McD's Contribution to a Heathier You

[j_b]

because commercial advertising (propaganda) doesn't change human behavior?

commercials just help the rock get rolling down the mtn - doritoes pretty much sell themselves - do you deny that humans, bugs and everything else alive tend to find the path of least resistance, that cheap and easy, however suspect the content might be, is awful damn tempting to a big old chunk of the population?

 

No, Doritoes do not sell themselves as the need for advertising shows. Without acculturation and massive advertising, people would resort to many types of food to address the needs that Doritoes are supposed to fulfill. Some of which would be nutritious, others not so much, but we wouldn't be facing a junkfood based obesity crisis.

[j_b]

The missing GMO disclosure is what's afflicting the weightier poor, those great and stoic beasts, noble in their suffering. I've seen at least one great, fat pie wagon searching in vain for precisely this information, then, not finding it, tossing the pork rinds in her cart next to the already opened ballpark franks in resultant and entirely avoidable ignorance. She should count as at least 100 data points I should think.

 

The food crisis is about more than obesity so you don't have to be a putz and dismiss the safety issues around GMOs and other industry practices.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

The food crisis is about more than obesity so you don't have to be a putz and dismiss the safety issues around GMOs and other industry techniques.

 

Oh NOES! It's a *crisis*?!?!?!

[j_b]

it takes a special moron to not realize there is a crisis about food. Just to pick an example, nobody but those spending lots of money or growing their own, can insure the safety of the food they eat.

Edited May 24, 2011 by j_b

[KaskadskyjKozak]

it takes a special moron to not realize there is a crisis about food. Just to pick an example, nobody but those spending lots of money or growing their own, can insure the safety of the food they eat.

 

A crisis! Another excuse for j_bot to get his panties in a bunch.

[j_b]

more personal attacks from the service goon

[KaskadskyjKozak]

more personal attacks from the service goon

 

MORAL TURPITUDE!!!

[ivan]

No, Doritoes do not sell themselves as the need for advertising shows. Without acculturation and massive advertising, people would resort to many types of food to address the needs that Doritoes are supposed to fulfill. Some of which would be nutritious, others not so much, but we wouldn't be facing a junkfood based obesity crisis.

i didn't first eat doritoes b/c of advertising - i first ate them b/c i was at a party, and they were in a bowl, and they were tasty - later, when i was of age, and had cash, i would make that hard choice between nacho and ranch flavor, again not b/c of ads, but b/c i was hungry/bored/in 7-11/or simply b/c they were by the damn cash register when i was also buying a 50 cent pack of camels

 

your "obesity crisis" is a beast w/ many legs, only 1 of which would be ads. at any rate, this crisis is far less menacing then the true food shortage crises that once killed peasants by the thousands in endless cycles. it's hard to feel sympathy for folks who fucking eat themselves to death.

 

i like shakespeare's take on being portly, a line from merry old jack falstaff to his drinking buddy, young prince henry, who is afraid will neglect him when he becomes king:

 

". . .If sack (a drink made of wine and sugar) and sugar be a fault,

God help the wicked! if to be old and merry be a

sin, then many an old host that I know is damned: if

to be fat be to be hated, then Pharaoh's lean kine

are to be loved. No, my good lord; banish Peto,

banish Bardolph, banish Poins: but for sweet Jack

Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff,

valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant,

being, as he is, old Jack Falstaff, banish not him

thy Harry's company, banish not him thy Harry's

company: banish plump Jack, and banish all the world."

 

let plump jack be fat in peace, eh?

[j_b]

i didn't first eat doritoes b/c of advertising - i first ate them b/c i was at a party, and they were in a bowl, and they were tasty - later, when i was of age, and had cash, i would make that hard choice between nacho and ranch flavor, again not b/c of ads, but b/c i was hungry/bored/in 7-11/or simply b/c they were by the damn cash register when i was also buying a 50 cent pack of camels

 

Whatever your particular story doesn't change that without massive and constant advertising any of these brands wouldn't dominate the markets the way they do (thereby imposing with little challenge their interpretation of adequate food). Without the supremacy of these oligopolies (doritoes is owned by Pepsi?) you might have discovered some other snack, most likely locally produced, for better or worse but without the capacity to impose themselves over entire markets.

 

your "obesity crisis" is a beast w/ many legs, only 1 of which would be ads. at any rate, this crisis is far less menacing then the true food shortage crises that once killed peasants by the thousands in endless cycles. it's hard to feel sympathy for folks who fucking eat themselves to death.

 

whether you feel like being compassionate with the obese doesn't change that in the long term OUR health care also depends on finding a solution to the obesity crisis.

[Off_White]

[video:youtube]

 

The bit about the obesity epidemic at 2:17 makes this on topic, but it's a fine rant all the way through...

Edited May 25, 2011 by Off_White

[Jim]

Mixed on this one. The corn subsidy certainly makes high frutose corn syrup and cows pretty cheap - thus a good source of cheap, crummy calories.

 

On the other hand, what? Someone is forcing you to stuff this stuff down your pie hole and watch Housewives of NJ on the couch? Don't think so.

 

Even if QFC looked like PCC (without Birkenstocks) we would still have folks waddling around and waving their arms too much.

[rob]

I'm much more interested in finding ways to fix it, then just throwing up hands and saying, "it's their choice. Fuck em!"

 

Of course it's their fault. But, it's costing us a lot of money, so it behooves us to discuss ways to fix this problem.

 

"Screw 'em" is the republican method of handling these sorts of problems.

[j_b]

They aren't "forced" but is someone feeding their addiction to make a buck and costing the community a bundle in the process? Nobody forces the junkies, either.

[akhalteke]

I'm much more interested in finding ways to fix it, then just throwing up hands and saying, "it's their choice. Fuck em!"

 

Of course it's their fault. But, it's costing us a lot of money, so it behooves us to discuss ways to fix this problem.

 

"Screw 'em" is the republican method of handling these sorts of problems.

 

Corn subsidies cost us some damned much; not just the actual subsidization but also in health problems.

 

It is true that people have the freedom to choose the type of death they desire (whether it be diabetic ketoacidosis or lung cancer). The issue I have is that the government is essentially using our money to influence our cohorts to make bad nutritional decisions.

 

Why not make it easier to make healthy decisions by cutting off the balls of the subsidies. Republicans can say they are for lassaiz faire economics, but the proof is in the pudding or the fructose if you will.

 

We don't need to spend money to make people healthier. Ironically, we need to spend less. Makes so much sense, it will never happen.

 

[JayB]

I'm much more interested in finding ways to fix it, then just throwing up hands and saying, "it's their choice. Fuck em!"

 

Of course it's their fault. But, it's costing us a lot of money, so it behooves us to discuss ways to fix this problem.

 

"Screw 'em" is the republican method of handling these sorts of problems.

 

It doesn't have to cost anyone but the obese a cent. The only reason why it does cost anyone but the fat-asses a cent is that they are able to transmit the cost of their choices to everyone else via both public and private insurance mechanisms that have been rigged to insulate them from bearing the costs of their choices - unlike smokers.

 

Once you disconnect premiums from risks that people actually have the capacity to control - like smoking, overeating, etc - then it's only a matter of time until you get an uncontrolled price-spiral that's perpetuated by people being able to shift the costs of their behaviors onto everyone else.

 

I have no idea why it's deemed morally acceptable to charge the guy who smokes a pack a day more for health insurance, but we think it's a moral imperative to charge a guy who chugs down a Kentucky-bucket at every meal the same premiums as a vegan marathoner. Or why you can charge the Elvis-sized base-jumper a gajillion times more for life insurance than the agoraphobic fitness nut and no one blinks, but do the same when it comes to health insurance and you're violating the KFC chugger's inalienable right to indulge his self-destructive appetite at everyone else's expense.

 

Eat yourself to oblivion if that's your favored path to the grave, but pay your freight on the way there....

 

 

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

It doesn't have to cost anyone but the obese a cent. The only reason why it does cost anyone but the fat-asses a cent is that they are able to transmit the cost of their choices to everyone else via both public and private insurance mechanisms that have been rigged to insulate them from bearing the costs of their choices - unlike smokers.

 

Rigged? That sounds like a conspiracy theory

 

More like it wasn't an issue with smoking until it became epidemic and started taxing the health care system. Good analogy btw as tobacco is regulated as some form of regulation is applicable to junk food. Also note what happened to the regulation of advertising for tobacco and the public campaigns against tobacco use.

[bstach]

Question: What is the purpose of the corn subsidies in the first place?

[Jim]

Question: What is the purpose of the corn subsidies in the first place?

 

The usual reason for screwed up policies. Getting and staying elected to Congress.

[prole]

Fatitude is only weakly related to economic status.

 

Another fact(free)toid easily dismissed by a trip to Ye Olde Google.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Fatitude is only weakly related to economic status.

 

Another fact(free)toid easily dismissed by a trip to Ye Olde Google.

 

TTK is smarter than you.

[prole]

Yes, almost as good as Fukushima was nothing to worry about and the Obamas were "surprised" by the Saudi invasion of Bahrain...

[j_b]

Or why you can charge the Elvis-sized base-jumper a gajillion times more for life insurance than the agoraphobic fitness nut and no one blinks, but do the same when it comes to health insurance and you're violating the KFC chugger's inalienable right to indulge his self-destructive appetite at everyone else's expense.

 

Eat yourself to oblivion if that's your favored path to the grave, but pay your freight on the way there....

 

Does anybody actually believe the above horseshit. Can anyone remember or even imagine JayB arguing for the soda tax initiative that was defeated last Nov? of course not, but JayB is a demagogue who loves to demonize the victims of his laissez faire ideology so the junk food industry isn't held accountable for the ~$200 billions in annual health care cost and 100ks deaths imparted to obesity.

[rob]

I think charging the obese more for health insurance is a perfectly reasonable idea. Or, assuming public healthcare, charge them a "fat tax."

 

But if we do this, I think we need to put in place regulations on selling certain types of foods. We can't allow a completely unregulated market to provide easy, cheap and toxic choices to the ignorant while taxing them for their mistakes at the same time.

 

I don't know how this would work. Tax food that is too calorie-dense, or too much saturated fat per serving? Put a warning label on it? I dunno. But it seems weird to do nothing. I think the FDA has a responsibility to ensure that we have reasonable protection from dangerous products. When I consider how enamored Americans are with junk food, and how they seem to just eat themselves straight into disease, I wonder if maybe they're not being taken advantage of by corporations that don't really care about their well-being. Isn't that the point of government -- to protect the vulnerable from the predatory?

 

$0.02

Ka-ching!

[j_b]

Not all obese people abuse food. Some have medical issues that have nothing to do with overeating high calories salty food and they shouldn't be penalized by insurance that would seize upon the opportunity to discriminate at every turn to avoid paying for needed care. Anyway, it is evident that private health care insurance is not sustainable.

 

Taxing junk food provides a negative feedback on purchases before obesity sets in and it is therefore likely a more effective solution.

[JayB]

I think charging the obese more for health insurance is a perfectly reasonable idea. Or, assuming public healthcare, charge them a "fat tax."

 

But if we do this, I think we need to put in place regulations on selling certain types of foods. We can't allow a completely unregulated market to provide easy, cheap and toxic choices to the ignorant while taxing them for their mistakes at the same time.

 

I don't know how this would work. Tax food that is too calorie-dense, or too much saturated fat per serving? Put a warning label on it? I dunno. But it seems weird to do nothing. I think the FDA has a responsibility to ensure that we have reasonable protection from dangerous products. When I consider how enamored Americans are with junk food, and how they seem to just eat themselves straight into disease, I wonder if maybe they're not being taken advantage of by corporations that don't really care about their well-being. Isn't that the point of government -- to protect the vulnerable from the predatory?

 

$0.02

Ka-ching!

 

For real? If you were the kind of guy that supported the "War on Drugs" then I'd be able to detect a thread of logic connecting the desire to have the state supervise what sane adults can ingest - whether it's hashish or hash-browns.

 

Drinking too much, having sex with too many people, travel to regions with endemic disease, participation in risky activities in the outdoors, eating rare meat, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc - basically every sphere of activity that functioning societies have both entrusted sane adults with, and *required* of them since the beginning of civilization carries with it certain risks and responsibilities.

 

Any society in which adults require an bureaucratic apparatus to supervise *eating* is a society that is already circling the drain. It's over.

 

Good time to invoke one of the better passages on the hazards of another kind of prohibition:

 

"In the United States, the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages are prohibited. Other countries do not go so far, but nearly everywhere some restrictions are imposed on the sale of opium, cocaine, and similar narcotics. It is universally deemed one of the tasks of legislation and government to protect the individual from himself. Even those who otherwise generally have misgivings about extending the area of governmental activity consider it quite proper that the freedom of the individual should be curtailed in this respect, and they think that only a benighted doctrinairism could oppose such prohibitions. Indeed, so general is the acceptance of this kind of interference by the authorities in the life of the individual that those who, are opposed to liberalism on principle are prone to base their argument on the ostensibly undisputed acknowledgment of the necessity of such prohibitions and to draw from it the conclusion that complete freedom is an evil and that some measure of restriction must be imposed upon the freedom of the individual by the governmental authorities in their capacity as guardians of his welfare. The question cannot be whether the authorities ought to impose restrictions upon the freedom of the individual, but only how far they ought to go in this respect.

 

No words need be wasted over the fact that all these narcotics are harmful. The question whether even a small quantity of alcohol is harmful or whether the harm results only from the abuse of alcoholic beverages is not at issue here. It is an established fact that alcoholism, cocainism, and morphinism are deadly enemies of life, of health, and of the capacity for work and enjoyment; and a utilitarian must therefore consider them as vices. But this is far from demonstrating that the authorities must interpose to suppress these vices by commercial prohibitions, nor is it by any means evident that such intervention on the part of the government is really capable of suppressing them or that, even if this end could be attained, it might not therewith open up a Pandora’s box of other dangers, no less mischievous than alcoholism and morphinism.

 

Whoever is convinced that indulgence or excessive indulgence in these poisons is pernicious is not hindered from living abstemiously or temperately. This question cannot be treated exclusively in reference to alcoholism, morphinism, cocainism, etc., which all reasonable men acknowledge to be evils. For if the majority of citizens is, in principle, conceded the right to impose its way of life upon a minority, it is impossible to stop at prohibitions against indulgence in alcohol, morphine, cocaine, and similar poisons. Why should not what is valid for these poisons be valid also for nicotine, caffeine, and the like? Why should not the state generally prescribe which foods may be indulged in and which must be avoided because they are injurious? In sports too, many people are prone to carry their indulgence further than their strength will allow. Why should not the state interfere here as well? Few men know how to be temperate in their sexual life, and it seems especially difficult for aging persons to understand that they should cease entirely to indulge in such pleasures or, at least, do so in moderation. Should not the state intervene here too? More harmful still than all these pleasures, many will say, is the reading of evil literature. Should a press pandering to the lowest instincts of man be allowed to corrupt the soul? Should not the exhibition of pornographic pictures, of obscene plays, in short, of all allurements to immorality, be prohibited? And is not the dissemination of false sociological doctrines just as injurious to men and nations? Should men be permitted to incite others to civil war and to wars against foreign countries? And should scurrilous lampoons and blasphemous diatribes be allowed to undermine respect for God and the Church?

 

We see that as soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual’s mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail. The personal freedom of the individual is abrogated. He becomes a slave of the community, bound to obey the dictates of the majority. It is hardly necessary to expatiate on the ways in which such powers could be abused by malevolent persons in authority. The wielding, of powers of this kind even by men imbued with the best of intentions must needs reduce the world to a graveyard of the spirit. All mankind’s progress has been achieved as a result of the initiative of a small minority that began to deviate from the ideas and customs of the majority until their example finally moved the others to accept the innovation themselves. To give the majority the right to dictate to the minority what it is to think, to read, and to do is to put a stop to progress once and for all.

 

Let no one object that the struggle against morphinism and the struggle against “evil” literature are two quite different things. The only difference between them is that some of the same people who favor the prohibition of the former will not agree to the prohibition of the latter. In the United States, the Methodists and Fundamentalists, right after the passage of the law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, took up the struggle for the suppression of the theory of evolution, and they have already succeeded in ousting Darwinism from the schools in a number of states. In Soviet Russia, every free expression of opinion is suppressed. Whether or not permission is granted for a book to be published depends on the discretion of a number of uneducated and uncultivated fanatics who have been placed in charge of the arm of the government empowered to concern itself with such matters.

 

The propensity of our contemporaries to demand authoritarian prohibition as soon as something does not please them, and their readiness to submit to such prohibitions even when what is prohibited is quite agreeable to them shows how deeply ingrained the spirit of servility still remains within them. It will require many long years of self-education until the subject can turn himself into the citizen. A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police."