Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:57:52 -0500, Carol Frilegh wrote:

In article , Dally
wrote:

Dave Head wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:19:42 -0500, Dally wrote:

You CHOOSE convenience foods. There's
no reason in the world why you can't cook up a mess of black-eyed peas
in the crockpot during the day instead of eating fast food.

In the daytime I'm at work most of the week. Eating fast food is far
preferable than messing around dirtying up pots and dishes and silverware,
and
then having to deal with that.

I disagree on every level. I plan, purchase and pack healthier meals.
My meals have better macronutrient ratios, nutrients, less packaging,
cost less money and are better for me.

You choose to buy crappy food from bad food purveyors and then blame the
corporations.

Look in a mirror, dude.

Dally


The jerk is obviously a troll.

Where does "jerk" come from? Just because I disagree, or really you disagree
with the idea that some of the responsibility for the broadening of America can
be laid at the feet of greedy corporations that market foods in such a way that
it is more difficult to do the right thing?

Don't watse your time. What does he
expect us to do?

See the problem for what it is, and agree that part of it is brought about by
the way corporate America conducts business without regard to the health / well
being of the inhabitants.

He should take his case the Congress or the food processors.

Congress means the government's use of force, which I detest. The food
processors would be good, but it'd have to be more than just _me_ that sees the
problem. 1 letter isn't going to change anything. And unless people agree that
20 oz cokes at 250 calories is not as good as a 12 oz coke at 155 calories,
then 1 letter is all it would be, I guess.

Dave Head

Dave Head wrote:

No, you haven't been listening.

We've been listening, but we think you're full of ****. Why is it so
difficult for you to grasp that?

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:29:50 -0500, Dally wrote:

Dave Head wrote:

People know they want a Coke or a Pepsi. They buy what they can find on the
shelf. The corporations are making sure they only find (the more expensive) 20
oz bottles.

This really highlights your brain damage.

1. Drink water. OR

Well, if I wanted water, I'd have been drinking water in the 1st place, eh?

2. Buy 2 liter bottles of soda in the grocery store and refrigerate it

This is mostly about the availability of snack-type foods on the road. The
home problem is not a problem - I can buy 6 oz. or 8 oz cans of soda if I want
them. I'm talking about people buying refreshments as they drive. In this
area, Virginia, near DC, people have to drive, drive, drive to get anything
done at all. Its a 40 mile round trip to my health club, even. Going to work,
for a lot of people, is a 55 mile 1-way journey. There's a job I could
probably get at another DoD facility, that I heard about last night, that is 55
miles one way.

People commonly have a refreshment at the start or end of such a drive, or at
least when getting gas, which is often when you're driving these distances. Why
shouldn't they be able to find 155 calorie, 12 oz sodas at convenience stores
at the gas stations?

and use a cup to serve 8 ounces when you want it. OR

I can do a lot of things at home, but this isn't a "home" problem, this is a
mobile problem.

3. Buy a 20 ounce soda and throw away half. OR
4. Buy the 8 ounce junior cans they have in grocery stores and
refrigerate them at home and pack them in ice chests for your car.

If I weren't drinking diet, I think I'd actually do that. Its a good
suggestion, althought the ice is expensive on a regular basis.

But the point is that one has to do such special things to achieve the desired
effect - the intake of a reasonable amount of calories - that most people
won't, and America gets broader.

You only problem - your ENTIRE problem - is being unable to meet your
own needs with a little forethought. Corporations make money off of
****tards without survival skills - big whoop.

Its not the money so much. Its the fat - it makes them sick eventually, maybe
even kills 'em.

You are CHOOSING to be a
non-planning idiot consumer. Your choice. I'd make money off of you, too.

So you don't mind offering too-big portions of everything, while removing the
more healthy-sized portions of the same foods and drinks (this removal of the
more-correct choice being the _real_ crime) to America and thus having a
negative impact on the overall health of the Nation?

Dave Head

Dally

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:45:12 GMT, (The Queen of Cans and
Jars) wrote:

Dave Head wrote:

No, you haven't been listening.

We've been listening, but we think you're full of ****. Why is it so
difficult for you to grasp that?

So, I take it you think the corporations are blameless, and that people
_should_ have to struggle to find the healthier choice when they inconveniently
remove it from the shelves in 2 out of 3 stores...

Dave Head wrote:

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:45:12 GMT, (The Queen of Cans and
Jars) wrote:

Dave Head wrote:

No, you haven't been listening.

We've been listening, but we think you're full of ****. Why is it so
difficult for you to grasp that?

So, I take it you think the corporations are blameless, and that people
_should_ have to struggle to find the healthier choice when they
inconveniently remove it from the shelves in 2 out of 3 stores...

What struggle? Meat, dairy, nuts, fruits & veggies are all easy as hell
to find where I shop.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:01:51 GMT, (The Queen of Cans and
Jars) wrote:

Dave Head wrote:

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:45:12 GMT, (The Queen of Cans and
Jars) wrote:

Dave Head wrote:

No, you haven't been listening.

We've been listening, but we think you're full of ****. Why is it so
difficult for you to grasp that?

So, I take it you think the corporations are blameless, and that people
_should_ have to struggle to find the healthier choice when they
inconveniently remove it from the shelves in 2 out of 3 stores...

What struggle?

Its mostly about eating on the go, and when one is too far from home to drive
back there during lunch and fix something. People buy stuff off the shelf and
eat it in the car while travelling somewhere else all the time. This is the
environment that is harder to control.

Meat, dairy, nuts, fruits & veggies are all easy as hell
to find where I shop.

Yes, the home environment is much easier to control.

Dave Head wrote:

Yes, the home environment is much easier to control.

I work full-time and go to school part-time and I have no problem
whatsoever making appropriate food choices.

You're lazy and ignorant. That's no one else's fault but your own.

Dave Head writes:

So, I take it you think the corporations are blameless ...

Yes.

... and that people _should_ have to struggle to find the healthier
choice when they inconveniently remove it from the shelves in 2
out of 3 stores...

They don't have to. It's not what you eat, it's how much of it you
eat. You can eat anything you want as long as you don't _overeat_.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dave Head wrote:

So, I take it you think the corporations are blameless, and that people
_should_ have to struggle to find the healthier choice when they inconveniently
remove it from the shelves in 2 out of 3 stores...

YES! You got it!

Corporations are not responsible for misuse of their products. With the
possible exception of cigarettes, which have no reasonable usage.

Many people choose to drink or eat for entertainment. They also choose
to watch too much satellite television and take a job requireing a 55
minute drive. All of these lifestyle choices are problematic, but
individually each one of them is manageable. It isn't the corporations
job to identify how each consumer should and should not use their product.

A store will stock what a store can sell. If your complaint is that
7/11 isn't stocking smaller packages then this is NOT the corporation's
fault, this is the fault of consumers who didn't choose to buy it there.
(Perhaps because only idiots would buy snack food at 7/11 and the
smart money is in bulk buying at the health food store.)

You are shopping at stores frequented by idiots and complaining that
they're treating you like idiots. Meanwhile, you continue to pay them.

Look in the mirror, dude.

Dally

I'll give Dave some credit for starting one of the more active threads
I've seen on ASD for a while (though I have gone a few days at a time
without checking in).

So far, I've haven't seen anyone whom I would say is flat out
agreeing with Dave. So, just to play devil's advocate, I will. Dave, I
agree with you. Corporations are greedy and manipulating the public to
overeat by only stocking large serving size snacks in convenience stores
where motor bound commuters are trapped by a lack of choice.

Ok, now we both feel that way. Um, so? Unless you support a massive
government action to force said companies to sell smaller sized packages
at these convenience stores, often at the expense of having shelf space
for their large, better selling packages, there really isn't much that
can be done about it.

It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world, but we don't seem to
be that lucky. We have to deal the best we can, even though these
corporations are intentionally making us fat in order to maximize their
profit margins. Unless you are willing to attempt to start a grassroots
campaign to force the companies to stop this corporate irresponsibility,
all you're doing is indulging in fruitless whining about it. Let me
know what action, if any, you actually plan on taking, and I'll be happy
to join in. As long as it doesn't inconvenience me any more than I
already am in being forced to deal with too large snack issue when I
commute to work (and I do have a 45 minute drive, each way, so I am
definitely in your target audience).

--
Annie

As of 03-10-06: 258/197.5/140 Standing at 5 foot 4.

60.5 pounds lost. 57.5 left to go. Started February/07/05

Come visit my weight-loss web site, Annie Takes Off.
http://webpages.charter.net/lenny13/DietFrontPage.html