A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Target of the Food Police (CSPI)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 11th, 2003, 07:56 PM
jmk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Target of the Food Police (CSPI)

Ig,

Why to you cross post your answers to alt.support.diet when the orginal
thread was not there?

On 11/11/2003 1:48 PM, Ignoramus19587 wrote:
In article , JG wrote:

The "food police," i.e., the folks at the Center for Science in the
Public Interest (CSPI)--read all about them at
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/activ....cfm?ORG_ID=13 --are
at it again. This time it's not "junk" food itself being blamed for our
"obesity epidemic," it's the marketing (advertising) of it . Think
Jacobson, Wootan et al. will EVER figure out that it's not food that
makes people fat, but the over-consumption of it, or that (some)
*parents* need to learn to say "NO!" to their kids?

Here's the latest CSPI report
(http://www.cspinet.org/new/200311101.html):



I see no factual misinformation in that particular CSPI report.

I challenge you to point out just where is CSPI lying, in the report
that you posted.

That food manufacturers use sophisticated techniques that make
children overeat, is pretty obvious. That giving schools incentives
based on school sales of junk sodas, makes children drink too much of
the sugar laden water, is also obvious. That they benefit from
overeating, is also obvious. That they benefit from replacing healthy
foods with crap, is also obvious. That they have no financial
incentives to make children healthies, is also obvious.

This is a free country. That means that capitalists are free to market
foods that are bad for the children. It comes with the territory, so
to speak.

But that also means that parents should be informed so that they can
counter those capitalists and raise thwir children to become healthy
and fit young people and not sugar addicted cripples.

And yes, overeating does cause obesity. But what causes overeating?

Put yourself in a parents shoes. Your children are deluged with
advertising of products. Their favorite cartoon heroes are peddling
those junk products to them. Children are not able to critically
assess such promotions until a certain age. You have no idea what is
in those products, froot loops, and other ****. Would it not be
appropriate to learn just what these froot loops and so on contain,
and then take appropriate action, pointing out to children that they
should ignore advertising of junk food?

I do not always agree with CSPI. Their hyperfocus on "saturated fat"
may be misplaced. But the particular report that you posted is all
facts and the facts are likely to be true.

We as parents have to be vigilant and keep our children's best
interests in mind, and recognize that the junk food peddlers are not
there to help us.

i


CSPI Hits Marketing Junk Food to Kids

Food Companies Undermine Parents, Overfeed Kids, Says Report

Food marketing aimed at kids undermines parental authority and helps
fuel the epidemic of childhood obesity, according to a report issued
today by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).
The volume and variety of marketing techniques has exploded, the group
says, as food marketers seek new ways of bypassing parents and directly
influencing kids' food choices. Regrettably, most of the foods marketed
directly to children are high in calories and low in nutrition, the
group says.

"Parents are fighting a losing battle against food manufacturers and
fast-food restaurants, which use aggressive and sophisticated techniques
to get into children's heads and prompt them to pester their parents to
purchase the company's products," said Margo G. Wootan, director of
nutrition policy at CSPI and the report's author. "SpongeBob
Squarepants, Winnie the Pooh, Elmo, and even sports stars like Jason
Giambi are enlisted to push low-nutrition foods on kids."

The CSPI report identifies a plethora of ways that companies target kids
in their homes, in their schools, on the web, and wherever else kids go.
Examples highlighted in the report include:

* Campbell's "Labels for Education" program encourages families to
collect labels from Campbell products that schools can redeem for
equipment. It's hardly model philanthropy, says CSPI, seeing that kids'
parents would have to buy some $2,500 worth of soup , for the school to
qualify for a $59 stapler.

* Krispy Kreme "Good Grades" program offers elementary school kids
one doughnut for each "A" on their report cards. CSPI points out that
some states wisely prohibit or discourage using food as a reward for
good behavior or academic performance.

* McDonald's Barbie has the doll dressed up as a McDonald's clerk,
feeding French fries, burgers, and Sprite to kid-sister Kelly in a
restaurant playset. "Unless McDonald's is paying you for ad space in the
playroom, leave this toy at the store," Wootan said. Same goes, she says
for other junk-food ads disguised as toys, like Play Doh's Lunchables
kit, where kids are encouraged to assemble Play Doh versions of Oscar
Mayer's notoriously fatty and salty lunch box items.

* The Oreo Adventure game on Kraft Foods' Nabiscoworld.com web site is
one of many corporate "advergames". In this video game, children's
"health" is reset to "100 percent" when kids acquire golden cookie jars
on a journey to a Temple of the Golden Oreo. Oreos are also marketed in
a counting book for kids, the Oreo Cookie Counting Book, which involves
eating 10-or 535 calories' worth-of Oreos. The Oreo Matchin' Middles
shape-matching game, produced with Fisher Price, turns playtime into a
chance for companies to cultivate brand loyalty and sell junk food.

* Pepsi's website profile of New York Yankees baseball star Jason
Giambi, which prominently displays the quote, "I usually have several
Pepsis each day-it really lifts me up," is one of many examples of a
junk-food marketer linking consumption of its product with fitness.

* Cap'n Crunch Smashed Berries cereal-which, predictably, has no berries
at all-encourages overeating in its magazine advertisements. Once such
ad in Nickelodeon magazine reads, "Kids smashed 'em in the factory so
you can fit more in your mouth."

"No amount of eye-rolling can capture how hypocritical it is for food
company flacks to talk about 'moderation, balance, and exercise," said
CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "Anyone who looks at these
marketing techniques can see that they encourage excess, not moderation.
Almost exclusively, they encourage consumption an unbalanced diet of
high-cal and low-nutrient foods. And to link junk foods like Oreos or
Pepsi to physical fitness or athletic prowess has to be one of the most
cynical and unfair marketing strategies I've ever seen."

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Federal Trade Commission considered
restrictions on junk-food advertising aimed at kids, but those efforts
were blocked by food, toy, broadcasting, and advertising industries.
CSPI says that with rates of obesity at all-time highs in children, now
is the time to set standards on what foods may be marketed to kids on
television and in schools. CSPI also recommends that governments sponsor
media campaigns that encourage healthy eating and physical activity, and
that grocers put low-nutrition foods at parents' eye level, not kids'
eye level.

CSPI encourages state and local governments to fund their own nutrition
media campaigns by earmarking or increasing taxes on soft drinks. More
than a dozen states already have such taxes, though their revenues
typically go into general funds, and are not spent promoting good
nutrition or exercise.

Today, CSPI also called on Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy
Thompson to make the issue of marketing junk food to kids a central
focus of the administration's anti-obesity campaign.

JG

We must exchange the philosophy of excuse--what I am is beyond my
control--for the philosophy of responsibility.







--
jmk in NC

  #2  
Old November 11th, 2003, 08:58 PM
Roger Schlafly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Target of the Food Police (CSPI)

* Krispy Kreme "Good Grades" program offers elementary school kids
one doughnut for each "A" on their report cards. CSPI points out that
some states wisely prohibit or discourage using food as a reward for
good behavior or academic performance.


Really? Is it really against the law in some states to give a kid a doughnut
for getting an A or behaving himself?

* Pepsi's website profile of New York Yankees baseball star Jason
Giambi, which prominently displays the quote, "I usually have several
Pepsis each day-it really lifts me up," is one of many examples of a
junk-food marketer linking consumption of its product with fitness.


Should Pepsi only use old fat ugly people for its pitchmen?


  #3  
Old November 11th, 2003, 09:16 PM
JG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Target of the Food Police (CSPI)


"Ignoramus19587" wrote in message
...
In article , JG wrote:


The "food police," i.e., the folks at the Center for Science in the
Public Interest (CSPI)--read all about them at

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/activ....cfm?ORG_ID=13 --are
at it again. This time it's not "junk" food itself being blamed for

our
"obesity epidemic," it's the marketing (advertising) of it . Think
Jacobson, Wootan et al. will EVER figure out that it's not food that
makes people fat, but the over-consumption of it, or that (some)
*parents* need to learn to say "NO!" to their kids?


Here's the latest CSPI report
(http://www.cspinet.org/new/200311101.html):


I see no factual misinformation in that particular CSPI report.


I challenge you to point out just where is CSPI lying, in the report
that you posted.


Their facts/data may be okay (which *states*, as opposed to, say, school
districts, forbid the use of food as a reward?); it's their
conclusions/allegations with which I take issue.

That food manufacturers use sophisticated techniques that make
children overeat, is pretty obvious.


Guns don't make people fire them. Cars don't make people drive them.
Gambling games/devices don't make people play/use them. Hookers don't
make people patronize them. Alcohol/drugs don't make people
ingest/inject them. And (drum roll, please) food manufacturers/marketers
don't MAKE people buy/consume their products.

That giving schools incentives
based on school sales of junk sodas,


Welcome to capitalism, friend! It's the system of *choices*. People
get to prioritize their needs/wants. Apparently many schools have
decided that generating revenue via the promotion/sale of various foods
and beverages of questionable nutritional value is more important than
acquiescing to the demands of some that such practices be stopped.

makeschildren drink too much of
the sugar laden water, is also obvious.


See above.

That they benefit from
overeating, is also obvious. That they benefit from replacing healthy
foods with crap, is also obvious. That they have no financial
incentives to make children healthies, is also obvious.


It is NOT schools' job to "make children healthy"(!) If schools'
promotion of "junk" food and beverages concerns you, have you considered
offering them (school administrators) *more* money to cease their
practices (i.e., have you considered outbidding the "food-pushers")?
Have you considered pulling your kids (and the $$$ attached to them) out
of any schools that engage in such promotion, and/or encouraged other,
like-minded parents to do the same?

This is a free country. That means that capitalists are free to market
foods that are bad for the children. It comes with the territory, so
to speak.


Thank God! Capitalism rocks! g

But that also means that parents should be informed so that they can
counter those capitalists and raise thwir children to become healthy
and fit young people and not sugar addicted cripples.


Yes, parents should be informed. It's THEIR responsibility to see that
they are!

And yes, overeating does cause obesity. But what causes overeating?


The individual him/herself? g No one's coercing the overweight/obese
to overeat (or to refrain from exercising).

Put yourself in a parents shoes. Your children are deluged with
advertising of products. Their favorite cartoon heroes are peddling
those junk products to them.


I *am* a parent (two daughters, 27 and 16).

No one's forcing kids to watch any programs that contain advertising of
products (or advertising techniques) of which they disapprove.

Children are not able to critically
assess such promotions until a certain age.


Granted. It's obvious a lot of adults aren't able to, either.

You have no idea what is
in those products, froot loops, and other ****.


Ah, but I do! (I read the "nutrition information" labels on the
packaging.)

Would it not be
appropriate to learn just what these froot loops and so on contain,
and then take appropriate action, pointing out to children that they
should ignore advertising of junk food?


YES! This is a role/responsibility parents should take on.

I do not always agree with CSPI. Their hyperfocus on "saturated fat"
may be misplaced. But the particular report that you posted is all
facts and the facts are likely to be true.


I was under the impression that "facts" are, by definition, "true." g
The same cannot be said for *reasoning* based on facts, however.

We as parents have to be vigilant and keep our children's best
interests in mind, and recognize that the junk food peddlers are not
there to help us.


They are if you own stock in the company!

JG

Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.
--Calvin Coolidge

There's one form of bigotry that is still acceptable in America --
that's the bigotry against the successful.
--Phil Gramm


  #4  
Old November 11th, 2003, 09:27 PM
JG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Target of the Food Police (CSPI)

"Ignoramus19587" wrote in message
...

In article , Roger

Schlafly wrote:

* Krispy Kreme "Good Grades" program offers elementary school kids
one doughnut for each "A" on their report cards. CSPI points out

that
some states wisely prohibit or discourage using food as a reward

for
good behavior or academic performance.


Really? Is it really against the law in some states to give a kid a

doughnut
for getting an A or behaving himself?


* Pepsi's website profile of New York Yankees baseball star Jason
Giambi, which prominently displays the quote, "I usually have

several
Pepsis each day-it really lifts me up," is one of many examples of

a
junk-food marketer linking consumption of its product with fitness.


Should Pepsi only use old fat ugly people for its pitchmen?


No, but we should be aware that pepsi won't make you slimmer and more
beautiful.


I'd really like to meet a person who sincerely believes that Pepsi has
such powers. g

Whic his what CSPI is saying, pretty much.

The CSPI is a bunch of elitist nannies. Members apparently believe
people are pretty damn stupid and that it's their (the CSPI's) mission
to save people from what they (the CSPI) believes to be "bad" choices.

They use
beautiful people to promote pepsi, but pepsi does not make you more
beautiful.


What makes you think Pepsi is asserting that you'll be more beautiful if
you drink their beverages?


  #5  
Old November 11th, 2003, 09:58 PM
Julianne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Target of the Food Police (CSPI)

"Ignoramus19587" wrote in message
...
In article , Roger

Schlafly wrote:
* Krispy Kreme "Good Grades" program offers elementary school kids
one doughnut for each "A" on their report cards. CSPI points out that
some states wisely prohibit or discourage using food as a reward for
good behavior or academic performance.


Really? Is it really against the law in some states to give a kid a

doughnut
for getting an A or behaving himself?

* Pepsi's website profile of New York Yankees baseball star Jason
Giambi, which prominently displays the quote, "I usually have several
Pepsis each day-it really lifts me up," is one of many examples of a
junk-food marketer linking consumption of its product with fitness.


Should Pepsi only use old fat ugly people for its pitchmen?



No, but we should be aware that pepsi won't make you slimmer and more
beautiful. Whic his what CSPI is saying, pretty much. They use
beautiful people to promote pepsi, but pepsi does not make you more
beautiful.

i


Yeah, and they use half nekkid women to make cars look more appealing to
men, tall good looking basketball players to promote underwear, women who
would never dream of using a dime store hair product to sell hair color,
cute little dogs to sell vacuum cleaners, backdrops of romantic resorts to
sell perfume, and really stupid stuff to sell Wachovia's 'uncommon
knowledge' (Do you want to invest with a company who gleans insight from a
canoe or squirrels? Those commercials drive me up the wall - they should
have just sent their investment planners to continuing education classes
with the money they spent on that ad campaign but I digress.)

We all know that a new truck will not induce nymphets to surround a man and
that Michael Jordan really can wait to get his Hanes on me and that the best
color and highlights come from an expensive salon. If we buy an Orek
vacuum, the dog will still shed and wearing a certain scent has almost never
resulted in being swept off one's feet to a tropical island with a handsome
man wearing a white linen suit (if nothing else, dress is much more casual
in the islands). As far as Wachovia goes, my money stays elsewhere, thank
you very much but I do know the name of a company that I had not heard of
several months ago.

So, if you want to sell to kids, you use icons and images that kids find
appealing. And if you are a decent parent, you limit your child's
consumption of junk food.

What about the flip side of the coin? My son was very impressed with
basketball stars 'obeying their thirst' and out performing others because of
PowerAde. As a result, he was more active. Kids who are physically active
typically do not have a weight problem.

j


  #6  
Old November 11th, 2003, 10:01 PM
Julianne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Target of the Food Police (CSPI)

"JG" wrote in message
t...
The CSPI is a bunch of elitist nannies. Members apparently believe
people are pretty damn stupid and that it's their (the CSPI's) mission
to save people from what they (the CSPI) believes to be "bad" choices.


Are these the same people who wrote about movie theatre popcorn and whole
milk as a source of fat? I must say that I changed my behavior because of
the info put out by them. I would have never thought popcorn could be as
loaded as they reported.

j



  #7  
Old November 11th, 2003, 10:18 PM
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Target of the Food Police (CSPI)

In article i4csb.20377$j_4.6326@lakeread05, Julianne says...

"Ignoramus19587" wrote in message
...
In article , Roger

Schlafly wrote:
* Krispy Kreme "Good Grades" program offers elementary school kids
one doughnut for each "A" on their report cards. CSPI points out that
some states wisely prohibit or discourage using food as a reward for
good behavior or academic performance.

Really? Is it really against the law in some states to give a kid a

doughnut
for getting an A or behaving himself?

* Pepsi's website profile of New York Yankees baseball star Jason
Giambi, which prominently displays the quote, "I usually have several
Pepsis each day-it really lifts me up," is one of many examples of a
junk-food marketer linking consumption of its product with fitness.

Should Pepsi only use old fat ugly people for its pitchmen?



No, but we should be aware that pepsi won't make you slimmer and more
beautiful. Whic his what CSPI is saying, pretty much. They use
beautiful people to promote pepsi, but pepsi does not make you more
beautiful.

i


Yeah, and they use half nekkid women to make cars look more appealing to
men, tall good looking basketball players to promote underwear, women who
would never dream of using a dime store hair product to sell hair color,
cute little dogs to sell vacuum cleaners, backdrops of romantic resorts to
sell perfume, and really stupid stuff to sell Wachovia's 'uncommon
knowledge' (Do you want to invest with a company who gleans insight from a
canoe or squirrels? Those commercials drive me up the wall - they should
have just sent their investment planners to continuing education classes
with the money they spent on that ad campaign but I digress.)


Furthermore, Pepsi isn't what makes you fat. Indeed, many people on successful
reducing diets have a soft drink now and then.

The cause of fat, as ever, is to eat more in calories than one expends. Whether
those calorites be Pepsi, or garbanzo beans and yogurt, or a cheeseburger.
Rational folks eat balanced meals, limit snacks, and don't hew to any unecessary
ideologies concerning food.

What a parent would need to teach the kids would be:
1. You may or may not like Pepsi just because so and so on an advertisement
does.
2. How to eat a balanced diet which does not exceed one's needs calorically.

Only the first is related to Pepsi.

Banty

  #8  
Old November 11th, 2003, 10:40 PM
Beverly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Target of the Food Police (CSPI)


"Ignoramus19587" wrote in message
...
In article , JG wrote:
"Ignoramus19587" wrote in message
...

In article , Roger

Schlafly wrote:

* Krispy Kreme "Good Grades" program offers elementary school kids
one doughnut for each "A" on their report cards. CSPI points out

that
some states wisely prohibit or discourage using food as a reward

for
good behavior or academic performance.


Really? Is it really against the law in some states to give a kid a

doughnut
for getting an A or behaving himself?


* Pepsi's website profile of New York Yankees baseball star Jason
Giambi, which prominently displays the quote, "I usually have

several
Pepsis each day-it really lifts me up," is one of many examples of

a
junk-food marketer linking consumption of its product with fitness.


Should Pepsi only use old fat ugly people for its pitchmen?


No, but we should be aware that pepsi won't make you slimmer and more
beautiful.


I'd really like to meet a person who sincerely believes that Pepsi has
such powers. g

Whic his what CSPI is saying, pretty much.

The CSPI is a bunch of elitist nannies. Members apparently believe
people are pretty damn stupid and that it's their (the CSPI's) mission
to save people from what they (the CSPI) believes to be "bad" choices.


You just said yourself that many people are not able to make informed
choices. I can quote you on that.


They use
beautiful people to promote pepsi, but pepsi does not make you more
beautiful.


What makes you think Pepsi is asserting that you'll be more beautiful

if
you drink their beverages?



Check out http://playlist.yahoo.com/makestream.dll?id=4881237

This is a pepsi ad shows a hard bodied woman whose beauty seems to be
enhanced by pepsi.

i


I don't believe that's the idea behind this ad. If I'm not mistaken the
'hard bodied woman' in this ad is Shakira. The young man is listening to
her music and is stunned to see her in person :-) Pepsi has used many
celebraties in this type of ad.




  #9  
Old November 12th, 2003, 12:28 AM
That T Woman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Target of the Food Police (CSPI)


"Beverly" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus19587" wrote in message
...
In article , JG wrote:
"Ignoramus19587" wrote in

message
...

In article , Roger
Schlafly wrote:

* Krispy Kreme "Good Grades" program offers elementary school kids
one doughnut for each "A" on their report cards. CSPI points out
that
some states wisely prohibit or discourage using food as a reward
for
good behavior or academic performance.

Really? Is it really against the law in some states to give a kid a
doughnut
for getting an A or behaving himself?

* Pepsi's website profile of New York Yankees baseball star Jason
Giambi, which prominently displays the quote, "I usually have
several
Pepsis each day-it really lifts me up," is one of many examples of
a
junk-food marketer linking consumption of its product with

fitness.

Should Pepsi only use old fat ugly people for its pitchmen?

No, but we should be aware that pepsi won't make you slimmer and more
beautiful.

I'd really like to meet a person who sincerely believes that Pepsi has
such powers. g

Whic his what CSPI is saying, pretty much.

The CSPI is a bunch of elitist nannies. Members apparently believe
people are pretty damn stupid and that it's their (the CSPI's) mission
to save people from what they (the CSPI) believes to be "bad" choices.


You just said yourself that many people are not able to make informed
choices. I can quote you on that.


They use
beautiful people to promote pepsi, but pepsi does not make you more
beautiful.

What makes you think Pepsi is asserting that you'll be more beautiful

if
you drink their beverages?



Check out http://playlist.yahoo.com/makestream.dll?id=4881237

This is a pepsi ad shows a hard bodied woman whose beauty seems to be
enhanced by pepsi.

i


I don't believe that's the idea behind this ad. If I'm not mistaken the
'hard bodied woman' in this ad is Shakira. The young man is listening to
her music and is stunned to see her in person :-) Pepsi has used many
celebraties in this type of ad.


It's Beyonce Knowles. The singer who played Foxy Cleopatra in the last
awful Austin Powers movie.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...les%22&ei=UTF-
8&fr=fp-tab-img-t&cop=mss&tab=3

This is Shakira:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...8&fr=fp-tab-im
g-t&cop=mss&tab=3

I think Shakira does Dr. Pepper ads.

Even so, do you really think that they think we (or our kids) are so stupid
that we believe that if we drink soda pop that we'll be skinny as those
chicks.






  #10  
Old November 12th, 2003, 02:42 AM
SnugBear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Target of the Food Police (CSPI)


"Ignoramus19587" wrote
much crap snipped

School is not a choice.


Giving your child money to purchase food of which you do not approve is a
choice.

Kids have way too much money.

--
Walking on . . .
Laurie in Maine
207/110 60 inches of attitude!
Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Food and Exercise -- Thursday through Saturday; and network problems Chris Braun General Discussion 3 October 28th, 2003 02:00 PM
Food and morality Ron Ritzman General Discussion 66 October 23rd, 2003 05:50 PM
update for WE 9-26 Jennifer Austin General Discussion 51 October 1st, 2003 02:06 AM
Food & Exercise -- 9/23/2003 Chris Braun General Discussion 1 September 25th, 2003 04:24 AM
solid food! Jennifer Austin General Discussion 56 September 23rd, 2003 01:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.