 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / September 2004Are we protected from Junk Food Corporations?
The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of the public? Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that whoever eats junk food is responsible for it... It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes, whose manufacturers are very much liable for it. And then there's the other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda. Sure enough, there's legislation banning advertising on children television in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. Should others be protected as well? Eateries Push for Obesity Suit Protection Sat Aug 28, 4:33 PM ET By IRA DREYFUSS, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Bills to protect restaurants and food companies against lawsuits by people who claim the meals or snacks made them fat are moving ahead in the states like hamburgers passed out a drive-thru window. Measures known as "cheeseburger bills" bar people from seeking damages in court from food companies for weight gain and associated medical conditions, including heart disease and diabetes. Supporters say the proposals shield businesses from having to pay to defend themselves against frivolous suits. Opponents contend the claims often are valid and ought to be heard in court. Two cases against McDonald's accused the company of causing obesity in thousands of children. In dismissing the cases last year, U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet in New York said consumers ought to know that eating lots of fast food can make them fat and that they cannot ask courts to "protect them from their own excesses." That ruling has not stopped lawyers from holding conferences on how to win such claims. Also, the possibility of a legal defeat haunts the food industry, whose leaders say they should not be held responsible for people's eating decisions. Many lawmakers agree. So far this year, a dozen states have enacted laws against such suits, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A Washington state law prohibits people from suing food manufacturers, sellers and advertisers based on claims arising from people's weight gain, obesity, or related health conditions. The law, backed by the state restaurant association, keeps the responsibility for eating where it belongs, said Democratic state Rep. Patricia Lantz. "It was so common sense," said Lantz, a trial lawyer who heads the House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) in her state. "Most people don't see any reason to impose liability for an individual's inability to push himself away from the dinner table." Similar bills have won approval in other states. But efforts at passing a national shield have faltered in Congress. One bill, sponsored by Rep. Ric Keller (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., was passed by the House. A second, sponsored by Sen. Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky., is before a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee. The prospects that a ban will pass are not good because time is running out on the congressional calendar and lawmakers are facing re-election in November. The issue is politically charged. Republicans say companies need protection from greedy lawyers. Democrats say that the courts should decide whether the cases are worth hearing. Some consumer advocates also oppose the laws. "These cheeseburger bills are shameful efforts to deprive the public of the right to have a day in court if they feel they have been aggrieved," said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Class-action lawyers will find ways around the state laws, and big fast-food companies could be their targets, predicts John Banzhaf, professor of public interest law at George Washington University. Banzhaf, who favors the suits, said companies could be vulnerable for failing to tell customers how much fat is in their food. "Is it a shoo-in? No," said Banzhaf, who helped mastermind suits against the tobacco industry. "But if we pick our plaintiffs carefully, the guy who eats there every day, we can make our cases stick." http://committed.to/justiceforpeace more... http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=94094 > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of > the public? They are. They require that food ingredients and nutrition content be given to costumers who as for it. And the chains usually post this on their websites. The government requires that restaurant workers not touch the food (wear gloves), not have rats running around, not advertise falsely, keep the food either below 40 F or above 140 F (to prevent bacterial growth), etc. I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from not being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the public. Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other negative things for people not using their brains. > Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to > say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that > whoever eats junk food is responsible for it... Yeah. I have seen a lot of managers at fast food stores forcing people to eat their junk. And all that candy, soda, etc., they eat at home is not at fault. Bottom line is that people have nutrition info available. They are the ones who benefit when they follow it and the ones who suffer when they don't. > It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes, > whose manufacturers are very much liable for it. Cigarette makers are only responsible for not telling costumers about the dangers of smoking. Not for making cigerettes dangerous. > And then there's the > other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an > adult, not a helpless child in front of the television screen who's > bombarded with "Happy Meal" propaganda. And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and learn how to make them well. > Sure enough, there's legislation banning advertising on children > television in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. Should others > be protected as well? No arguement here. Illegally copied article deleted. Jeff > > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the > > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to costumers who as for it. And the chains usually post this on their > websites. That's like old Greek to the poor who don't know things like "hydrogenated oil"... > The government requires that restaurant workers not touch the food (wear > gloves), not have rats running around, not advertise falsely, keep the food > either below 40 F or above 140 F (to prevent bacterial growth), etc. That's food safety. Probably required in Bangladesh too. > I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from not > being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the public. > Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other > negative things for people not using their brains. Raising prices dramatically would only make them lose customers. Perhaps they can come up with healthier alternatives for some pennies more. Try the veggie burgers at Wild Oats or Whole Foods and you won't be disappointed. "Terra Frites" (bagged french fries) are heavenly. Their cola soda (at $1.99 the six pack) is even better than "the real thing"... ;) > > Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to > > say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > eat their junk. And all that candy, soda, etc., they eat at home is not at > fault. Monkey see, monkey do. > Bottom line is that people have nutrition info available. They are the ones > who benefit when they follow it and the ones who suffer when they don't. I know, but to the blind, the whole world is dark. > > It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes, > > whose manufacturers are very much liable for it. > > Cigarette makers are only responsible for not telling costumers about the > dangers of smoking. Not for making cigerettes dangerous. It says it in the package. Is people blind? ;) > > And then there's the > > other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and learn > how to make them well. The parents--being uneducated--are just as victims as the kids. And blaming them would amount to never ever doing something. > > > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the > > > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's like old Greek to the poor who don't know things like > "hydrogenated oil"... There are these places called "libraries" that have books with information about this. And, of course, the internet. > > The government requires that restaurant workers not touch the food (wear > > gloves), not have rats running around, not advertise falsely, keep the food [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Their cola soda (at $1.99 the six pack) is even better than "the real > thing"... ;) The only reason why they sell the stuff they do is that people buy it. > > > Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to > > > say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I know, but to the blind, the whole world is dark. Yeah, but the blind can access the internet and learn. And sighted people, too. > > > It happens though that you can argue the same thing for cigarettes, > > > whose manufacturers are very much liable for it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It says it in the package. Is people blind? ;) The cigarette companies have been sued by people who started smoking in the 50s and 60s, IIRC. No one who started suing the cigarette makers since then, TTBMK, have sued them. > > > And then there's the > > > other issue of smoking being a decision that you take when you are an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The parents--being uneducated--are just as victims as the kids. And > blaming them would amount to never ever doing something. Yeah, but the key is education, not stupid laws. Jeff parents--being uneducated--are just as victims as the kids. And >>blaming them would amount to never ever doing something. > > Yeah, but the key is education, not stupid laws. > > Jeff Stupid laws created the problem. Revision of stupid laws might perhaps helps to solve it. Here are some key quotes from a recent article Harvard Magazine Online: http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/050465.html Ludwig: "There's the incessant advertising and marketing of the poorest quality foods imaginable. To address this epidemic, you'd want to make healthful foods widely available, inexpensive, and convenient, and unhealthful foods relatively less so. Instead, we've done the opposite." Gortmaker: "The food industry's major objective is to get us to intake more food," says . "And the TV industry's objective is to get us to watch more television, to be sedentary. Advertising is the action that keeps them both successful. So you've got two huge industries being successful at what they are supposed to do: creating more intake and less activity. And since larger people require more food energy just to sustain themselves, the food industry is growing a larger market for itself." Willett: "That industry spends billions of dollars on research... What we spend on nutrition education is only in the tens of millions of dollars annually. There's a huge imbalance, and it tips more and more in favor of the food industry every year. Food executives like to say, 'Just educate the consumer-- when they create the demand for healthier food, we'll supply it!' That's a bit disingenuous when you consider that they are already spending billions to 'educate' consumers." Ludwig questions farm subsidies of "billions to the lowest-quality foods"--for example, grains like corn ("for corn sweeteners and animal feed to make Big Macs") and wheat ("refined carbohydrates.") Meanwhile, the government does *not* subsidize far healthier items like fruits, vegetables, beans, and nuts. Ludwig : "It's a perverse situation," he says. "The foods that are the worst for us have an artificially low price, and the best foods cost more. This is worse than a free market: we are creating a mirror-world here." > parents--being uneducated--are just as victims as the kids. And > >>blaming them would amount to never ever doing something. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > healthful foods widely available, inexpensive, and convenient, and > unhealthful foods relatively less so. Instead, we've done the opposite." Because people buy the unhealthy foods. > Gortmaker: > "The food industry's major objective is to get us to intake more food," [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And since larger people require more food energy just to sustain > themselves, the food industry is growing a larger market for itself." And I don't remember anyone forcing people to watch TV or go to eat unhealthy food. > Willett: > "That industry spends billions of dollars on research... What we spend [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the government does *not* subsidize far healthier items like fruits, > vegetables, beans, and nuts. I have no problem with subsidizing farmers. Just with making suing restaurants for providing a legal and safe product, when taken in moderation. > Ludwig : > "It's a perverse situation," he says. "The foods that are the worst for > us have an artificially low price, and the best foods cost more. This > is worse than a free market: we are creating a mirror-world here." Then fix the problem with the price of the food. Jeff > > "It's a perverse situation," he says. "The foods that are the worst for > > us have an artificially low price, and the best foods cost more. This [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jeff OK, it's a deal. And the lawyers don't get any money with that, to boot. > > Then fix the problem with the price of the food. > > OK, it's a deal. And the lawyers don't get any money with that, to boot. Anyway, we will be required to phase out our subsides to agriculture sooner or later. We won't be able to compete with the Third World on the matter of prices, because once the subsides are lowered, they will be way cheaper than us. The only sustainable goal is to produce *quality* rather than quantity. We should be pouring *all* our subsides towards farmers who are willing to switch to sustainable or organic agriculture, who are willing to get the animals back to the fields and proper food instead of powders. And *no* subside should go to the farmers who are merely producing good to use in industrial processes (corn, low quality soya...). That would be a first step in increasing the availability of quality food. If we can't tax junk food, at least we can stop giving tax money to the manufacturers. > parents--being uneducated--are just as victims as the kids. And > >>blaming them would amount to never ever doing something. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > us have an artificially low price, and the best foods cost more. This > is worse than a free market: we are creating a mirror-world here." Nice quotes, and nice link. We must be aware of what's at stake here: Some greedy corporations--and even a few school boards--preying on small children. I'd venture an epithet: CHILD ABUSE. Isn't this Child Abuse? Schools Peddling Junk Food to Kids By David Nakamura Through contracts with soft drink companies and other vendors, some schools are raising as much as $100,000 a year, money that pays for such things as computer rewiring, teacher training and Black History Month activities. Read the fine print of those contracts, though, and the costs start to sink in: One school in Prince George's County guaranteed sales of 4,500 cases of soda a year -- or about 50 sodas a student. Some contracts state that schools could lose money if they turn off the machines at lunchtime, as required by state and federal law. The biggest cost, some parents and health advocates say, is the health risk to students in a system that gives schools a financial interest in selling them more snacks. One recent study linked soft drinks to childhood obesity, and others point to tooth decay and caffeine dependence -- findings that the soda industry disputes.- The U.S. Agriculture Department delivered a stinging report to Congress last month recommending that all snacks sold in schools meet the federal government's nutritional standards. "One of the biggest challenges school meal program managers face is the competition with foods that are marketed to children through multimillion-dollar, glitzy and sophisticated advertising campaigns," the report stated. The explosion of vending machines in public schools is a relatively new phenomenon. As recently as a decade ago, such machines were uncommon on campus. But as principals and PTAs began to recognize the potential payoff of vending revenue during a time of increasingly tight school budgets, the number grew quickly. Increasingly, school districts are signing exclusive deals with one soda company or vendor. Charles County, for instance, signed a 10-year, $1.75 million deal last year to sell only Coke products in its schools. Some communities, though, have fought against the proliferation of snack machines in schools. In Philadelphia last year, parent activists successfully blocked a proposed 10-year, $43 million deal between the school system and Coca-Cola. Last week, the New York Board of Education settled a 1999 class-action lawsuit brought by parents. An agreement was reached that schools can sell only nutritious snacks during lunch hour. In exchange, Blair promised to place a minimum of 18 soft drink machines throughout the school and ensure that the student population remained above 2,100. The machines are on all day, despite a federal law prohibiting schools from selling such products during lunch hours and a Maryland law prohibiting schools from turning on vending machines until after the final lunch period. Small wonder. The contract contains a clause that reads: "If the Board of Education actively enforces the policy in which vending machines are turned off during the school day, the commission guarantee will be suspended." To many parents, the vending machine contracts are a necessary evil. But these are the parents who are clueless about the importance of diet as it relates to health. Washington Post February 27, 2001; Page A01 DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT: This report, along with the published scientific evidence, should serve as a rallying cry to parents who want their children to be educated in an environment conducive to learning and free of junk food that will hinder their health, both physically and mentally. Even if your child avoids the soda machines, if other kids are drinking it, this may affect other kids, since the tremendous amounts of sugar will cause behavioral problems or worsen existing ones. I would encourage everyone concerned about this issue to contact your local Board of Education, as well as local state representatives. DEMAND that our childrens' health be put before profit. > > > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the > > > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's like old Greek to the poor who don't know things like > "hydrogenated oil"... How many people do you know who can truthfully say that they "had no idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going to make you fat? Should I be able to sue the manufacturer of my hair dryer if I stupidly use it in the tub? I'm sure it's been tried, because there's a little warning label on the side of the dryer telling me not to do just that. Should Ford Motor Company be liable if I use their product to drive 100 mph and crash into a bridge? I get a little annoyed when people suggest that the public needs governmental protection from what they eat. What would it logically come to, if followed to its most ludicrous conclusion? Oat bran for everyone? No beef allowed? Bacon being classified as a controlled substance? Where is the concept of personal responsibility in all this? Mark, MD > > > > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the > > > > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Mark, MD Hey, we are talking big companies preying on little kids, and people getting sick who then pose a burden for the whole of society... What would be position of the AMA on this? Perhaps they encourage personal responsibility in order to have more patients? > > > > > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the > > > > > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > What would be position of the AMA on this? Perhaps they encourage > personal responsibility in order to have more patients? The AMA, IMHO, is not very good for patients. They seem more concerned with doctor's needs that patients' needs. Jeff > > What would be position of the AMA on this? Perhaps they encourage > > personal responsibility in order to have more patients? > > The AMA, IMHO, is not very good for patients. They seem more concerned with > doctor's needs that patients' needs. > Jeff I wonder if they ever speak *strongly* about junk food. I think it may become necessary to tax junk food and "subsidize" the AMA so they go along with it... ;) > > That's like old Greek to the poor who don't know things like > > "hydrogenated oil"... > > How many people do you know who can truthfully say that they "had no > idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going > to make you fat? They get into your house and tell your child that they have a clown, and toys, and colorful packaging, what do you expect your child to do, ask you for home made soup? > > > That's like old Greek to the poor who don't know things like > > > "hydrogenated oil"... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and toys, and colorful packaging, what do you expect your child to do, > ask you for home made soup? No, I expect YOU to have the brains God gave a newt, and say, "No, sweetie, Happy Meals are full of sh.t they wouldn't feed their own dogs. Here's something Mommy made with her own hands." Instead of saying, "Gosh, I have book club, and that outing with the Johnson's to go to, and my exercise time at the club...here, here's your Happy Meal...please be quiet and give Mommy's sedative time to take hold." If YOU feed your kids Happy Meals, it is YOUR responsibility to own up to being the reason you've been feeding unhealthy crap to your kids. YOU are in charge of what they eat. If YOU let YOUR kids browbeat you into feeding them crap, maybe YOU shouldn't have bred in the first place. Stop blaming somebody else for the stuff that YOU ultimately have the control over. Mark, MD > > They get into your house and tell your child that they have a clown, > > and toys, and colorful packaging, what do you expect your child to do, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Mark, MD I think it would be even better to tell the kids that there's a hungry hairy lion out there who uses a lot camouflage to prey on them by enticing them into "happy" things (here you introduce "happy meals"). And then you add, "Now I got go to work for the lion, but I warn you that television is used by the lion to turn little furry animals--like us--into 'happy sheep'"... THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always taking the LION'S SHARE, and seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all the species of the jungle, demanded JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching, said, "You would have to have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the Monkey, who was very clever, devised a plan: He would go to the costume store, and look like a lion... When the Lion saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match for him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time... > > > > That's like old Greek to the poor who don't know things like > > > > "hydrogenated oil"... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Mark, MD This reminds me of parents who bring their 7 year old children to me and say, "All he'll eat is potato chips and candy bars!" To which I reply: "Well, who buy him this stuff? I *guarantee* you that if you quit buying the crap and bringing the crap home, he won't eat the crap. He might complain and gripe for a few days, but if you exercise your parental responsibilities, your child will end up eating a more healthy diet." Too bad it actually takes work to do the right thing. Mark, MD > This reminds me of parents who bring their 7 year old children to me > and say, "All he'll eat is potato chips and candy bars!" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Too bad it actually takes work to do the right thing. This is all completely true, but there are basically two sides of this issue. One is, as you noted, that it is our responsibility to feed our kids good food. Denying that would be stupid. Any responsibility requires effort. Another size is that various businesses go out of their way to intrude into the parent child relationship, to convince children to whine and beg for foods of zero value, to make eating and drinking garbage "hip" and "cool" etc. They know full well what the consequences are for, say, drinking Coke or eating candy, and yet, they continue spending billions to brainwash chidlren. When I look at any food business or advertisement, my first thought is to find just where exactly the fraud or deception is. Usually, it is somewhere. A negative attitude towards business helps a lot in life. Some businesses are honest, but these are few and far between. Vanguard Funds is one such example of a business that is, in my opinion, honest in delivering the value to the customers that was promised. Walmart also delivers, pretty much, the promised value, although we could question its labor practices and so on. Most other businesses are based on scamming consumers in one way or another. For example, if an ad for jeans implies that jeans help you get laid, that is not an honest approach. Or, if an ad for Coke suggests that you'd be more popular if you drank their garbage, again, that's deceiving. i > > How many people do you know who can truthfully say that they "had no > > idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and toys, and colorful packaging, what do you expect your child to do, > ask you for home made soup? The only way they 'get into your house' is if you have them watching TV. The corporations don't force you to make your kids watch TV. Also, they don't force you to supply your kids with the food advertised. You're the one who cooks and gives them the food, the buck stops at you. > The only way they 'get into your house' is if you have them watching > TV. The corporations don't force you to make your kids watch TV. Also, > they don't force you to supply your kids with the food advertised. > You're the one who cooks and gives them the food, the buck stops at > you. This only works if you keep your kids locked in your home. But then, the social services will come and take them away from you. In the real world, kids go to school, they have friends and they eat with them, they eat at school, they go visit their friends and their parents give them food to eat, they have pocket money... Unless you don't work, your kids are going to be at home more than you are. Unless you have no TV at all, they will figure out how to operate it on their own. Anyway, they will watch TV outside of your home too. Some schools even have them watch TV (and ads) as part of the lessons... > > > How many people do you know who can truthfully say that they "had no > > > idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You're the one who cooks and gives them the food, the buck stops at > you. And I thought you were the "voice of reason," what a disappointment. What you want me to do, turn us into hippies, and have us head for Oregon? I mean how can we resist society, if society itself is brainwashed? They see nothing wrong with it... HOW THE BLACK SHEEP WERE EXPELLED One day the Lion, who had been thinking how to best eat the sheep, decided to dress as a sheep... This way the sheep trusted the new "sheep" more and more every day, some confessing to him, others voting for him, and most allowing to be trimmed by him... Meanwhile, the Black Sheep--who was able to see through camouflage--thought this way: "If he got big paws and teeth, roars, and takes the lion's share, lion he is..." And that's the reason why from then on the Black Sheep weren't allowed to mingle anymore with the simple and common sheep... But the police come if you beat the sh.t out of them until they admit it isn't good for them. > > > How many people do you know who can truthfully say that they "had no > > > idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You're the one who cooks and gives them the food, the buck stops at > you. > How many people do you know who can truthfully say that they "had no > idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going > to make you fat? Well, eating at McDonald three times a day *isn't* going to make you fat, unless you you overeat. You probably saw "Supersize Me!", since that's exactly what the guy is doing. But the guy is not eating to his appetite, he's eating to what is sold to him, to the point that *he* doesn't decide on the SuperSize option himself. Notice how he overeats so much that he vomits a few time. At other points, he has nausea, fills stuffed and unwell. That's clearly a sign that his body is disagreeing with the *amount* of food he is trying to stuff in himself. At that point, most normal human beings would have *stopped* eating. He would have achieved the same results by eating at restaurants in the US, taking a whole meal (starter-entree-dessert) and eating everything on the plate. On the other hand, the guy he interviews who has been eating Big Mac for decades is quite slim. If you eat only the basic hamburger and the smallest portion of French fries (well, I don't know if McDonald US has such a thing as a small version, they do here) and a diet coke, you won't have weight problem. I did lose weight in the past while eating stuff like this at McDo a few times a week. Of course, this kind of diet will make you unhealthy. But that's a separate matter. > Should I be able to sue the manufacturer of my hair dryer if I > stupidly use it in the tub? I'm sure it's been tried, because there's > a little warning label on the side of the dryer telling me not to do > just that. The problem is that a judge should be able to tell you that you were incredibly stupid and refuse to waste tax money on a court action. That's where situations like this should be handled. If I put my cat in the microwave oven and go to court, the judge will just tell me I was an idiot, charge me with contempt of court and fine me with a charge for cruelty to an animal. But making a law that states that sueing hair driers manufacturers is just wrong. Because some units *can* be defective and harmful, and then you have a valid reason to sue. The same applies to the food industry. This is not the role of the legislative branch to do that, it's the role of the judiciary branch. What is needed is a way for the judges to use plain old common sense and shut down stupid case suits right from the start. > Should Ford Motor Company be liable if I use their product > to drive 100 mph and crash into a bridge? If it can be proven that their products have a motor designed to run at 100 mph, but that the brakes or steering system was not designed and tested to handle that kind of speed, sure, you have a right to sue. That's why this kind of issue *must* be addressed by a judge, who can evaluate the validity of individual claims. If you handle that at the legislative level, you're going to prevent both stupid and legit actions. And then, you're giving manufacturers a free hand for sloppy testing of their stuff. > I get a little annoyed when people suggest that the public needs > governmental protection from what they eat. Well, that's also the role of the government. That's why farmers are not allowed to feed chicken with waste disposal residues that raise the dioxin content of the flesh for instance (which is exactly what happened for real btw). > Oat bran for > everyone? No beef allowed? Bacon being classified as a controlled > substance? Well, they're doing that for drugs... Some drugs at least, for some reason tobacco and alcohol are excluded from the ban... That's where common sense should be used. Some food is downright toxic, and some food should be eaten with moderation. And some food is in the eye of the beholder, like GMO. The role of the government should be to make sure that consummers get *all* the information they need to make their own choices. This includes proper and visible labelling of the products, including trans fats content, sodium amount and GMO - including when they're part of a restaurant menu. This includes preventing ads and packaging from making false or inaccurate claims. This also includes protecting kids from food ads until they are old enough to have forged their own opinion. > Where is the concept of personal responsibility in all this? Personal responsability can only exist if you have full access to information and if you have not been brain washed by commercials from year 0. No you will lose weight from the cancer consuming your body. > > How many people do you know who can truthfully say that they "had no > > idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > information and if you have not been brain washed by commercials from year > 0. > > > > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the > > > > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Mark, MD My doctor has never mentioned that i should eat fruit and vegetables or get exercise. My dentist has never said avoid simple sugars. When you see everyone eating at McDonalds from a young age and all the advertising it just seems normal to eat there. Every once in awhile you might hear about some vegetarian nut who got sick or something from lack of protein. the message that junk food is delicious and a source of happiness envelopes us. I certainly am going to sue my medical doctor for not at least giving me a few warnings about junk food. Christ, i have kidney stones now from this crap. Children are given candy as a reward. the stores are packed with candy. > > Should I be able to sue the manufacturer of my hair dryer if I > > stupidly use it in the tub? I'm sure it's been tried, because there's [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > stones now from this crap. Children are given candy as a reward. the > stores are packed with candy. I see, so you never saw the connection b/ the junk food INDUSTRY and the healthcare INDUSTRY? The word INDUSTRY should have tipped you off. I'm glad you now see the solution lies in the lawsuit INDUSTRY... ;) > > > > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the > > > > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Mark, MD I agree with you Mark-people need to be accountable for their own actions and for that matter what they consume, instead of putting the blame on other folks. helenasand_2@hotmail.com (Helena) wrote in message > > I get a little annoyed when people suggest that the public needs > > governmental protection from what they eat. What would it logically [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > actions and for that matter what they consume, instead of putting the > blame on other folks. Only if they have true information to base their decisions upon, and if that information is not falsified by companies that want to make money from it. The Atkins diet is a prime example; many people have damaged their health on it. Yes, I imagine everyone could read articles in medical journals - but how many people would understand them and be able to make the appropriate conclusions? Admittedly, before I went vegetarian, I read all the medical journal articles I could find - but I have a biomedical engineering degree, and am at least somewhat familiar with medical terminology. LM <snip> Are you actually doing to debate this properly or just write a load of flippant one-line replies? > <snip> > > Are you actually doing to debate this properly or just write a load of > flippant one-line replies? You just need one line to destroy an stupid argument. I've heard sound bytes get you a long way in politics nowadays. The junk food industry is the EVIL EMPIRE... ;) "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cgtk92 > And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and learn > how to make them well. What a dumb a.s. So MILLIONS of kids must suffer because of the millions of unfit parents in the world? FACE THE FACTS!! THERE ARE UNFIT PARENTS!!!! That will never change! That is no excuse to let immoral corporations pray off them!! Bombarding easily manipulated children with their mind control. I can not even describe how moronic your logic is. Do you even think about the absurd argument you are making? We are talking about innocent impressionable children here who have no control over what kind of parents they have. How about instead forcing these corporations to pay for adds during cartoons that explain to children the dangers of eating those foods. The fact is children really ARE impressionable and good influence can have just as much of an impact as bad. They could make the adds just as entertaining as the despicable adds making children want to eat junk that will DESTROY THEIR HEALTH. This is the moral thing to do. This is what would save millions of lives. This is why other LESS CORRUPT countries ban advertising to children moron. Why dont you think a little deeper about things next time. Im sorry but when it comes to children there really is no excuse for not protecting them with whatever mesures are required. It is sad and disturbing that you and many others think otherwise. Greed and Profit is the excuse of industry. What is yours. > I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from not > being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the public. > Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other > negative things for people not using their brains. The only interests this legislation(like most other legislation) serves are those of the corporate pay masters who own our supposed representatives. This only further enhances powerlessness of the public over the ever increasing dominance of corporate entities and industries. > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cgtk92 > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > UNFIT PARENTS!!!! That will never change! That is no excuse to let > immoral corporations pray off them!! You mean immoral corporations are going to chruch? > Bombarding easily manipulated > children with their mind control. I can not even describe how moronic [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > many others think otherwise. Greed and Profit is the excuse of > industry. What is yours. The health of kids. However, lettting people sue corporations for something the corporations are not responsible for is stupid, IMHO. > > I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from not > > being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the public. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > public over the ever increasing dominance of corporate entities and > industries. The public has the power to vote the legislations out of office. However, I think the legislation is good legislation. It would be much better to ban fat food from schools - no soda, chips, candy, etc., sold in schools. Make schools a healthier place to be. That would be a positive start. Jeff > The public has the power to vote the legislations out of office. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jeff OK, I'm not going to argue either about the corporations' responsibility, since I also agree on this solution. ;) Many resources here (eg. healthy snacks)... "This website was designed as a resource for those who wish to create a healthier learning environment for our youth. Despite the lobbying efforts of big soda and junk food companies, a tremendous wave of healthier alternatives in school vending machines and cafeterias is sweeping the nation. Legislators, community activists, teachers, parents, vendors, administrators, and most importantly, students, are stepping up to plate, and creating change...a change that will affect generations to come. With soaring obesity rates for children, and a surge in early onset diabetes, eating healthy is an idea whose time has come." http://www.nojunkfood.org/ > Many resources here (eg. healthy snacks)... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.nojunkfood.org/ Thanks for the excerpt and link- I think it is great that juice and water options are being added to soda vednding machines. Kids should have the choice from a range of snacks and drinks. > > Many resources here (eg. healthy snacks)... > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > water options are being added to soda vednding machines. Kids should > have the choice from a range of snacks and drinks. Howdy, you are quite welcome. But in using one of those alternative products, I noticed one of them is not only good for your health but for the environment: Silk Soymilk uses NO electricity in its production and saves the equivalent of 3200 cars!!! "Wind energy is inexhaustible. The total amount of electricity that could potentially be generated from wind in the United States has been estimated at 10,777 billion kWh annually - three times the electricity generated in the US today." I wonder why our politicians don't turn their attention to this instead of just launching a war to grab more oil... :( http://silkissoy.com/index.php?id=105 > Many resources here (eg. healthy snacks)... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.nojunkfood.org/ Choice in schools is a step in the right direction~ The corporations sure know how to penetrate kids' heads--and make the parents look bad... :( 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. 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 dayit 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 cerealwhich, predictably, has no berries at allencourages 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. > The corporations sure know how to penetrate kids' heads--and make the > parents look bad... :( Yeap, it is called advertising. The food industry is not the only industry who does this. The car, electronic, cable tv, telephone, soft drink, etc., industries do this. Where do you draw the line between advertising that is permissible and not permissible? Jeff > > The corporations sure know how to penetrate kids' heads--and make the > > parents look bad... :( [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jeff Well, kids should be off limits, for one. And advertising should be curtailed dramatically on TV, which should be financed by viewer fees like in the UK. A local spokesman for the McDonald's restaurant chain was questioned publicly about brainwashing 90% of our children with their propaganda. He replied "We only have 10% to go then" > The corporations sure know how to penetrate kids' heads--and make the > parents look bad... :( [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > Tommy Thompson to make the issue of marketing junk food to kids a > central focus of the administration's anti-obesity campaign. > A local spokesman for the McDonald's restaurant chain was questioned > publicly about brainwashing 90% of our children with their propaganda. He > replied "We only have 10% to go then" Well, at least he has a sense of humour. > > UNFIT PARENTS!!!! That will never change! That is no excuse to let > > immoral corporations pray off them!! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bombarding easily manipulated > > children with their mind control. Hmm... So corporations are praying and going to church (when they are not busy controlling our minds, of course). I think this thread needs an Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie ;-) http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html Live Long and Prosper! DrumLib Vitamin Price Comparison (including price based on standardized dose) http://www.drumlib.com/bestprice.htm > > > UNFIT PARENTS!!!! That will never change! That is no excuse to let > > > immoral corporations pray off them!! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > an Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie ;-) > http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html Nice. Are they made in China? If they offer good protection for communist ideology, they should work here too. I like things made in China, they are cheap and they make me feel American, particularly the flag... ;) When even Old Glory is made in China By Leita Walker | Special to The Christian Science Monitor Thirteen stripes, 50 stars, and a tiny, often unnoticed label: Made in China. Thank heavens Betsy Ross isn't here to see it. More than 200 years ago, the Philadelphia seamstress helped create the first American flag. Legend says she impressed Gen. George Washington by fashioning a five-pointed star with a single snip of her scissors. Today Old Glory, like most products, has gone global. And as the flag-waving season gets under way, consumers might expect some discussion about country of origin. Rest assured, the vast majority of American flags are still made in the good old USA. But after Sept. 11, 2001, when feelings of patriotism caused demand for flags to skyrocket, foreign manufacturers saw opportunity. Appealing to price-conscious shoppers, they outfitted thousands with hand-held flags. The United States imported $7.9 million worth of American flags in 2002, according to the Census Bureau. Some of those flags have left consumers baffled. "We've actually gotten questions from people who had 53-star flags ... and they wondered if there was a special significance to that," says Joyce Doody, director of membership services at the National Flag Foundation, a patriotic education association in Pittsburgh. "We presume that they were made in another country." Most imported flags come from China - about $5 million worth last year - but Taiwan and Korea have also made hundreds of thousands in recent years, according to data from the US Department of Commerce, the US Treasury, and the US International Trade Commission. Shanghai Flag & Tent Works, for example, exported about $1 million worth of merchandise to the United States last year, with American flags accounting for about 80 percent of the total, says Zheng Banglin, general manager for the firm, which claims to control about one-third of the Chinese-made flag market in the US. > However, I think the legislation is good legislation. It would be much > better to ban fat food from schools - no soda, chips, candy, etc., sold in > schools. Make schools a healthier place to be. Actually, the concept of having food vending machine in a school feels like a completely weird concept to me. Back when I was a kid, 15 years ago, we had no such thing in school. If you were hungry, you would just wait for lunch, and most of the kids survived that. Or you would go to school with an apple or yogourt in your bag and eat it. Very small kids did have a school provided *small meal* at 10am and 4pm. If you really had to have something, at the 4pm meal for instance, you would just take 5 minutes off school and buy (ok, not buy, we had shoplifting contests back then :p) a croissant or pain au chocolat from the nearby bakery. That would not even be a problem in the USA, since I think your kids are not supposed to study until 6-7pm. The point is, we had no food in school outside of the lunch, and noone ever died from that diet. Food was available outside of school, but we had to make a conscious move to go out and buy it, rather than grab something from the machine each time we passed in front of it. The first time I saw such a machine in a school context was at University level. We almost passed a law to ban these machines from the school, but the food corporation managed to make the politicians back off. I guess profit remains more important than anything else... "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cgtk92 > And parents are responsible for helping kids make these decisions and learn > how to make them well. What a dumb a.s. So MILLIONS of kids must suffer because of the millions of unfit parents in the world? FACE THE FACTS!! THERE ARE UNFIT PARENTS!!!! That will never change! That is no excuse to let immoral corporations pray off their children!! What an absurdity. I can not even begin to describe how moronic and thoughtless your logic is. Do you even think about the absurd argument you are making? How about the children WHO HAVE NO PARENTS!! We are talking about innocent impressionable, easily manipulated children here who have no control over what kind of parents they have and in many cases nothing to counter the constant bombardment of corporate mind control. How about instead forcing these corporations to pay for adds that explain to children the dangers of eating those foods. The fact is children really ARE impressionable and good influence can have just as much of an impact as bad. They could make the adds just as entertaining as the despicable adds making children want to eat junk that will DESTROY THEIR HEALTH. This is the moral thing to do. This is what would save millions of lives. This is why other LESS CORRUPT countries ban advertising to children(among many other public policies that benefit PEOPLE over industry). Something that does not happen in the US. Why dont you think a little deeper about things next time. Im sorry but when it comes to children there really is no excuse for not protecting them with whatever mesures are required. It is sad and disturbing that you and many others think otherwise. Greed and Profit is the excuse of industry. What is yours. > I think this legislation, which only prevents the food companies from not > being sued for making people fat, is in the best interests of the public. > Otherwise, the food companies will have to raise prices and do other > negative things for people not using their brains. The only interests this legislation(like most other legislation) serves are those of the corporate pay masters who own our supposed representatives. This only further enhances powerlessness of the public over the ever increasing dominance of corporate entities and industries. "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cgtk92 > > Even the new sugar intake guidelines is watered down to > > say nothing that offends big food corporations. They argue that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > eat their junk. And all that candy, soda, etc., they eat at home is not at > fault. The problem arises when schools sign contracts with fast-food places for school lunches. Children, then, end up being forced to eat fast food every day. LM > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cgtk92 > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > LM And when you as a parent question that you are the weird one. The black sheep who challenges the behavior of the common sheep. DonQuijote1954 cross-posted: Would you please stop cross-posting to alt.support.diet? If you want to discuss things with us then come over to that group and talk with us. We're being besieged by cross-posting and it's making the group unreadable. Dally > > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the > > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to costumers who as for it. And the chains usually post this on their > websites. You know what they don't post on their website? Little things like foreign particles (glass, metal shavings, etc) in the ground beef, E.Coli or Salmonella contamination, and other such lovely things. Moreover, the meat corporations have pressured the government to the point where meat that is known to be contaminated, and to sicken people, cannot be recalled from the grocery store shelves - the USDA has no power to do so, or in fact to tell the public what grocery store is selling the contaminated meat. Read a book called "Fast Food Nation" - the chapter on meat is really horrifying. LM > > > The legislation is moving to protect, of course, the rights of the > > > food corporations not to be sued. How can they ever be on the side of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > LM Call your representative and senators. Jeff > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:<cgtk92$dr3@library1.airnews.net>... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Jeff And that will change things... how? The representative and senators are getting mucho dinero from the meatpacking companies - I can't possibly pay them more than that. LM (...) > And that will change things... how? The representative and senators > are getting mucho dinero from the meatpacking companies - I can't > possibly pay them more than that. > > LM The representatives and senators listen to people who vote, too. If you don't want to pick up the phone or pen, stop whining. Jeff > And that will change things... how? The representative and senators > are getting mucho dinero from the meatpacking companies - I can't > possibly pay them more than that. > > LM You got a point there. Mucho dinero mucho corruption. But try this, go out to the window and shout... "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" > > You know what they don't post on their website? Little things like > > foreign particles (glass, metal shavings, etc) in the ground beef, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jeff Yeah right. Tell them, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" ;) Try watching the movie "Network." Best actors: Faye Dunaway, William Holden, Robert Duval...all presenting on screen the first case of a killing over bad ratings. Well, that's the argument but it's a powerful satire of the inner workings of the entertainment industry and the role of the ratings in determining what you see, eat, drive, or think. Just promise me one thing, get to the window and scream: 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' This is one the most powerful dialogs in the movie told by the anchorman who goes "crazy" and tells the truth... I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's work, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. (shouting) You've got to say, 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958...9862660#9862660 (...) > > Call your representative and senators. > > > > Jeff > > Yeah right. Tell them, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take > this anymore!" ;) Ever hear the saying "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem?" If you don't complain to your senators and representatives about the contamination of meat in stores, they won't know. And don't forget, you get a vote in about 2 months. If you have a better solution, please let me know. Jeff > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:<chtotu$mid@library1.airnews.net>... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Jeff I got some ideas, but things being the way they are in this country, they better be applied in some other place. I have in mind some broke Banana Republic, where we can play with a new system at will. Willing to relocate? > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:<chtotu$mid@library1.airnews.net>... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ever hear the saying "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of > the problem?" Yes, but is calling, or signing an Internet petition, or sending a letter, really part of the solution? The calls are ignored and the petitions are erased - so what changes? > If you don't complain to your senators and representatives about the > contamination of meat in stores, they won't know. And if I do, they still won't change anything. > And don't forget, you get a vote in about 2 months. Yup; on an electronic machine that will say whatever the Powers That Be want it to say. I'll still go vote, of course; but it is an exercise in futility. > If you have a better solution, please let me know. Well, I've stopped eating meat; I'm spreading the word about meat contamination to others, who are also refraining from meat as a result; hitting such companies in the pocketbook is pretty much the only thing that one can do that will actually accomplish anything. The more people are aware of meat contamination, and the more people stop buying meat as a result, the more likely it is that companies will reform their procedures. Also, rewarding companies that do control their practices more is a good idea - so, buying organic free-range meat that was packed in better conditions, and helping such companies survive and compete is also good. The marketplace can accomplish great things. Large corporations are powerful - but the only reason they are powerful is because we make them powerful. No one is forcing us to buy inferior products at gunpoint. We have choices - and we should exercise those choices. LM (...) > Yes, but is calling, or signing an Internet petition, or sending a > letter, really part of the solution? The calls are ignored and the > petitions are erased - so what changes? Nothing, if you don't contact your representives and senators. And if nothing changes, vote for a reprentative and senators who listen to the people who elected them. > > If you don't complain to your senators and representatives about the > > contamination of meat in stores, they won't know. > > And if I do, they still won't change anything. So don't anything and sit on your hands and whine. You can write to the newspapers. > > And don't forget, you get a vote in about 2 months. > > Yup; on an electronic machine that will say whatever the Powers That > Be want it to say. I'll still go vote, of course; but it is an > exercise in futility. THen run for office. > > If you have a better solution, please let me know. > > Well, I've stopped eating meat; I'm spreading the word about meat > contamination to others, who are also refraining from meat as a > result; hitting such companies in the pocketbook is pretty much the > only thing that one can do that will actually accomplish anything. Well that and contacting your representatives, senators, and newspapers. > The more people are aware of meat contamination, and the more people > stop buying meat as a result, the more likely it is that companies > will reform their procedures. or go out of business. > Also, rewarding companies that do control their practices more is a > good idea - so, buying organic free-range meat that was packed in > better conditions, and helping such companies survive and compete is > also good. How do you know they are really any better than the other companies? > The marketplace can accomplish great things. Large > corporations are powerful - but the only reason they are powerful is > because we make them powerful. True. > No one is forcing us to buy inferior > products at gunpoint. We have choices - and we should exercise those > choices. I agree.Knowledge is power. Let your senators, representatives and neighbors know: write your newspapers and elected officials. Have you written the meat companies with your concerns? Jeff > LM > (...) > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > THen run for office. Let me know when you run for office, Larisa. ;) In the meantime do what you do, though most people are not even remotely aware of those problems, or can't afford the alternatives, and there lies the problem. Only hope is somewhere sometime a little Banana Republic becomes a Banana Revolution, rather organic, I'd say. Coming soon... http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40 nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message > Let me know when you run for office, Larisa. ;) It does sound appealing - but no one would vote for me. > In the meantime do what you do, though most people are not even > remotely aware of those problems, or can't afford the alternatives, > and there lies the problem. Lack of awareness, I think, more than the inability to afford the alternatives (beans are cheap). What is needed here is a huge publicity campaign - which would be the thing to scare the meatpacking companies and make them reform their practices. Posters, demonstrations, mass actions of all kinds. That would change things. > Only hope is somewhere sometime a little Banana Republic becomes a > Banana Revolution, rather organic, I'd say. Coming soon... > > http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40 Hee hee. As long as they're organic bananas. :) LM (mmm....bananas....) > nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com (DonQuijote1954) wrote in message > > > Let me know when you run for office, Larisa. ;) > > It does sound appealing - but no one would vote for me. You can do like the Army: A party of one. But I always see them banding together... > > > In the meantime do what you do, though most people are not even [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > companies and make them reform their practices. Posters, > demonstrations, mass actions of all kinds. That would change things. Yep, it sure would, at least more than writing to politicians. Will I have to write to you when you get "up there"? ;) Why don't politicians come "down here," at least once in a while so they know what's going on? Beans is awesome, and they are a staple to latin cultures, but--as you know, since you are not a politician--much more is needed. If you live in America, you know there are these new health food supermarkets--Whole Foods, Wild Oats--that bring you the equivalent of every junk food out there, without the junk. But as everything, you need POLITICAL WILL to make things happen. > > Only hope is somewhere sometime a little Banana Republic becomes a > > Banana Revolution, rather organic, I'd say. Coming soon... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > LM (mmm....bananas....) Or short of that, make a Banana Revolution happen elsewhere, where, of course, bananas grow organic... ;) We even have a political platform, Larisa... (These things generally overlooked in the Banana Republic--except America, of course--are taken care of in the Banana Revolutions) "Junk food should have a warning label (just like cigarettes), particularly the one destined to children, and also be taxed to subsidize healthy alternatives." http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1 > >You seem to think that nothing else is viable or can even get started. > >I am getting the feeling that your motivations in this, are like that of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The only thing that could put off the crisis past our lifetimes, is some > sort of Star Trek solution. Something that doesn't exist for us yet. The only Star Trek solution I see is to get aboard a spaceship and get the hell out of here--fast. Other than that there may be a revolution of some sort to bring back evolution back into place. The dinosaurs don't want to evolve but we have to push them a little bit... Do you see Star Trek in this picture? It's one of those dots... http://pub36.bravenet.com/forum/3021914257/fetch/330301/ > >>A modern turkey factory needs electricity, natrual gas, trucked in food, > >>antibiotics, a medical station, offices, shipping and receiving docks, a [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Jack Dingler Welcome to a brave new world, the world of the jungle... ;) THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always taking the LION'S SHARE, and seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all the species of the jungle, demanded JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching, said, "You would have to have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the Monkey, who was very clever, devised a plan: He would go to the costume store, and look like a lion... When the Lion saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match for him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time... NOTE: Other monkeys survived him... THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE II After killing the monkey dressed as a lion, the Lion gathered all the little animals of the jungle and announced: "Today we have successfully eradicated one of the major threats to the peace and order of our jungle... Yes, a new lion, probably envious of us, attacked without warning... Luckily --because you know how good is suffering for the spirit-- your sacrifice gave me strong paws and teeth... And yes, these mighty weapons were so useful to me that I finished him off without a sweat... Anyhow, now it turns out that some other of his accomplices are roaming around and trying to attack us... So get ready for more suffering and restrictions, if not for a catastrophe... But, of course, there's a place for you in heaven..." Meanwhile, one of the little animals --who had been grazing all along-- asked another, "What did he say?" "I think he said something about a new lion," answered the other. To which the first animal replied, "Another one!?" Moral: We don't need lions or violent monkeys that become lions. No Lion No Problem! I don't want to offend anyone who doesn't eat meat, but think about it: You can substitute meatballs with soyballs... ;) (debate imported from Pravda, found in my website) "the spaghetti revolution?" Howdy I guess you guys are not enthusiastic of mixing fun and politics, but let me tell you this is the best shot we got. The proles are more interested in fun and food, though I'm sure the politicians are partly to blame for that. Something "owned" by the people--to quote Bader--must be something they can relate to. "Humanism" is too lofty for them. "Socialism" of any kind is out. So we are this Italian friend and I discussing the Spaghetti Revolution, with or without "meatballs"? 'How do you like spaghetti, with meatballs or without meatballs?' 1) http://committed.to/justiceforpeace > I've read it and it's VERY good, funny too, chiquito ;o)... And you write about Eric A. Blair (Animal Farm & 1984), nickname 'G. Orwell', about whose work I was about to major, once upon a time. I saw read/saw both (theatre & film), and I wasn't satisfied at all by the "stage massacre"... Also your modern and satiric fairy tales are very very good... You know, I have written a poem (in Italian) which is a sort o |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message