make manipulating people a crime or at least taxable?
6/27/2013 3:57:25 PM
So.. I've done a bit of mass media research on this topic. [read: watched multiple food documentaries, and read a few books on the topic, but no raw scientific research] Here's my $.02: The problem is multifaceted. (1) Americans have a plethora of very high calorie, low nutrient food available at a very low price. We are biologically programmed to eat this stuff, so making "correct" food choices has become difficult. (2) The US Govt. proposed the Food Pyramid which emphasized a low fat, high carb diet which pretty much confused the crap out of all of us. It also gives quite a bit of money to the Corn industry leading to High-fructous Corn Syrup (read:High density sugar) being in pretty much everything especially products labeled as "low or non-fat". So we've subsidized sugar while giving no incentive to grow healthy foods.(3) Americans work more, are less physically active, and spend less time preparing food. [Downfall of the american family?] It's simply easier to pick-up Wendy's on the way home vice cooking for the family. (My mom was a single parent... and that's what she did at least twice a week.) And no one wants to be physically active after working a 10 hour shift!(4) There is very little money in preventative medicine. Drug companies don't make any money keeping diabetes and high blood pressure away. They make quite a bit of money treating the symptoms of obesity, including diabetes and heart disease. [The same holds true for cancer... but I'm not sure that's as directly related to the topic]To advocate the labeling of "fatty" or "bad for you" foods [the same way we do cigarettes] is to completely ignore the real problem(s). And frankly, to imply that labeling cigarettes has done much to curb tobacco use is equally as ignorant. The FDA used to have a "healthy check" mark they would allow companies to put on their products. And it ended up on Fruit Loops. Also, I've seen gummy bears [correctly] labeled as a fat-free food.
6/30/2013 3:16:39 PM
Not having a farm bill this year would be a great start. If you're really interested in doing something we at least need to decouple farm subsidies from the nutrition assistance programs that are lumped in with them.
6/30/2013 5:33:29 PM
6/30/2013 6:55:17 PM
labeling fatty foods won't make a significant difference. imo. if people really cared, they could look it up online or any number of ways. most food is already pretty well-labeled.you can get a 2 liter of coke for 99 cents, or pay twice as much for less gatorade, or healthy juice. two bucks will buy you a few organic apples, or a box of little debbies. nutrition comes secondary to actually feeling full, and fatty/fried junk foods are usually the best bang for the buck. it doesn't hurt those foods taste best, too.
6/30/2013 7:48:57 PM
6/30/2013 7:54:00 PM
are you implying that gatorade is healthy? because that's a great example of the problem people are talking about, a bottle of gatorade has over 30g of carbs. its better than coke, sure, but that's still a lot of sugar.
6/30/2013 7:56:50 PM
^^^ I would like to agree, but labels don't make the connection of sugar -> diabetesThere's not clear evidence that people have that information. Americans get 100x more information from ads than they do from news reporting on the subject, which sucks to begin with, and is not there to convey the basics anyway.[Edited on June 30, 2013 at 7:58 PM. Reason : ^^^]
6/30/2013 7:57:38 PM
6/30/2013 8:02:32 PM
6/30/2013 8:21:12 PM
It would certainly be better than the heart healthy labels on it.[Edited on June 30, 2013 at 8:55 PM. Reason : draw the line in the same place as the line for nutrition labels]
6/30/2013 8:54:56 PM
One problem is that 0g of fiber is the norm. You could quite reasonably conclude that it's basically impossible to get 100% of your DV of fiber by reading labels alone.Why? Consumers don't see dietary labels of vegetables.That, and utter lack of fiber is a major contributor to the obesity epidemic, or at minimum the epidemic of insulin disorders.When McDonald's added oatmeal to their menu, they reduced fiber and added sugar. This substitution causes obesity. We have many McDonald's and an obesity epidemic. Have I made the point sufficiently?But people are right, the solution isn't clear. I only see a few things that really need some common sense legislative solutions. Like adding sugar to apple sauce and baby food. Those products sit there, middle shelf. I don't think you should be allowed to market that crap as apple sauce. Those are words that refer to a real thing, and the product is a mush of industrial sugars. It's a system built to convince people that something which isn't apple sauce is apple sauce.Hell, require labeling of "sweetened". Let fast food sell "sweetened hamburgers". If they want to sell me an unsweetened hamburger, then let the free market rein! But as long as I'm buying a "hamburger", how much is that the free market? A free market where the seller has control over the very definition of words doesn't sound like the regulation-free ideal.
6/30/2013 9:02:01 PM
[quote]I only see a few things that really need some common sense legislative solutions. Like adding sugar to apple sauce and baby food. Those products sit there, middle shelf. I don't think you should be allowed to market that crap as apple sauce.[quote]Again.. where do you draw the line? Are you going to put that label on 2% milk?? What about bread?
6/30/2013 9:15:08 PM
Sugar is not added to milk. If they did, and still called it "milk", then yes, that would be abhorrent.
7/1/2013 7:19:13 AM
^okay, you're right... I was sure it was, but I can't find anything to support Sugar added to milk. But there are quite a few articles to support that they're adding artificial sweeteners to it... but nothing definitive.But my point still stands, that IF we start labeling anything with added sugars and sweeteners we're going to have to put that label on just about everything in the grocery store or we're going to have to draw the line somewhere with some amount of added sugar, or calories from sugar. Which is how Froot Loops ended up with the FDA Healthy Check in the first place, because it had <[some number] of calories from Fat.
7/2/2013 9:14:48 AM
Nutrition labeling laws allow the dairy industry to add nutritive sweeteners without labeling. I have no idea if they add sugar to your milk, but they can. But school kids are not drinking white milk anyways, they grab the delicious chocolate milk instead (or get a juice or soda!).edit: I think they can also add non-nutritive sweeteners without labeling, i know that at least they were lobbying for permission to. [Edited on July 2, 2013 at 10:41 AM. Reason : .]
7/2/2013 10:39:05 AM
There was a proposal to let diet milk have sugar added to it. It made the rounds on Facebook some time ago. I can't find an article on it now. We're probably remembering the same thing.As it stands, chocolate milk has added sugar. I guess that's reasonable, since chocolate = coco + sugar in the common vernacular. If you see something labeled "diet milk", then you should obviously be suspicious. But is that suspicion enough? Diet milk will probably make you fatter than milk.An average American can make a decision in order to be more healthy, and wind up accomplishing the opposite, due to the status quo with labeling. At least things "sweet tea" and "candy" have honest labels. But a part of the problem is that there's a perfectly intermixed gradient between the traditional "bad stuff" and the normal healthy foods. And thank god for "coke" and "cola", because at least people know it's sugar water.The corporations sensed a desire to eat more healthy. They marketed things like - fruit drinks - energy drinks - sports drinks - soda - iced tea - flavored waterby doing so, they keep the exact same model as cola. They sold to the intention without providing the product. Isn't this the dream of every large company? To get money from the consumer without delivering anything?Modern food products are arbitrary amalgamations of ingredients. It's hard to fault a product that falls under some brand name. Then that word defines the product, so there's no possibility of false labeling. This is a valid reason for the "whole foods" movement - because by only eating products that existed before a corporation named it, you eat healthier.Sure, it's overboard (and kind of crazy) to require Quaker to sell "sweet oatmeal" instead of "oatmeal". But then again, I think to myself... in the grand scheme of things, we wouldn't be any worse off because of it.
7/2/2013 10:53:14 AM
7/2/2013 11:40:26 AM
7/2/2013 12:21:56 PM
That's fine as long as they don't put "diet" on something that causes obesity. Or for that matter, what in the hell should be the requirements to use certain words when selling stuff anyway? I can't sell you "beef dogs" that are made of pork, even if the nutritional label faithfully lists the ingredients.
7/2/2013 12:37:11 PM
Yes the line is somewhere below radium and above fatty foods.
7/2/2013 1:02:58 PM
The problem is the balance of exposure and impact.Everyone eats fatty foods. The cost to society is probably even greater than smoking now, but we can't treat it the same way because it's high-dose and high-consequence. It's easy to attack low-dose, high-consequence things.But high-consequence is still high-consequence.
7/2/2013 1:19:07 PM
I only drink Marie Curie brand Radium. Insist on the best!
7/2/2013 2:35:28 PM
how else you gonna turn into spiderman?
7/2/2013 2:58:44 PM
2 good articles about food labels.Label Makeover: http://www.upworthy.com/hey-wouldn-t-it-be-nice-if-you-know-we-could-actually-understand-our-food-labelsWow, these small changes would make them so much more useful.Supplementary Labels: http://www.upworthy.com/the-food-label-that-has-kraft-nestle-and-coca-cola-shaking-in-their-bootsThese would IMO go a long way in helping people make better choices for their and the planet's health.
7/2/2013 11:34:30 PM
^ I like the proposed change to the label a lot.I guess I like the supplementary label a lot less.I always had wished that they gave %DV of calories. Nothing else makes sense without this context. In fact, it would be a better metric to give %DV of the nutrient / %DV of the calories. Again, that's the only type of metric that makes sense.If you're advertising that your product is a good source of Calcium, then the %DV of Calcium should be higher than the %DV of calories. There is no other context in which that matters. You need nutrients in proportion to your food, not in some kind of vacuum.
7/3/2013 8:28:30 AM
The only reason I don't like the supplementary label is because it relies on scoring in a 1-5 scale, and I know that lobbying will twist the formula to the point where those Chocolate Frosted Super Krispy Krunchies got scored high and it became just another way to misrepresent foods as being healthier than they are. I like the revised nutrition label a lot.
7/3/2013 9:09:35 AM
The "20% or more of the DA is HIGH" is wrong though. It depends on how many calories the serving is.
7/3/2013 9:13:33 AM
7/3/2013 5:17:56 PM
Maybe instead of labeling fatty foods, rich people/investors should open green grocers in the country instead of convenience stores full of junk food, alcohol, and tobacco?No wonder there is so much obesity.
9/30/2013 8:29:04 PM
In the world's largest producer of food, this (food deserts) is nothing short of a terrible tragedy and a serious flaw in how the country is being run.http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201310010104-0023077
10/1/2013 1:33:20 PM
Personally, I love dessert foods.
10/1/2013 1:40:36 PM
I'd rather eat real food than sugary shit.
10/1/2013 2:36:02 PM
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/pyramid/the new pyramid is better. also why the hell was the food industry able to manipulate the old pyramid over the recommendations of the scientists?[Edited on October 1, 2013 at 7:13 PM. Reason : add pic]
10/1/2013 7:07:15 PM
They should remove the bread entirely from whole grain, most bread is not whole grain and its easy to eat too much regardless
10/1/2013 7:45:14 PM
Even when whole grain, most food items made from (wholegrain) flour are bad because they have a high glycemic index. Even though they have the fiber, pulverizing grains makes them release sugar into the bloodstream too quickly. If you want to eat grain products, eat grains, not grain products. Cook intact grains (wheat, oats, barley, quinoa, spelt, rye, etc), cracked grains, or crushed grains. Don't powderize them and then make food out of them, as that's whats bad.
10/1/2013 8:05:07 PM
10/1/2013 8:42:15 PM
pretty sure fruit and veggies should be the base of that pyramid, 'as nature intended'. our guts are specialized to digest fiber and carbohydrates, not animal protein.
10/6/2013 1:06:15 PM
10/6/2013 2:41:47 PM
man is this thread filled with broscience
10/6/2013 4:25:43 PM
Regarding that graphic, I don't think the "shrimp" you can buy in stores today is anything like the seafood our ancestors ate.They're grown in giant pools in China, nearly drowning in their own shit. This is the stuff we buy at the store.
10/6/2013 9:58:11 PM
simple, don't buy shrimp and other farmed meat as much as possible. lots of non-intensively farmed options are available for most types of meat.and why did you mention the shrimp only? what about poultry and red meat? interesting that many people happily eat intensively farmed poultry and red meat, but when fish and shrimp are farmed, they get all up in arms over it. (not specifically pointing at you)i know all about farmed fish and shrimp being full of all sorts of chemicals from antibiotics to food dyes, and that's why i don't buy them. if i buy fish, i get wild caught fish, not farmed fish. shrimp is difficult to find wild caught.
10/6/2013 10:06:12 PM
10/7/2013 10:46:03 PM
^ if it came to that, they would intensively breed those little critters too, and stuff them full of all sorts of fucking chemicals. big companies don't care. they just care about their bottom line.
10/7/2013 10:58:30 PM
Personally I only eat food full of chemicals. Have not found a good anti matter supermarket yet.
10/7/2013 11:37:03 PM
10/22/2013 1:12:43 PM
10/25/2013 12:03:27 PM
http://www.wral.com/nyc-moves-closer-to-tobacco-buying-age-of-21/13057739/
10/31/2013 11:15:06 AM
http://www.wral.com/fda-to-ban-artery-clogging-trans-fats/13084605/
11/7/2013 10:41:51 AM
Lol.Let us allow tobacco...a substance that we have 100% proof that it causes health problems, but we'll ban trans fat. Because you know, transfat is worse for you than cigarettes.
11/7/2013 2:39:25 PM