I'm as opposed as most anyone to government intrusion in our way of life. But I'm also opposed to corporate fraud.

When a corporation advertises some food product as being "healthy!" and "nutritious!" or some other bullshit, I want them to back it up with FACTS so that I can make an informed decision as to whether or not to put that food product into my body or into the body of my family.

I am VERY happy that corporations in this nation are being required by law to list the contents of their food products, including the calorie counts. If this were not so, then they could freely lie to me and the rest of the public and defraud us into purchasing a product that wasn't exactly what we thought we were getting. (Like those bullshit "diet" salads that certain fast-fraud chains proffer.)

In fact, I think it's crazy to say: "No, do NOT tell me what's in that product I'm eating! If you want to poison me or otherwise screw up my health by keeping me in the dark, that's your right to do so, and the government has no right to stop you!"

A lot of people in this nation are being brainwashed into thinking that ANY responsible requirements imposed upon corporations is equivalent to restrictions imposed upon personal freedoms. Powerful corporations are already controlling too many things in this nation, receiving too much government assistance when they go tits up, and trying their damnest to turn this nation into a corporatocracy.

Nobody is controlling what you choose to eat by requiring corporations to tell you what's inside that product. Instead, you are being given the necessary equipment to make informed choices for yourself. You don't have to act on that information if you don't want to.

However, those of us who do count calories, or who have allergies to certain food substances, or who simply wish to avoid animal products in our food, are very glad to have that information at hand when making our informed choices at the supermarket, or fast-fraud restaurant chains, or elsewhere.

-- Nephele

*agrees with Nephele*

That's the theory anyway. However most our regulatory bodies have a private sector revolving door that they use in staffing. So while the system is intended to give us accurate information on the foods we eat. Instead we have corporate & multinational sympathizers getting hired, who are then making by the corporations for the corporation rules full of intentional loop holes. Which is why in this country consumers don't have a real way to know if something they're buying is a GMO crop. Or whether it contains MSG [disclosure on that one is only required for very limited circumstances & even then they are allowed numerous aliases to hide it]. They're not required to tell you what hormones are in your diary products. Once cloned beef starts hitting the shelves I doubt we'll get to know about that one either. Still, it's better than nothing.

I'm for full disclosure.

I personally have no fears regarding genetically modified crops -- and I think that Dr. Norman Borlaug is one of the greatest heroes of our time, with his work towards ending starvation in the world. But if others are afraid of Frankenfruit, then by all means I feel they have a right to know what they're eating.

-- Nephele

Man, I can tell you that being put into DCFS custody is likely to do more harm than good, particularly with now misguided most popular nutritional and health models. It will be a sad day when the gubbermint starts doing things like this.

In my reality, they already do. The obesity issue is just another excuse to take kids from homes in the idotic idea the only the government can take proper care of children, when in truth- they can't even take care of themselves.

Some parents don't deserve their kids. Some parents need their children taken. Some parents do over/under feed. Some parents ignore and abuse their children. But not all- and I think the government forgets that sometimes.

Like I said before, I would rather see helpful intervention than children being simply removed from their parents' custody. And as I already said, some parents just don't know better. People can sit there and say its not the government's place not to interfere, but a people will also sit back and complain that the government isn't helping them. Surely if a family were given a helpful guide on how to cook nutritious cost-affective family meals and fun activities, with the exception of the absolutely bone-idle or those who really have no regard for their children'd wellbeing, people would take note of this?

Ok I read in a magazine article the other day about a (rather chubby) non-working single mother who has 4kids under 6 and she feeds all them exclusively junk and take-out food. Now, the fact she's a workshy benefit scrounger is for another topic entirely but a huge amount of the benefits she recieves goes onto feedings her kids MacDonalds every week because she's too lazy by her own admission to "stand by a cooker for hours".

Now, first of all, yes, she's a lazy and stupid mother. She says that there can't be any health drawbacks to what shes feeding her kids because they all seem to be "full of energy".

But that last comment made me also realise that perhaps people like this possibly don't know any better.

I mean, I don't cook much, but later tonight I'll make a spaghetti bolognese for 4 people. Great thing about spag is you can do it quickly or draw it out, putting the lid on the wok to keep it warm, but I reckon if you were doing one in a rush you'd get it done in about 30 minutes. It easily takes less than an hour for me to do one. Maybe doing big roasts will take a long time, but it doesn't NEED to. I actually think this lady probably doesn't know how to cook. Also, I hear time and time again about people claiming that its cheaper to buy junk food, but actually, buying fruit and veg is a lot cheaper than people think, and often times its better to make your own from scratch, cost wise. I bought a single apple in a Tesco recently and it cost a lot less than the average chocolate bar. Also, the ingredients to make a meal for 4 will probably cost a lot less than buying a takeaway for 4.

Also, I think some people just don't KNOW what they are giving their kids sometimes. Now, thereotically speaking yes, you could eat anything you want and as long as your burned up the calories you wouldn't necessarily gain weight, as you'll have no left-over calories. But it doesn't mean that eating a diet of chocolate while exercising like a madman would mean you'd be healthy- your body needs other things too.

I just think it would benefit people a lot more if someone- like a nutritionist or a doctor, sat down and told them the facts. Surely a leaflet campaign that showed parents cheap and easy healthy meals to cook and ideas for fun, active games to play in the garden would cost the government (UK or US) a lot less than seizing kids and putting them in care? Surely it would also save a lot of heartache?

Nephele, I completely agree about calorie counts being put on food products and labels etc- my local MacDonalds has recently put up calorie counts too. Now, MacDonalds is a treat for me, so I can normally feel ok about ignoring those calorie counts XD but sometimes I just want to know what I'm putting in me. I've recently tried to cut back on my sugar intake. I have a huge fear of tooth decay and while I'm relatively healthy and of a good size, danger of diabetes is sometimes at the back of my mind- but I have a VERY sugary diet. I love fruit, but I also love chocolate (I would actually go as far to say as I'm addicted, I actually NEED chocolate at certain times of the month) etc. So I cut back on soda drinks- I might have a full-sugar Fanta twist once a week, but often less than that (I find I like it more!). I drink squash so I pick the no-added-sugar or "tooth-kind" varieties. I also like to drink a lot of lemonade because I drink it with port if I'm having an alkie, and also because I am seriously fussy about vegetables; I hate them but I KNOW I need to eat them for my own good, but I have to have a fizzy drink to help swill it down. So I switched to diet lemonade exclusively. I now won't even touch "regular" cokes, and always go with diet and to be honest, I barely notice the difference anymore (especially as its often mixed with rum or vodka ). Snack-wise I'm still struggling, but I think the drink situation has improved. Oh, and I don't take sugar in my tea anymore either, only low-calorie sweetners.

Its not that I'm "allowing" the government to decide for me, its that the government has figured out that some of us were being sort of duped into thinking we were eating better than we actually were and now that we have that information, as you said, we can make an informed decision on what to put into ourselves.

I have to say though that I have noticed something REALLY sneaky about most fizzy drinks (Coke, Sprite, Fanta all of them!). You read the label that has all the different calorie intakes and when you read the sugar intake, it often says something around 32%-36% of an adult's daily intake. You might think...hmm...thats a lot, but oh well, its a treat!

But then you read that the label is for 250ml and your bottle is actually 500. So you're really drinking at least 64% of your daily intake of sugar O.O

And then you see parents giving the exact same size bottles to their toddlers, and you don't wonder why cavaties and type 2 diabetes is on the rise @_@

Even in Ireland obesity is becoming a problem. I noticed it especially when I was working on the beach, there were more obese and overweight children running around than in previous years. Sure they were getting exercise by swimming and playing but as soon as the ice cream van pulled up they were clamouring for money from their parents.

I think that the solution lies in healthy eating and cooking campaigns, aimed specifically at parents. For example there was one family on the beach, all of them ranging from overweight to obese who had a picnic which consisted entirely of crisps, sweets and fizzy drinks. I felt like running down and confiscating the entire picnic! I know the beach is sandy and messy and you don't want to have to eat anything too fiddly but by the looks of the family they ate that food all the time and it was not just a one off treat.

With regards to food labeling and information on packages I think it should be illegal to advertise food as "healthy" by being low in one ingredient but full of another or making its selling point look scientific but not being based on scientific fact.

I'm wondering, if a child is morbidly obese, what about the parents? It seems to me they would also struggle with their weight, assuming they eat the same thing they are feeding their child.

I was going to suggest that an alternative would be nutrition counseling, but at the end of the day, would that make a difference? It seems like it boils down to availability (how easily a person can get healthy food) and choice.

But, no, I don't think a child should be taken away from parents because of weight. Our concern needs to be on influencing the concerns above.

Nutrition Counseling? Ive Never met a person fat or not that didn't know the difference between healthy and unhealthy food. They know exactly what they are doing, and just prefer to keep doing it because they like it. It's kinda like telling a smoker they need counseling because they don't know the dangers of smoking.

These people know exactly what they are doing. It just becomes a norm for them really. Telling them to change because you or the government want them to will not fix a thing.

While I agree that you can't tell or otherwise make anyone change, I don't agree that people always "know exactly what they are doing."

Case in point, the fast-fraud restaurant chains in the U.S. (and throughout the world, really, because I know that McDonald's at least is international) can be very deceptive about the food that they offer. Their salads are not as healthy as most people believe salads ordinarily might be – especially when served up with tempting, high-caloric dressings and other toppings.

A lot of people really don't know how to substitute healthier choices for food that they are familiar with. In fact, a lot of people don't really give much thought at all to what they're putting in their bodies. Much of it has to do with developing healthy habits as it does with just knowing what's healthy.

While I don't think it's the government's job educate people about what they're eating, I do think it's the government's job to insure that what corporations tell people they're getting is actually what they are getting. The rest of us (and health organizations) can help just by spreading the word about good nutrition.

-- Nephele

People know full well what's healthy. They just don't want it because it doesn't taste as good.



Excepts from yahoo news.

In today's instant gratification society, I think most people will talk about eating healthy then go to a restaurant and say "well, I can always eat this garbage now and start that diet/eating healthier tomorrow" or "it's only one meal" & spurge. And then the lifestyle change just never happens.

One of my favorite dilbert cartoons from several years ago, that I can't find online anywhere, had Dilbert's company designing a new ultra-doughnut. It was as big as a person and contained as many calories as would instantly kill a person who ate a full one in one sitting. Dilbert was on the project. A week later he's at home eating one and Dogbert walks in and says "Why are you eating that, you know how bad it is since you were on the project?" Dilbert responds "But I'm only having one!" and goes back to eating it. Substitute Dilbert with the masses, and substitute that giant doughnut with fastfood & junk food and you have the American obesity problem.

Many people think they know what's healthy, but there are a woeful number of people who have only a superficial understanding of what constitutes healthy diet choices.

Also, if many people truly knew what was healthy, they would also be aware of the many dietary choices available that DO taste "as good" -- better, even.



As I said in my previous post, those salads and baked potatoes offered at restaurants are not always as "healthy" as many people are brainwashed into believing they are.

Any idiot knows that a steady diet of doughnuts is bad for you. But sadly, a lot of otherwise smart people are taken in by deceptive advertising and packaging of so-called "health" foods. (A lucrative market, by any accounting.) If you don't believe me, next time you're in the "diet" or "health" section of your local supermarket, check out the calorie content on some of those "health food" products on the shelves. The breakfast granola cereal scam alone is an eye-opener.

-- Nephele

I don't think that's how energy works. It's not salt.

I have to say that I seriously struggle with healthy foods.

I have a problem with salt, high blood pressure, and every single thing I see at the stores around here is full of salt or a junk food.

I have no idea how to eat healthy with the slim pickings offeed here, and there's only so many salads I can stand