81 replies to this topic

[Allura]

The executives cited in that article did exactly what they are LEGALLY obligated to do: increase profit. The law requires that the executives of a publically traded company (and I believe all of the companies mentioned fall into that category) look out for the shareholder first. If people want companies to stop focusing on profit (although I don't understand why they'd work for one then...), that is what needs to be changed. Companies exist to make money. They don't exist to do nice things for people, although it may make good PR (which makes them more money) when they do so. If they were interested in helping folks, they'd operate as a not-for-profit.

It is my job as a parent to decide what my child eats. I took one glance at that label and know I would never purchase it. The sodium content is way too high, and so is the sugar. Besides, coldcuts are cheaper and I can buy better quality and have something on hand any of us in the family would eat (I like a chef's salad for lunch every once in awhile).

I dislike the govt telling me what's best for me. Politicians aren't exactly sterling examples, and they usually have a bad case of living in glass houses.

I suspect the real answer to the "obesity epidemic" is more complex than just a single nutrient. I personally do better on a low carb diet, for instance, but I know plenty of people that prefer low fat. Perhaps we're not all the same?

I actually don't think the premise of the headline of the original article is answered in the body of the piece. They don't really talk about addiction, they just talk about execs being execs. *shrug*

Finally, I'm appalled at the undercurrent of attacks in this thread. This is not typical for egullet, and to see it coming from long time members is surprising.

[weinoo]

If you read the Bittman piece, he reports on the science that has proven a link, at the same level of confidence as the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer, as that between sugar and diabetes, not necessarily between sugar and obesity.

[Allura]

Oh, absolutely, diabetes and sugar consumption are linked. As far as I can tell, the best thing to do for diabetes (I have type 2) is a low carb diet. Nevermind the ADA's insistence on a low FAT diet...

My point is that obesity has multiple causes, some food related, some not. I've dieted and not over the years, but I've ALWAYS been at least fat, if not obese. Even as a kid, at every stage in my life, I've been built the same way, no matter how healthy my behaviors (eating & exercise) have been. So blaming food manufacturers for that doesn't make sense to me.

Personally, I would just as soon never see a lunchable on the shelf again. But I think the best way to do that is simply to not buy the product. No market = no sale. They'll change if people change their purchasing. Now, I do think that a company should be held liable if they LIE in their marketing, on the nutrition info, or in their labeling. But I think the more useful direction is to focus on pulling the junk out of schools (including the junk being sold as school lunches in many districts), stop serving junky snacks after every sport practice, every single get together of children no matter the age. I'm utterly dreading when my child gets to that age. As it is, I have to give daycare a hardtime periodically since they like giving out nilla wafers and ritz crackers as part of his snacks. Given that snacks make up a good part of a toddler's diet, this is important to control.

I do think there's an addiction side to some foods. I know that for me, if I eat low carb long enough (and I'm talking moderately low carb, not Atkins-level not even fiber rich veggies), the cravings for sugar do go away. But it's ROUGH the first few days when I get back on the bandwagon, and I definitely crave it. I still don't crave lunchables and its ilk, though. :)

[mm84321]

I suspect the real answer to the "obesity epidemic" is more complex than just a single nutrient. I personally do better on a low carb diet, for instance, but I know plenty of people that prefer low fat. Perhaps we're not all the same?

 

Preference does not trump how the human endocrine system functions. We certainly vary, but the basic biology of fat metabolism does not. The difference is what brings on these mechanisms (poverty, stress, depression, addiction, etc.), not how they ultimately work. 

[Allura]

Fine, fine, preference was the wrong term. They lose weight when they eat a low fat diet. I lose weight when I eat a low carb diet. I do NOT lose weight when eating a calorie restrictive diet (not unless I also restrict carbs). That's what I'm getting at. Yes, the plural of anecdote is not data. Is the basic biology of fat metabolism proven? Everyone harps on calories in/calories out, but the reporting of studies (no, I don't usually read studies beyond the abstract because it's not something I have suffiecient expertise to understand) don't seem to actually support that.

Anyway, we're moving off topic. The point is the original article is putting perhaps not the right kind of blame on the food manufacturers. Yes, they're making crappy food and they're heavily marketing it. Yes, and? It's not their responsibility to do other than make a profit. If they make more profit by selling healthier foods or marketing them in a less aggressive way, that's what they'll do. So as consumers we need to educate each other so that the market for healhy grows. Of course, this leads to marketing like the "cuties" citrus fruits instead...

[mm84321]

Yes, we are veering, but it is a point worth making. The calories in/calories out model certainly is false, and the competing hypothesis is that fat metabolism is regulated by hormones, namely insulin. Carbohydrates, in particular sugar and flour, trigger insulin secretion, etc...I am not telling you anything you don't already know. 

 

The problem with all of this is the profit motive, as you state. Is it wrong for a company to be profitable? Well, no. Except when that profit comes at the expense of the health and wellbeing of the population, certain ethical and moral issues should be examined. As long as money is at the center of these epidemics, (be it obesity, drugs, cancer) nothing will ever be resolved. Keeping people fat and sick is much more profitable than keeping anyone actually healthy. 

Edited by mm84321, 28 February 2013 - 10:42 AM.

[Jaymes]

Personally, I would just as soon never see a lunchable on the shelf again. But I think the best way to do that is simply to not buy the product. No market = no sale. They'll change if people change their purchasing. Now, I do think that a company should be held liable if they LIE in their marketing, on the nutrition info, or in their labeling.
 

 

Right.  Witness the recent demise of Hostess.  Sure, the intrasigence of the Baker's Union hammered the last nail into the coffin but, according to what I read anyway, the problem initially stemmed from revenues dropping precipitously due to the public's decreasing appetite for junk products, like Twinkies and Ding Dongs.

[annabelle]

I see that many are still conflating addiction with dependence.  Science, per se, does not set out to prove anything.  Science must be falsifiable or it is no longer science.  Without falsifiability, it becomes a matter of Faith.

 

mm84321, I have said nothing about willpower.  What I speak to in cessation of bad behaviors that are unhealthy, is behavior modification.  Specifically, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, in which one retrains one's brain.  This Is certainly not new science, but science it is and it is quite effective.  Not only is it effective, it is inexpensive, requires little homework for the client and is relatively quick to show results.  It is a matter of learning to recognize environmental/physical/emotional cues and not engaging in the destructive behavior but recognizing the cue(s) and thinking not acting impulsively or automatically.

[Honkman]

Bittman weighs in...
 

A study published in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal PLoS One links increased consumption of sugar with increased rates of diabetes by examining the data on sugar availability and the rate of diabetes in 175 countries over the past decade. And after accounting for many other factors, the researchers found that increased sugar in a population’s food supply was linked to higher diabetes rates independent of rates of obesity.
In other words, according to this study, obesity doesn’t cause diabetes: sugar does.

The study demonstrates this with the same level of confidence that linked cigarettes and lung cancer in the 1960s. As Rob Lustig, one of the study’s authors and a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said to me, “You could not enact a real-world study that would be more conclusive than this one.”

 
 
 
 

Some people think that Bittman hasn't really read the original article

http://scienceblogs....dicine & Health)

[gfweb]

Bittman weighs in...

A study published in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal PLoS One links increased consumption of sugar with increased rates of diabetes by examining the data on sugar availability and the rate of diabetes in 175 countries over the past decade. And after accounting for many other factors, the researchers found that increased sugar in a population’s food supply was linked to higher diabetes rates independent of rates of obesity.
In other words, according to this study, obesity doesn’t cause diabetes: sugar does.

The study demonstrates this with the same level of confidence that linked cigarettes and lung cancer in the 1960s. As Rob Lustig, one of the study’s authors and a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said to me, “You could not enact a real-world study that would be more conclusive than this one.”

Some people think that Bittman hasn't really read the original article

http://scienceblogs....dicine & Health)

This sort of media misreading of studies is commonplace. The narrative that the writer has in his head is what counts to him/her, not the actual facts. Studies are interpreted to fit their presuppositions, not according to what they actually say. It is as though science must be made to support the writer's point of view, as opposed to the writer's point of view being driven by the scientific evidence.

The problem is compounded by the scientific ignorance of most journalists who don't understand statistics and the inherent limitations in experiments and surveys.

A recent obit of C.Everett Koop highlighted how rare it is for a public figure to be data-driven rather than agenda-driven. Koop astounded political foes by sticking with the data rather than his political presuppositions regarding HIV and abortion. He was a heroic figure in a situation that was otherwise lacking in principled public servants.

[DiggingDogFarm]

Don't forget that the USDA has been more than complicit in promoting a carb rich, high calorie food pyramid. 

 

X2

 

And folks on food stamps can buy ALL the soda pop, candy, cookies, chips and other junk food that they want!!!!

 

Yet, when I have hundreds of pounds of surplus from a market garden......carrots, green beans, squash, tomatoes, beets, radishes, etc. etc. etc. and FREELY offer it to those who are "in need" it's usually turned down!!!!

 

It has become very difficult for me to sympathize.

 

~Martin

Edited by DiggingDogFarm, 01 March 2013 - 10:06 PM.

[weinoo]

Don't forget that the USDA has been more than complicit in promoting a carb rich, high calorie food pyramid. 

 

Yet, when I have hundreds of pounds of surplus from a market garden......carrots, green beans, squash, tomatoes, beets, radishes, etc. etc. etc. and FREELY offer it to those who are "in need" it's usually turned down!!!!

 

It has become very difficult for me to sympathize.

 

Do you  think if you offered that same stuff to someone looking for a cigarette, or a heroin addict, they'd be rushing over to grab it?

[DiggingDogFarm]

My experience enforces the addiction argument, at least in my mind!

 

 

~Martin

[Jaymes]

 

Don't forget that the USDA has been more than complicit in promoting a carb rich, high calorie food pyramid. 

 

Yet, when I have hundreds of pounds of surplus from a market garden......carrots, green beans, squash, tomatoes, beets, radishes, etc. etc. etc. and FREELY offer it to those who are "in need" it's usually turned down!!!!

 

It has become very difficult for me to sympathize.

 

Do you  think if you offered that same stuff to someone looking for a cigarette, or a heroin addict, they'd be rushing over to grab it?

 

Do you think that responsible parents would give their children cigarettes or heroine?

[weinoo]

I used to steal cigarettes from my parents.  If  you think kids of responsible parents aren't doing things behind their parents' backs, well, I have a bridge to sell to you.

[Jaymes]

I used to steal cigarettes from my parents.  If  you think kids of responsible parents aren't doing things behind their parents' backs, well, I have a bridge to sell to you.

 

Cute.  But that was not my question.  At all.  My question was "do you think responsible parents would GIVE cigarettes or heroine to their children."

 

And, if not, why not?

[weinoo]

Actually, I'm more concerned with those same parents (as has been posited above) giving their kids that first lunchable.  Because, as many of us know, it's that first drag, that first line, that first, dare I say it, lunchable, that gets one hooked.

[SylviaLovegren]

It's not that it's high in fat, sodium, carbs, etc. It's that it's BAD food. It doesn't taste good, it has no connection to real food or to the real animals and plants that it came from. Edible products (I won't call them "food") like Lunchables train kids to have no respect for that very important thing that all humans have to do, which is to eat.

It's tough to know who to "blame" for the sorry state of affairs that leads to anything like Lunchables.

But I used to work in an elementary school and saw what parents would send to school for a kid's lunch. Lunchables was bad, but not the worst. One mom used to send every day a lunchbox packed with 4 or 5 different kinds of cookies, 2 or 3 different candies and a juice box. That was it. I always wondered what the family's relationship to their dentist was.

[rotuts]

Society has the right and duty to encourage 'good' health.  History has shown that to prohibit something one views as causing an illness  would result in "Prohibition"

 

Bittman in the past had an article on sugar in cheap drinks:  the point is not to prohibit them nor their size, but to make them costly.

 

The tobacco problems have decreased as a result of this tax, but have not been eliminated. The poor of course still suffer here and 

 

the various bankrupt .GOV's enjoy this revenue and use it poorly.

 

The Tax argument fails on various items such as Cocaine and Crack, but Im not so sure it fails on Home

 

Grown Marijuana which would be taxed and licensed.  The penalties for selling the HomeGrown or making it 

 

available to minors would be severe.

Edited by rotuts, 02 March 2013 - 09:10 AM.

[Jaymes]

Actually, I'm more concerned with those same parents (as has been posited above) giving their kids that first lunchable.  Because, as many of us know, it's that first drag, that first line, that first, dare I say it, lunchable, that gets one hooked.

 

 

Well, it certainly didn't work that way with my kids.  I only tried it a very few times, when I had a particularly stressful week coming up, and didn't want to deal with my usual method of having imaginative, tasty, nutrituous lunch stuff at the ready:  ( http://forums.egulle...mos#entry110447 )

 

In fact, I got the "really, Mother?" eyeroll.

[rotuts]

I havent read through this whole thread as it would make me 'Pull a Cork' a bit on the early side.

 

then there is

 

Salt

 

 

[annabelle]

Certainly, the ideal is that all children will have healthy nutritious lunches packed by a loving mother in a committed, financially stable two parent household.  This isn't the case, has never been the case and most likely won't ever be the case.

 

As Jaymes has stated above there are times when trying to make ends meet (timewise), someone moves the ends.  A note about a field-trip found too late in a young child's backpack.  A once in a lifetime visit with a famous person, et al.  All of these have happened with my children.  Life happens.