PDA

View Full Version : Killing kids with aspartame seems to be the way to go



savafan
05-03-2006, 11:24 AM
Nice. Diet soda is a great healthy substitute. :bang:

For those like me who are deathly allergic to nutra sweet, and I know of one other person besides myself, so I'm sure there are others out there, I guess I should just be happy that I'm not in school anymore.

I don't see this as a solution to our nation's obesity "epidemic". The solution is getting kids off of the couch and away from watching television and playing video games. When someone can figure out a way to do that, I'll applaud them.

Of course, I guess none of this precludes kids from packing their own lunches and bringing soda with them to school...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060503/ap_on_re_us/soft_drinks_schools



By SAMANTHA GROSS, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 41 minutes ago

NEW YORK - The nation's largest beverage distributors have agreed to halt nearly all soda sales to public schools, according to a deal announced Wednesday by the William J. Clinton Foundation.

Under the agreement, the companies have agreed to sell only water, unsweetened juice and low-fat milks to elementary and middle schools, said Jay Carson, a spokesman for former President
Bill Clinton. Diet sodas would be sold only to high schools.

Cadbury Schweppes PLC, Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and the American Beverage Association have all signed onto the deal, Carson said, adding that the companies serve "the vast majority of schools." The American Beverage Association represents the majority of school vending bottlers.

The deal follows a wave of regulation by school districts and state legislatures to cut back on student consumption of soda amid reports of rising childhood obesity rates. Soda has been a particular target of those fighting obesity because of its caloric content and popularity among children.

"It's a bold and sweeping step that industry and childhood obesity advocates have decided to take together," Carson said.

A man who answered the phone at Cadbury Schweppes' London headquarters said no one was available for comment. Calls seeking comment from the other distributors were not immediately returned early Wednesday.

Nearly 35 million students nationwide will be affected by the deal, The Alliance for a Healthier Generation said in a news release. The group, a collaboration between Clinton's foundation and the
American Heart Association, helped broker the deal.

"This is really the beginning of a major effort to modify childhood obesity at the level of the school systems," said Robert H. Eckel, president of the American Heart Association.

Under the agreement, high schools will still be able to purchase drinks such as diet and unsweetened teas, diet sodas, sports drinks, flavored water, seltzer and low-calorie sports drinks from distributors.

School sales of those kinds of drinks have been on the rise in recent years, while regular soda purchases by students have been falling, according to an ABA report released in December. But regular soda is still the most popular drink among students, accounting for 45 percent of beverages sold in schools in 2005, the report said.

The agreement applies to beverages sold for use on school grounds during the regular and extended school day, Carson said. Sales during after-school activities such as clubs, yearbook, band and choir practice will be affected by the new regulations. But sales at events such as school plays, band concerts and sporting events, where adults make up a significant portion of the audience, won't be affected, he said.

How quickly the changes take hold will depend in part on individual school districts' willingness to alter existing contracts, the alliance said. The companies will work to implement the changes at 75 percent of the nation's public schools by the 2008-2009 school year, and at all public schools a year later.

Many school districts around the country have already begun to replace soda and candy in vending machines with healthier items, and dozens of states have considered legislation on school nutrition this year.

The agreement follows an August decision by the American Beverage Association to adopt a policy limiting soft drinks in high schools to no more than 50 percent of the selections in vending machines. That recommendation was not binding.

westofyou
05-03-2006, 11:27 AM
Soda makes kids fat, period, no amount of complaints can make that a moot point. But of course we didn't have soda in school way back when I went, so I never got in the habit.

deltachi8
05-03-2006, 11:37 AM
Soda is a big problem with weight gain that I never fully realized until I stopped drinking sugared soda as part of a weight loss plan. Amazing how many calories you can drink in a day and not realize it.

I agree with Sava in getting the kids outside and away from the TV. It amazes me that my 9 year old makes me feel like I am punishing him if I say shut off the TV an dlets go play catch. No TV on school nights became the rule and after a few arguments, he adjusted, as I am sure most kids would. I will admit to bending the rules for the hockey playoffs though...

Johnny Footstool
05-03-2006, 11:52 AM
Soda doesn't make kids fat. Kids' lifestyles and genetic makeup make them fat.

Sugar-heavy calories in soda do contribute heavily to the problem, but the bigger issue is motivating kids to engage in physical activity, as savafan indicated.


I don't see this as a solution to our nation's obesity "epidemic". The solution is getting kids off of the couch and away from watching television and playing video games. When someone can figure out a way to do that, I'll applaud them.

Simple rewards.

My kids will be allowed to drink soda or other high-fructose drinks provided they are physically active -- i.e. before or after playing sports or running around outdoors. Sitting and playing video games or watching TV will earn them a nice, cool glass of water or milk.

A game of catch or HORSE with Dad will earn them a bit of candy or something sweet, maybe even a Balance bar. Challenge Dad to Madden 2015 and we'll share some orange slices or peanuts.

SeeinRed
05-03-2006, 12:04 PM
I agree that Soda is a factor, but not the culprit. Placing blame on one part of the equation just compounds the problem. I'll be honest, I drink about 7 cans of Coke a day easy. I'm in college, so I eat pizza, McDonalds, and so on every day. (when I can afford it.) I weigh 155 lbs. and am about 5'11". I'm a small guy. Why? Maybe its genes, but one thing I do right (about the only thing) is I am very active. I play sports with friends (baketball, volleyball, football, golf) and I run every day. I'm by no means a physical specimen, but I don't let myself sit around and watch TV. I think a lot of the problem today though lies not on the TV, but the fact that we live such hectic lives that we don't take the time to be active. We work, study, drive around, etc. so much that we don't take the time to run, or play some sports. Then you add in that kids are expected to do more in the class room now, maybe pick up a musical instument, get involved in extra curricular activities that don't involve sports, and yes even TV, you realize that parents maybe aren't pushing their kids to be active as hard as they used to because of all the other stuff they expect them to do, and they are too busy in their own lives to make time to be active with their kids. Its a sad excuse, but I see it all of the time. In other words, maybe the problems with todays youth, is the lifestyle of today's adults.

Blimpie
05-03-2006, 02:06 PM
Soda makes kids fat, period, no amount of complaints can make that a moot point. But of course we didn't have soda in school way back when I went, so I never got in the habit.We didn't have vending machines of any sort while I was in school...that's what ditching was for.

creek14
05-03-2006, 04:27 PM
Creek Jr gets one pop (hey, I'm from Ohio) when we go out to eat. None at home. He's never had artifical sweetner or caffeine (except in the occasional piece of chocolate, which he doesn't even really like). I'm not into giving my kid a death sentence.

Roy Tucker
05-03-2006, 04:41 PM
We just never made a big deal of pop. We kept some in the fridge along with a bunch of other drinks. We had a nominal limit of one a day. We steered away from caffeine but sometimes we slipped and got Coke or whatever. Or A+W root beer which is caffeinated.

Everything had to get finished off before my wife would make another beverage run. So if the kids drank up all the pop the first day back from the store, they didn't get any more till all the juice, water, etc. was gone. We didn't obsess about it or brain wash them or make a big deal of it. We just didn't buy any more. So they just never got into the habit.

So my son drinks milk by the gallon, probably 1/2 gallon a day. My 2 girls drink juice and water. They love Propel so we get them that as a treat. If they go to a sporting event (to play), they take a Propel. They still drink some pop, but its like 1 every 2-3 days. And they are all skinny as rails. But they are active too.

Falls City Beer
05-03-2006, 06:08 PM
Sodas are clearly part of the problem. Getting rid of them in public schools is part of the solution.

deltachi8
05-03-2006, 07:30 PM
Sodas are clearly part of the problem. Getting rid of them in public schools is part of the solution.

I read that too fast as "getting rid of the public schools is part of the solution."

Not that I would disagree with that as well...

:D

Unassisted
05-03-2006, 07:49 PM
Down here, drinking soda is such an integral part of the Latino culture that some stores sell packages of kid-sized 6 oz. cans of soda. Many is the time I will see little kids on the street or in a store drinking some kind of sugary soda or fruit drink. :(

My kids drink far less soda than I do. My youngest would drink water 3 meals a day if we let him. (Gotta get some calcium via milk or OJ into the kid. :) ) My oldest drinks lightly-flavored water drinks like Aquafina or Diet Snapple and chocolate milk.

Falls City Beer
05-03-2006, 08:13 PM
I read that too fast as "getting rid of the public schools is part of the solution."

Not that I would disagree with that as well...

:D

Yeah, because private schools do such a fine job of serving all citizens. Let's turn everything over to the private sector; because profit margins usually align with doing the proper thing.

deltachi8
05-03-2006, 10:04 PM
Yeah, because private schools do such a fine job of serving all citizens. Let's turn everything over to the private sector; because profit margins usually align with doing the proper thing.

lighten up francis, its a joke.

my kid goes to public schools. not complaining, however, if i could afford it...

paintmered
05-03-2006, 10:07 PM
Yeah, because private schools do such a fine job of serving all citizens. Let's turn everything over to the private sector; because profit margins usually align with doing the proper thing.

Easy, killer.

Larkin411
05-03-2006, 11:48 PM
It's funny because I read that diet sodas actually are correlated with more weight gain than even the awful high-fructose drinks(btw, many breads have high-fructose corn syrup in them too, tsk tsk). Some speculate that it's because the drinker then thinks they can have more calories since they choose a diet drink. However, I think it's also been shown(don't remember where so I could be wrong) that your body gets all out of whack from the false sweet taste and responds with hunger.

Johnny Footstool
05-04-2006, 12:43 AM
In other words, maybe the problems with todays youth, is the lifestyle of today's adults.

I agree.

...

And to jump topics, there is no evidence that aspartame causes health problems.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

savafan
05-04-2006, 02:24 AM
And to jump topics, there is no evidence that aspartame causes health problems.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

If you have an allergy it does. I went into lung failure. It was very real and serious.

Blimpie
05-04-2006, 09:02 AM
And to jump topics, there is no evidence that aspartame causes health problems.People were saying that about saccharin for many, many years. Then all of the sudden, it causes cancer in lab rats. Pulled from the shelves.

Now, you start to hear about recent studies that claim long term saccharin useage did not have any ill effects in primates and the ban might be lifted in an attempt to combat the bigger (and more pervasive) problem: Obesity.

I guess the question is: Whom should we trust...the rats or the apes?

Blimpie
05-04-2006, 09:04 AM
If you have an allergy it does. I went into lung failure. It was very real and serious.Of course your allergy is serious, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether or not it is harmful to human beings in general.

People suffer terribly from peanut allergies, but you still see Skippy on the shelves.

Ravenlord
05-04-2006, 10:12 AM
i think anything that requires high ammounts of processing is in general, bad for you. pop, white bread, American chocolate, American cheese. also eating domesticated that are eating things that were never meant to be in their diets. and a whole boat load of other things.

however, i'm poor, so bring on the turkey bolonga and chloronated water.

vaticanplum
05-04-2006, 10:16 AM
Down here, drinking soda is such an integral part of the Latino culture that some stores sell packages of kid-sized 6 oz. cans of soda. Many is the time I will see little kids on the street or in a store drinking some kind of sugary soda or fruit drink. :(

And here we have a totally separate problem. My mother has picked up on the habit of buying the tiny little plastic bottles of soda because they're easy for her to tote around in her purse or whatever. So you have what, about two sips of soda, and then a hundred gazillion plastic bottles littering the earth. It's bizarre to me that such a thing is even allowed to be made; I'd almost rather people drink more soda in one sitting than have these little bottles being made, because if people want to control the amount they drink, they can do that themselves, they don't need an evil small bottle. In this case my mother happens to be not very good about recycling either.

Johnny Footstool
05-04-2006, 12:19 PM
My mom buys the tiny cans of Coke. I get mad at her for doing so. If you need portions of Coke that small, buy a 2-liter and some dixie cups.

TeamMorris
05-04-2006, 12:40 PM
TG gets soda but very little. Maybe once a week. sometimes not even that. Funny though, I always have it in the fridge but he would rather have other things.

Red in Chicago
05-05-2006, 11:48 PM
Soda makes kids fat, period, no amount of complaints can make that a moot point. But of course we didn't have soda in school way back when I went, so I never got in the habit.

a large quantity of just about anything can make someone fat...the key is moderation...one can of coke is 180 calories...a glass of orange juice isn't far behind...sure there are vitamins in oj, but it's the calories that make you gain weight...people need to stop blaming coke, mcdonalds and the local pizza parlor for getting them and their children fat...get off your butts and exercise...then that one can of coke, slice of pizza or big mac won't affect you so much...i'm far from skinny, but i'm not blaming the beverage or fast food industry...

Falls City Beer
05-06-2006, 12:09 AM
a large quantity of just about anything can make someone fat...the key is moderation...one can of coke is 180 calories...a glass of orange juice isn't far behind...sure there are vitamins in oj, but it's the calories that make you gain weight...people need to stop blaming coke, mcdonalds and the local pizza parlor for getting them and their children fat...get off your butts and exercise...then that one can of coke, slice of pizza or big mac won't affect you so much...i'm far from skinny, but i'm not blaming the beverage or fast food industry...

I don't exercise as much as I should and I maintain my college graduation weight by avoiding sugars, processed foods--primarily eating vegetables, avoiding sodas, carbs; haven't touched fast food in 15 years.

Kids can exercise all they want, but if they don't eat right, it's not going to matter much at all. Diet first; exercise next.

Non-diet sodas are diabetes in a bottle.

westofyou
05-06-2006, 12:18 AM
a large quantity of just about anything can make someone fat...the key is moderation...one can of coke is 180 calories...a glass of orange juice isn't far behind...sure there are vitamins in oj, but it's the calories that make you gain weight...people need to stop blaming coke, mcdonalds and the local pizza parlor for getting them and their children fat...get off your butts and exercise...then that one can of coke, slice of pizza or big mac won't affect you so much...i'm far from skinny, but i'm not blaming the beverage or fast food industry...
Corn syrup, sugars and fat are part of the problem.

Exercise is a given, I went on a 24 mile ride this week.. and I just ate some ice cream.

But I'm not ever going to give the fast food industry a free pass, they don't deserve that now.

savafan
05-06-2006, 12:42 AM
But I'm not ever going to give the fast food industry a free pass, they don't deserve that now.

Why, they don't go to people's homes, put a gun to their head and shove french fries down their throats against their will. When will we stop blaming everybody else and realize that the choices we make are what affect us? :confused:

Red in Chicago
05-06-2006, 12:46 AM
Why, they don't go to people's homes, put a gun to their head and shove french fries down their throats against their will. When will we stop blaming everybody else and realize that the choices we make are what affect us? :confused:

exactly my point...moderation and personal responsibility...

westofyou
05-06-2006, 12:57 AM
When will we stop blaming everybody else and realize that the choices we make are what affect us?As soon as mainstream society stops shoving burger imagery and jingles into the world of our children would be my guess.

Ya gotta think that Ronald, Mayor McCheese and his posse ain't there to entice the adult demographic into eating their mad cow, rain forest gobbling, death sandwiches do you?

savafan
05-06-2006, 12:57 AM
I agree.

...

And to jump topics, there is no evidence that aspartame causes health problems.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

snopes can say whatever it wants, and I'll believe otherwise on this topic, as my doctor has linked several of my relatives' cancer to aspartame.

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/symptoms.htm


snip:

The following symptoms are listed on the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network Fact Sheet:

headaches, nausea, vertigo, insomnia, numbness, blurred vision, blindness and other eye problems, memory loss, slurred speech, depression, personality changes, hyperactivity, stomach disorders, seizures, skin lesions, rashes, anxiety attacks, muscle cramping and joint pain, loss of energy, symptoms mimicking heart attacks, hearing loss and ear ringing, and loss or change of taste.

snip:

If a product has to have this many warnings, how can it possibly be on the market?

The FDA has the answer. Thomas Wilcox, FDA spokesman, claims that "some people don't tolerate aspartame, but the reports to the FDA aren't sufficient to warrant a change in the product's classification. . . . Unless there is shown to be some very common serious effect . . . you don't want to deprive the entire population of the product" (qtd. in Bonvie and Bonvie G1). How serious do the side effects have to be and how many people have to be affected before this product is pulled off the market? When you start to add up the Phenylketonurics, the 10 million PKU carriers, migraine sufferers, diabetics, children, and pregnant women, who are all possible victims of aspartame poisoning, it seems significant enough to ban the use of aspartame. Don't these people who are at risk or have already suffered count? Depriving people of their health seems more serious than "depriving the entire population" of a sugar substitute.

http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-sweeteners.html


Aspartame, a dipeptide of aspartic acid and a methyl ester of phenylalanine, is approved for use in pharmaceutical products and is being used increasingly in chewable tablet and sugar-free formulations. Labels for both prescription and nonprescription products must include the phenylalanine content. The major consideration in the use of aspartame in children is in patients with autosomal recessive phenylketonuria. Although heterozygotes do not appear to have clinically significant increases in phenylalanine after ingestion of even large amounts (equivalent to 24 12-oz cans of diet beverages), homozygotes with strict dietary restrictions should avoid aspartame. Children without dietary restrictions could safely ingest 10 mg/kg/d. [37-40]. Dietary consumption of aspartame is typically less than 5 mg/kg/d[41]; young children, however, could ingest considerably more. For example, a 2-year-old child weighing 12 kg consumes 17 mg/kg from drinking one 12-oz can of diet soda and one serving of a sweetened product (eg, cereal, pudding, gelatin, or frozen dessert).

Headache is the most common adverse side effect attributed to aspartame but is seldom confirmed by single-dose double-blind challenge. Up to 11% of patients with chronic migraine headaches reported headaches triggered by aspartame; however, a double-blind challenge with three doses of 10 mg/kg given every 2 hours triggered no more headaches than did placebos in patients with vascular headaches believed to be exacerbated by aspartame. A small, double-blind 4-week trial showed an increase in frequency of headaches after ingestion of 1200 mg/d, indicating that a longer challenge period may be necessary.

In anecdotal reports, aspartame has been linked to various neuropsychiatric disorders, including panic attacks, mood changes, visual hallucinations, manic episodes, and isolated dizziness. A small, double-blind crossover study of patients with major depression revealed a higher incidence of reactions in these patients compared with nondepressed volunteers after administration of 30 mg/kg for 7 days; symptoms included headache, nervousness, dizziness, memory impairment, nausea, temper outbursts, and depression. None of these conditions has been rigorously proven to be caused by aspartame, but carefully conducted double-blind challenges may be indicated in patients with histories that suggest aspartame as a cause. Patients with underlying mitral valve prolapse or affective disorders may be at increased risk for neuropsychiatric effects; several studies have shown that individuals without psychiatric or seizure disorders do not demonstrate these effects.

Seizures have been reported via passive surveillance data collected by the FDA and in a few case reports. A recent analysis of FDA reports showed 41 cases of rechallenge with a temporal relationship to aspartame consumption. Most seizures occurred in patients who had an acceptable dietary intake, except for a 16-year-old who ingested up to 57 mg/kg of aspartame. Aspartame is generally considered safe for children with epilepsy. One study found increased spike-wave discharges in children with untreated absence seizures after a high dose of aspartame and suggested that children with poorly controlled absence seizures avoid aspartame.

http://www.janethull.com/askdrhull/article.php?id=008


Many people think the isolated amino acids in aspartame are totally harmless. This is a perfect example of the misinformation consumers are told about aspartame. Isolated amino acids can be damaging to the brain when taken out of the essential amino acid complexes found only in nature. The two amino acids in aspartame are in no way natural. They are manufactured replicas of real amino acids found in natural food sources. They are not “squeezed” out of natural foods and placed into a diet cola can!

Thinking it's just been fed, the human body will try to process the protein inside the "fake" amino acids, but because they are “fake proteins” manufactured with no nutritional value, there is no nutrition to be had. Your body will stay hungry as it waits to be “fed” real food, not artificial replicas of the real thing.

Isolated amino acids can be harmful to your health because they create an imbalance inside the brain. Dr. John Olney's research (Washington School of Medicine) on both the isolated amino acids in aspartame and MSG resulted in holes forming in the brains of lab rats fed isolated aspartic acid. Too much consumption of phenylalanine and aspartic acid (in aspartame) can be harmful to human health, and these isolated amino acids break down into numerous toxic by-products your body does not want or need.

http://www.321recipes.com/aspartame.html


The multi-billion dollar aspartame industry would like you believe that "aspartame kills" is an "urban legend" and that you'd have to drink 100 cans of diet soda a day to be harmed by aspartame. This is just simply not true. Their main claim is that the 3 components of aspartame are found in many natural foods and are therefore safe. This is kind of like saying carbon monoxide is safe because all it contains is carbon & oxygen, the same components of carbon dioxide. Methanol (wood alcohol), which makes up 10% of aspartame and is highly toxic (adult minimum lethal dose is 2 teaspoons), is also found in some fruits & vegetables like tomatoes. However, methanol is never found in natural foods without ethanol & pectin, its "antidotes" if you will (detailed facts below). Ethanol & pectin prevent methanol from being metabolized into formaldehyde (embalming fluid) & formic acid (same chemical as fire ant venom), both deadly toxins. An ethanol drip is even the standard emergency room treatment for methanol poisoning. Aspartame contains no ethanol or pectin, therefore the methanol is converted to formaldehyde and formic acid. Phenylalanine and aspartic acid, the other 2 components of aspartame, are amino acids found in natural foods but always as part of long chains of many different amino acids to form complex protein molecules that take humans 12 hours to gradually break down & assimilate. According to the doctors below, when consumed by themselves these 2 amino acids require no digestion and quickly enter the brain & central nervous system at abnormally high levels, overstimulating brain cells to death and causing many other health problems.

"Pro" aspartame people point to industry sponsored short term tests, ignoring independant tests. They point to "reliable" health sites, organizations, foundations etc. that are sponsored, funded & fed "facts" by companies that profit from aspartame. And of course, the FDA approved it so "it must be safe", neglecting to mention that the FDA denied aspartame approval for over 8 years until the newly appointed FDA commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes overruled the final scientic review panel, approved aspartame, and then went to work for G.D. Searle's (initial owner of aspartame) public relations firm at $1,000 a day. Hayes has refused all interviews to discuss his actions. The FDA also urged Congress to prosecute G.D. Searle for "specific false statements or concealed facts" stemming from Searle's testing of aspartame. However, the 2 government lawyers assigned to the case decided against prosecuting G.D. Searle and then joined G.D. Searle's law firm! Even the National Soft Drink Assn. filed a strong protest letter (available below) in 1983 against the approval of aspartame for use in beverages, saying "aspartame is inherently, markedly and uniquely unstable in aqueous media." Also, the FDA still allows hydrogenated oils to be used, does that make them safe?

Falls City Beer
05-06-2006, 10:37 AM
Part of the problem for both the urban and rural poor is that fast food is considerably cheaper and less time-consuming than purchasing fresh vegetables, fish, and real cuts of meat.

I'm not placing blame on a particular component of society for that; I'm only stating that as a fact.

deltachi8
05-06-2006, 10:58 AM
As soon as mainstream society stops shoving burger imagery and jingles into the world of our children would be my guess.

Ya gotta think that Ronald, Mayor McCheese and his posse ain't there to entice the adult demographic into eating their mad cow, rain forest gobbling, death sandwiches do you?

I dunno Grimmace had a pretty powerful effect on me.

These death sandwiches, do they come with cheese? Mmmmm cheese.

westofyou
05-06-2006, 11:16 AM
I dunno Grimmace had a pretty powerful effect on me.

These death sandwiches, do they come with cheese? Mmmmm cheese.

Grimmace is an anagram for GRAM MICE which each death burger is allowed to contain according to FDA regulations.

deltachi8
05-06-2006, 08:00 PM
I was on the road and could't post my Homer drooling pic to go with my post so it lost some effect.

Johnny Footstool
05-06-2006, 08:38 PM
Grimmace is an anagram for GRAM MICE which each death burger is allowed to contain according to FDA regulations.

Evian is "naive" spelled backwards.

gonelong
05-07-2006, 11:00 PM
Grimmace is an anagram for GRAM MICE which each death burger is allowed to contain according to FDA regulations.

westofyou is an anagram for WE TOFU SOY. :)

Just sayin'. ;)

GL

westofyou
05-07-2006, 11:31 PM
WE TOFU SOY3-4 times a week.

pedro
05-07-2006, 11:48 PM
westofyou is an anagram for WE TOFU SOY. :)

Just sayin'. ;)

GL


or YO WE TOFUS

Blimpie
05-08-2006, 06:52 PM
Grimmace is an anagram for GRAM MICE which each death burger is allowed to contain according to FDA regulations.I told you that was NOT a caper...rat turd! rat turd! rat turd!

http://www.jahsonic.com/Invasion.jpg

Larkin411
05-10-2006, 03:39 PM
As soon as mainstream society stops shoving burger imagery and jingles into the world of our children would be my guess.

Ya gotta think that Ronald, Mayor McCheese and his posse ain't there to entice the adult demographic into eating their mad cow, rain forest gobbling, death sandwiches do you?


I have to agree that our food enviornment is a large part of the problem. Personal responsibility is all well and good but human beings are condintioned by evolution to have certain physical responses to densely caloric foods. Trying to quit bad food is like giving up an addiction and one that is difficult enough without a toxic food environment. Besides, the reality is that personal responsibility alone does not work for most people(as evidenced by our current problems) thus the practical solution would be to create an environment that does work. Executives at junk food companies may make a great deal of money in the short-term but ultimately society pays for their profits through greater health-care costs and a lower quality of life.

westofyou
05-10-2006, 04:17 PM
I have to agree that our food enviornment is a large part of the problem. Personal responsibility is all well and good but human beings are condintioned by evolution to have certain physical responses to densely caloric foods. Trying to quit bad food is like giving up an addiction and one that is difficult enough without a toxic food environment. Besides, the reality is that personal responsibility alone does not work for most people(as evidenced by our current problems) thus the practical solution would be to create an environment that does work. Executives at junk food companies may make a great deal of money in the short-term but ultimately society pays for their profits through greater health-care costs and a lower quality of life.
Yes exactly my feelings. I'm not against any food, other than celery. But the culture of consumption must be stopped early on.

Case in point, by wifes sister and her husband are both very educated and teach at Fairfield. Both hate to cook and do the fast food eat-out thing so much that their first kid cried when he saw Santa at Frisches because he wanted to be with Big Boy more, the second one could say McDonalds before most words and the 3rd one polished off a whole 3 way at the age of 2 in front of me and a coke.

Falls City Beer
05-10-2006, 04:19 PM
in front of me and a coke.

You sit with cokes, too? Kick ass. ;)

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/customs/highlights/graphics/large/dancingcoke_large.jpg

savafan
05-11-2006, 09:08 AM
You sit with cokes, too? Kick ass. ;)

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/customs/highlights/graphics/large/dancingcoke_large.jpg

:lol:

Johnny Footstool
05-11-2006, 01:22 PM
I have to agree that our food enviornment is a large part of the problem. Personal responsibility is all well and good but human beings are condintioned by evolution to have certain physical responses to densely caloric foods. Trying to quit bad food is like giving up an addiction and one that is difficult enough without a toxic food environment. Besides, the reality is that personal responsibility alone does not work for most people(as evidenced by our current problems) thus the practical solution would be to create an environment that does work. Executives at junk food companies may make a great deal of money in the short-term but ultimately society pays for their profits through greater health-care costs and a lower quality of life.

To me, this is the problem. Rather than trying to teach personal responsibility, we're simply saying "personal responsibility won't work" and taking it out of the equation. We're trying to cure the symptom instead of the cause. That's backwards thinking.

If a person can't learn to take responsibility for something as simple as food choices, how can they learn to take responsibility for more important choices?

Falls City Beer
05-11-2006, 01:29 PM
To me, this is the problem. Rather than trying to teach personal responsibility, we're simply saying "personal responsibility won't work" and taking it out of the equation. We're trying to cure the symptom instead of the cause. That's backwards thinking.

If a person can't learn to take responsibility for something as simple as food choices, how can they learn to take responsibility for more important choices?

So high school/middle school students aren't a "captive audience" and have an unlimited number of beverage choices in the school?

And what about the argument that I made, about fast food being close to poor residential areas and a far cheaper option than a home-cooked meal? That's not stacking the deck a bit? Should people just rise above it and make more money?

Business ethics don't matter?

NJReds
05-11-2006, 01:45 PM
And what about the argument that I made, about fast food being close to poor residential areas and a far cheaper option than a home-cooked meal? That's not stacking the deck a bit? Should people just rise above it and make more money?


I don't agree. I can buy 2 pounds of ground beef and make 4 1/2-lb burges for the cost of one "extra value meal" at burger king.

You can make pasta and meatballs for a week for less then taking your family to McD's.

It's cheaper to cook at home...more time consuming, but cheaper.

Falls City Beer
05-11-2006, 01:47 PM
I don't agree. I can buy 2 pounds of ground beef and make 4 1/2-lb burges for the cost of one "extra value meal" at burger king.

You can make pasta and meatballs for a week for less then taking your family to McD's.

It's cheaper to cook at home...more time consuming, but cheaper.

Okay, now add in the condiments, and vegetables.

NJReds
05-11-2006, 01:53 PM
Still cheaper. Much cheaper. It's not even close.

Falls City Beer
05-11-2006, 02:18 PM
Where I live two pounds of ground beef would run at least the cost of one extra value meal at McD's or Burger King, almost certainly more. $4.50-5.00, I'd say. 3 tomatoes: $2.00. An onion: .40 Head of lettuce: $1.00. Buns: anywhere from 1.50 to 3.00. Let's say a family of four goes through a small bottle of ketchup: 1.50. Mustard: 1.50. Two two liters of Coke, not generic stuff: 2.50. Potatoes, four (for fries): 1.50.

That's one meal for a family of four where I live: $18.00.

McDonald's Quarter Pounder w/Cheese Meal: avg. cost $3.75

Cost for a family of four: $15.00

And that's not touching the preparation time issue.

Now sure, at Sam's Club and places like that, you can find better deals, but I'm talking about poor city dwellers, who largely don't have access to places like Sam's Club.

savafan
05-11-2006, 02:33 PM
I live off of Ramen Noodles, mac n' cheese and frozen burritos. Very cheap...still probably not good for me though.

Falls City Beer
05-11-2006, 02:41 PM
I live off of Ramen Noodles, mac n' cheese and frozen burritos. Very cheap...still probably not good for me though.

Nope, probably not a hell of a lot better than fast food.

The costs of eating healthily, truly healthily, are much higher than the costs of fast food.

NJReds
05-11-2006, 02:44 PM
Where I live two pounds of ground beef would run at least the cost of one extra value meal at McD's or Burger King, almost certainly more. $4.50-5.00, I'd say. 3 tomatoes: $2.00. An onion: .40 Head of lettuce: $1.00. Buns: anywhere from 1.50 to 3.00. Let's say a family of four goes through a small bottle of ketchup: 1.50. Mustard: 1.50. Two two liters of Coke, not generic stuff: 2.50. Potatoes, four (for fries): 1.50.

That's one meal for a family of four where I live: $18.00.

McDonald's Quarter Pounder w/Cheese Meal: avg. cost $3.75

Cost for a family of four: $15.00

And that's not touching the preparation time issue.

Now sure, at Sam's Club and places like that, you can find better deals, but I'm talking about poor city dwellers, who largely don't have access to places like Sam's Club.


I guess fast food is cheaper in Ohio. I bought two burgers, one fries and one kids meal the other night at BK and it cost over $13.

That head of lettuce could make a full salad. Add that onto your FF bill. The ground beef you get at the store is higher quality. Two liters of Coke is about 6-8, maybe 10 BK sodas, easy.

When I was in college, and we wanted to save money, we didn't do it by eating out.

My kid isn't partial to fast food, but even if she was, I wouldn't take her except on rare occasion. That's my decision as a parent.

But back to the topic at hand. I don't think there should be soda machines in school. No reason for it.

Johnny Footstool
05-11-2006, 02:54 PM
So high school/middle school students aren't a "captive audience" and have an unlimited number of beverage choices in the school?

And what about the argument that I made, about fast food being close to poor residential areas and a far cheaper option than a home-cooked meal? That's not stacking the deck a bit? Should people just rise above it and make more money?

Business ethics don't matter?

I'm arguing that the idea of taking personal responsibility out of the equation is a poor solution that does not even attempt to attack the root of the problem. Partial solutions like banning soda sales from schools lead people to think that the problem is being taken care of when it's actually festering. It's like cutting the top off a weed. The problem doesn't go away, it just gets overlooked until it once again grows too big to ignore.

As for the argument about fast food being cheaper than a home-cooked meal, well, who says a family of four needs to eat hamburgers, fries, and a soft drink every night? How about some spaghetti? Or mac and cheese? There are far cheaper options than a trip to McDonald's, and they are indeed a lot better for you -- way lower in sodium, fat, cholesterol, etc.

Falls City Beer
05-11-2006, 02:59 PM
Of course, personal responsibility is the given. It's the part of the equation that will never change; everything requires personal responsibility. I think that all the WOY and I are saying is: be responsible, offer alternatives, don't make the world all about turning a buck--do what's right by offering up a better dietary culture. Give people no reason whatsoever to complain. Then we can say, once and for all: "You're fat because you don't take care of yourself" with impunity. That'll be the day. :)

ochre
05-11-2006, 05:04 PM
How much of the issue is related to the transition to a predominantly suburban culture? Plots of land typically too small for an effective, useful, garden. Houses distributed such that it is nearly a requirement for transportation to be nearly all car based. You end up with the positives of both the rural and urban lifestyles of past generations neutralized (heavy walking in a city typically, some home grown foodstuffs in a rural environment) without anything of value really being contributed.

Johnny Footstool
05-11-2006, 05:34 PM
Of course, personal responsibility is the given. It's the part of the equation that will never change; everything requires personal responsibility. I think that all the WOY and I are saying is: be responsible, offer alternatives, don't make the world all about turning a buck--do what's right by offering up a better dietary culture. Give people no reason whatsoever to complain. Then we can say, once and for all: "You're fat because you don't take care of yourself" with impunity. That'll be the day. :)

I agree with you; it should be a given. I was mainly concerned with the idea that personal responsibility alone doesn't work for some people. I think the focus should be on teaching *more* personal responsibility rather than simply putting up restrictions and calling it a day.

We're calling for businesses to be responsible and do what's right, and I am in favor of that. I just wish we'd put more effort into teaching people to be responsible for their own well-being.

dsmith421
05-11-2006, 06:26 PM
I just wish we'd put more effort into teaching people to be responsible for their own well-being.

And a wonderful way to do that would be for states to make their school systems take health and physical education more seriously. Eliminate the crap that passes for school lunch, stop contracting with fast food joints, quit eliminating sports and PE programs and get kids used to eating right and working out on a regular basis from day one.

Of course, doing this would require eliminating tons of lobbyists and crooked politicians, making teaching a respected, well-paid profession again, and using taxpayer revenues wisely. Pipe dream, in other words.

Larkin411
05-11-2006, 06:35 PM
I agree with you; it should be a given. I was mainly concerned with the idea that personal responsibility alone doesn't work for some people. I think the focus should be on teaching *more* personal responsibility rather than simply putting up restrictions and calling it a day.

We're calling for businesses to be responsible and do what's right, and I am in favor of that. I just wish we'd put more effort into teaching people to be responsible for their own well-being.

I don't think we are totally different in our thinking. It's just that I believe that people are trying to take responsibility for their own health. Who wouldn't want to be healthier? The plethora of health magazines, books, TV shows etc. attest to that. However, I think most people's efforts to change are sabotaged by the way we treat food in our culture. While the physical urge to binge on high-fat or caloricaly-dense foods may not be as strong as say the urge to breathe, it is certainly a strong, physical reaction and efforts to control it need to be supported by a healthier food environment. In fact, it's hard for many people to even know what healthy is when they've spent their lives thinking that the standard American diet is normal. Not only do people have to ignore the urges created by millions of years spent evolving in a junk food-free environment but they also have to overcome the psychological factors that seem to say that unhealthy food choices are not only normal but preferable.

savafan
05-11-2006, 09:03 PM
FWIW, I was once put on a vegan diet by a holistic health expert for about a year. I loved it, and I was very healthy during that time. However, when he lifted that restriction, I went back to eating the same crap that I was before because of the price factor that FCB was talking about.

Sweetstop
05-12-2006, 03:34 PM
A sobering thought: In Haiti, our poverty-stricken neighbor, a belly-filling part of the meager diet is mudpies, which women make w/ clay, butter, salt, and spices into patties, then dry in the sun and sell for the equivalent of a penny. A BBC report on this caused me to lose my shoving-match with insomnia this a.m. Plus, it woke my fitfully slumbering guilt.

Larkin411
05-12-2006, 04:10 PM
I agree with Savafan, it is much more expensive to eat healthy. I eat a ton of fruits and vegetables and my food bill is huge(IMO) despite trying to ease it with bulk oatmeal, brown rice, and such. I wish Ramen was healthy because that stuff is so cheap and easy to prepare. Hopefully it will all balance out when I don't have to pay huge health care bills.


Also, Sweetstop I was reading that book "Collapse" and it talked about Haiti. It's so sad to see a country where the environment has become a complete waste-land and the people suffer so much from past exploitation.

Sweetstop
05-12-2006, 06:07 PM
Sounds like we eat just like you Larkin411. I spend well over $100 a week for just my husband and myself. Last week $136 at Kroger. But I definitely believe it's worth it in the long run. I feel better, enjoy cooking and preparing new things again and, by eating a well-rounded, healthy diet, have no cravings.

SirFelixCat
05-17-2006, 04:37 AM
FWIW, Mrs. SC's aunt is one of the leading authorities on the dangers of Aspartame.


http://www.sweetpoison.com/