Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Frum: Things to Come [The Left's war against junk food]
National Review Online ^ | May 1, 2003 | David Frum

Posted on 05/01/2003 10:55:30 AM PDT by SpringheelJack

MAY. 1, 2003: THINGS TO COME

While Donald Rumsfeld takes his victory lap in Iraq and Americans celebrate the capture of yet another al Qaeda creep, the British media are consumed by a controversy over ... chocolate. It’s worth paying attention--because a similar story will in all likelihood be coming on this side of the Atlantic very soon.

Cadbury’s is the dominant British chocolate maker. Last week, they announced a new promotional scheme. In exchange for empty Cadbury wrappers, the company would offer schools athletic equipment. It’s not exactly a new idea, but it kicked off an incredible row in the British press. Cadbury was accused of encouraging obesity: Broadcasters kept repeating the statistic, which may even be true, that a child would have to play basketball for 90 hours to burn off the number of calories contained in the wrappers that would have to be collected in exchange for the ball.

In vain did Cadbury protest that the British already eat a lot of chocolate: The kids could simply collect the wrappers that they, their families, their friends, and the neighbors were generating anyway. In the reports I saw, Cadbury was not even allowed to speak for itself--after two minutes of repeating accusations, interviewing shocked and appalled teachers and headmasters, and tut-tutting over a giant pile of empty wrappers, the reporter gave Cadbury’s side himself, in a single grudging sentence at the end of the item.

The British left wishes to ban foxhunting--but when it sets the media hounds on a corporate victim, not even the ears and tail are left unmangled.

The Cadbury story originates in two impulses, one peculiarly British, the other ominously likely to cross the Atlantic.

Although Tony Blair’s Labour government has lavished huge spending increases on the country’s public schools, the extra money has (surprise, surprise) failed to keep pace with the schools’ spending increases--especially (again surprise, surprise) increases in pay and benefits. The teacher unions hope to use the crisis they themselves created in order to squeeze more money from the Blair government. They are making their grab now on the assumption that after Iraq, Blair will be reluctant to quarrel again with the left wing of his party - which of course supports the unions’ demands. In order to attract public attention and support, the teachers are claiming that the schools are “in crisis”--and the best way to dramatize the crisis is (as ever) to threaten to shut down popular activities like gym. Cadbury’s offer to provide schools with gym equipment is thus a threat and a menace to the unions’ blackmail strategy.

But something deeper is going on as well. During the battles over tobacco, skeptical conservatives used to wonder--what’s next? Attacks on cheese and chocolate and cola makers for causing obesity? (There’s a funny scene in Chris Buckley’s Thank You for Smoking in which a tobacco lobbyist indignantly insists that a single cheddar cheese cube is much more dangerous than a single cigarette.) /redirect/amazon.asp?j=/0060976624

Well guess what? That is exactly what is coming next. The first lawsuit against McDonald’s has already in the United States--and now we are witnessing the beginnings of a public-relations campaign against a chocolate maker--and Coke and Pepsi will soon be in the gunsights. The campaign against junk food unites all the Left’s deepest prejudices: its abomination of personal responsibility; its conviction that free markets poison and sicken people; its ravenous appetite for other people’s money; and finally its limitless snobbery.

Why do I say so snobbery? Well consider this: Chocolate bars and hamburgers and soda are not the only foods that can cause obesity when eaten to excess. A glass of red wine contains as many calories as the equivalent amount of Coke. A quarter-pounder with bacon and cheese is no worse for you than a half-pint of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. And ounce for ounce, Cadbury’s chocolate contains fewer calories than Godiva’s. Yet as they activists plot campaigns against Big Junk to follow their campaign against Big Tobacco, don’t expect to hear anything said against Big Napa, Big Hippies, and Big Belgium.

Or am I putting ideas in their heads?


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: cadbury; chocolate; davidfrum; education; frum; health; junkfood; nanystate; publicschools; teachersunions; wodlist
Frum always writes a good article, but this one seemed particularly interesting.
1 posted on 05/01/2003 10:55:30 AM PDT by SpringheelJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SpringheelJack
Too much of any food can make you fat. It is all about portion control and self control. You can eat at McDonalds, you can have ice cream, red wine, burgers, etc., in moderation.

The problem isn't with the food, it is with the consumer. They are not victims. They can put down the fork and walk away from the table! I have changed my eating habits, since my husband was diagnosed with diabetes. It comes to folks who are over 40, under active, and over weight. We are working out more at the gym. I work out a min. of two hours three times a week. We are eating fruits, vegetables, chicken, fish, brown rice, whole wheat pasta, etc. I have lost 17.8 lbs. so far. I have gone down two sizes in jeans.

I rarely eat at McDonalds. So I can't really blame them for my previous higher weight. But in today's society everyone is a victim. They should all get up off their butts, go for a walk, swim, lift weights, join a gym and USE it, and cut down on portions. A portion of pasta or rice for example is actually tiny, about 1/2 a cup to a cup. ETC.
2 posted on 05/01/2003 11:02:39 AM PDT by buffyt (Can you say President Hillary, Mistress of Darkness? Me Neither!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpringheelJack
Re: During the battles over tobacco, skeptical conservatives used to wonder--what’s next?

WHO FORCED THESE "VICTIMS" TO SMOKE IN THE FIRST PLACE??????????
3 posted on 05/01/2003 11:03:52 AM PDT by buffyt (Can you say President Hillary, Mistress of Darkness? Me Neither!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
WHO FORCED THESE "VICTIMS" TO SMOKE IN THE FIRST PLACE??????????

That's the point.
Many smokers do not see themselves as "victims", except of unacceptable government intervention.

Just as you say you weren't a "victim" of McDonalds.

4 posted on 05/01/2003 11:15:14 AM PDT by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SpringheelJack
We had a guy in our local paper ranting about "Big Sugar" and comparing them to the dreaded "Big Tobacco". He was whining about people eating too much sugar and how advertising by "Big Sugar" is making people fat. What he didn't indicate is that the U.S. Government, in colusion with "Big Sugar" already is doing the best thing to supress sugar eating: They artificially inflate the price of sugar. We pay 2 times the price because of current policy. This is how Landruie got reelected in LA. She warned that the Bush administration was going to cut the price supports for LA sugar producers and allow more Mexican sugar into the states.
5 posted on 05/01/2003 11:15:19 AM PDT by dwswager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpringheelJack
a child would have to play basketball for 90 hours to burn off the number of calories contained in the wrappers that would have to be collected in exchange for the ball.

So? Ten kids - two teams - play three hours a day for three days. No big deal.

6 posted on 05/01/2003 11:17:02 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpringheelJack
glsjenbgh. That was a power sugar donut. Yummm.
7 posted on 05/01/2003 11:21:34 AM PDT by EggsAckley ( Midnight at the Oasis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
oops. power sugar = powDer sugar.
8 posted on 05/01/2003 11:22:10 AM PDT by EggsAckley ( Midnight at the Oasis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SpringheelJack
Attacking chocolate will punish the impoverished cocoa workers in the Ivory Coast and other third world countries. They really should go after those who produce fat: sunflower and soybean farmers in Tom Daschle's home state.
9 posted on 05/01/2003 11:27:24 AM PDT by jwalburg (Knowledge is power; power corrupts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Can I sue Free Republic for my internet addiction?
10 posted on 05/01/2003 11:31:11 AM PDT by smadurski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dwswager
BIG SUGAR? Who is holding these poor defenseless victims down and FORCING them to eat sugar????????????? I don't care for sweets, but my sweet husband has a major sweet tooth. He is able to resist! Some people have not heard of the "R" word. Personal RESPONSIBILITY! Go to a grocery store and see all the fat people there, some are pretty young, riding in the motorized scooters they provide. They are too heavy to walk, their knees can't take it. And there they are stocking up on more food. I saw some fat people eating ice cream the other day, I mean REALLY FAT people. I wanted to ask them, "Do you really NEED that ice cream?" But I kept my mouth shut. You have to want to lose weight and eat less before it will happen. YOu don't sue McDonald's or Big Sugar for your own shortcomings. I am getting fired up now. LOL

Heading out to the herb garden to pick some cilantro for our lunch soup. We are actually cooking and eating better. If you get the Linda Gassenheimer column in your newspaper she has GREAT low fat recipes that are just delicious! And we go to Whole Foods Market and get whole grains, etc. We are really into this. And since we are losing weight, feeling better and LOVING the food, we can stick to this plan for life.

And we still stop at McDonalds on rare occasions while on long car trips. But it isn't in our daily diet. I DO MISS BURGER KING!!!! and IN N OUT BURGER ..... YUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!

11 posted on 05/01/2003 11:34:09 AM PDT by buffyt (Can you say President Hillary, Mistress of Darkness? Me Neither!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: smadurski
Get in line, buddy!!!!!!! LOL

It is an addiction for which there is no cure......

Hee hee hee
12 posted on 05/01/2003 11:34:43 AM PDT by buffyt (Can you say President Hillary, Mistress of Darkness? Me Neither!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: smadurski
bump
13 posted on 05/01/2003 11:35:25 AM PDT by buffyt (FREEPING IS SERIOUS FUN! BEWARE THE ADDICTION! (There is no known cure))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
You had it right the first time.;^)
14 posted on 05/01/2003 11:38:52 AM PDT by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
The other day Rush said chocolate covered donuts can cure a sore throat. He had a bad one once and that was the only thing that cured it. My SKINNY 22 year old son had just bought some, so I had one, for medicinal purposes, of course! I rarely eat donuts, so when I do, they are YUMMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And by some miracle I was able to eat just one..... sigh......
15 posted on 05/01/2003 12:01:58 PM PDT by buffyt (FREEPING IS SERIOUS FUN! BEWARE THE ADDICTION! (There is no known cure))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
I DO love chocolate! I am allergic to it, but I don't care. If I want some I have some. I just don't eat the whole box of chocolates all in one day, not usually anyway...... I love the Star Bucks cafe mocha with the strong coffee, hot cocoa, and whipped cream. I can make a version of it at home now. It is one of the vices I splurge in on occasion.... how about now?????????????
16 posted on 05/01/2003 12:04:08 PM PDT by buffyt (FREEPING IS SERIOUS FUN! BEWARE THE ADDICTION! (There is no known cure))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: smadurski
Can I sue Free Republic for my internet addiction?

Ditto
17 posted on 05/01/2003 12:06:39 PM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
so I had one, for medicinal purposes, of course!

LOL, did it cure your sore throat?

18 posted on 05/01/2003 12:07:59 PM PDT by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dwswager
What he didn't indicate is that the U.S. Government, in colusion with "Big Sugar" already is doing the best thing to supress sugar eating: They artificially inflate the price of sugar. We pay 2 times the price because of current policy.

Which is why the production of Lifesavers (and the jobs therin) was moved to Canada.

19 posted on 05/01/2003 12:11:53 PM PDT by Squawk 8888 (Everyone knows you can't have a successful conspiracy without a Rockefeller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SpringheelJack; *Wod_list; jmc813
During the battles over tobacco, skeptical conservatives used to wonder--what’s next? Attacks on cheese and chocolate and cola makers for causing obesity?

True conservatives started wondering this when the War On Some Drugs began.

20 posted on 05/01/2003 1:32:06 PM PDT by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson