Posted on 05/30/2002 6:36:41 AM PDT by boris
As public-minded legislators and nutrition advocates struggle to combat the epidemic levels of obesity, diabetes and other diet-related diseases plaguing our nation, food-industry lobbyists are spending big bucks to protect their financial interests with a sly new smear campaign. Anyone who advocates a healthy diet is promptly branded a member of the so--called "food police."
If one believes the lobbyists, these nutrition advocates (or "nannies," as they are sometimes maligned) are ready to storm your house, raid your refrigerator and confiscate every last Twinkie or hamburger. Even a physician coun-seling her heart patient about the benefits of a vegetarian diet is somehow to be feared.
Are Twinkies really in danger? Or are nutrition advocates just trying to protect the public by instituting some "affirmative action" for healthy foods?
In a number of states across the country, health-minded legislators are proposing restrictions on the sale of junk-food snacks in schools. Prominent academics are floating ideas of legal actions against fast-food giants for misleading the public about their unhealthy products. And, consumer groups are suggesting that "fat" tax revenues could fund desperately needed health programs.
While some of the proposals make more sense than others, all are sincere attempts to level a morbidly uneven playing field -- one dominated by the deep-pocketed fast-food industry and the powerful meat-and-dairy lobby.
For example:
• Despite public concern over childhood obesity, the U.S. Department of Agriculture continues to use the National School Lunch Program as a dumping ground for excess pork, beef, cheese, chicken and other high-cholesterol, low-fiber, fatty animal products. In fact, three out of every four dollars spent on government food-assistance programs go toward the purchase of these unhealthy foods. Only five of the 111 foods offered through the federal commodity program this year were fruits and vegetables.
• It's tough instilling healthy eating habits in our kids when they are subjected to billions of dollars of fast-food advertising per year. Compare McDonald's annual war chest of $1 bil-lion to the government's $1 million yearly budget for its sensible Five-A-Day Program to promote fruit and vegetable consumption.
• The U.S. Dietary Guidelines, the foundation for all nutrition policy in the United States, is overseen by the USDA, a "captured" agency that has the dual -- and conflicting -- mandate of protecting public health and promoting agriculture. It's not surprising that six of the 11 members of a recent committee charged with revising those guidelines had financial links with the meat, dairy and egg industries. No wonder the public is confused about nutrition advice.
It's high time that produce, whole grains, legumes and other healthy vegetarian foods got a fair shake. Junk-food lobbyists claim that nutrition advocates are trying to limit choice, but it's an age-old public rela-tions ploy to spin the truth: They're the ones who really want to limit your choice -- to their products.
The proliferation of fast-food restaurants in poor urban neighborhoods lim-its healthy food choices for busy, low-income families. The rule -- orchestrated by the dairy industry -- a that all school lunches include cow's milk limits choices for the millions of lactose-intolerant kids who prefer soy milk. Nutrition advocates simply want people to have as much access to healthy food and objective nutrition advice as they do to junk-food and fast-food ads.
The food industry can't argue the scientific facts -- that its high-fat cholesterol products are largely responsible for our sky-high rates of heart disease, diabetes, obesity and stroke -- so it has set about trying to discredit nutrition advocates with labels like "food police."
The battle of the bulge has turned into a war against the messenger.
"Neal Barnard is president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (www.pcrm.org). Write to him at PCRM, 5100 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20016."
Never mind the liscentious cesspool of programming and advertising we subject our kids to, and then wonder why bathroom oral sex is a common problem in middle schools.
I can think of better things to do with my money than subsidise someone else's lack of self-control.
And then there's the fact that these fast food CEOs could care less. I'm sure they don't have to worry about how they personally are going to pay for their own and their families health care.
And just out of curiosity, anyone know of any obese CEOs?
Thanks for the post.
Here come the food-Nazis with their "we know what's best for you" routine. What garbage. Let the marketplace work - period. If families decide they don't want their youngsters eating :happy-meals" let them say "no." Fast-food companies will develop and sell what works in the marketplace. It's that simple.
"public-minded legislators"
"nutrition advocates"
"struggle to combat the epidemic levels of obesity, diabetes and other diet-related diseases plaguing our nation"
The "good guys". Never mind that people make their own eating decisions. This is voluntary behavior, not influenza.
"food-industry lobbyists"
"spending big bucks"
"protect their financial interests"
"sly new smear campaign"
The "bad guys". You can almost see them twirling their mustaches.
Don't these people have anything better to do? Since when did we give these idiots the power to control what we eat?
We are sinking as a nation and the sheeple continue to sleep.
Neal Bernard doesn't like the label "Food Police". This is understandable, but it is still milder than a more accurate term: Food Nazi. For that is what Bernard and his ilk are.
They are paternalists. They see adults as children, unable to make their own choices, and not responsible enough to take the consequences of those choices. They, of course, see themselves as the grown-ups.
Bernard's arguments follow the well-rutted path of the Tobacco Nazis. Hidden within them is the premise that advertising cannot be resisted, that selling unhealthy foods is equivalent to forcing them upon victims. The tobacco companies have never employed press gangs, grabbing citizens off the street and injecting nicotine into their veins to create more addicted customers. Nor has McDonalds force-fed Big Macs to anyone.
Perhaps the biggest fallacy in Bernard's screed is the insinuation that evil fast-food purveyors are purposely siting themselves in poor neighborhoods. Bernard fails to grasp that poor people would love to eat salmon filets in Beverly Hills but must settle for Whoppers. The inexpensive-food restaurants go where there is demand for inexpensive food.
If we didn't have partially socialized medicine, and people had to pay the cost of their own insurance premiums, this wouldn't be an issue, would it?
And then there's the fact that these fast food CEOs could care less.
I don't care if they care or not. The are selling a legal product to a public that voluntarily chooses to buy it. If there wasn't a market for cheeseburgers and french fries, they wouldn't exist.
The problem is health insurance companies, not overweight people. The companies are too sorry to rate their policyholders and charge higher premiums to those who are overweight - or refuse to cover them at all until they fall within specific limits of weight, blood cholesterol, etc.
And, if people want to make a buck...ATTENTION all food comglomerates (forget fast food, it's a lost cause), but if you really want to make a buck here's a market for you. Do you know how many elderly folks there are now on salt restricted diets who have a heck of a time buying processed food because of the salt content? Many don't like to or are unable to cook from scratch, and they would love to and need to be able to buy processed food without added salt. How about that for a market? There's some selection out there, but not much.
Now, there's a market waiting to served, a profit waiting to be made, and no-one would be making a buck off someone's bad health choices.
This same campaign tactic has been used in the US to mandate motorcycle helmets, bike helmets, restrictions on smoking, ..., and now it is being used on junk food.
How far are you willing to go?
How far did the Germans go?
Remember, you belong to the state, as does your body, and your mind. Work will set you free.
Tell you what, start an insurance pool with folks like yourself, who use no drugs, eat only tofu, exercise regularly, or whatever, and go negotiate a group rate from one of the insurance companies. You probably will save money.
Then leave the rest of us the heck alone.
Not true. Why, back in the campaign of '92, I was a stringer for a major news syndicate covering the New Hampshire primary. The Clinton team stopped at a McDonalds in Nashua for lunch. I tried to order a salad. Then who should appear but the Ronald himself. He dragged me to a storage room in back, took off one of his big red shoes, and beat me senseless with it. Then, while Grimace sat on me, Mayor McCheese stuffed Big Macs down my throat. Why, if the Hamburgler hadn't made off with most of their stock, I wouldn't be here today to tell you the story.
First you have to start with the children, at the family level. However, it would be impossible for a family to provide fruits to its children, who are exposed to McDonald’s, and M&M commercials.
From my own experience, I would be sitting watching TV, and a guy would open a bottle of wine and pours in a nice glass; and automatically, I get up and get me a glass of wine. TV, and images are very suggestive on our behaviors. By insisting on freedom of choice, which every one agrees on, we are missing two points; 1) The power of media, and 2) The exclusive availability of junk food in comparison to other food.
Food Fascist is both alliterative, and gets the idea across the same way.
Pretty soon it will dawn on employers that they can't afford the health insuance premiums for overweight employees (and define "overweight"). You're next, people, and you deserve what you get.
(Oh, and please don't give me the second-hand smoke argument, especially when employers insist on total abstinence.)
Before I reached the age where I had a job making a reasonable amount of money, I never ate at a fast-food restaurant ... not a McDonalds, not a KFC, not an A&W ... nothing. For what I made, the food was too expensive to making it myself with what we had at home.
As soon as I left to go to college, I immediately began to eat at those places. A McDonald's hamburger is the same as one that I would prepare at home. KFC deep-fried chicken is the same as what I would make at home. Etc, etc, etc. I no longer have the time or inclination to spend inordinate amounts of effort and time to cooking at home. My blood pressure averages about 65 over 100 and I am, in my opinion, very physically fit.
I will eat what I want to eat, no matter what you nannies have to say about it. After you close down McDonald's, are you going to forbid me frying a hamburger in my own home? What's the difference.
I will await your jackbooted FoodNazis with my burger in one hand and my .45 in the other.
Big Brother will be glad to tell you every move to make, if only you sit on your rear-end and let him.
Can't I have my chocolate pudding in peace and quiet without the food police lecturing me and to trying "control" my actions?
Are you serious? I'm seriously asking. Something like that has never ever happened to me. I know what I like to eat and I don't eat if I don't want to. I always thought people were joking when they said they were influenced to eat by advertisement. Wonders never cease I guess...
Bottom line though, I have complete authority over what I eat. I don't care if all the corporations in the world set up shop right outside my door, I wouldn't eat something if I didn't want to. Just a quick example: if my wife and I are out and she buys some sweet pastry or ice cream and then later asks if I want a bite- I rarely accept the offer; I would've bought one myself if I had wanted any. The same goes for drugs, alcohol, sex, breaking minor laws or anything else. I bear complete responsibility for my life and the choices I make and I refuse to give up that right because some people can't refrain from eating when McDonald's tells 'em to eat.
I never even stop to look at the junk food section in the supermarket- not interested. I don't have a television either- not interested. Maybe I'm a statistical anomoly and advertising doesn't work on me but I tend to give my actions a lot of thought- I don't spend money on crap I don't need, I would practically rather die than use credit for anything (I'll save up and pay cash for a car for example) no matter how much advertising I see that says I need to keep up with the Jones'.
Personal responsibility- that's what life's about.
Why don't you start up a company to do all this, instead of trying to dictate to everyone what they should do. If you think it's such a huge market you should no trouble becoming a billionaire. Leave the government out of our lives. You and the rest of the do-gooders should just live your own lives and let the rest of us alone. You surely don't know what is best for everyone.
Exactly. I have a fairly moderate and sensible diet but if I wanted to eat pure animal lard three times a day- that's my choice. I can't even believe this is a debate somewhere.
"Step any closer and the burger gets it."
;-)
WHAT? You didn't know that we seem to be living in a democracy where 50% +1 can tell the other 49% +99 what they can and can't do? No matter WHAT that may be.
You say you thought we were living in a constitutional republic that looked out for the individual?
Maybe at one time in the past that was true.
Yes, you are one of the few. The majority are followers. Just ask yourself; if the majority were not influenced by commercials, so why corporate America waste their money on commercials!
I think the issue here is the pervasiveness in school cafeterias of low nutrition food. It is a good idea to teach healthy eating habits to kids and the school cafeteria should try to promote that cause.
Free breakfasts and lunches have been promoted by the education establishment by saying that hungry kids don't learn well. Let's take that logic a step further by making those free meals reasonably healthy (I'm not advocating a strict tofu, bean sprouts and celery diet). To balance it out, have the menu one day a week something the kids would love to eat (pizza, burgers, etc.)
Also, how many vending machines sell juice or water?
How totalitarian of you...
You got that right!
Happily, it's just an opinion column, so the Daily News' only error was providing a forum for a nut case to bloviate.
If you take complete responsibility for your health, then it is your choice. But if you participate in a group health plan and your lifestyle leads to constant, high cost treatment later in life, then my premium will go up to subsidize your lifestyle choice. Also, our taxes pay the health benefits to the poor and elderly. If they eat junk and have more health problems, we all pay more. I, for one, do not like being taxed to support someone else's choice.
That is your problem- not mine. We live in a free country- or at least it used to be until "the followers" started demanding that the gov't take away our rights in the name of a nice safe pasture for them to graze in. Advertising has been around as long as their have been rivals in any one market- this isn't an "evil corporate America" thing. Take charge of your life man. Enjoy your freedom- don't delegate your authority and responsibility to the gov't and whine that the evil corporations and their advertising made you do it.
What in the name of God would our Founding Fathers think right now if they were to appear in our time and hear red blooded Americans complaining about being free "Please Mr Jefferson- Freedom is too haaaarrrrdddd! Take it awaaaayyy- please take it away!" I would be ashamed of myself to make such an admission. Jesus Christ.
My wife and I decide what our kids eat when we visit the grocery store. I don't need Ralph Nader telling me what to eat, I am capible of making that decision myself, thank you very much. Did it ever occur to these folks that many enjoy eating these foods?
That's not my problem. This is a free and voluntary contract you negotiate with a second party. You don't have to do it. Nobody has a right to health care. You only have a right to seek it. I don't give a damn about your premiums- I have a right to eat what I want. Period.
Also, our taxes pay the health benefits to the poor and elderly. If they eat junk and have more health problems, we all pay more. I, for one, do not like being taxed to support someone else's choice.
So the obvious choice is to stop using the tax dollar to pay benefits to the elderly, no? YOU do not have a right to my money. I don't care what happens to you when you get old. That's your problem. Life is full of choices and if you make the wrong ones you pay the price. It's immoral to demand that I have to pay the price as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
