Skip to main content

View Diary: It's Official: Big Food Targets Kids (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Depends on your definition of healthy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larsstephens

    I don't call produce that is tasteless and full of pesticides healthy. To me, it's no wonder that people are too "lazy" to cook when tomatoes taste like cardboard and peaches are hard as rocks.

    •  Hmmm.. so only "organic" food is healthy? (0+ / 0-)

      And out of the reach of most shoppers because of the expense?

      You wouldn't say that there is a wide range from uber-healthy to downright bad for you?

      Yes, tomatoes are no longer the way they used to be, but when you buy them a few days ahead of time and allow them to ripen at home, they get much better.

      And, I can whip up a pretty nice salad for about 3 bucks and a quick veggie pasta dish for a few more to feed a family of six easily.  Are you really willing to state that is not healthier than crap out of a box, or a meal from McD's that would cost 5 times that much?

      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

      by Skeptical Bastard on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:59:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, not only organic is healthy, but preferable (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        So many ways to respond:

        First, organic is more expensive because the government subsidized conventional growing. So that is policy. Next, yes, your example is healthier, and yes, those who are educated and have the time, may take that route. But you are framing this in terms of choices people make. I am saying that industry spends BILLIONS a year telling people to eat "convenience" foods so why wouldn't they? Then we subsidize the wrong foods to keep McD having the dollar menu meals. If people are told that it's cool and McD tastes better, and that salads are deprivation and for dieting, it's no wonder what they choose. So it's not just about price, it's about convenience and culture.

        •  Why wouldn't they? (0+ / 0-)

          Because we tell them it is BAD for them!

          This is an educational issue, as far as I'm concerned.

          First, educate the consumer on what "big food" is doing with their ads.  Your diary wonderfully did that.  Just need to get it out to millions of people!

          Then, educate the consumer on how bad their food is and how to prepare healthy meals.

          The ads will die out all on their own.  I guess it's a chicken-or-the-egg thing.  I think it is best handled at the consumer end.

          "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

          by Skeptical Bastard on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:39:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes and then.... (0+ / 0-)

            figure out how to compete
            with and or match some of the annual
            ad budgets that are listed above....

            These costs are all tax deductable as
            a business expense-and also paid
            for ultimately by the final consumers,
            who also have had their 'airwaves' sold
            to enable and establish other whole industries.

            More government 'policy' at work-
            and most certainly "ripe" and open
            for debate and or change.

            •  Not everything is the government's fault (0+ / 0-)

              You want to start telling each and every company in this country what is an allowable business expense?

              And if you do, who will sit on the boards reviewing commercials for their allowable content?  How many "thought police" do you think we will need for this society? tens of thousands? millions?

              No thank you.. I'll stick with freedom, thank you.. and all the ills that come with it.

              "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

              by Skeptical Bastard on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:41:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  uh... (0+ / 0-)

                this, as a matter of fact and law,
                is already done by the IRS. And by other
                governmental bodies, too.

                Let us leave the arguement over whether
                they should for another time and place.

                The allowable deductions, and other limitations
                and restrictions on 'commercial' speech do change though,
                by raw category and amount also.

                Through debate, discussion, and persuasion, these
                laws are continually being amended, repealed,
                changed, etc., to suit the needs of just who?

                Those who have the 'loudest' or most
                repetitive "free speech" or money?
                Not a very level playing field.

                That mass advertising and marketing effectively
                'works' cannot be debated against rationally.

                If lies, half-truths, distortions,
                misrepresentations, and the entire arsenal
                of industrial 'persuasion' or 'consent manufacturing'
                and 'desire creation' are not open to debate or
                criticism as far as legislating limits, subject
                matter, audience, etc., have we not already lost a
                great deal of our individual freedom of speech
                already? Not to mention collective control of our
                very own culture and society into the very few hands
                of those who care only for their own gain and profit?

                Aren't the abuse of these subtle and perhaps maybe
                even subliminal techniques the very reasons we have
                so much dysfunction and corruption from the very
                highest levels of our business and government down
                to the undeniable psychological and physical
                effects on the least of us?

                As far as "nannystating" it bluntly, it is no
                mistake that those who have the most of everything
                always seem to be the beneficieries of the rewards
                of this so called 'free speech'. That is how they
                crafted our laws and rules regarding this.

                And yes the actual audacity that someone or even
                quite a few if not a majority of people might
                resent and find offensive some speech is rightly
                to be feared, as it could lead to censorship by
                that majority of rightful expressions.

                But we are not discussing Ulysses or Catcher in the Rye here.
                Or the ideas of Galileo or Copernicus or Mein Kempf or even
                the mad ravings of David Duke or Rev. Phelps or Rush Limbaugh. Or Marilyn Manson.
                We are talking about multi-billions of dollars that drive industries we unknowingly support with our purchases, subsidized by our public airways, without our 'true' consent. That may be harming us, our children, and perhaps our very freedom ultimately.  

                There always seems to be plenty of airtime and dollars to
                market the fear to sell the next war, the fear of our
                black and brown and other fellow humans, or the fear of
                being different, or the anxiousness of being unaccepted,
                or sexually unattractive, or 'uncool' or 'poor',
                and on and on...

                All to be cured instantly by buying the big lie
                that this product or that idea will fullfill and
                complete yourself.

                Yes, I believe you will take freedom and all of its ills,
                until it is your child that is alone
                in the park with the stranger who has the candy...

                Wouldn't a real skeptical bastard want to punch
                that stranger in the nose, maybe chase that stranger away?

      •  Its not a matter of 'organic' .. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Michele Simon

        .. its a matter of non-processed, non-additive, seasonal food.

        Go into any grocery store [Whole Foods definitely included] and you will see strawberries in the fall and winter, oranges in the summer, lettuce all year round. You will see prepared meals with huge amounts of corn syrup or salt or additives. You will see so called 'organic' foods from China [organically fertilized with human poop], packaged frozen meat that has travel thousands of miles and then thawed just before you purchase it, or 'healthy' 'low-carb' bread that never gets moldy.

        Com'on guys ... get real. Ninety percent of what is on the supermarket shelves is not nourishment. You are paying for cardboard, chemicals, sugar and plastic.  

        If you eat seasonally, you can save significant amounts of money. If you buy brown-it-takes-40-minutes-to-cook rice instead of the minute kind, you can save significant amounts of money. A 1/2 gallon of mile from a dairy in Pennsylvania instead of a corporation in California if you live in the Mid Atlantic, is probably the same price but you have the benefit of a lower carbon footprint and a fresher product. It's not hard ... just read the friggin labels!

        •  Yes.. of course.. (0+ / 0-)

          I am not an advocate of anything "prepared".  But we were talking about "healthy" foods.

          There is a matter of "degrees".  And, while there is definitely an advantage to buying locally, we first have to get people in the habit of actually cooking!  People, especially those families with children, need to be educated how really bad prepared foods are for them (and their kids)!

          Preferably, garden grown veggies would be on most of our plates, but that is not always practical (although a lot more practical than most people think!).  

          I agree with you on everything you  said, but as bad as the eating habits of American families are right now, we need to first stress how really bad prepared foods are.. then get them on to local grown goods for the sake of the environment.

          "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

          by Skeptical Bastard on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:35:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site