recogitare.com

"Yes, our hot dogs have fewer bug parts than the other leading brand!"

--George Carlin

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 3:03 am

stanky wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 4:17 pm speaking of the devil, this little video is worth seeing if you weren't already aware of the insidious conspiracies of the shit-food industry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAgn5R3 ... rfectUnion

(I've been aware of this since childhood because my father worked for a food company (Junket) that was bought up by a bigger one (Nabisco) that was bought up by a tobacco company (R.J. Reynolds). Each time a new merger happened, we had to move. It was a way for corporations to own their managers. I went to 6th grade in 3 different states because of this phenomena.)

It still amazes me that this was allowed to happen. Look at the way children are used in the ads for toxic sludge.

(Funny, as kids, we weren't allowed to eat any of the crap my dad sold for R.J. Reynolds.)

(Emphasis added)

I'm not so sure it's as bad as all that.

Everything in the video is true, of course, but there's something missing.

If we go back to 1960, we can see a lot of people dying of lung cancer in their '50s and ''60s, Smoking was killing people, Lots of people,

These foods are also killing people. Heart attacks. Diabetes. - mostly in their 70s and up.

So what is it that is being "allowed" to happen? Advertising? Are we going to stop advertising food? Should we have standards? Yes certianly, Abd we do. There's a label on every one of those packaged foods. Should canned corn be outlawed because it isn't as good as fresh corn?

Every time I read about somethng that is killing people, I think about life expectancy, and see the numbers going up. Can it really be all that bad?

I've grown cynical about campagins like this. It's true that we would be better off if there were no Twinkies. However, if we ban Twinkies, would we be better off? That doesn't seem as obvious to me.

The video said that they wanted to emphasize the science and so do I. I wish they would have made a stronger case that these foods were a big problem that warranted some sort of intervention. They just sort of took that part as given.

your optimism is appreciated, though you may be missing a few things:

The health toll from the promotion of unhealthy foods is something we are just beginning to feel. Life expectancy isn't necessarily a good indicator of the problem, as we generally live longer than we use to...often, chronically ill. Most of the gained life expectancy, as i understand it, can be attributed to higher survival rates of newborns. As smoking disappears, there's another bump. Less wars and famines, and we get a bit older.
Let's assume a scenario wherein we've beat war, famine, birthing deaths, smoking, and starvation...suddenly, bad food becomes our main curse. I'd suggest that it already is.

The disturbingly cynical aspect in this, are the known carcinogenic additives, often as coloring to appeal to children. The % of sugar fed to kids in breakfast cereals should certainly not be endorsed as "part of a healthy breakfast". Connections to medical advice ought not be legal in advertising bad food. Remember how hydrogenated vegetable oil was 'endorsed' by the A.M.A. as the heart healthy choice?
And now, the opposite. Blurring the lines between advertising and medical advice is outlandish, especially as it applies to known culprit foods. Our health care system is somewhat hand cuffed by the power of various lobbying interests. Our doctors and nurses barely touch on nutrition in their studies, and this makes them relatively useless in treating our most common maladies.

People ought to be ab;e to eat what they want, but we're approaching a point wherein they are only offered that which will cause illness. It's no coincidence that the most heavily pushed (and subsidized) ingredients are also the cheapest and least healthy, like sugar and processed seed oils. Buy all you want, but shouldn't there be a warning on the package? Instead, there's deception on the package.
That's fairly fucked. Likewise, that there's subsidies for the production of the worst of foods is an outrage.

We haven't seen the full impact of this yet, but we will. Obesity is rampant, even in kids. That doesn't bode well for their future vitality.
Something akin to the assault on smoking needs to emerge, especially in the medical fields, in regard to this massive malnutrition 'program' we've permitted...all stemming from the greed of corporate agendas.

it's not about canned corn.

School kids can win $100 for short essays on why they love Pepsi. The vending machines that sell the products are in the hallway. An ounce or more, of sugar is aided by the addition of an addictive drug...caffeine...which is the only addictive drug that's allowed to be used as an additive in a food promoted to kids, that has no other purpose. Cool trick. Should this be addressed? Regulated?

Or, do we simply pick up the inevitable bill of their health care?

stanky wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 6:50 pm The health toll from the promotion of unhealthy foods is something we are just beginning to feel.

I have certainly read that "experts", (I hate that word because in pop media it's never sourced, so maybe they aren't experts at all) predict lower life expectancy as obseity-related diseases increase, so this might be true.

Life expectancy isn't necessarily a good indicator of the problem,

It might be that I just hang out with an active crowd, but a lot of people my age seem to think that we know a lot more people who are very active into their 60's and 70's. I think not only are people living longer, but they're also staying healthier longer. I can't claim to have data for that. It just seems that way. Maybe I'll look it up.

...suddenly, bad food becomes our main curse. I'd suggest that it already is.

But how do we settle the wager and is it any worse than it ever was.

The video blame ultra-processed foods, but, frankly, if you eat a whole lot of organically grown potatoes, you're going to be fat and not healthy.

The disturbingly cynical aspect in this, are the known carcinogenic additives

,

It's a symptom of our time, though, that good data is hard to find. "Known carcinogenic" means that one study found some sort of link.

The bottom line is I don't see a huge jump in cancer rates among young people. Maybe it's there and you have to view the data. What I have seen is a lot of people living until 80 and then catching cancer. That means they lived to 80. When I was young, 80 was kind of like that magical age that people talked as if you really should be dead by then. 90 is the new 80. Or so it seems.

Our doctors and nurses barely touch on nutrition in their studies, and this makes them relatively useless in treating our most common maladies.

I agree that's a problem.

it's not about canned corn.

The video used it as an example. And that's my problem in general with so much of it. They don't distinguish between different levels of bad. It leaves people with the impression that everything is bad for you. And then, for me, I start wondering why we are living so long if we're all eating food that will kill us.

Maybe there's data that shows the problem, but I haven't seen it. The fact that American corporations like to boost profits, and advertisers are only as truthful as they are required to be by law isn't persuasive to me that things are terrible.

Or, do we simply pick up the inevitable bill of their health care?

If they die young, it's cheaper. As the big lawsuit against tobacco was going toward its inevitable very costly, end, I wondered if they would have the guts to talk about how much they reduced the cost of alzheimer's care.


Anyway, I like food labelling laws. If there are clear hazards that can be identified, I would support labelling and I support truth in advertising. If the hazards are severe eniugh, I would support bans. I just am suspiciious that government panels are the way to go. They gave us the "four food groups" nonsense.

I heard we waste enough food to give everybody in Mexico diabetes.

Some quick googline shows that there has been significant increase in hte cancer rates, especially colo-rectal, among people under 50 in the last 10-20 years.

Of course, the headlines are written to grab as much attention as possible. Is a marked increase going from almost none to twice almost none? More to come.

Mexicans are fat too. Right behind the U.S., with 4 out of ten (over 15 years old) being obese.
Food has changed. We can pin-point the danger, if we want. Avoiding the problem stuff can be an effort in various 'food deserts' of the U.S., where good stuff isn't available. The food aisles of the Dollar General are kind of shocking, and they're suddenly all through Appalachia. People are definitely eating the stuff.

Cat Food - King Crimson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmnqX4iNBpI

President Bush wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 4:16 am Cat Food - King Crimson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmnqX4iNBpI

Kat Food - Dixie Dregs

https://youtu.be/rCvWtI1MucM?si=4LUrUr1v_rhIme5_

Cat Mother and the all night newsboys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVYG1mu ... osetheboss

I thought about putting this one in the "headlines that signal stupid" thread, but I just don't know what to make of it. It seems, though, that it might be an "only in America" type phenomenon.


"School district responds to rumors of kids identifying as 'furries' after student protest"


So, here's the story. It is alleged that in a middle school in Utah, there are people, students that is, who identify as furries. They bite people. They scratch people. They bark and growl. They eat out of bowls.


There wws a large protest by students, who had had quite enough of these furries and wanted something done about it. They explained the problem to some reporters who covered the protest. They held signs and they chanted, as one does when protesting.

Meanwhile, the school issued a denial. They said that no one came to school in full body animal costumes, although some may have had headbands with ears.

So....we have a denial, but one that sounds a little bit....weak. And we have 11 year olds (that's middle school age in America) pressing their claims to the media. And they are holding up signs. What did the signs say? I only saw one "Compelled speech is not free speech". And the chants? "We the people not the animals."

I smell a rat.


So there are a couple of options. Pne is that a woke school adminstration is catering to these kids who want attention by indulging their "furry" identitiy claims, but the furries are harassing other students, who have had enough. That's what it appears on the suface.

But another possibility is that there are right wing parents who are enlisting the aid of these 11 year olds to fight back against a straw man that is made up.

"Compelled speech is not free speech" doesn't really sound like an 11 year old saying. It also doesn't seem to have anything to do with furries. Unless maybe the teachers have demanded that students refer to the furries as "Fluffy" or "Spot" instead of their given names found on their birth certificates? I don't see it. And "We the people, not the animals"? It, also, doesn't seem like something an 11 year old would come up with. Meanwhile, several news sources covered the student protest, but in one, I read (from memory)"A protest by about 75 students and parents."

Were the camera angles schosen so that it appeared there were more students, when in reality, parents made up more of the crowd?

I don't know, but the alleged behavior of mddle school furries and the teachers who allegedly support them does not make sense to me. It's too weird, even for America, especially Utah. But a group of right wingers trying to make a point about transgenders and manimpulating a bunch of children to their cause? I could see it.

Let's see how this one shakes out.