanted to watch, and whenever I wanted to. If I wanted to watch
to watch rated movies, I could. Not because my parents where careless, but
because they thought I was mature enough to enjoy the freedom. So, I saw
plenty of movies on TV, including some I was not supposed to see as a kid,
like Clockwork Orange. But this never prevented me from moving around. I was
an avid biker as a kid, as that was how I would go to school daily. I was
also a good walker, taking a 40km walk with my dad was always a pleasant
thing to do. As an adult, I watch TV from time to time, but I can do without
it. Mostly, I will watch when there is something really good on it, mostly
serials (Sopranos, Six Feet Under). I don't bother with movies, I just go to
the cinema or rent them. I watch it for around 1 hour a day.
On the other hand, my girlfriend was educated like you. She was only allowed
to watch a part of the evening movie with her parents, and then, off to bed.
As an adult, she doesn't watch TV a lot more than I do, but when she does,
she is completely hypnotized. Like being in trance; you can talk to her and
she won't even notice. Or she will stop in the middle of a sentence, and
never finish it.
So, sometimes, direct solutions lead to weird results. Having unlimited and
self-regulated access to TV meant for me that it was just another tool to
access information. It lost any kind of magical value it could have had to
me. On the other hand, it has remained a magical and fascinating item to my
girlfriend.
Helena
and to add to that-where are the parents in all of this? Are they
setting the right examples (most likely not). I think it's so
important that the parents are getting more involved in their child's
life and teaching them more about exercise and also portion control.
Much of it is their responsibilty as well, IMO.
Helena
and to add to that-where are the parents in all of this? Are they
bencon
would we decide what was okay to tax and what was not. For instance,
I enjoy a very fitness-oriented lifestyle. I eat a very healthy diet,
I exercise frequently, but I like to have a York Peppermint Patty
every once in a while. Why should I have to pay more for it? It
makes no sense. That means my government is telling me I shouldn't
eat it, and that is straight - up false. That is way too 1984-ish for
me. Big Brother is watching. I do not want a Nanny State b/c some
people cannot handle their appetities..
MikeL
Well I had a TV in my room as well although no cable and I think I
lost the TV around age 9. However my parents did not really monitor
or set restrictions on what I watched or how much I watched.
Basically because they did not need to because other than Saturday
morning cartoons and a few primetime shows I did not watch TV.
I was riding my bicycle around the neighborhood sometimes 5 miles to
an arcade or just playing in backyards. I truly feel sorry for kids
today that live in these cookie cutter houses that were built on a
corn field. They are these tiny self contained subdivisions where the
only way out is onto a 4 lane highway. There is nowhere to walk to or
ride a bike too. These neighborhoods are also just plain with no
trees or hideouts etc where a kid can explore. I loved climbing trees
up 30 feet in my backyard. It was good exercise as well.
I choose to live in an older more established neighborhood where you
can walk downtown or go for a run or walk. Watching a ton of TV is
simply a symptom of having nothing to do. But if you live in one of
these subdivisions what is their to do? Just a square backyard with
nothing but highly manicured grass. Even in some older established
neighborhoods older houses are being torn down and million dollar 5000
sq ft monstrosities are being built. Tearing down all the trees and
removing most of the lawn as well.
Unfortunately we have a generation of parents that are just plain self
indulgent and selfish. They move out to the fringes in these
subdivision houses because you get a big plain box for a house but you
get more square footage. People tear down smaller houses that are
unique and have character but smaller to put up big plain boxes
completely without character. There is no serious though given to
urban planning or its consequences..
DonQuijote1954
I wouldn't blame it on television but on *bad* television and
commercials. The crap on commercial TV and commercials really
perpetuate the intellectual poverty that Dr. Mengele blames on
"genes." The poor got little chance to survive the commercial barrage
as a smart human being.
That's why I propose that we should have a commercial free television,
independent of both the State and Big Business, not much different
from the BBC (before it was censored)...
"TV and radio should be independent of Big Business and the State.
(This is due to two reasons: culturally, because the ratings make bad
programs become "good"... for business; and, politically, because
whoever has power over the media... will be in power; however, people
should be able to watch anything on video and cable; the BBC offers us
and example of an independent media.)"
Lictor
> I was riding my bicycle around the neighborhood sometimes 5 miles to
> an arcade or just playing in backyards. I truly feel sorry for kids
> today that live in these cookie cutter houses that were built on a
> corn field.
We come back to the problem of urbanism... We are just beginning to perceive
how deeply how we build our cities and villages can impact both daily life
and society as a whole.
> Watching a ton of TV is
> simply a symptom of having nothing to do.
Actually, watching TV is a symptom of being afraid of having nothing to do.
How many people nowadays are still able to stop for 10 minutes and do
nothing at all? I mean, sitting down, staring at the sky and daydreaming. I
read an interview from a movie director (Agnès Jaoui) who was saying that we
should not be afraid to let kids have nothing to do; that's during these
idle moments that they can put their imagination to work and think for
themselves. Well, that's not happening anymore. Nothing to do = switch on
TV, switch off brain.
> But if you live in one of
> these subdivisions what is their to do? Just a square backyard with
> nothing but highly manicured grass.
Well, I guess you could still read books or stuff like that, but that's not
happening either.
> Unfortunately we have a generation of parents that are just plain self
> indulgent and selfish.
The problem is that the pattern is self repeating. How do you think these
kids will educate their kids?
I'm among the last generation who had parents from the hippie era. They
might have done drugs and have had weird ideas (I just can't eat whole rice
anymore), but at least they were convinced you *had* to try new things. So,
they did try plenty, got me to see as much as I could take and probably
beyond that. I think many parents nowadays have just given up on hope.
> People tear down smaller houses that are
> unique and have character but smaller to put up big plain boxes
> completely without character. There is no serious though given to
> urban planning or its consequences..
Thank god, this one is different in Europe. You have bunch of laws
protecting old typical houses or restricting you from building anything
anywhere. Many people complain, because they see rules that tell them they
can't build a parpen wall around they house and paint it pink, because it's
not the style of the area. But that's the cost to pay for keeping part of
the country pleasant enough to live in. Even from a business point of view,
it's profitable - France ranks very high in tourism revenue, and I don't
think we would if all our countryside was plague with big plain boxes.
There is indeed much thought given to urban planning. That makes the process
a bit slow. I mean, it's very hard to build anything new in Paris, because
that means destroying things that are likely to be classified or near a
classified building. And you're not allowed to build very tall buildings
either. This also means that you are supposed to work at keeping a mixed
population in cities, in term of classes and ethnicity. This doesn't always
work, because many people see all that as a limitation of their freedom.
Most people would want to live in their own big plain cheap box, while being
surrounded by typical cute small houses... Urban planning is extremelly
frustrating because of things like this, you keep seeing people who only
care about their own little interests without looking at the big picture.
MikeL
<ghostmlNOS...@online.fr> wrote:
>"MikeL" <Mi...@elnet.com> wrote in message
>news:j8dfj0pl0oncipe1f...@4ax.com...
>> I was riding my bicycle around the neighborhood sometimes 5 miles to
>> an arcade or just playing in backyards. I truly feel sorry for kids
>> today that live in these cookie cutter houses that were built on a
>> corn field.
>
>We come back to the problem of urbanism... We are just beginning to perceive
>how deeply how we build our cities and villages can impact both daily life
>and society as a whole.
>
>> Watching a ton of TV is
>> simply a symptom of having nothing to do.
>
>Actually, watching TV is a symptom of being afraid of having nothing to do.
>How many people nowadays are still able to stop for 10 minutes and do
>nothing at all? I mean, sitting down, staring at the sky and daydreaming. I
>read an interview from a movie director (Agnès Jaoui) who was saying that we
>should not be afraid to let kids have nothing to do; that's during these
>idle moments that they can put their imagination to work and think for
>themselves. Well, that's not happening anymore. Nothing to do = switch on
>TV, switch off brain.
>
Good point, reflection or self reflection can be very difficult for a
lot of people. Imagination and daydreaming are a healthy part of
growing up. I remember reading that people burn less calories
watching TV than doing nothing at all. I remember a philsopher saying
"the unexamined life is not worth living", well we have a lot of
those.
I remember many of those nothing to do moments growing up which
involved simply sitting inside a tractor tire. Sometimes there was
even someone in the tire next to mine.
Helena
Well I don't think banning TV and radio is a solution here or pointing
the blame on anyone else. Lictor has a point with this statement:
>>The problem is that the pattern is self repeating. How do you think
these
kids will educate their kids?
This is very important to understand and I think you are right on. Who
else do we learn from except from who we are raised by? Be it our
nutrition and exercise habits. But I definitely don't agree with
pushing the accountability on anyone except for myself.
Larisa
> > Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to
> > say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that
> > whoever eats junk food is responsible for it...
>
> Yeah. I have seen a lot of managers at fast food stores forcing people to
> eat their junk. And all that candy, soda, etc., they eat at home is not at
> fault.
The problem arises when schools sign contracts with fast-food places
for school lunches. Children, then, end up being forced to eat fast
food every day.
LM
Larisa
> "DonQuijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4e4a3f58.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the
> > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of
> > the public?
>
> They are. They require that food ingredients and nutrition content be given
> to costumers who as for it. And the chains usually post this on their
> websites.
You know what they don't post on their website? Little things like
foreign particles (glass, metal shavings, etc) in the ground beef,
E.Coli or Salmonella contamination, and other such lovely things.
Moreover, the meat corporations have pressured the government to the
point where meat that is known to be contaminated, and to sicken
people, cannot be recalled from the grocery store shelves - the USDA
has no power to do so, or in fact to tell the public what grocery
store is selling the contaminated meat. Read a book called "Fast Food
Nation" - the chapter on meat is really horrifying.
LM
Mark
Mt kids and I just spent the afternoon building an ersatz countertop
in our backyard shed. Imagine, a 5 year old and a 3 year old, both
wielding hammers and nails, asking Daddy about saws and chickens and
vegetables.
I have no doubt that Rugrats or Thomas or God-knows-what-else was on
TV, but I decided that the TV would stay off so we could actually
occupy ourselves while Mom spent the afternoon running errands.
BTW, it cost exactly NOTHING. The lumber was a bunch of nail-filled
old hardwood flooring we found in a construction dumpster 2 days ago.
I took the boards, and my 8 year old and I spent yesterday pulling the
nails out and saving them (the nails). Today, I took the opportunity
of a slow day at work to come home and involve my younger kids in some
activity instead of parking them in front of the TV while I did the
work.
The point of this is that it isn't even costly to get your kids and
your own lazy ass up off the couch and DO something. Hell, even
walking is free! But if you can't stop drinking beer long enough to
pay attention to your kids, you'll wind up being the grandparent of
yet another generation of kids who think fat and lazy is acceptable.
It isn't McDonald's fault that America is fat and slovenly; it is our
own fault. We are accustomed to having things easily and quickly
accessible with a minimum of effort. We don't like to wait; we don't
value work for its own sake, much less for what that work brings us;
we don't like to be told, "No, you haven't earned that yet."
My rant for the evening. I think I'll go have dinner and hang out in
the backyard with my kids now.
Mark, MD