On Food Purveyors

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
There has to be a way to educate people on diet , it is not rocket science and it has VERY SIGNIFICANT results [/quote]

That should be fairly simple. As with many things, it should all start at home. Granted, we know that’s not always going to happen for reasons that are obvious and need not be elaborated on here. If nothing else, I fail to see the reason why any health education curriculum at the K-12 level should not or would not incorporate an adequate unit on the fundamentals of human nutrition, including macronutrients, micronutrients, and incorporating whole foods into a well-balanced diet.

I have yet to work in a school that didn’t teach a unit on nutrition as part of its health education curriculum, but there may be some that are lacking. Nevertheless, a one or two week unit still doesn’t always counteract learned, socialized behavior elsewhere, but it’s better than nothing.
[/quote]

Correct, and if anyone wants to know more about it, we have this wonderful thing called Google. They don’t even have to go to the library more likely than not, but can use google or gasp read a book, for FREE at the library. [/quote]

I know because I said it you will disagree with it , but these people cost us money and will only cost us more , why not try and educate them and save some money .

Again remember not every one was blessed with Your intellect and I think that is a good thing :slight_smile:

82

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So what? The FDA is merely a front organization that protects markets for big corporations.

[/quote]

That’s funny because the author of the article you posted is the former head of the FDA. By the way, which “big corporations” is the FDA a front for and what evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?[/quote]

Here is a book written about an entire industry and how the FDA protects them.

[/quote]

That’s about the pharmaceutical industry. I thought we were talking about food pushers?[/quote]

You asked who the FDA is a front for? This was an example. This type of market protecting can and does extend to other industries.

Here is a study recently done by the University of Connecticut. It may not be a Snickers but hey…

[/quote]

Addictive qualities of Oreos cookies? For crying out loud. Utter nonsense. There will never be enough regulations to satisfy these statists. That’s what this is about. More government, more regulations, more bureaucracy until we’re all drowning in it.
[/quote]

If it’s all bullshit then why don’t you call the university and explain it to them?

This has nothing to do with statists and everything to do with companies trying to keep the public in the dark and to maximize profit at any cost.

83

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol, it must be the evil food companies. It can’t people the choices people make, can’t be. [/quote]
I can tell you didn’t even read the article.[/quote]

You would be wrong. [/quote]

I should have said comprehend.
[/quote]

Lol…

Kind of like how Australia’s super economy and mega minimum wage translates to America’s right?
[/quote]

if it works in Australia then why wouldn’t it work here?

84

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
. That’s what this is about. More government, more regulations, more bureaucracy until we’re all drowning in it.
[/quote]

You will have to excuse me while I say you are being disingenuous , you want to regulate marriage but not the food industry
[/quote]

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and the state should have as little to do with it as possible. I also believe that Oreos should not be illegal. Holding these two beliefs does not make me disingenuous.[/quote]

Who is saying Oreo’s should be illegal?

85

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

You’re talking to someone who wants to legalise narcotics and restrict access to cookies. [/quote]

Good point.

I suppose asking people to have some god damn personal responsibility and educate themselves about anything other than the Jay-Z/Kanye West weddings is going too far. It’s 2014, the government needs to spoon feed every last detail of everything to people, god forbid they do anything for themselves.

YOLO
Selfie!

[/quote]

I suppose not letting corporations manipulate food ingredients to spur on addiction is too much to ask. You want personal responsibility for the citizens but the corporations get a free pass in this aspect.

86

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
. That’s what this is about. More government, more regulations, more bureaucracy until we’re all drowning in it.
[/quote]

You will have to excuse me while I say you are being disingenuous , you want to regulate marriage but not the food industry
[/quote]

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and the state should have as little to do with it as possible. I also believe that Oreos should not be illegal. Holding these two beliefs does not make me disingenuous.[/quote]

I believe no cares what you believe about marriage I also agree with you oreos should be legal , but it would not hurt for them to inform their customers that there is enough sugar in 3 cookies to live for a day and that exceeding that amount will make you into a fatty , cause diabetes , elevate bloods pressure , cause liver failure , increase the bad cholesterol . Can elevate bad blood lipids . Can cut your life short . Should only be given to children under parental supervision
[/quote]

But they can’t let that happen because an informed public may not eat as many and that would effect the bottom line. This is automatically bad and this is the reason.

87

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
. That’s what this is about. More government, more regulations, more bureaucracy until we’re all drowning in it.
[/quote]

You will have to excuse me while I say you are being disingenuous , you want to regulate marriage but not the food industry
[/quote]

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and the state should have as little to do with it as possible. I also believe that Oreos should not be illegal. Holding these two beliefs does not make me disingenuous.[/quote]

Who is saying Oreo’s should be illegal?
[/quote]

You should know by now , you can not win a debate unless you change what your opponent says to make it a straw man

88

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
. That’s what this is about. More government, more regulations, more bureaucracy until we’re all drowning in it.
[/quote]

You will have to excuse me while I say you are being disingenuous , you want to regulate marriage but not the food industry
[/quote]

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and the state should have as little to do with it as possible. I also believe that Oreos should not be illegal. Holding these two beliefs does not make me disingenuous.[/quote]

I believe no cares what you believe about marriage I also agree with you oreos should be legal , but it would not hurt for them to inform their customers that there is enough sugar in 3 cookies to live for a day and that exceeding that amount will make you into a fatty , cause diabetes , elevate bloods pressure , cause liver failure , increase the bad cholesterol . Can elevate bad blood lipids . Can cut your life short . Should only be given to children under parental supervision
[/quote]

Nutrition Facts - Serving Size 3 Cookies

Calories 160
Total Fat 7g 11%
Saturated Fat 2g 10%
Trans Fat 0g
Polyunsaturated Fat 1g
Monounsaturated Fat 3g
Cholesterol 0mg 0%
Sodium 140mg 6%
Potassium 55mg 2%
Total Carbohydrate 25g 8%
Dietary Fiber Less than 1g 3%
Sugars 14g

I can guaran-fucking-tee you, you will not die or harm yourself from eating that.

3 fucking cookies, 25 grams of carbs, 160 calories total, but it will knock you down like cocaine.

G…T…F…O

89

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
. That’s what this is about. More government, more regulations, more bureaucracy until we’re all drowning in it.
[/quote]

You will have to excuse me while I say you are being disingenuous , you want to regulate marriage but not the food industry
[/quote]

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and the state should have as little to do with it as possible. I also believe that Oreos should not be illegal. Holding these two beliefs does not make me disingenuous.[/quote]

I believe no cares what you believe about marriage I also agree with you oreos should be legal , but it would not hurt for them to inform their customers that there is enough sugar in 3 cookies to live for a day and that exceeding that amount will make you into a fatty , cause diabetes , elevate bloods pressure , cause liver failure , increase the bad cholesterol . Can elevate bad blood lipids . Can cut your life short . Should only be given to children under parental supervision
[/quote]

Nutrition Facts - Serving Size 3 Cookies

Calories 160
Total Fat 7g 11%
Saturated Fat 2g 10%
Trans Fat 0g
Polyunsaturated Fat 1g
Monounsaturated Fat 3g
Cholesterol 0mg 0%
Sodium 140mg 6%
Potassium 55mg 2%
Total Carbohydrate 25g 8%
Dietary Fiber Less than 1g 3%
Sugars 14g

I can guaran-fucking-tee you, you will not die or harm yourself from eating that.

3 fucking cookies, 25 grams of carbs, 160 calories total, but it will knock you down like cocaine.

G…T…F…O[/quote]

Problem is no one just eats 3 cookies . Just look at the obese people walking down the street . Tell me Americans and now the world don’t eat too much sugar .

I would list

Coke , then alcohol then sugar then aspirin then pot just my opinion

90

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol, it must be the evil food companies. It can’t people the choices people make, can’t be. [/quote]
I can tell you didn’t even read the article.[/quote]

You would be wrong. [/quote]

I should have said comprehend.
[/quote]

Lol…

Kind of like how Australia’s super economy and mega minimum wage translates to America’s right?
[/quote]

if it works in Australia then why wouldn’t it work here?
[/quote]

Well, for starters Australia has a population of 22 million as opposed to 320 million. Australia has the fifth highest GDP per capita in the world. Australia had a GDP growth of 2.5% last financial year as opposed to 0.1%. Australia does not print shitloads of currency then artificially lower its inflation rate. Australia has a debt to GDP ratio of 20% as opposed to 101%. Australia is riding a mining boom and benefiting from trade with China and Japan. Any of this mean anything to you?

91

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So what? The FDA is merely a front organization that protects markets for big corporations.

[/quote]

That’s funny because the author of the article you posted is the former head of the FDA. By the way, which “big corporations” is the FDA a front for and what evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?[/quote]

Here is a book written about an entire industry and how the FDA protects them.

[/quote]

That’s about the pharmaceutical industry. I thought we were talking about food pushers?[/quote]

You asked who the FDA is a front for? This was an example. This type of market protecting can and does extend to other industries.

Here is a study recently done by the University of Connecticut. It may not be a Snickers but hey…

[/quote]

Addictive qualities of Oreos cookies? For crying out loud. Utter nonsense. There will never be enough regulations to satisfy these statists. That’s what this is about. More government, more regulations, more bureaucracy until we’re all drowning in it.
[/quote]

If it’s all bullshit then why don’t you call the university and explain it to them?

This has nothing to do with statists and everything to do with companies trying to keep the public in the dark and to maximize profit at any cost.
[/quote]

Every ingredient and its amount is printed on the package. How exactly are they trying to “keep the public in the dark?” What measures do you propose the government should implement to deal with cookie addiction?

92

The sad face of a cookie addict.

93

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Problem is no one just eats 3 cookies . Just look at the obese people walking down the street . Tell me Americans and now the world don’t eat too much sugar .

I would list

Coke , then alcohol then sugar then aspirin then pot just my opinion
[/quote]

That’s far too sweeping of a generalization. I know a lot of people who have a very healthy relationship with so-called junk food like Oreos - i.e., they can have 1-2 servings and be done and satisfied. I, as a former fat boy, am the poster child example of your “no one” - I can eat the whole f***ing package and not flinch. This is why I don’t keep them around, but most people that I know who eat them are not like me at all. They eat sweet garbage in moderation and are perfectly fine with these foods as an occasional treat, and most of them know quite well that Oreos are not healthy snacks in the strictest sense, nor should they be a major staple food of one’s daily dietary regiment.

With respect to sweeping generalizations about worldwide sugar consumption, even on a per capita basis, you might dig a little deeper. There are 6-7 billion people in the world, and reliable statistics indicate that the 10 largest sugar consuming nations represent roughly two-thirds of total world consumption, and there are nations where consumption is fairly low, especially in some lesser industrialized regions.

94

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

You’re talking to someone who wants to legalise narcotics and restrict access to cookies. [/quote]

Good point.

I suppose asking people to have some god damn personal responsibility and educate themselves about anything other than the Jay-Z/Kanye West weddings is going too far. It’s 2014, the government needs to spoon feed every last detail of everything to people, god forbid they do anything for themselves.

YOLO
Selfie!

[/quote]

I suppose not letting corporations manipulate food ingredients to spur on addiction is too much to ask. You want personal responsibility for the citizens but the corporations get a free pass in this aspect.
[/quote]

Nice assumptive conjecture.

The corporation’s personal responsibility lies in satisfying the customers. If the customers use their brain, and stop buying shit… The company will have to adapt or it will fail.

The problem corrects itself, without the beloved government having to dole out.

95

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol, it must be the evil food companies. It can’t people the choices people make, can’t be. [/quote]
I can tell you didn’t even read the article.[/quote]

You would be wrong. [/quote]

I should have said comprehend.
[/quote]

Lol…

Kind of like how Australia’s super economy and mega minimum wage translates to America’s right?
[/quote]

if it works in Australia then why wouldn’t it work here?
[/quote]

Lol… you must have selective memory because we covered this in great detail months ago.

Fight on though, fight on.

96

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol, it must be the evil food companies. It can’t people the choices people make, can’t be. [/quote]
I can tell you didn’t even read the article.[/quote]

You would be wrong. [/quote]

I should have said comprehend.
[/quote]

Lol…

Kind of like how Australia’s super economy and mega minimum wage translates to America’s right?
[/quote]

if it works in Australia then why wouldn’t it work here?
[/quote]

Well, for starters Australia has a population of 22 million as opposed to 320 million. Australia has the fifth highest GDP per capita in the world. Australia had a GDP growth of 2.5% last financial year as opposed to 0.1%. Australia does not print shitloads of currency then artificially lower its inflation rate. Australia has a debt to GDP ratio of 20% as opposed to 101%. Australia is riding a mining boom and benefiting from trade with China and Japan. Any of this mean anything to you?
[/quote]

Don’t, just don’t…

97

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

You’re talking to someone who wants to legalise narcotics and restrict access to cookies. [/quote]

Good point.

I suppose asking people to have some god damn personal responsibility and educate themselves about anything other than the Jay-Z/Kanye West weddings is going too far. It’s 2014, the government needs to spoon feed every last detail of everything to people, god forbid they do anything for themselves.

YOLO
Selfie!

[/quote]

I suppose not letting corporations manipulate food ingredients to spur on addiction is too much to ask. You want personal responsibility for the citizens but the corporations get a free pass in this aspect.
[/quote]

Nice assumptive conjecture.

The corporation’s personal responsibility lies in satisfying the customers. If the customers use their brain, and stop buying shit… The company will have to adapt or it will fail.

The problem corrects itself, without the beloved government having to dole out. [/quote]

Funny you mention this.

My favorite burrito joint started carrying Coca-Cola made with real sugar, stored in glass bottles, instead of your regular aluminum cans or plastic bottles.

I gave it a try, and it’s a million times better, for a very minimal price increase. I went this past weekend, and the Coke bottles were gone. I ask the owner wtf, and he said he sold them all. He said they were bought within a few days.

Consumer demand changed the product, not the useless walking bowel movements that run the gubment.

98

The FDA is always the Boogyman until it rules against the drug and food companies, then like the EPA, it’s lauded as The Great Protector.

99
100

960×720 75.2 KB

major smack