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