On Food Purveyors

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
481

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I noticed you ignored my questions. The reason I asked you what you believe are the legitimate functions of government is because I’m wondering why you think the government should be the arbitrator and disseminater of scientific thought. And I also asked who will watch the watcher?[/quote]

What do you believe are the legitimate functions of government?

Since corporations cannot be trusted to do the right thing they must be forced by law. This is a function of the government. Enforcing the law! Where the preponderance of evidence says is the best marker we have to go on. Why have the ingredients listed?

482

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Are the studies that unveil this practice interpreted by the government?
[/quote]

There are some scientists who say those studies are nonsense. The government would have to choose which scientists to take advice from. Like when they took advice from nutritionists about the food pyramid and began to promote it. That’s a major problem no? Is the government fit to make decisions like that?

Author :

Travis Saunders completed his BSc (Hon) in Kinesiology at the University of Calgary, where he was awarded the Gold Medal for the highest academic proficiency in his class. His MSc was performed at Queenâ??s University, and focused on the inter-relationships between physical activity, body fat distribution, and health risk in adults. His PhD studies were completed in the fall of 2013, and focused on the relationship between sedentary behaviour and metabolic risk in children and youth. In late 2013 Travis began post doctoral fellowship at Dalhousie University examining the relationship between sedentary behaviour and health among patients with chronic diseases (cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer).

Throughout his graduate training, Travis has been supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian Diabetes Association. He was also the inaugural recipient of the University of Ottawa Teaching Assistant Excellence Award. His post doctoral fellowship is supported by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

Travis is a Certified Exercise Physiologist, and a member of the Sedentary Behaviour Research Network, the Canadian Obesity Network, the American College of Sports Medicine and the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology. He is also a former Content Editor at ResearchBlogging.org.[/quote]

Read the article and it is not a study refuting what I have posted, in fact if you dig deeper it helps make my point.

Who knows why the government promoted the food pyramid? It certainly wasn’t based on science as the food addiction studies are. This doesn’t mean food purveyors ought to be able to exploit this because people think the government always incompetent. So your solution is do nothing?

In addition it should not be up to the consumer to find out this info. If you want to sell your product then you need to be truthful and if the market rejects your product then your business model simply doesn’t work.

The Left vs. the Left
483

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
It is about food manufacture’s manipulating food ingredients to spur on food addiction. And then keeping this info from the public.
[/quote]

Which is 100% bull shit. [/quote]

Which part is 100% bullshit? The omission of these facts or the studies themselves?
[/quote]

The entire statement is junk, but it’s not like you’ll listen to why so I’m not going to bother, again.

[/quote]

You can’t refute the argument so you rely on sophomoric rederick. Please just go away you offer nothing of substance.

484

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Read the article and it is not a study refuting what I have posted, in fact if you dig deeper it helps make my point.

[/quote]

You can’t do a study to prove something is not addictive. That’s absurd. It’s the opinion of a qualified expert I was posting. Whether or not you agree with him is neither here not there. The fact is some experts say food is addictive and others say it’s not. How are politicians qualified to determine who is right and why should they have the authority to make those decisions? The Nazis used pseudoscience to promote their racial theories and the Soviets(your team) used science to send political dissidents to mental asylums.

I know why. Because it was the dominant view held by nutritionists at the time.

It was based on pseudoscience just as the food addiction studies are. Even if you don’t agree with this the point still stands. Government used bullshit studies to promote the food pyramid.

I’ve told you my opinion numerous times. A free press.

And who decides what the truth is? The government?

485

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
It is about food manufacture’s manipulating food ingredients to spur on food addiction. And then keeping this info from the public.
[/quote]

Which is 100% bull shit. [/quote]

Which part is 100% bullshit? The omission of these facts or the studies themselves?
[/quote]

The entire statement is junk, but it’s not like you’ll listen to why so I’m not going to bother, again.

[/quote]

You can’t refute the argument so you rely on sophomoric rederick. Please just go away you offer nothing of substance.
[/quote]
You are one of the most ignorant people I’ve ever come across. Start on page 1, I’ve already refuted your argument. So have like 10 others.

486

This isn’t rocket science. Food is not addicting it is necessary for life people will instinctively go for the easiest source available. In 2014 that’s McDonalds.

The government sucks ass just as much if not more so than any corporation. At least with corps I still have freedom of choice. Oh and geez whizz I’ve chosen not to eat McDonald’s for like 15 year. How’d I manage to avoid addiction after that first processed nugget I wonder?

487

“In addition it should not be up to the consumer to find out this info”

Keep absolving the poor consumer of all responsibility. Heaven forbid we hit still pause on game of thrones and read a fucking book or do some research. No worries the great and infallible federal government will tell us what we need to know. No one in government ever has their own agenda

I wonder how much corn the government will mandate we eat?

488

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This isn’t rocket science. Food is not addicting it is necessary for life people will instinctively go for the easiest source available. In 2014 that’s McDonalds.

The government sucks ass just as much if not more so than any corporation. At least with corps I still have freedom of choice. Oh and geez whizz I’ve chosen not to eat McDonald’s for like 15 year. How’d I manage to avoid addiction after that first processed nugget I wonder?[/quote]

It’s funny how so many anti-corporation folks love the largest and most powerful corporation the world has ever known, huh?

489

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This isn’t rocket science. Food is not addicting it is necessary for life people will instinctively go for the easiest source available. In 2014 that’s McDonalds.

The government sucks ass just as much if not more so than any corporation. At least with corps I still have freedom of choice. Oh and geez whizz I’ve chosen not to eat McDonald’s for like 15 year. How’d I manage to avoid addiction after that first processed nugget I wonder?[/quote]

It’s funny how so many anti-corporation folks love the largest and most powerful corporation the world has ever known, huh? [/quote]

It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

490

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Read the article and it is not a study refuting what I have posted, in fact if you dig deeper it helps make my point.

[/quote]

You can’t do a study to prove something is not addictive. That’s absurd. It’s the opinion of a qualified expert I was posting. Whether or not you agree with him is neither here not there. The fact is some experts say food is addictive and others say it’s not. How are politicians qualified to determine who is right and why should they have the authority to make those decisions? The Nazis used pseudoscience to promote their racial theories and the Soviets(your team) used science to send political dissidents to mental asylums.

I know why. Because it was the dominant view held by nutritionists at the time.

It was based on pseudoscience just as the food addiction studies are. Even if you don’t agree with this the point still stands. Government used bullshit studies to promote the food pyramid.

I’ve told you my opinion numerous times. A free press.

And who decides what the truth is? The government?
[/quote]

You can do a study that proves that these ingredients mixed in a particular ratio do not reward the brain centers of pleasure which could lead to addiction. Of which your article does not.

How are you qualified to determine these studies are fake?

In my belief it was promoted by monied interests if anything. Should we not follow the best science has to offer today because it may be proven wrong in the future?

To be cautious there could be a warning label that states: Some studies have shown that this food can possess addictive qualities.

Your “free press” argument is weak. It is not the consumers job to find out that food manufacture’s spend millions on R & D to study on how to potentially addict the consumer in order to fatten the bottom line. Indeed it is absolutely disgraceful.

In this case science presents it’s findings and the laws are made accordingly,

491

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
It is about food manufacture’s manipulating food ingredients to spur on food addiction. And then keeping this info from the public.
[/quote]

Which is 100% bull shit. [/quote]

Which part is 100% bullshit? The omission of these facts or the studies themselves?
[/quote]

The entire statement is junk, but it’s not like you’ll listen to why so I’m not going to bother, again.

[/quote]

You can’t refute the argument so you rely on sophomoric rederick. Please just go away you offer nothing of substance.
[/quote]
You are one of the most ignorant people I’ve ever come across. Start on page 1, I’ve already refuted your argument. So have like 10 others.

[/quote]

I won’t bother as your last few statements are so ridiculous I feel like I’m talking to a 3rd grader.

492

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“In addition it should not be up to the consumer to find out this info”

Keep absolving the poor consumer of all responsibility. Heaven forbid we hit still pause on game of thrones and read a fucking book or do some research. No worries the great and infallible federal government will tell us what we need to know. No one in government ever has their own agenda

I wonder how much corn the government will mandate we eat? [/quote]

Just like no corporation has there agenda. Ha Ha hahahaha

493

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This isn’t rocket science. Food is not addicting it is necessary for life people will instinctively go for the easiest source available. In 2014 that’s McDonalds.

The government sucks ass just as much if not more so than any corporation. At least with corps I still have freedom of choice. Oh and geez whizz I’ve chosen not to eat McDonald’s for like 15 year. How’d I manage to avoid addiction after that first processed nugget I wonder?[/quote]

So you have single-handedly refuted the studies by mere virtue of your sad ideological beliefs?

And at least with government you have the ability to vote out the bums.

494

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

You can do a study that proves that these ingredients mixed in a particular ratio do not reward the brain centers of pleasure which could lead to addiction. Of which your article does not.
[/quote]

Please try to use your brain. It’s a question of interpretation. The fact that food activates the reward centers of the brain does not in and of itself prove that food is dangerously addictive. Listening to music activates the reward centers. Drinking water when you’re thirsty activates the reward centers. Further, the science of addiction is still poorly understood. The current thinking is that dopamine is the key neurotransmitter involved but there have been and are different schools of thought. Besides, I was attempting sidestep the issue of the addictiveness of food and address the issue of the suitability of government involvement.

See above.

And who decides what is the “best science?” A bunch of shyster lawyers in the government?

There are millions of food studies - many contradicting each other. Which ones go on the label and who decides?

It is the consumer’s responsibility to inform themselves about nutrition. You want the government telling us what we should eat and what we shouldn’t? Are consumers babies that need the nanny state telling them what to eat? Don’t you understand the concept of personal responsibility?

[quote]

In this case science presents it’s findings and the laws are made accordingly,[/quote]

Science is not a unanimous opinion. You’ve ignored my question as to how the government decides what science to go with and what science to reject.

495

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This isn’t rocket science. Food is not addicting it is necessary for life people will instinctively go for the easiest source available. In 2014 that’s McDonalds.

The government sucks ass just as much if not more so than any corporation. At least with corps I still have freedom of choice. Oh and geez whizz I’ve chosen not to eat McDonald’s for like 15 year. How’d I manage to avoid addiction after that first processed nugget I wonder?[/quote]

So you have single-handedly refuted the studies by mere virtue of your sad ideological beliefs?

And at least with government you have the ability to vote out the bums.[/quote]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I can choose between McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, or cook healthy food myself TODAY. How often are elections again? How often do politicians get replaced?

I didn’t refute the studies, the data may very well be accurate. The idea of this nefarious manipulation to spur food addiction is SHIT.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I won’t bother as your last few statements are so ridiculous I feel like I’m talking to a 3rd grader.[/quote]

Hilarious coming from you. Try and have a single original thought today, please.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Just like no corporation has there agenda. Ha Ha hahahaha
[/quote]

Reading comprehension fail. Of course Corporations have an agenda…

Freedom of choice is the difference. Can you get that through your thick skull?

496

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
rederick. [/quote]

I don’t like to pick on spelling errors(especially on the internet, where the error is often just a typo or an oversight), but if you are going to use a word…should you not be at least familiar enough with it to get somewhat close to its proper spelling? I mean, one wrong letter results in a wrongly-spelled word…in an eight letter word, you left three of the correct letters completely out.

497

Shocked you missed this post Zep.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

"AdAge recently reported on American per capita beverage consumption for 2010. Perhaps it comes as no surprise that carbonated soft drinks are the most-consumed beverages, with an average of 44.7 gallons consumed per person, per year. "

45 gallons of soda a year. That’s 5,760 oz = 720 servings of Pepsi = 19,440 grams of sugar from soda alone a year (assuming Pepsi is the drink of choice). That’s about 288 sodas a year. I mean my God.

“Fast Food Still Major Part of U.S. Diet
Most Americans believe fast food is not “good for you”
by Andrew Dugan
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Eight in 10 Americans report eating at fast-food restaurants at least monthly, with almost half saying they eat fast food at least weekly. Only 4% say they never eat at fast-food restaurants. But slightly fewer Americans eat fast food weekly now than did so in 2006, when Gallup last asked about it.”

80% eat fast food monthly with 76% responding that the food itself was not too good or not good at all for them. YET THEY EAT IT ANYWAY

How the fuck can you possibly sit here and say it’s Corporate Americas fault people are fat. They put out a product or products that people clearly want. [/quote]

498

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

You can do a study that proves that these ingredients mixed in a particular ratio do not reward the brain centers of pleasure which could lead to addiction. Of which your article does not.
[/quote]

Please try to use your brain. It’s a question of interpretation. The fact that food activates the reward centers of the brain does not in and of itself prove that food is dangerously addictive. Listening to music activates the reward centers. Drinking water when you’re thirsty activates the reward centers. Further, the science of addiction is still poorly understood. The current thinking is that dopamine is the key neurotransmitter involved but there have been and are different schools of thought. Besides, I was attempting sidestep the issue of the addictiveness of food and address the issue of the suitability of government involvement.

See above.

And who decides what is the “best science?” A bunch of shyster lawyers in the government?

There are millions of food studies - many contradicting each other. Which ones go on the label and who decides?

It is the consumer’s responsibility to inform themselves about nutrition. You want the government telling us what we should eat and what we shouldn’t? Are consumers babies that need the nanny state telling them what to eat? Don’t you understand the concept of personal responsibility?

[quote]

In this case science presents it’s findings and the laws are made accordingly,[/quote]

Science is not a unanimous opinion. You’ve ignored my question as to how the government decides what science to go with and what science to reject.[/quote]

Theses studies looked at how addictive drugs work on the brain and found similar results from food stuff. Those studies show the results. So your interpretation theory is bunk. So please try and use your brain.

Again where the preponderance of scientific evidence lies is what the law should be based on. The evidence is the decision maker.

Where are all the studies contradicting what I have posted?

Science does not need to be unanimous, derelict. How many scientific advances were unanimous?

It is the corporations responsibility to make sure their products come with the proper information if they are to market their products for sale. It is not the consumers responsibility to carry on research projects to find out that corporations are purposely hiding pertinent information from them that can ultimately do them harm.

No one said these products can’t be sold. Only that they need to be forthcoming with information about what is being done to their food. Then let the consumer decide if they want to buy the product or not.

499

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Shocked you missed this post Zep.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

"AdAge recently reported on American per capita beverage consumption for 2010. Perhaps it comes as no surprise that carbonated soft drinks are the most-consumed beverages, with an average of 44.7 gallons consumed per person, per year. "

45 gallons of soda a year. That’s 5,760 oz = 720 servings of Pepsi = 19,440 grams of sugar from soda alone a year (assuming Pepsi is the drink of choice). That’s about 288 sodas a year. I mean my God.

“Fast Food Still Major Part of U.S. Diet
Most Americans believe fast food is not “good for you”
by Andrew Dugan
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Eight in 10 Americans report eating at fast-food restaurants at least monthly, with almost half saying they eat fast food at least weekly. Only 4% say they never eat at fast-food restaurants. But slightly fewer Americans eat fast food weekly now than did so in 2006, when Gallup last asked about it.”

80% eat fast food monthly with 76% responding that the food itself was not too good or not good at all for them. YET THEY EAT IT ANYWAY

How the fuck can you possibly sit here and say it’s Corporate Americas fault people are fat. They put out a product or products that people clearly want. [/quote]
[/quote]

This does absolutely nothing to refute the studies I’ve posted. If anything it only makes the point of the studies.

500

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This isn’t rocket science. Food is not addicting it is necessary for life people will instinctively go for the easiest source available. In 2014 that’s McDonalds.

The government sucks ass just as much if not more so than any corporation. At least with corps I still have freedom of choice. Oh and geez whizz I’ve chosen not to eat McDonald’s for like 15 year. How’d I manage to avoid addiction after that first processed nugget I wonder?[/quote]

So you have single-handedly refuted the studies by mere virtue of your sad ideological beliefs?

And at least with government you have the ability to vote out the bums.[/quote]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I can choose between McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, or cook healthy food myself TODAY. How often are elections again? How often do politicians get replaced?

I didn’t refute the studies, the data may very well be accurate. The idea of this nefarious manipulation to spur food addiction is SHIT.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I won’t bother as your last few statements are so ridiculous I feel like I’m talking to a 3rd grader.[/quote]

Hilarious coming from you. Try and have a single original thought today, please.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Just like no corporation has there agenda. Ha Ha hahahaha
[/quote]

Reading comprehension fail. Of course Corporations have an agenda…

Freedom of choice is the difference. Can you get that through your thick skull? [/quote]

If the food addiction theory is just conspiracy why do corporations do it in the first place? Why do corporations spend so much money on R&D to sell products?