Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:36:52 -0500, Carol Frilegh wrote:

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.

Its not about me... its about the Corporate bottom line being more important
than the health of the country.

Don't depend on the gang that can't shoot straight to legislate you
into good decisions and healthy habits.

I really hate legislative solutions to everything... I see Nabisco has "100
calorie packs" - how delightful. Now, _that's_ what I'm talking about. Lets
get that idea working in the bottling of Coke and Pepsi... Actually, they have
- they have 6 oz size cans now, but unfortunately, they only have 'em in
supermarkets, not fast food stores and gas stations.

Should Fredericks of Hollywood be banned to prevent rape and seduction?

Maybe they should offer less revealing stuff, but its not the same thing - they
are a _specialty_ store, while the fast food store is an "everybody's" store.

What are your own standards and priorities aside from wanting snacks
repackaged?

I'd like to see the availability of smaller portions of everything that is
currently unreasonably large, and without calling it a "kids meal". McDonald's
250 calorie standard hamburger is a good example - I can eat two of 'em, skip
the fries, and I'm good for hours before I get hungry again. I figure my
metabolism is somewhre around 2200 - 2400 calories a day, so this is really
good to be able to get thru the day and not be attempting to eat my shoes out
of hunger - with portions like that, I can have a snack about any time I want,
and stay within the 2200 - 2400 calories.

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.

Well, good for you. I mean, its great that you can do that and not miss foods
that I would certainly miss. If I eat a bit too much, or a lot too much, I
just figure its about 5 1/2 minutes on the cross trainer for each 100 calories
over...

BTW: Are you trolling or are you serious at assigning blame where it
doesn't belong?

Trolling is a matter of finding the right venue for something you already
believe in. So, yes to both - I wanted a good conversation and to introduce
the concept that the corporations aren't helping us (again). I think that the
corporations cannot go blameless for the enlarging of the American waistline
when they package things like the peanuts example at 960 calories, _and_ take
the 1 3/4 - 2 1/2 oz bags _off_ the shelf at the same time. If Hardee's want
to offer a 1400 calorie burger, fine... but should also carry the 250 - 300
calorie burger too. Hardee's regular hamburger is 270 calories, so they're
doing OK on that score.

Dave Head

Dave Head writes:

This isn't about me. This is about the usual corporate behavior of seeking the
bottom line without regard for the well-being of the population.

No, it's about you. You're trying to find a way to avoid
responsibility for overeating, and you're looking for others to
sympathize with you and validate your belief and wish.

It isn't about me. Its about corporations creating an environment where it is
harder to do the right thing.

See above.

It's often hard to do the right thing. That doesn't make anyone else
responsible if you don't do the right thing.

Sounds wasteful. Don't you know that wasting food is a sin?

No more so than gluttony.

Think of all those poor, starving kids in Africa...

No matter how much I waste, it won't go to starving kids in Africa.

Its just not a problem, and yeah, I do have an above-average amount of muscle.
I've only been doing the weight training for 1 1/2 years - check back in about
3 more years... I should be up to 250, and _all_ muscle...

Arnold was 6'2" and 260 in competition. You have quite a road ahead
of you.

They didn't help me, they made it more difficult.

So what?

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

Dave Head writes:

Peanuts are healthy ...

They are mostly fat.

This isn't about me ...

Repeating it will not make it so.

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

In article , Dave Head
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:28:30 -0500, Carol Frilegh wrote:

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

This isn't about me. Its about the usual corporate disregard for the common
good in order to make more money. How is it different from Love Canal?

people didn't have as much choice about selling their homes at a loss
and leaving the area.

It is possible to become educated in nutrition a nand not purchase
prodiucts that don't fit your plan.

Dave Head writes:

I'm 6'.

Then you are about 40 lbs overweight.

Overweight (for the time being) is about as far as you can get with
that, not "obese".

It sounds obese to me.

And no, the charts aren't adjusted for people that spend 4
- 5 nights a week at the gym - they all assume you have an _average_ amount of
muscle, which is not me.

You would need far more than average to justify 220 lbs.

I work like a dog at that. Weight rarely comes down. What happens is that the
fat is melting off. It gets replaced by muscle.

Despite all the peanuts in the car? Then why the attempt to make
corporations responsible for your own overeating?

Last week I went from 222 to
220, but only after an unusually intense week of lifting and riding the
cross-training machine. But I went up 20 lbs on the pecs machine, and 20 on the
triceps machine. Think that extra muscle weighs nothing? It doesn't.

I think that people with all muscle and no fat don't post to diet
groups trying to blame corporations for their obesity.

Meanwhile, the stomach has largely disappeared, and I actually get compliments
for keeping my weight off since my last (disasterous) diet 2 years ago...

Ah ... you've been on diets more than once.

Dieting is not the way.

Eating correctly to begin with is the way. A good diet is a diet for
life.

Wasting food is a sin.

So is getting fat.

Just get corporate America to make smaller everything, so if you really want
1400 calories of burger, you buy 6 of 'em.

Just get Americans in general to take responsibility for their own
lives, instead of always blaming Someone Else for their problems.

McDonald's plain hamburgers are 250 calories - I often eat 'em in
place of other things with even more calories.

How many do you eat at one time?

And... this isn't about me... its about Corporations making money at the
expense of the health of the people.

It's about you.

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

Dave Head writes:

McDonald's
250 calorie standard hamburger is a good example - I can eat two of 'em, skip
the fries, and I'm good for hours before I get hungry again.

Eat one instead.

I figure my
metabolism is somewhre around 2200 - 2400 calories a day, so this is really
good to be able to get thru the day and not be attempting to eat my shoes out
of hunger - with portions like that, I can have a snack about any time I want,
and stay within the 2200 - 2400 calories.

You shouldn't need snacks any time you want.

Well, good for you. I mean, its great that you can do that and not miss foods
that I would certainly miss.

Yes--it may even keep her from dying of a heart attack.

If I eat a bit too much, or a lot too much, I
just figure its about 5 1/2 minutes on the cross trainer for each 100 calories
over...

Why don't you just figure on not overeating to begin with?

I think that the
corporations cannot go blameless for the enlarging of the American waistline
when they package things like the peanuts example at 960 calories, _and_ take
the 1 3/4 - 2 1/2 oz bags _off_ the shelf at the same time.

How do you explain all the people in American who manage to stay
_thin_? If it's the "corporations'" fault, why isn't _everyone_ fat?

If Hardee's want
to offer a 1400 calorie burger, fine... but should also carry the 250 - 300
calorie burger too.

Why? If they don't have what you want, just don't go there.

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

In article , Dave Head
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:21:38 GMT, "Beverly" wrote:


"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/

Hey, thanks - and I love all those foods, too. The best I had for a "kill the
hunger" snack has been the cheese cracker with peanut butter packs that are
200
calories. I'll look for these at the store.

I really like seeing the wheat thins offered like that - I never buy regular
boxes because they are sooooo tempting - that's too much to have lying around.

Dave Head

I have reviewed this thread and concluded you should direct your
comments to the "guilty" corporations not to a group of people who ARE
taking respomsibility for portion sizes and whatever else is required
flortheir personal nutrition and weight objectives. Kraft and Nabisco
can hardly wait to hear from you, but are wearing ear pluge.

I now find this thread tiresome, your contributions repititious and
superfluous.

I am off to have 20 almonds and can manage that all on my own without
corprate assistance. I bought the almonds in bulk, not packaged and
fortunately can count to twenty amd take responsibilty for the
appropriate portion limitations.

--
Diva
******
There is no substitute for the right food

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:48:24 -0500, Carol Frilegh wrote:

In article , Dave Head
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:28:30 -0500, Carol Frilegh wrote:

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

This isn't about me. Its about the usual corporate disregard for the common
good in order to make more money. How is it different from Love Canal?

people didn't have as much choice about selling their homes at a loss
and leaving the area.

It is possible to become educated in nutrition a nand not purchase
prodiucts that don't fit your plan.

As I said, I don't think we should all have to work so hard to do the right
thing. The right thing to do should be the easy thing to do.

Dave Head

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, you'll remain fat.
Nobody forces you to buy any particular brand or order any particular
food.


We can all sit on our sanctimonious high horses and scream "personal
responsibility" as long and and as loud as we like. Unfortunately it
isn't helping. Self-control is very hard and I applaud all of you that
seem to have an overabundance. I applaud myself when I have it too. But
the bottom line is that other people's lack of self control is affecting
everyone. Health care, junk food in schools, and the constant testing of
our own resolve.

I work in a relatively progressive place but because there are two free
vending machines full of junk food and two fridges full of soda, I have
to bring all my own food. I am called a "nut" by several co-workers,
jokingly, but all the same.

So you are welcome to blame me for my lack of self control. You are
welcome to blame every fat person you see (I try to take extremely good
care of my body and I find that I struggle constantly; its never easy in
this culture). But how is that helping? If you are willing to accept
that people lack the necessary self control, then how are you going to
solve the problem without removing the temptation. The temptation is
force fed to us by the corporations who have no motivations other than
money. They would literally squeeze us dry if they could.

I will look to start blaming individuals rather than corporations when...
- people have to spend an inordinate percentage of their time, effort
and income to get junk food.
- people are inundated with billions of dollars worth of marketing about
how you are only a good person if you eat healthy food.
- when doctors start prescribing exercise and healthy diet rather an a
little white pill to take care of all your ills.
- when government outlaws the sale and advertising of junk food to minors
- when all junk food carries warning labels about obesity, risk of
heart disease, cancer, etc.

k

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:43:38 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Dave Head writes:

This isn't about me. This is about the usual corporate behavior of seeking the
bottom line without regard for the well-being of the population.

No, it's about you. You're trying to find a way to avoid
responsibility for overeating, and you're looking for others to
sympathize with you and validate your belief and wish.

Nope, it isn't about me - I _didn't_ buy the 960 calorie bag of peanuts,
remember? I drove around until I found the 2 1/2 oz, 400 calorie bag of
peanuts. But should it be that hard to do the right thing? NO, I say...

It isn't about me. Its about corporations creating an environment where it is
harder to do the right thing.

See above.

It's often hard to do the right thing. That doesn't make anyone else
responsible if you don't do the right thing.

Its not about _me_ doing or not doing anything, its about the vast amount of
fat in this country that can be attributed to the placement of profit over
health, and the removal of sane portions of food from store shelves. Who the
hell needs 20 oz of soda, anyway. I buy diet, so it doesn't affect me, but
what about buying real Coke and Pepsi in those quantities? People wonder why
they can't maintain their weight and don't give stuff like that a 2nd thought.

Sounds wasteful. Don't you know that wasting food is a sin?

No more so than gluttony.

Well, don't buy that much in the 1st place... then you won't be doing either.

Think of all those poor, starving kids in Africa...

No matter how much I waste, it won't go to starving kids in Africa.

Its just not a problem, and yeah, I do have an above-average amount of muscle.
I've only been doing the weight training for 1 1/2 years - check back in about
3 more years... I should be up to 250, and _all_ muscle...

Arnold was 6'2" and 260 in competition. You have quite a road ahead
of you.

Realistically... I just might not get there, but its a goal...

DPH

They didn't help me, they made it more difficult.

So what?