New Target of the Food Police (CSPI)

"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

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

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"JG" wrote:

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!

LOL! (But, hey, at least they're TRYING!) g

JG

"Self-esteem comes from solving a quadratic equation, not from feeling
good because you tried"--M.S., my daughter's ninth-grade math teacher,
who gained a fan for life :-)

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"JG" wrote:

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!

Timely article (from www.reutershealth.com, Health eLine, 11/13/03):

"'Although the considerable decrease in tobacco use among high school
students is good news, the lack of decline among middle school students
is of concern,' said Cheryl Healton, president and chief executive
officer of the American Legacy Foundation, an anti-tobacco group that
conducted the survey. 'Efforts to reduce tobacco use by middle school
students should be increased.'"
....You don't s'pose this is a call for ADDITIONAL money to be spent, do
you? Those who think, based on the survey results, that some funds
should simply be diverted from high school anti-smoking programs to
middle school programs, raise your hands. Those who think ANY such
(school-based) programs are waste of time/money and that (public)
schools shouldn't engage in social engineering, raise your hands, reach
around, and pat yourselves on your backs.

The entire article...

High school student smoking rate drops, survey shows

Last Updated: 2003-11-13 16:06:11 -0400 (Reuters Health)

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The percentage of U.S. high school students who
smoke cigarettes fell to just under 23 percent in 2002, but there was no
significant drop in smoking among middle school students, a survey
released on Thursday showed.

The 2002 National Youth Tobacco Survey found that 22.9 percent of high
school students polled said they smoked, down from 28 percent in 2000.

Among high school students in the 2002 survey, 28.4 percent reported
using any tobacco product, down from 34.5 percent in 2000.

"Although the considerable decrease in tobacco use among high school
students is good news, the lack of decline among middle school students
is of concern," said Cheryl Healton, president and chief executive
officer of the American Legacy Foundation, an anti-tobacco group that
conducted the survey. "Efforts to reduce tobacco use by middle school
students should be increased."

Among middle school students, 10.1 percent reported smoking cigarettes,
while 13.3 percent said they used any tobacco product.

The survey found that males and females are equally likely to smoke
cigarettes, but males were more likely to use other tobacco products.

Among high school students, white students smoked cigarettes at a higher
rate than black, Hispanic or Asian students, American Legacy said. There
was no difference in smoking by race or ethnicity among middle school
students in the survey.

American Legacy said 246 schools participated in the 2002 survey, which
led to 26,149 completed student interviews.

Washington-based American Legacy was created out of the 1998 Master
Settlement Agreement between major U.S. cigarette makers and attorneys
general from 46 states. The agreement, which resolved suits filed by the
states against the tobacco industry, provided for a foundation to be
created to counter tobacco use and awarded the states billions of
dollars over several years from tobacco companies to offset costs of
caring for sick smokers.

toto wrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:20:34 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:


I don't know . . . if Krispy Kreme wants to promote education, what ELSE
could they give away?

Granted, there are limits to that -- I wouldn't want Budweiser or
Marlboro offering THIER product free for every A! But a donut?

The little grocers down the street from the grade school my kids went to
in Mass had a sign in the window every time report cards came out that
they would give something -- a candy bar, I think -- to every kid who
came in and showed them at least one A on a report card. I kind of
liked it; and the owner/operator got to know the kids and supported the
school in other ways, too.


Rewards in general are a bad idea, but using food (even things that
are good for you) sets up a whole chain of consequences that are
bad. Children who are rewarded with food tend to eat when they are
not hungry and to eat junk food instead of nutritious food, imho.

Sweeping generalizations like this are patently absurd. I have four
slender kids who eat wisely. I rewarded and still reward them
routinely with food and other things for positive accomplishment.

It's something we need to get away from.

After all, good grades are a reward in and of themselves, so why
reward a reward in the first place.

Good grades aren't a reward, they're the score in a game. It's like
saying a home run is a reward.

Aside from that we need instrinsic motivations for learning not
external ones. Neither punishment or reward provides any incentive
to self-disciplined learning. And in fact, these things take the joy
out of learning for its own sake. It's one of the biggest problems
in our schools today, imo.

Not every kid is curious enough to learn alone. Not every kid is
driven to read Shakespeare. Not every kid is caught up in polynomials.

The fact is that children who are rewarded work *only* until they
achieve the reward and then they stop. Even when the task is
inherently interesting the child stops once the reward is given.

And this is pure crap. So a kid who's interested in history stops
being interested when that first gold star hits the chart? Puhleeze.

Children who are not rewarded work longer and harder on the
tasks they are given *because* they want to learn and the task
is inherently interesting to begin with.

What prattle. I have four kids. I was a kid. I know and knew lots of
kids. I taught kids. Positive reinforcement works for most people.
Treating accomplishment as its own reward may well work with the
strongly self-motivated, but I doubt it based on my 62 years of
experience. Everybody else needs a bit more than that cold and austere
vision.

Children who see no reward for their efforts work harder. On what planet?

Pastorio




--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits