New Target of the Food Police (CSPI)

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 06:55:49 GMT, "JG" wrote:

School is not a choice and most schools are not private.

See above. Get together with like-minded parents and form a charter
school.

Interesting idea, but... not as easily done as you think. Believe it
or not, it takes money up front to start a school of any kind and it
takes a lot more than just like-minded parents to make it work.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"That T Woman" wrote in message
...

"Beverly" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus19587" wrote in message
...
In article , JG
wrote:
"Ignoramus19587" wrote in
message
...

In article ,
Roger
Schlafly wrote:

* Krispy Kreme "Good Grades" program offers elementary school
kids
one doughnut for each "A" on their report cards. CSPI points
out
that
some states wisely prohibit or discourage using food as a
reward
for
good behavior or academic performance.

Really? Is it really against the law in some states to give a
kid a
doughnut
for getting an A or behaving himself?

* Pepsi's website profile of New York Yankees baseball star
Jason
Giambi, which prominently displays the quote, "I usually have
several
Pepsis each day-it really lifts me up," is one of many examples
of
a
junk-food marketer linking consumption of its product with
fitness.

Should Pepsi only use old fat ugly people for its pitchmen?

No, but we should be aware that pepsi won't make you slimmer and
more
beautiful.

I'd really like to meet a person who sincerely believes that Pepsi
has
such powers. g

Whic his what CSPI is saying, pretty much.

The CSPI is a bunch of elitist nannies. Members apparently believe
people are pretty damn stupid and that it's their (the CSPI's)
mission
to save people from what they (the CSPI) believes to be "bad"
choices.

You just said yourself that many people are not able to make informed
choices. I can quote you on that.


They use
beautiful people to promote pepsi, but pepsi does not make you
more
beautiful.

What makes you think Pepsi is asserting that you'll be more
beautiful
if
you drink their beverages?



Check out http://playlist.yahoo.com/makestream.dll?id=4881237

This is a pepsi ad shows a hard bodied woman whose beauty seems to be
enhanced by pepsi.

i

I don't believe that's the idea behind this ad. If I'm not mistaken
the
'hard bodied woman' in this ad is Shakira. The young man is listening
to
her music and is stunned to see her in person :-) Pepsi has used many
celebraties in this type of ad.

It's Beyonce Knowles. The singer who played Foxy Cleopatra in the last
awful Austin Powers movie.

I knew I should have asked one of the granddaughters I certainly
don't keep up with all the new artists.





http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...wles%22&ei=UTF
-
8&fr=fp-tab-img-t&cop=mss&tab=3

This is Shakira:


http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...-8&fr=fp-tab-i
m
g-t&cop=mss&tab=3

I think Shakira does Dr. Pepper ads.

Even so, do you really think that they think we (or our kids) are so
stupid
that we believe that if we drink soda pop that we'll be skinny as those
chicks.

"JG" wrote in message
t...

Their facts/data may be okay (which *states*, as opposed to, say, school
districts, forbid the use of food as a reward?); it's their
conclusions/allegations with which I take issue.

That food manufacturers use sophisticated techniques that make
children overeat, is pretty obvious.

Guns don't make people fire them. Cars don't make people drive them.
Gambling games/devices don't make people play/use them. Hookers don't
make people patronize them. Alcohol/drugs don't make people
ingest/inject them. And (drum roll, please) food manufacturers/marketers
don't MAKE people buy/consume their products.

That giving schools incentives
based on school sales of junk sodas,

Welcome to capitalism, friend! It's the system of *choices*.

Thank God!!!!!

The CSPI is a bunch of whiney nannies who want to try to tell others what to
do. It is a personal choice of everyone, especially parents. It is not my
job as a taxpayer to fork over my hard-earned money because some parents
don't want to do what parents do.

People
get to prioritize their needs/wants. Apparently many schools have
decided that generating revenue via the promotion/sale of various foods
and beverages of questionable nutritional value is more important than
acquiescing to the demands of some that such practices be stopped.

A lot of those food companies pay for the equipment, etc. that the schools
need. Unfortunately, schools waste a lot of money on things they shouldn't,
so it has to be made up for by corporate money. Of course, I'm all into a
complete overhaul of our school system.

That they benefit from
overeating, is also obvious. That they benefit from replacing healthy
foods with crap, is also obvious. That they have no financial
incentives to make children healthies, is also obvious.

It is NOT schools' job to "make children healthy"(!)

It most certainly is not. They can't even teach children English or how to
read, how does anyone expect the schools to teach children what to eat?

I do not always agree with CSPI. Their hyperfocus on "saturated fat"
may be misplaced. But the particular report that you posted is all
facts and the facts are likely to be true.

I was under the impression that "facts" are, by definition, "true." g

: ) I believe very little of what the extremely biased, agendized CSPI says.

The same cannot be said for *reasoning* based on facts, however.

We as parents have to be vigilant and keep our children's best
interests in mind, and recognize that the junk food peddlers are not
there to help us.

They are if you own stock in the company!

JG

There's one form of bigotry that is still acceptable in America --
that's the bigotry against the successful.
--Phil Gramm

Nice quote!

Martha

"That T Woman" wrote in message
...

Even so, do you really think that they think we (or our kids) are so
stupid
that we believe that if we drink soda pop that we'll be skinny as those
chicks.

The OP thinks everyone on the planet is stupid except him.

Martha

In article ,
Banty wrote:

First of all, this is a seconday source - a news media report of a study does
not a citation make. You're going through an intermediary who most often
does
not understand the study. For one thing, it's quite unclear whether or not
'extra calories' is comparing diets, or comparing to physical needs.
Secondly -
I urge you to go back to read it - even so there is a fair amoung of
skepticism
expressed even by the authors of the study.

I'm surprised to see you take this approach.

I agree that secondary sources from new media is not a valid citation.
The actual study was not available to the lay public for transcribing
here.

I did actually read the original study paper and certainly there is
skepticism. That happens when science is about to discard decades of
accepted belief.

But although the study may be flawed and the results not exacting, the
premise that causing a net deficit in caloric measure (by increasing
utilization or decreasing availability) is the only treatment for weight
loss is no longer scientifically viable. Assuming, of course, the
results can be repeated.

See Banty, I am indeed a scientist. And I have learned that "modern
medicine" holds dearly to exisiting assumptions. It is best to neither
be quick to endorse new information or quick to discard old, but to open
to either.

I first learned of the potential "diet enigma" while attendting a
presentation by a well known endochrinologist. The doctor's point was,
that there are a number of hormone-mediated metabolic pathways that
influence things like diabetes, cholesterol issues, weight loss/gain,
and adjusting diet can influence hormones which influence metabolism
which influences health, which influences dietary needs....etc.

The real bottom line here is that we, and especially our children, need
to eat differently. Actually, simply more like people ate before the
introduction of processed foods, artificial this and that and
bioengineered food stuffs. Basic, real foods, in reasonable balanced
quantities, feeding our body what is really needs.

Coke and Pepsi isn't it. Artifically flavored and colored "cheese"
snacks made with fake fat and genetically modified corn just isn't fit
for our kids.

Perhaps you'd like to move the discussion to things like the possible
effects of food additives?

--Larry

--
Dr. Larry Bickford, O.D.
Family Practice Eye Health & Vision Care

The Eyecare Connection
http//www.eyecarecontacts.com
larrydoc at m a c.c o m

In article , LarryDoc
says...

In article ,
Banty wrote:

First of all, this is a seconday source - a news media report of a study does
not a citation make. You're going through an intermediary who most often
does
not understand the study. For one thing, it's quite unclear whether or not
'extra calories' is comparing diets, or comparing to physical needs.
Secondly -
I urge you to go back to read it - even so there is a fair amoung of
skepticism
expressed even by the authors of the study.

I'm surprised to see you take this approach.

I agree that secondary sources from new media is not a valid citation.
The actual study was not available to the lay public for transcribing
here.

I did actually read the original study paper and certainly there is
skepticism. That happens when science is about to discard decades of
accepted belief.


That's the nature of the whole scientific process - skepticism. One study of
this nature does not proof make, either. I don't think this study is the
ultraviolet catastrophe of medical science. This would proceed by building a
perponderance of evidence, probably through longitudinal studies.

But although the study may be flawed and the results not exacting, the
premise that causing a net deficit in caloric measure (by increasing
utilization or decreasing availability) is the only treatment for weight
loss is no longer scientifically viable. Assuming, of course, the
results can be repeated.

See Banty, I am indeed a scientist.

Guess what - me too.

And I have learned that "modern
medicine" holds dearly to exisiting assumptions. It is best to neither
be quick to endorse new information or quick to discard old, but to open
to either.

I first learned of the potential "diet enigma" while attendting a
presentation by a well known endochrinologist. The doctor's point was,
that there are a number of hormone-mediated metabolic pathways that
influence things like diabetes, cholesterol issues, weight loss/gain,
and adjusting diet can influence hormones which influence metabolism
which influences health, which influences dietary needs....etc.

I'm especially skeptical of declarations that 'diets don't work', and claims
that obesity is some individuals' normal weight. Becaue what I've noted is
that, there is any factor like a variation in base metabolism between
individuals, it's held up as a counter to the basic thermodynamics of the
situation. It's not. Differing constants for differing individuals does not
the equation break. At most there may be diet-metabolism interactions, but the
basic situation is that of a thermodynamic source-sink situation.

There's a lot of folks out there who would much rather have their problems laid
at the feet of evul food corporations than to take responsbility for doing some
hard work themselves. I see folks holding up medical conditions and differnces
in metabolism as a reason why it 'isn't fair' to them if they gain on amounts
that another wouldn't. That in itself belies an attitude toward food as reward
and entertainment. Rationally, needing less is a Good thing.

I'm also extremely skeptical of any study that relies in any way on
self-reported intakes and exercise levels.


The real bottom line here is that we, and especially our children, need
to eat differently. Actually, simply more like people ate before the
introduction of processed foods, artificial this and that and
bioengineered food stuffs. Basic, real foods, in reasonable balanced
quantities, feeding our body what is really needs.

This far I agree.


Coke and Pepsi isn't it. Artifically flavored and colored "cheese"
snacks made with fake fat and genetically modified corn just isn't fit
for our kids.

But none of this is a cause of obesity - it's the amounts and proportions that
can be problematic.


Perhaps you'd like to move the discussion to things like the possible
effects of food additives?

Not really, unless you can give us a pretty good etiology for a connection to
weight gain.

Banty

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:44:13 GMT, LarryDoc
wrote:
snip

Coke and Pepsi isn't it. Artifically flavored and colored "cheese"
snacks made with fake fat and genetically modified corn just isn't fit
for our kids.



Is the implication here that eating corn which is resistant to the
herbicide Round-Up somehow contributes to obesity? I'm not an expert
on GMO's, but I've never seen any reports that suggest this. What
special properties does GM corn have that make it more fattening than
non-GM corn?

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:57:13 GMT, "MH"
wrote:

"JG" wrote in message
et...

Their facts/data may be okay (which *states*, as opposed to, say, school
districts, forbid the use of food as a reward?); it's their
conclusions/allegations with which I take issue.

That food manufacturers use sophisticated techniques that make
children overeat, is pretty obvious.

Guns don't make people fire them. Cars don't make people drive them.
Gambling games/devices don't make people play/use them. Hookers don't
make people patronize them. Alcohol/drugs don't make people
ingest/inject them. And (drum roll, please) food manufacturers/marketers
don't MAKE people buy/consume their products.

That giving schools incentives
based on school sales of junk sodas,

Welcome to capitalism, friend! It's the system of *choices*.

Thank God!!!!!

The CSPI is a bunch of whiney nannies who want to try to tell others what to
do. It is a personal choice of everyone, especially parents. It is not my
job as a taxpayer to fork over my hard-earned money because some parents
don't want to do what parents do.


The same could be said of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.
It's a personal choice for everyone regarding drug use, so why should
a taxpayer fork over their hard-earned money to pay for a
multi-million dollar "War on Drugs" because some parents don't want to
do what parents do. Why aren't the Nutritional Libertarians in this
thread complaining about this instead? At present there are no tax
dollars being spent trying to keep the junk food pushers out schools.

"atanarjuat" wrote in message
...

The same could be said of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.
It's a personal choice for everyone regarding drug use, so why should
a taxpayer fork over their hard-earned money to pay for a
multi-million dollar "War on Drugs" because some parents don't want to
do what parents do. Why aren't the Nutritional Libertarians in this
thread complaining about this instead?

Perhaps because it isn't/wasn't the subject of the thread? g

At present there are no tax
dollars being spent trying to keep the junk food pushers out schools.

Junk food is (for the time being; give the do-gooders a bit more time!)
still legal for everyone, including kids. Should selling junk food to
kids become illegal, no doubt as much effort (= tax dollars) will be put
into keeping it off campuses as is currently spent on keeping schools
"tobacco- (and alcohol-, and drug-)free zones."

In article ,
"JG" wrote:

"atanarjuat" wrote in message
...

The same could be said of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.
It's a personal choice for everyone regarding drug use, so why should
a taxpayer fork over their hard-earned money to pay for a
multi-million dollar "War on Drugs" because some parents don't want to
do what parents do. Why aren't the Nutritional Libertarians in this
thread complaining about this instead?

Perhaps because it isn't/wasn't the subject of the thread? g

At present there are no tax
dollars being spent trying to keep the junk food pushers out schools.

Junk food is (for the time being; give the do-gooders a bit more time!)
still legal for everyone, including kids. Should selling junk food to
kids become illegal, no doubt as much effort (= tax dollars) will be put
into keeping it off campuses as is currently spent on keeping schools
"tobacco- (and alcohol-, and drug-)free zones."




And likely with just as much success!

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care