If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:28:43 +0900, Doug Lerner wrote:
On 3/11/06 1:09 PM, in article , "Dave Head" wrote: Soooo... corporate culpability is a real thing, as far as I'm concerned, in the constant fight to eat reasonably. They want to sell as much product as they can, and don't give a rip about the calorie-bomb that a 1400 calorie burger, or a 960 calorie bag of peanuts constituting a health threat to everyone that buys the stuff. Yet... they wouldn't sell it if there were no demand for it? So which really came first - the demand or the product? doug Casino gambling is wildly popular among a significant percetage of the population - IOW, there is "demand" for it - but many think it a bad thing and therefore there are laws against it most places. So, just because there is a demand for something, does that mean its a good thing? Are those that offer something that is not necessarily in the best interested of the customer to be cosidered blameless while America largely loses a battle with a deadly health menace? Its like cars - the law doesn't say you can't build a big one, it just says you have to build some small ones so your Corprate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is 28 mpg (or whatever it is now.) Why? Because its good for the nation. Just out of "doing the right thing", the food sellers _ought_ to offer _reasonable_ sized packages of their products. If Joe Jellybelly wants to buy a 6 oz, 960 calorie bag of peanuts, that's fine, but I want to buy a 1 3/4 oz bag or 2.5 oz bag, and believe it is a bad thing for the food sellers not to offer it just to sell more product without regard to the health impact on the population. Everyone in this newsgroup is likely aware of how many calories are in everything in a conveniece store, but the _average_ person is very likely unaware - and America just gets fatter, and sicker, because corporations want to make as much money as they can. We've got warning on packages of cigarettes about how they are a health risk. Should we have warning on snack packages of more than, say, 300 calories? Maybe we should have warnings on snacks over 150 calories that are commonly bought for kids. Its just wrong to let "the bottom line" drive all the market decisions at the expense of the health of America. Dave Head |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
"Dave Head" wrote in message news On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:52:01 -0600, Annie Benson Lennaman wrote: They would if their consumer base wanted/demanded it. In fact, they have. Those little 100 calorie pack snacks that have become more and more common didn't come about because they look cute. Tell me about the 100 calorie packs. What food is that? What corporation? I haven't run onto that, but haven't looked closely, either. That would be Nabisco. http://www.nabiscoworld.com/100caloriepacks/ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
In article , Mxsmanic
wrote: Dave Head writes: Its real hard to do where snacks are usually eaten... A lot of things are hard to do. That doesn't relieve you of responsibility for doing them. Hi Mx, Good to have your tough love here again. In a few days the coats come off and the truth will be out. Words won't cut it then, action is neeeded! -- Diva ***** Discipline is Liberation |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
In article , Dave Head
wrote: On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 06:52:36 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote: Dave Head writes: Its real hard to do where snacks are usually eaten... A lot of things are hard to do. That doesn't relieve you of responsibility for doing them. Nope, but the corporations have a responsibility to human health See or read "The Corporation" Corporations responsibility is to shareholders: http://www.thecorporation.com/ IDo expect the CEO to come to your place and fit you with a gag? If you want to change your shape change your POV as it's full of rationalization. Placing blame does not displace hand to mouth activity. Diva **** needing to hang tough herself these days |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
In article , Dave Head
wrote: On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 06:48:40 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote: Dave Head writes: Soooo... corporate culpability is a real thing, as far as I'm concerned, in the constant fight to eat reasonably. Until you take responsibility for your own obesity, I am _definitely_ not obese... you'll remain fat. I could lose 20... Nobody forces you to buy any particular brand or order any particular food. If ur hungry, and they only make available more than you want or need, you either starve or buy it. However, I _did_ have time to get to the 3rd store and find a bag of peanuts that was _right sized_. Supermarkets make salads and other healthy foods available like fruits and vegetables. To get what you need rather than what you want, point your Nikes or Addidas in a differnt direction and stop whining please. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
In article , Dave Head
wrote: On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:28:43 +0900, Doug Lerner wrote: On 3/11/06 1:09 PM, in article , "Dave Head" wrote: Soooo... corporate culpability is a real thing, as far as I'm concerned, in the constant fight to eat reasonably. They want to sell as much product as they can, and don't give a rip about the calorie-bomb that a 1400 calorie burger, or a 960 calorie bag of peanuts constituting a health threat to everyone that buys the stuff. Yet... they wouldn't sell it if there were no demand for it? So which really came first - the demand or the product? doug Casino gambling is wildly popular among a significant percetage of the population - IOW, there is "demand" for it - but many think it a bad thing and therefore there are laws against it most places. So, just because there is a demand for something, does that mean its a good thing? Are those that offer something that is not necessarily in the best interested of the customer to be cosidered blameless while America largely loses a battle with a deadly health menace? Its like cars - the law doesn't say you can't build a big one, it just says you have to build some small ones so your Corprate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is 28 mpg (or whatever it is now.) Why? Because its good for the nation. Just out of "doing the right thing", the food sellers _ought_ to offer _reasonable_ sized packages of their products. If Joe Jellybelly wants to buy a 6 oz, 960 calorie bag of peanuts, that's fine, but I want to buy a 1 3/4 oz bag or 2.5 oz bag, and believe it is a bad thing for the food sellers not to offer it just to sell more product without regard to the health impact on the population. Everyone in this newsgroup is likely aware of how many calories are in everything in a conveniece store, but the _average_ person is very likely unaware - and America just gets fatter, and sicker, because corporations want to make as much money as they can. We've got warning on packages of cigarettes about how they are a health risk. Should we have warning on snack packages of more than, say, 300 calories? Maybe we should have warnings on snacks over 150 calories that are commonly bought for kids. Its just wrong to let "the bottom line" drive all the market decisions at the expense of the health of America. Dave Head Big Brother is not betting on your ability to discipline yourself. We are all aware that America is getting not only fatter but is governed by a passle of cowboys from places that don't even have mountains. Don't depend on the gang that can't shoot straight to legislate you into good decisions and healthy habits. Should Fredericks of Hollywood be banned to prevent rape and seduction? What are your own standards and priorities aside from wanting snacks repackaged? I've been on a diet for six years that does not allow me to eat candy bars, chips, popcorn and other packaged snacks and have no regrets. BTW: Are you trolling or are you serious at assigning blame where it doesn't belong? -- Diva **** Lack of actions leads to no desired changes |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
Dave Head writes:
Nope, but the corporations have a responsibility to human health the same way the car companies do when they install air bags and make crush zones in the cars. They're supposed to _help_ us be safe, rather than tempting us not to be. You're supposed to accept responsibility for your own life and stop blaming Someone Else. Didn't say I couldn't do it, I said it is difficult. Why shouldn't the corporations _help_ the situation instead of hinder it? Why can't you handle the situation on your own? RM doesn't sell peanuts, I think. Nobody makes you eat peanuts. Sure. What else do you throw 1/3 of away after paying for all of it? Anything that's more than I can or should eat. That's just wrong. And overeating is right? What weight problem? At 220 with the amount of muscle I have, I don't really have a "problem". Either you have a tremendous amount of muscle, or you are overweight (unless you are very tall indeed). I could be thinner... but not by much. I'm closer to "athlete" than fat right now. Why isn't that the fault of corporations as well? Or are they only to blame for bad things? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
Dave Head writes:
I am _definitely_ not obese... You just said that you weigh 220. How tall are you? If ur hungry, and they only make available more than you want or need, you either starve or buy it. You also have the option of buying it and eating only part of it. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
Dave Head writes:
Casino gambling is wildly popular among a significant percetage of the population - IOW, there is "demand" for it - but many think it a bad thing and therefore there are laws against it most places. They may think it is a bad thing, but that doesn't make it so. So, just because there is a demand for something, does that mean its a good thing? No. And just because someone thinks that something is bad, that doesn't make it bad. Are those that offer something that is not necessarily in the best interested of the customer to be cosidered blameless while America largely loses a battle with a deadly health menace? Yes. It's supply and demand. If people wanted 50-calorie snacks, they'd be on the shelves. Just out of "doing the right thing", the food sellers _ought_ to offer _reasonable_ sized packages of their products. Will you buy any such packages that they cannot sell to someone else? If Joe Jellybelly wants to buy a 6 oz, 960 calorie bag of peanuts, that's fine, but I want to buy a 1 3/4 oz bag or 2.5 oz bag, and believe it is a bad thing for the food sellers not to offer it just to sell more product without regard to the health impact on the population. Your mistake is to believe that you are right and others are wrong. There's no right and wrong. But you are responsible for doing what you believe to be right or wrong--not Someone Else. Everyone in this newsgroup is likely aware of how many calories are in everything in a conveniece store, but the _average_ person is very likely unaware - and America just gets fatter, and sicker, because corporations want to make as much money as they can. No, America gets fatter and sicker because Americans can't stop stuffing their faces. Corporations would love to charge you more for less food. If people began demanding smaller portions, they'd get them in no time. But it turns out that they buy large portions a lot more often than they buy small portions, and so that's what corporations make. Their margins are lower, but they sell in greater volume. We've got warning on packages of cigarettes about how they are a health risk. Should we have warning on snack packages of more than, say, 300 calories? Maybe we should have warnings on snacks over 150 calories that are commonly bought for kids. Why? The warnings on cigarettes have never had any effect. Its just wrong to let "the bottom line" drive all the market decisions at the expense of the health of America. Maybe, but that doesn't excuse the individual of his responsibility for eating wisely. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Personal perspective: new era of consumer protection possible in USA, if legislature acts on aspartame ban, Stephen Fox, 49 citizen comments, Leland Lehrman: Murray 2006.01.21 | Rich Murray | General Discussion | 0 | January 22nd, 2006 04:01 AM |
Corporate Package For Your Staff | T.E.N Tours | General Discussion | 0 | October 19th, 2005 12:47 AM |
Corporate Package For Your Staff | T.E.N Tours | General Discussion | 0 | October 19th, 2005 12:41 AM |