PDA

View Full Version : Panel suggests FDA reduce salt intake guidelines


JSUCamel
06-15-2010, 11:36 AM
http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/15/report-reduce-salt-fat-in-u-s-dietary-guidelines/?hpt=Sbin

An advisory committee on U.S. dietary guidelines is urging the government to decrease the recommended daily amount of saturated fat in American's diets from 10 percent to 7 percent of total calories consumed. The panel's report also recommends that Americans decrease the amount of daily sodium in their diets from 2,300 milligrams to less than 1,500 milligrams and calls for drinking fewer sugar-sweetened beverages.

"It's sort of a gradual approach to decrease the caloric intake of the American public," says Penelope Slade-Sawyer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Diseases Prevention and Health Promotion at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The government advisory panel of 13 experts in nutrition and health met six times over a 20-month period to develop its recommendations. The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services are reviewing the report.

"This report is a crucial step in the development of the dietary guidelines for Americans," says Robert Post, Deputy Director of the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion at the Department of Agriculture.

The government is expected to issue new dietary guidelines later this year.

Slade-Sawyer notes childhood obesity has tripled in the past 30 years, and today's report, she says, is unprecedented in addressing the obesity epidemic.

"The committee stated that the obesity epidemic is the single greatest threat to public health in this century. Every section of this report was developed in a way that addresses the challenges of obesity," she says.

A (very Republican) client of ours is protesting this, and she finds it "very troubling".

OH NOES! The government is recommending that we eat healthier! SOCIALISM!

Ivhon
06-15-2010, 11:42 AM
http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/15/report-reduce-salt-fat-in-u-s-dietary-guidelines/?hpt=Sbin



A (very Republican) client of ours is protesting this, and she finds it "very troubling".

OH NOES! The government is recommending that we eat healthier! SOCIALISM!

Nahh...its not the socialism. Its bad for business. Fat America = strong economy.

I wouldn't worry, if I were your client. No way the sugar industry lets that get through

Neilbert
06-15-2010, 11:42 AM
The evidence against salt is, at best, very shaky. If you have hypertension don't eat much, but if you don't, don't worry about it.

Salt is super super important to a wide variety of biochemical processes. The body knows how to regulate it, as long as you drink enough water.

Davian93
06-15-2010, 11:46 AM
People should (if they want to be healthy) exercise more and eat less.

There is no magic formula...eat less than you burn and you will lose weight. The rest is just details.

That said, they can take my salt from my COLD DEAD HANDS! (and likely will as it will be my downfall)

Yellowbeard
06-15-2010, 12:01 PM
it's recommended. people need to remember that. they are better off going to their doctor and if they are really worried a nutritionist and having their own personalized plan put together.

or they don't have to pay attention to it at all. we're all gonna die from something one day. who wants to coast into the grave with a gently used body that didn't see a lot of fun when you could head in w/ the tires screeching, body used up, and screaming "phew! what a ride!"

Davian93
06-15-2010, 12:21 PM
it's recommended. people need to remember that. they are better off going to their doctor and if they are really worried a nutritionist and having their own personalized plan put together.

or they don't have to pay attention to it at all. we're all gonna die from something one day. who wants to coast into the grave with a gently used body that didn't see a lot of fun when you could head in w/ the tires screeching, body used up, and screaming "phew! what a ride!"

I have borderline high cholesterol as a result of genetics...that's why I ate a yummy turkey sandwich, macaroni salad and salt/vinegar potato chips for lunch today.

Yeah, I like to eat and I love to cook. The secret to great food? BUTTER.

JSUCamel
06-15-2010, 12:34 PM
I'm glad we all (so far) seem to be in agreement. My client is so freaked out, thinks the government is going to outlaw salt. She's making a slippery slope argument, which, quite frankly, I don't buy. It's a guideline -- not a law. Now, if the government wants to pass a law (like they're trying in NYC) to mandate lower salt usage in restaurants, I'll be the first in line to protest that. But as far as guidelines go... I mean, how many of us really get our daily FDA suggested daily allowance of everything? Do you get as much Vitamin C as the FDA suggests you should have? Probably not. Does that mean the government is going to mandate that everyone eat an orange a day? Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

Davian93
06-15-2010, 12:39 PM
I'm glad we all (so far) seem to be in agreement. My client is so freaked out, thinks the government is going to outlaw salt. She's making a slippery slope argument, which, quite frankly, I don't buy. It's a guideline -- not a law. Now, if the government wants to pass a law (like they're trying in NYC) to mandate lower salt usage in restaurants, I'll be the first in line to protest that. But as far as guidelines go... I mean, how many of us really get our daily FDA suggested daily allowance of everything? Do you get as much Vitamin C as the FDA suggests you should have? Probably not. Does that mean the government is going to mandate that everyone eat an orange a day? Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

I'm assuming your client is also 100% sure her parents will face death panels and that Obama was born in Kenya. This is typical of DERP DERP DERP GLENN BECK DERP DERP DERP TEABAGGERY

JSUCamel
06-15-2010, 12:53 PM
I'm assuming your client is also 100% sure her parents will face death panels and that Obama was born in Kenya. This is typical of DERP DERP DERP GLENN BECK DERP DERP DERP TEABAGGERY

I'm not going to directly answer your question, but she's the former Executive Director of the local county Republican Party, so you can draw your own conclusions about Georgia Republicans. Now she's a political consultant (whatever that means) and she loves us because we made her a bunch of awesome websites (we're redesigning two of them right now).

One Armed Gimp
06-15-2010, 01:22 PM
I am totally against government dietary guidelines in general. Mostly because the government is generally slow to act on most things and nutrition is a quickly evolving field lately. Take the food pyramid, there has been a lot of talk to change it, its out dated and some believe it has helped lead to the obesity problem we face. Seriously, they recommend all those slow burning carbs as compared to the fast burning carbs found in vegetables and fruit?

Mort
06-15-2010, 01:22 PM
Now she's a political consultant (whatever that means) and she loves us because we made her a bunch of awesome websites (we're redesigning two of them right now).

Doesn't that make you the baddies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEle_DLDg9Y)? :)

Ivhon
06-15-2010, 01:34 PM
I am totally against government dietary guidelines in general. Mostly because the government is generally slow to act on most things and nutrition is a quickly evolving field lately. Take the food pyramid, there has been a lot of talk to change it, its out dated and some believe it has helped lead to the obesity problem we face. Seriously, they recommend all those slow burning carbs as compared to the fast burning carbs found in vegetables and fruit?

I am in complete agreement. The government health guidelines are not credible due to the influence of various interested lobbies. That being the case, they should be scrapped rather than people relying on inaccurate to fraudulent information.

EDIT: for example, vegetables are under-recommended (and overpriced) because there is no lobby that can compete with the corporate interests of sugar and meat. Likewise, Fast Food and a variety of other such interests are much better served by the slow-burning carbs rather than what is found in fruits and vegetables.

Davian93
06-15-2010, 01:43 PM
I am totally against government dietary guidelines in general. Mostly because the government is generally slow to act on most things and nutrition is a quickly evolving field lately. Take the food pyramid, there has been a lot of talk to change it, its out dated and some believe it has helped lead to the obesity problem we face. Seriously, they recommend all those slow burning carbs as compared to the fast burning carbs found in vegetables and fruit?

That's more of people being really stupid and saying "I can eat 5 plates of pasta, right?" Not really the pyramid's fault that people are that dumb. Calories are calories.

Perfect example of stupidity: Parents that have their kids drink fruit juice all day and say "Look at me, I'm a super healthy parent and my kids drink fruit juice all day!" Yeah, its pure sugar (i.e. calories). FRUIT is good...fruit JUICE is sugar water...huge difference but people are really stupid.

Overall, there is nothing inherently unhealthy about pasta, grains, fruit, vegetables, meat, etc but when people eat a metric ton of it a day and then sit on their couch and watch Dancing with the Stars and Jon & Kate Plus 8 for 12 hours a day, they're gonna get obese.

Clearly, its the food's fault, not the tub of crap eating 10,000 calories a day of it every day.

JSUCamel
06-15-2010, 01:43 PM
I am totally against government dietary guidelines in general.

I have no problems with guidelines of any kind, in general, so long as they stay guidelines. Even the food pyramid, outdated though it may be, is generally a decent rule of thumb accompanied with moderate exercise. You could do much worse than the food pyramid we were taught as kids.

Davian93
06-15-2010, 01:45 PM
I have no problems with guidelines of any kind, in general, so long as they stay guidelines. Even the food pyramid, outdated though it may be, is generally a decent rule of thumb accompanied with moderate exercise. You could do much worse than the food pyramid we were taught as kids.


I'm sorry, you lost me...definition please?

JSUCamel
06-15-2010, 02:37 PM
I'm sorry, you lost me...definition please?

For you? Thinking.

Davian93
06-15-2010, 02:40 PM
For you? Thinking.

HA....hahahaha.

One Armed Gimp
06-15-2010, 03:40 PM
That's more of people being really stupid and saying "I can eat 5 plates of pasta, right?" Not really the pyramid's fault that people are that dumb. Calories are calories.

I have no problems with guidelines of any kind, in general, so long as they stay guidelines. Even the food pyramid, outdated though it may be, is generally a decent rule of thumb accompanied with moderate exercise. You could do much worse than the food pyramid we were taught as kids.

The problem with the pyramid is that it was constantly force fed to us throughout school. Of course you do much worse, but you could do much better as well. You could even back then, nutritionists knew it. And while the pyramid has evolved, it does so rather slowly. Universities and nutrition labs and such continue to make new head way in nutrition that the government is slow to react to.

However, it is true that it is up to the person to decided. Moderate exercise on a daily basis combined with the food pyramid we were taught would not be to bad, but its not the best we can do.

Lately I have been on a huge veggie kick, especially your everyday green, yellow and red peppers. I can not seem to get enough. Since I started this kick my digestive system seems to be doing much better and seem to have more energy. I actually started running in the morning again.

Sei'taer
06-15-2010, 04:39 PM
See this spot on my tongue? It's specifically there to taste salt, which tastes damn good when it hits that particular spot. Evolution gave us the salty taster part of my tongue, so you, Mr Do-Gooder politician, can write all the guidelines you want, but don't ever, ever take my salt shaker away from me or I will fuck you up!

I drank 3 1/2 gallons of water today, I'm going to go home and eat yummy, tasty, salt all over my chicken, pasta salad and whatever else we have for dinner and the FDA and it's advisory panel can bllllloooow me.

That's my opinion. As long as it stays guidelines, then we're cool. If it goes the way of seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, we gots us a problem.

DahLliA
06-15-2010, 06:47 PM
See this spot on my tongue? It's specifically there to taste salt, which tastes damn good when it hits that particular spot. Evolution gave us the salty taster part of my tongue, so you, Mr Do-Gooder politician, can write all the guidelines you want, but don't ever, ever take my salt shaker away from me or I will fuck you up!

tastebuds - the truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste_bud#Localization_of_taste_and_the_human_.22t ongue_map.22) ;)

EDIT: OT though. people should stop whining and eat what they feel like, and then take responsibility themselves if/when they get fat/thin. and I'd rather die at 40 having eaten a ton of good food than die at 140 having lived on fruit and water(fruit isn't all that healthy anymore either according to some studies)

Gilshalos Sedai
06-16-2010, 08:55 AM
Heh. Go figure. I've been told to have more salt, that I don't get enough.

Ivhon
06-16-2010, 09:43 AM
Heh. Go figure. I've been told to have more salt, that I don't get enough.

Fortunately, that is an easier dietary adjustment than going the other way.

Davian93
06-16-2010, 09:48 AM
Heh. Go figure. I've been told to have more salt, that I don't get enough.

Bryan must be happy with that...

Sinistrum
06-16-2010, 11:39 AM
Sure they are guidelines now and right now they are pretty harmless. But when the bill comes in for that spiffy new health care law everyone is so happy about right now, it will be interesting to see whether that remains the case. Its dumb to start hyperventilating about it now, but its also equally dumb to completely dismiss the slippery slope argument in light of recent legislation. Obesity is the #1 cause of health problems in America, and that new law is on a collision course with it. It is much easier for government to pass new regulations on behavior (ie expand itself) than strip away old ones (ie contract itself). I could easily envision a decade or so down the line when our government starts having to pay for the costs of poor eating habits for them to start regulating against them.

JSUCamel
06-16-2010, 12:00 PM
Its dumb to start hyperventilating about it now, but its also equally dumb to completely dismiss the slippery slope argument in light of recent legislation.

I call bullshit. The FDA's guidelines have not been made into law on anything other than a municipal level (NYC for example). There are no federal (or to my knowledge state) laws outlawing food items such as salt because too much is bad for you. The guidelines offered by the FDA are just that: guidelines. As far as I'm aware, there's no indication in past or present to indicate that the FDA's guidelines are going to become anything more than advice on a state or federal level.

Oh, by the way, people who get into car accidents driving at 80 miles per hour are far more likely to die than people who get into car accidents at 70 miles per hour. Since public funds are used to handle car accidents (police officers, fire trucks, DOT repairs, etc). Since that's the case, the state of Georgia passed a superspeeder law that makes going over 80 a misdemeanor. Ooh, slippery slope! What's to stop the government from outlawing anything over 45 miles per hour? Ooh! Ahh! Socialism! Run!

Sinistrum
06-16-2010, 01:49 PM
I call bullshit. The FDA's guidelines have not been made into law on anything other than a municipal level (NYC for example). There are no federal (or to my knowledge state) laws outlawing food items such as salt because too much is bad for you. The guidelines offered by the FDA are just that: guidelines. As far as I'm aware, there's no indication in past or present to indicate that the FDA's guidelines are going to become anything more than advice on a state or federal level.

Yanno, for someone so obsessed with grammar, your reading comprehension seems to be slipping. I never said FDA guidelines were currently law or that they've been in the past. So why you are arguing as if I did is beyond me. But just because something hasn't been done before or isn't currently the case doesn't mean things can't change. And the new health care law and the costs associated with it has set themselves up as a pretty big impotus for changing the way government deals with behaviors that lead to health care costs.

Oh, by the way, people who get into car accidents driving at 80 miles per hour are far more likely to die than people who get into car accidents at 70 miles per hour. Since public funds are used to handle car accidents (police officers, fire trucks, DOT repairs, etc). Since that's the case, the state of Georgia passed a superspeeder law that makes going over 80 a misdemeanor. Ooh, slippery slope! What's to stop the government from outlawing anything over 45 miles per hour? Ooh! Ahh! Socialism! Run!

And the difference with this is that speeding, or more specifically ticketing for it, tends to make the government gobs of money. Paying out for all of our health care does the exact opposite.

Crispin's Crispian
06-16-2010, 02:29 PM
The government has been recommending lower sat fats and fewer sugary foods for a long, long time.

The result?

http://nancyks.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/kfcdd.jpg

JSUCamel
06-16-2010, 02:51 PM
The government has been recommending lower sat fats and fewer sugary foods for a long, long time.

The result?

http://nancyks.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/kfcdd.jpg

Precisely. It's a guideline. KFC is perfectly able to say "Screw you" to the recommendations and put out any product they want and let the market decide.

Davian93
06-16-2010, 03:51 PM
From what I've heard, that KFC sandwich is ridiculously tasty. I haven't had one myself but if I were to go to KFC, I would get it.


I still miss the Enormous (and Meatnormous) breakfast sandwhich that Burger King did. That thing was literally 1500 calories of yummy goodness. They stopped selling it stateside though.

I dont really care for fastfood all that much but the few times I got breakfast fastfood, that was it.

Sinistrum
06-16-2010, 04:12 PM
Precisely. It's a guideline.

And who is denying this fact as the current status quo or as what happened in the past, precisely?

JSUCamel
06-16-2010, 04:36 PM
And who is denying this fact as the current status quo or as what happened in the past, precisely?

Its dumb to start hyperventilating about it now, but its also equally dumb to completely dismiss the slippery slope argument in light of recent legislation. Obesity is the #1 cause of health problems in America, and that new law is on a collision course with it.

You implied that the slippery slope argument has merit, and I'm saying it doesn't.

Davian93
06-16-2010, 04:48 PM
http://paganmedia.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/its-a-conspiracy.jpg

Sinistrum
06-16-2010, 08:03 PM
You implied that the slippery slope argument has merit, and I'm saying it doesn't.

Yes by arguing against a position that nobody has taken and completely failing to address the impact of changed circumstances. Great argument there. :rolleyes:

Bryan Blaire
06-16-2010, 08:13 PM
Since I work for USDA and know a little bit about it, I will point out that the "Food Pyramid" is actually now completely different, and a lot has been done to try and make it more personal. Also, USDA does have its own Dietary Reference Intakes system aside from the FDA one, and does break things down a lot more than just the little percentages you see on the sides of boxes that are basically one-size-fits-all.

My understanding is that there is no current US Code legal statute giving the USDA direct regulatory authority over personal diet. That's not to say it couldn't happen, but that's how it stands now.

Feel free to get back to the impending name calling.

Birgitte
06-16-2010, 11:52 PM
For you? Thinking.

Burn (http://www.instantsfun.es/burned)!

Sorry, Dav, I really don't think you're stupid, but that was hysterical. It was just such a perfect set-up. Nice delivery.... I'm a dork.

The government has been recommending lower sat fats and fewer sugary foods for a long, long time.

The result?

http://nancyks.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/kfcdd.jpg

That just looks so gross. Gross.

nameless
06-16-2010, 11:58 PM
I'm glad we all (so far) seem to be in agreement. My client is so freaked out, thinks the government is going to outlaw salt. She's making a slippery slope argument, which, quite frankly, I don't buy. It's a guideline -- not a law. Now, if the government wants to pass a law (like they're trying in NYC) to mandate lower salt usage in restaurants, I'll be the first in line to protest that. But as far as guidelines go... I mean, how many of us really get our daily FDA suggested daily allowance of everything? Do you get as much Vitamin C as the FDA suggests you should have? Probably not. Does that mean the government is going to mandate that everyone eat an orange a day? Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

Well, "slipperly slope" arguments are by their very nature completely irrelevant. If you resort to one you're basically admitting that you can't think of anything wrong with the proposal actually on the table so instead you're going to criticize something no one's actually proposed yet.

Bringing government-run healthcare into the argument is also a straw man. The government has been legislating public health a lot longer than it's been footing the bill for health care; it doesn't need any financial justification to regulate what goes into food if a majority of congress believes that doing so qualifies as promoting the general welfare. Efforts to reduce the amount of salt in snack foods are a natural extension of efforts to reduce the amount of sawdust packed into meat products around the turn of the 20th century.

Incidentally, my local government just did something that makes me incredibly proud of them: ban the shit out of happy meals.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/28/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20100428

I've never understood why the furor over Joe Camel making little kids think smoking was cool never extended to fatty foods. Heart disease kills more people per year than lung disease and Ronald McDonald has a tighter grip on children's minds than Joe Camel could ever hope to aspire to.

Sinistrum
06-17-2010, 12:41 AM
Incidentally, my local government just did something that makes me incredibly proud of them: ban the shit out of happy meals.

Yup, its a slippery slope alright, and certainly not already happening... :rolleyes: And I cannot fathom why anyone would be proud of this. Guess some people can't handle freedom and choice and therefore need others to do their thinking for them.

The government has been legislating public health a lot longer than it's been footing the bill for health care; it doesn't need any financial justification to regulate what goes into food if a majority of congress believes that doing so qualifies as promoting the general welfare.

Correct. And as I've pointed out, now the two are swimming in the same pond. Public health legislation has always been about regulation against negligent and malicious acts before. Now its about providing and ensuring it absent anything other than people's poor life style choices. So how on earth do you reason that the new health law doesn't provide a new financial incentive to act where there wasn't one before?

Efforts to reduce the amount of salt in snack foods are a natural extension of efforts to reduce the amount of sawdust packed into meat products around the turn of the 20th century.

If I just read that right, this statement implies that you are for the regulation of the choices people can make regarding what food they can eat. If that is a correct interpretation, that's about as fascist a view as I think I've seen on this board to date.

nameless
06-17-2010, 04:08 AM
Aren't you conservative types supposed to be all about power to municipal governments instead of federal government? And I'm proud of the legislation because McDonald's chief marketing tool for getting people to buy their horrible food is to hook 'em while they're young. Losing their ability to do that will have long-term effects for their business, which will unfortunately not be very widespread since it's just in the one county, but still. The ecological consequences of the kind of farming necessary to provide $1 double-cheeseburger value menus are staggering. I think people should be free to make their own choices when the choices in question affect them and them alone, but if corporations are choosing to breed a superplague by pumping antibiotics indiscrimintately into all their cows, healthy or sick, if they're choosing to raise these cows in Kafkaesque torture farms because that's what keeps overheads low, and they're choosing to needlessly increase air pollution that everyone else has to breathe because national distrubtion routes are cheaper than using local farms, then yes, someone should step in. Not by some fascist decree dismantling the whole structure outright, but by re-establishing the link between their profits and the quality of their product and letting the free market take things from there. Parents are still allowed to buy cheeseburgers and fries for their kids; the only change is that now the selling point of the meal is the food itself and not the cross-market tie-in with Matel.

If I just read that right, this statement implies that you are for the regulation of the choices people can make regarding what food they can eat. If that is a correct interpretation, that's about as fascist a view as I think I've seen on this board to date.
No, I'm in favor of regulating what food people can package and sell. If you want to break out the salt-shaker at home and salt it up to your heart's content, feel free. Same as snack food manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to put unhealthy levels of arsenic in their products but consumers at home should be allowed to add the arsenic themselves if they care to.

Davian93
06-17-2010, 08:11 AM
Aren't you conservative types supposed to be all about power to municipal governments instead of federal government? And I'm proud of the legislation because McDonald's chief marketing tool for getting people to buy their horrible food is to hook 'em while they're young. Losing their ability to do that will have long-term effects for their business, which will unfortunately not be very widespread since it's just in the one county, but still. The ecological consequences of the kind of farming necessary to provide $1 double-cheeseburger value menus are staggering. I think people should be free to make their own choices when the choices in question affect them and them alone, but if corporations are choosing to breed a superplague by pumping antibiotics indiscrimintately into all their cows, healthy or sick, if they're choosing to raise these cows in Kafkaesque torture farms because that's what keeps overheads low, and they're choosing to needlessly increase air pollution that everyone else has to breathe because national distrubtion routes are cheaper than using local farms, then yes, someone should step in. Not by some fascist decree dismantling the whole structure outright, but by re-establishing the link between their profits and the quality of their product and letting the free market take things from there. Parents are still allowed to buy cheeseburgers and fries for their kids; the only change is that now the selling point of the meal is the food itself and not the cross-market tie-in with Matel.


No, I'm in favor of regulating what food people can package and sell. If you want to break out the salt-shaker at home and salt it up to your heart's content, feel free. Same as snack food manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to put unhealthy levels of arsenic in their products but consumers at home should be allowed to add the arsenic themselves if they care to.

If you need that type of assistance when it comes to eating out...you have some serious fvcking problems with saying no and standing up for yourself.

"McDonalds MADE me buy and eat their food...that's why I'm fat!!!" ~SOBS~

Way to duck personal responsibility.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-17-2010, 08:45 AM
Bryan must be happy with that...

Nope. He has to watch his salt.

So, I still don't get enough.

Davian93
06-17-2010, 08:52 AM
Nope. He has to watch his salt.

So, I still don't get enough.

ROFL...right over her head apparently.

Sinistrum
06-17-2010, 09:31 AM
Damnit Dav, stop saying awesome stuff. This is the second time in as many threads I've tried to rep you and been told I couldn't.

Ivhon
06-17-2010, 09:43 AM
Damnit Dav, stop saying awesome stuff. This is the second time in as many threads I've tried to rep you and been told I couldn't.

Took care of it

Neilbert
06-17-2010, 10:15 AM
If you need that type of assistance when it comes to eating out...you have some serious fvcking problems with saying no and standing up for yourself.

"McDonalds MADE me buy and eat their food...that's why I'm fat!!!" ~SOBS~

Way to duck personal responsibility.

Keep in mind we are talking about Happy Meals here, so we are talking about children.

Yeah, way to duck personal responsibility, you little five year old. You should know better to make informed and rational decisions. :rolleyes:

There comes a point where the personal responsibility argument becomes idiotic because it ignores, well, every bit of sociological research ever done. This is well past that point. Expecting children to be rational logical consumers is beyond idiotic.

you have some serious fvcking problems with saying no and standing up for yourself.

Welcome to the human race.

JSUCamel
06-17-2010, 10:31 AM
Keep in mind we are talking about Happy Meals here, so we are talking about children.

Yes. The primary target of fast food isn't adults -- it's children. The children start eating fast food early and it carries on through adolescence and into adulthood. Now, of course, the parents get to make the decision about whether to feed the kids fast food or not, but since you don't have kids, Dav, I think I can understand your skepticism regarding this issue. When you worked all day, picked up your kids from daycare, and you're wiped out from work, you don't really want to go home and cook a healthy meal -- especially if you have two screaming kids in the back seat, begging for that newest toy promotion at McDonalds.

Sure, they SHOULD go home and cook, but you can hardly blame them for trying to make things easier on themselves. And McDonalds fully aware of that.

And considering the divorce rate in the country, there are more single moms than ever before -- single moms who have to work one or two jobs just make ends meet, much less take care of the house and the kids. And it's faster (and often cheaper) to pick up two happy meals from McDonalds than it is to go home and cook a meal for a family.

Anthony Bourdain wrote an excellent article on the topic: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/12/anthony-bourdain-war-fast-food

I think nameless hit upon the problem perfectly. It's less about individual choices and more about marketing.

Davian93
06-17-2010, 11:13 AM
Keep in mind we are talking about Happy Meals here, so we are talking about children.

Do alot of 5 year olds go to McDonalds and pay/order for their own food? I mean, I would think that parents are usually about and paying for it...so still a personal responsbility type thing.

Davian93
06-17-2010, 11:16 AM
Yes. The primary target of fast food isn't adults -- it's children. The children start eating fast food early and it carries on through adolescence and into adulthood. Now, of course, the parents get to make the decision about whether to feed the kids fast food or not, but since you don't have kids, Dav, I think I can understand your skepticism regarding this issue. When you worked all day, picked up your kids from daycare, and you're wiped out from work, you don't really want to go home and cook a healthy meal -- especially if you have two screaming kids in the back seat, begging for that newest toy promotion at McDonalds.

Sure, they SHOULD go home and cook, but you can hardly blame them for trying to make things easier on themselves. And McDonalds fully aware of that.

And considering the divorce rate in the country, there are more single moms than ever before -- single moms who have to work one or two jobs just make ends meet, much less take care of the house and the kids. And it's faster (and often cheaper) to pick up two happy meals from McDonalds than it is to go home and cook a meal for a family.

Anthony Bourdain wrote an excellent article on the topic: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/12/anthony-bourdain-war-fast-food

I think nameless hit upon the problem perfectly. It's less about individual choices and more about marketing.

My parents cooked dinner 5-6 nights a week (being poor will do that for you as eating out is still more expensive than cooking). Eating out was something that happened on birthdays and special occasions. The only night my mom didn't cook was Friday as she ran errands and went foodshopping that night. We usually scrounged for food, made sandwiches or ate leftovers that night. Fastfood was a rare treat.

Both my parents worked full time and managed it...its not impossible.

ITs probably why I cook alot and don't eat fastfood very often.

One Armed Gimp
06-17-2010, 11:21 AM
Yes. The primary target of fast food isn't adults -- it's children. The children start eating fast food early and it carries on through adolescence and into adulthood. Now, of course, the parents get to make the decision about whether to feed the kids fast food or not, but since you don't have kids, Dav, I think I can understand your skepticism regarding this issue. When you worked all day, picked up your kids from daycare, and you're wiped out from work, you don't really want to go home and cook a healthy meal -- especially if you have two screaming kids in the back seat, begging for that newest toy promotion at McDonalds.

Sure, they SHOULD go home and cook, but you can hardly blame them for trying to make things easier on themselves. And McDonalds fully aware of that.

And considering the divorce rate in the country, there are more single moms than ever before -- single moms who have to work one or two jobs just make ends meet, much less take care of the house and the kids. And it's faster (and often cheaper) to pick up two happy meals from McDonalds than it is to go home and cook a meal for a family.

You can absolutely blame them. I do. Of course I am that parent with two kids in the back seat heading home to make dinner for them. I was also the child of a single mother with 6 kids that were not fed fast food on any where near a regular basis. So yeah, I blame the parents, quite easily in fact.

Preparation is what its all about. If you plan your meals ahead you shouldn't have any problems. There are plenty of things you can do that are cheap and quick and a lot more healthy than McDonalds.

And don't tell me some parents don't have time. My wife and I work full time, she is in a Masters program right now, and I am going to school full time. If we can do, anyone can, they just choose not to.

Neilbert
06-17-2010, 11:29 AM
Do alot of 5 year olds go to McDonalds and pay/order for their own food? I mean, I would think that parents are usually about and paying for it...so still a personal responsbility type thing.

Like I said. Completely ignoring every bit of sociological research ever done.

And don't tell me some parents don't have time. My wife and I work full time, she is in a Masters program right now, and I am going to school full time. If we can do, anyone can, they just choose not to.

I think a lot of it is know-how. Most people my age don't know how to boil water, much less cook a meal. The older you go the better it gets, but quite frankly my parent's generation is lost in a kitchen, and you have to go back to my grandparents to find someone remotely comfortable. People have been trained to be helpless, because it's quite profitable for them to be so.

I have a roommate who is fascinated that I can bake banana bread... and frequently meet people who think I'm an "amazing chef" because I can follow a recipe. It is so very sad to me.

Learning is an investment of both time, energy, and resources. If you don't have those, then the fact that there are better alternatives isn't exactly doing you a ton of good.

A robust home-economics program in high-schools and community colleges would probably do much more to combat obesity than laws and regulations ever could.

JSUCamel
06-17-2010, 11:39 AM
A robust home-economics program in high-schools and community colleges would probably do much more to combat obesity than laws and regulations ever could.

This. Let's cut football programs and replace them with robust home-ec programs with Iron Chef competitions.

Davian93
06-17-2010, 11:59 AM
Like I said. Completely ignoring every bit of sociological research ever done.



I think a lot of it is know-how. Most people my age don't know how to boil water, much less cook a meal. The older you go the better it gets, but quite frankly my parent's generation is lost in a kitchen, and you have to go back to my grandparents to find someone remotely comfortable. People have been trained to be helpless, because it's quite profitable for them to be so.

I have a roommate who is fascinated that I can bake banana bread... and frequently meet people who think I'm an "amazing chef" because I can follow a recipe. It is so very sad to me.

Learning is an investment of both time, energy, and resources. If you don't have those, then the fact that there are better alternatives isn't exactly doing you a ton of good.

A robust home-economics program in high-schools and community colleges would probably do much more to combat obesity than laws and regulations ever could.

That's embarrassing.

I like how your first thought is to focus the issue on the schools rather than terrible parenting/prepartion for real life.

Learning how to cook isn't hard.

JSUCamel
06-17-2010, 12:21 PM
Learning how to cook isn't hard.

Neither is playing guitar. Can you play guitar? If not, why not?

Neilbert
06-17-2010, 12:24 PM
I like how your first thought is to focus the issue on the schools rather than terrible parenting/prepartion for real life.

I value a solution based on effective it is/could be, not based on how the world should work. I know that's an incredibly difficult concept for some, but if you could come up with some better way to educate parents about cooking then I'd love to hear it.

Saying these parent's are irresponsible and suck isn't a solution. To anything.

Learning how to cook isn't hard.

I think you honestly underestimate it. You have no idea how much you accidently learn just being around somebody who knows how to cook. Throw in the fact that the whole time you deal with the looming specter of hunger and it isn't exactly the most comfortable environment to make mistakes in.

I like how your first thought is to focus the issue on the schools rather than terrible parenting/prepartion for real life.

The public school system is doing more to raise children than their parents. You might not like it, but it's reality.

Davian93
06-17-2010, 12:38 PM
Neither is playing guitar. Can you play guitar? If not, why not?

I dont hire someone to play it for me several nights a week either. If it was a basic necessity, I'd learn how. Eating is...thus I know how to cook.

Neilbert
06-17-2010, 12:48 PM
I dont hire someone to play it for me several nights a week either.

My parents cooked dinner 5-6 nights a week (being poor will do that for you as eating out is still more expensive than cooking).
:rolleyes:

E: I'm also assuming you never ever listen to recorded music, but that's really just the frosting on the cake.

Davian93
06-17-2010, 01:16 PM
:rolleyes:

E: I'm also assuming you never ever listen to recorded music, but that's really just the frosting on the cake.

Music isn't a necessity to live...eating is. Its a terrible analogy. I know know to cook because I bothered to learn. If you can read, you can cook with a recipe. If you can't follow a recipe, you've got serious literacy issues.

Growing up in a house that cooked doesnt automatically mean you will know how to cook...you still have to want to learn.

Sinistrum
06-17-2010, 02:17 PM
Saying these parent's are irresponsible and suck isn't a solution. To anything.

Sure it is because what is implicit in that statement is that the people who suck can just deal with the consequences of why they suck and therefore shouldn't be bailed out from having to face them by others. The solution to fat people being fat because they eat to much shitty food and thereby contracting health conditions is letting them deal with those health conditions on their own. Take what you want and pay for it.

The solution of any sane, free society is not to try to foot the bill for people eating cheeseburgers every day and then restrict their right to eat cheeseburgers. It is to let them eat cheeseburgers every day and then let them keel over from a heart attack when its all said and done. Stupidity is and should be lethal. For some strange reason, our society is obsessed with trying to make it not.

One Armed Gimp
06-17-2010, 02:56 PM
No no no no no....you've got it all wrong. Freedom is being able to do what I want without consequence.

nameless
06-17-2010, 05:18 PM
Sure it is because what is implicit in that statement is that the people who suck can just deal with the consequences of why they suck and therefore shouldn't be bailed out from having to face them by others. The solution to fat people being fat because they eat to much shitty food and thereby contracting health conditions is letting them deal with those health conditions on their own. Take what you want and pay for it.

The solution of any sane, free society is not to try to foot the bill for people eating cheeseburgers every day and then restrict their right to eat cheeseburgers. It is to let them eat cheeseburgers every day and then let them keel over from a heart attack when its all said and done. Stupidity is and should be lethal. For some strange reason, our society is obsessed with trying to make it not.

That's just the thing... if the parents sucked and they made themselves fat no one would care, but as it is the parents suck and they're making their kids fat. I've worked at fast food joints before, and spent all day selling cheeseburgers to fat people, and I never had any trouble getting to sleep at night cause the choice was theirs and they were smart enough to figure out that if they wanted to lose weight they should order the grilled cheese instead. The difference is we never packaged any cheap plastic trinkets into our meals to teach 4-year-olds to associate getting double cheeseburgers with rewards above and beyond having a double cheeseburger.

Bryan Blaire
06-17-2010, 07:46 PM
The public school system is doing more to raise children than their parents. You might not like it, but it's reality.

And yet, by making a statement like this, you seem to be okay with that. Which is equally ridiculous, considering what has been posted lately about all the "Zero Tolerance" crap in schools, etc. Schools don't actually "parent" or "raise" anything.

I like how you basically disagree with the fact that parents should actually be parents by making that statement. NO ONE should ever like your "reality" or accept it.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-21-2010, 09:11 AM
ROFL...right over her head apparently.


Sorry, wasn't thinking of grilled cheese sandwiches.

You got me. Next time... you won't be so lucky. ;)

Neilbert
06-23-2010, 07:41 AM
Music isn't a necessity to live...eating is. Its a terrible analogy. I know know to cook because I bothered to learn. If you can read, you can cook with a recipe. If you can't follow a recipe, you've got serious literacy issues.

Growing up in a house that cooked doesnt automatically mean you will know how to cook...you still have to want to learn.

I don't think you think I'm saying what I'm saying.
Whether or not it is necessary to live, music is something you can pay someone else to take care of for you, or learn to do yourself. They both carry $$$/Time considerations, and you seem to ignore the time part.

Growing up in a house doesn't automatically mean you will know how to cook, I agree, but anyone in any situation who chooses to remain ignorant or is lazy will remain ignorant, so this almost amounts to tautology. Growing up in a household where people cook creates a greater probability that you will know how to cook. In addition to what various tools and staple ingredients you would need, you also have direct access and a personal relationship with someone who knows how to cook. These are valuable learning tools.

Then you have to acknowledge other difficulties, such as food deserts (http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/05/few-healthy-food-choices-in-urban-food-deserts/), you need to factor in transportation and again time, and as an aside banks are in a similar way to the food deserts so there's another complication and time consideration.

Not everyone stops at the grocery store on the way home from work and then gets cash back with their credit card. Life gets a lot more complicated than "personal responsibility". For some it is death by a thousand cuts.

Terez
06-23-2010, 07:50 AM
I've worked at fast food joints before, and spent all day selling cheeseburgers to fat people, and I never had any trouble getting to sleep at night cause the choice was theirs and they were smart enough to figure out that if they wanted to lose weight they should order the grilled cheese instead.
A grilled cheese sandwich is hardly a healthy alternative to a cheeseburger. Just saying.

Ivhon
06-23-2010, 08:15 AM
Mmmm....food deserts....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_O0cJTU9cW7Y/SyPNAy4nHuI/AAAAAAAABZA/6jc_upzXus0/s400/food+desserts.jpg

Ivhon
06-23-2010, 08:16 AM
A grilled cheese sandwich is hardly a healthy alternative to a cheeseburger. Just saying.

Good protein... Excellent for skin tone, too, Im told.

Terez
06-23-2010, 08:50 AM
All lies. A vast male conspiracy.

Davian93
06-23-2010, 09:22 AM
A grilled cheese sandwich is hardly a healthy alternative to a cheeseburger. Just saying.

It is if its done right.

JSUCamel
06-23-2010, 10:05 AM
Mmmm....food deserts....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_O0cJTU9cW7Y/SyPNAy4nHuI/AAAAAAAABZA/6jc_upzXus0/s400/food+desserts.jpg

That would work if you'd spelled desserts correctly.

This is a food desert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert):

http://springfieldinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/food-desert-1.jpg

Ivhon
06-23-2010, 10:55 AM
That would work if you'd spelled desserts correctly.

This is a food desert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert):



I was kindof punning a bit. Guess I failed.

Davian93
06-23-2010, 10:57 AM
I was kindof punning a bit. Guess I failed.

I thought it was funny.

Jokeslayer
06-23-2010, 11:59 AM
I thought it was funny.

This.

nameless
06-23-2010, 03:10 PM
A grilled cheese sandwich is hardly a healthy alternative to a cheeseburger. Just saying.

Depends on how you make it. Load it with butter? Not so healthy. We just used bread, lettuce, tomato, and two slices of cheese.

Bryan Blaire
06-23-2010, 10:38 PM
Nameless, whatever floats your boat... :eek: Don't think we wanted to know you like playing with your food like that! ;)

I did hear on the radio this morning that a burger place (Friendlies?) had made a new burger that uses grilled cheese sandwiches as the burger buns around a 1/2 lb burger with bacon.

Sadly, my first thought was "How do you use a grilled cheese as a bun?" Then I realized that they were obviously not as dirty as me. :D

JSUCamel
06-23-2010, 10:49 PM
Sadly, my first thought was "How do you use a grilled cheese as a bun?" Then I realized that they were obviously not as dirty as me. :D

Apparently there's a whole niche of "restaurants" and "culinary activities" that include mixing grilled cheese and buns.

Ivhon
06-23-2010, 10:54 PM
Apparently there's a whole niche of "restaurants" and "culinary activities" that include mixing grilled cheese and buns.

I can think of at least 3 ways of mixing grilled cheese and buns.


Giggity.

Terez
06-24-2010, 05:10 AM
Depends on how you make it. Load it with butter? Not so healthy. We just used bread, lettuce, tomato, and two slices of cheese.
You do know that cheese is loaded with fat right? lol, your 'healthy alternative' just gave me the impression that you have never had weight issues.

nameless
06-24-2010, 05:38 AM
Your average slice of cheddar has about 80 calories, almost all of which are from fat. The sandwhich has roughly 400 calories total with roughly 160 from fat, which makes it healthier than the almost anything you'll find on a standard fast food menu and comparable to most salads unless you get the vinaigrette dressing (on the salad, I mean. Why would you put vinaigrette on a grilled cheese? Weirdo). Of course there's the even healthier alternative of cutting out the fast food entirely but I took it on faith the customers could figure that one out for themselves and refrained from recommending it to them.

Terez
06-24-2010, 06:15 AM
Your average slice of cheddar has about 80 calories, almost all of which are from fat. The sandwhich has roughly 400 calories total with roughly 160 from fat, which makes it healthier than the almost anything you'll find on a standard fast food menu and comparable to most salads unless you get the vinaigrette dressing (on the salad, I mean. Why would you put vinaigrette on a grilled cheese? Weirdo). Of course there's the even healthier alternative of cutting out the fast food entirely but I took it on faith the customers could figure that one out for themselves and refrained from recommending it to them.
Yeah, I have never been under the illusion that salads are all that healthy. Dressing isn't the only thing that makes them dangerous; there's cheese and meat and croutons and all sorts of things you can put on them to make them fattening. Even vinaigrette dressing is not all that great because it's often mixed with oil. Usually reduced-fat dressings are the way to go. Some of them even taste good.

A more healthy alternative to a grilled cheese (or a salad) at some fast food restaurants is a grilled chicken sandwich without mayo. Some restaurants use lite mayo and don't bother to tell the customers (and they never know the difference) but at a place like McDonald's, the news will get out about the lite mayo and people will bitch because they think it tastes awful.

Davian93
06-24-2010, 08:20 AM
Eat in moderation...that is all.

Terez
06-24-2010, 10:40 AM
Maybe for someone with a high metabolism, Dav.

Davian93
06-24-2010, 10:46 AM
Maybe for someone with a high metabolism, Dav.

I promise that if a person eats less calories than they burn every day, then that person will lose weight.

Exercise is also helpful in such an effort.

Terez
06-24-2010, 11:06 AM
I promise that if a person eats less calories than they burn every day, then that person will lose weight.

Exercise is also helpful in such an effort.
Yes dear, but that's not what you said.

Davian93
06-24-2010, 11:14 AM
Yes dear, but that's not what you said.

That's what I meant by "moderation".

Bryan Blaire
06-24-2010, 07:04 PM
Since the original post relates to food...

I really wish that news reports would stop saying "Eat organic if you don't want to eat pesticides". Even the USDA Organic label allows for the use of pesticides developed from natural origins (ie, you extract a pesticide from plants using a chemical procedure, etc) or X amount of pesticide use, depending on what the product is.

A good rule of thumb is that if you didn't grow it yourself and you are buying it as a product, assume it used some pesticides. "No Pesticide" product labels aren't regulated by any governmental agency that I know of.

nameless
06-25-2010, 02:59 AM
I wish American beekeepers would sue the pants off pesticide manufacturers already (or maybe the farmers using the pesticides? I'm not really sure about the liability of this one.) Honey bees pollinate something like $40 billion worth of crops every year, but the population of bees has been steadily declining for decades now (over a 60% decline in the last 50 years). It's hardly a stretch to place responsibility for the threat to the livelihoods of the beekeepers on the people who periodically douse the crops they need bees to pollinate with insecticides.

edit: I guess the politics of agribusiness would make suing the farmers a bad idea since the farmers are the one who hire the beekeepers in the first place and they'll still need clients after the suit is over. Any legal types wanna weigh in on the viability of a suit targetting manufacturers?

edit again: apparently pesticide manufacturers label their products to specifically recommend waiting until after pollination to apply pesticides. Guess they're off the hook and the problem just isn't gonna get solved. Oh well, enjoy your fruits and vegetables while they're here I guess...