Have you seen FED UP - the documentary?

ninerbuff

I'm just going to say it. Some people are not smart. We all know this. Some people are not smart and are very gullible. These people are easily misled, and if no one even attempts to tell them that the messaging is incorrect they are basically SOL. Then we tell them it's their fault.

And sadly I agree. Which is why I believe that a site like this one is a great tool for people to learn from who are willing to learn.
Instinct for us is to do whatever we can the EASIEST way possible. So relying on the the food industry's advertising "truths", is easy for many people to follow. They don't want to burden themselves with checking to see if macro/micro nutrient values are going to meet their needs.
But again, it's going to come down to an individual learning how to do it right. Which brings us back to education.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

lemurcat12

$61 million+ a year in taxpayer dollars is used to subsidize the sugar industry...a nutrition-less and high-calorie food.
http://www.usda.gov/documents/FY06budsum.pdf

2006. After all the fighting about the ag bill in the last year, you'd think you could do better than 2006, and maybe actually quote the relevant portions, not just link to the budget as a while.

In any event, while I am personally against agriculture subsidies, this is a sloppy way to discuss the subject that is misleading as to what is actually going on. Indeed, the subsidies have been criticized for artificially RAISING the price of sugar. See http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175569499/farm-bills-sugar-subsidy-more-taxing-than-sweet-critics-say for a decent discussion.

Thanks for calling me sloppy. I also provided data from 2013 (see Wallstreet journal citation in my original message).

Here's the 2013 bill.
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY13budsum.pdf

Shows zero. indicating there was no change from the prior year. The only bill I could find stating an actual number other than zero was from 2006, hence why I use it. Its also the only number referenced in the Harvard university documentation which is another reason I elected to use it in my message.

If you find data showing more money per year is going to veggies than sugar let me know.

Feel free to address the points made, specifically about HOW ag subsidies affect the cost of sugar.

independant2406

You make lots of good points. No one is shoving cupcakes down anyone's throats. And I'm not advocating banning high calorie foods. I love my liberty and my freedom of choice. I also agree some people are more sensitive to sugar than others.

However...if obesity is a problem why do we continue to subsidize the foods that are causing the obesity in the first place? The other foods low in cost but high in calories (not just sugar) are also subsidized. I realize the subsidies were started during the great depression to make lots of calories cheap...but Americans are no longer starving. Why are we as a society/government deciding to make healthier choices expensive and unhealthy choices less expensive?

You're confusing the issues with profit and loss vs healthy and unhealthy. The reality is that corporations are out for ONE thing...................profit. If something isn't profitable, it's not going to be marketed.
We as people MAKE THE CHOICE on whether to keep a product out there or not based on purchasing.

And again, it's not the just the food that's CAUSING the obesity. People are choosing wrong, eating huge portions, and are just less physically active than prior years.
We can find so many people on here who have successfully lost weight, kept it off or maintained while eating processed foods. How'd they do it? They got good information, tracked what they ate and kept their portions and calories in check. When the general population actually decides it's important to them, they'll do it too.

Let's look at a city like Washington, DC. According to the American College of Sports Medicine report, that city is the fittest in the US currently. Now you'd have a hard time convincing me that the amount of processed foods, sugar laden foods, etc. wasn't offered for sale to the public, just like any other city in the US. So what's the difference? Choices and physical activity.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I'm in agreement that the way to lose weight and get healthy is to change life habits (move more, eat less) I never said it wasn't.
However it doesn't change the fact that low income populations in America are on average fatter than those that have more money. It also doesn't change the fact that making healthy choices harder/more expensive is a dumb decision on the part of our nation.

I don't agree that profit and loss has anything to do (or at least it shouldn't) with the government's decision to subsidize high calorie foods over veggies and fruit. Why would profit/loss of a corporation decide if its better to subsidize donuts over spinach? The government should be making decisions based on the long term benefits for America correct?

You can lose weight eating at mcdonalds. Will you be as successful as someone who can shop at Whole Foods or Trader Joes?
Probably not. Healthy food is expensive and there are changes to current laws that could make that change.

I also don't agree that its just as easy for a low income person to choose the correct foods (education and finances play into this) , eat smaller portions (again, easier if you have fruits and veggies). Physical activity could be seen as a factor but its blurry. Does a lawyer get more activity in his day than a food service worker? They both probably work long hours, but which one feels pressure to work overtime instead of going for a run? I don't know that there's any way to conclusively prove it one way or the other?


Lets look at your example Washington DC:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html

Median income is higher in Washington DC than other cities in america by average.
Poverty is also slightly higher in DC than other cities in america by average.

Per capita money income in past 12 months (2012 dollars), 2008-2012 DC: $45,004 USA: $28,051
Median household income, 2008-2012 DC: $64,267 USA: $53,046
Persons below poverty level, percent, 2008-2012 DC: 18.5% USA: 14.9%

Now lets look at Birmingham Alabama - America's most obese city:

Per capita money income in past 12 months (2012 dollars), 2008-2012 Birmingham: $19,615 USA: $23,587
Median household income, 2008-2012 Birmingham: $31,467 USA: $43,160
Persons below poverty level, percent, 2008-2012 Birmingham: 28.9% USA: 18.1%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/01/0107000.html

lemurcat12

This is exactly what I'm getting at. I personally think it would be best if we could just outright stop the inaccurate messages being presented by food/diet industry people who are trying to hype and sell a product using misleading statements. However, doing so would be incredibly difficult. If people know all of the facts and still choose to purchase the product, then that's on them. Education, or at least more public discussion, could help people make more informed decisions.

Factually inaccurate ads are already illegal.

So let's focus specifically on what you are bothered about here. As I see it, it's products that are (according to you--I'm not sure how we could objectively define this given the disagreements about nutrition) unhealthy are able to promote themselves using terms that some consumers (often poorly-informed ones) understand to mean more healthy. You are particularly bothered, it seems, by the "reduced fat" or "low fat" labels. I would add as equally stupid (although they don't really bother me) labels like "gluten free" or "extra protein" as--like the "no fat" labels you used to see on dried pasta, these are often on products that don't have gluten anyway or "extra" still means very little. Also, again, some group of badly informed consumers probably do think that gluten free or low fat is always "healthier," and that's not true (unless one is celiac, of course).

But others might have legitimate reason to care about this information, so for example I don't care if yogurt is promoted as no fat. It, factually, is no fat in those cases, and while I think full fat yogurt is healthy too, 0% is not worse for everyone and some might do better saving calories in that way. So similarly, while most "diet" products don't appeal to me, if someone wants to save some calories by subbing a low fat for high calorie dressing or the like, go for it. Now obviously check the calories, but I don't know one person in the US who doesn't understand that calorie information is on packaged food, and anyone who claims otherwise is almost certainly lying and just didn't want to know. (Or so unbelievably stupid that nutrition is really the least of their problems.)

As for names like "Lean Pocket"---that is simply a statement about the comparison with Hot Pockets, not a factual claim and if it does have less (or little) fat (I don't know, I don't eat that stuff and never have), it's true. It doesn't trump common sense, especially in a population as used to marketing as ours should be by now. Certainly I think most people are reasonably cynical about it.

I'd have more issue with stuff like "heart healthy grains" which appears to be doctor certified, but even that is based on facts of a kind, and shows the difficulty of trying to have the gov't decide what's healthy and not given the arguments (plus, probably lots of the anti sugar folks like that just fine, as well as many of the muckraking documentarians). And that's even apart from the whole argument about personal responsibility and the proper role of the government.

It is inaccurate for a company to portray their product as being the answer to someone's obesity problem when it isn't.

I don't think they do this. I don't think anyone with common sense could think that a Lean Pocket is especially healthy except perhaps in comparison with a Hot Pocket. You seem to think they do this because of the name?

daydreams_of_pretty

I'm just going to say it. Some people are not smart. We all know this. Some people are not smart and are very gullible. These people are easily misled, and if no one even attempts to tell them that the messaging is incorrect they are basically SOL. Then we tell them it's their fault.

And sadly I agree. Which is why I believe that a site like this one is a great tool for people to learn from who are willing to learn.
Instinct for us is to do whatever we can the EASIEST way possible. So relying on the the food industry's advertising "truths", is easy for many people to follow. They don't want to burden themselves with checking to see if macro/micro nutrient values are going to meet their needs.
But again, it's going to come down to an individual learning how to do it right. Which brings us back to education.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

MFP is an awesome resource. It really does a great job of educating people who use it. It's just a matter of extending the discussion to include individuals who don't know about the website. I think that documentaries like FED UP can start this discussion. Unfortunately, in this case the documentary undermined itself by starting with a conclusion and then trying to build a bridge between the data and the conclusion.

In terms of people not wanting to burden themselves with checking the nutrient values, I think that sometimes it also comes down to people just not thinking about it. This doesn't apply to everyone. There are certainly times when people just don't care or don't want to know. But some people just don't question things. They hear something that they think sounds legitimate and go with it. My Facebook newsfeed is a testament to that, lol.

daydreams_of_pretty

This is exactly what I'm getting at. I personally think it would be best if we could just outright stop the inaccurate messages being presented by food/diet industry people who are trying to hype and sell a product using misleading statements. However, doing so would be incredibly difficult. If people know all of the facts and still choose to purchase the product, then that's on them. Education, or at least more public discussion, could help people make more informed decisions.

Factually inaccurate ads are already illegal.

So let's focus specifically on what you are bothered about here. As I see it, it's products that are (according to you--I'm not sure how we could objectively define this given the disagreements about nutrition) unhealthy are able to promote themselves using terms that some consumers (often poorly-informed ones) understand to mean more healthy. You are particularly bothered, it seems, by the "reduced fat" or "low fat" labels. I would add as equally stupid (although they don't really bother me) labels like "gluten free" or "extra protein" as--like the "no fat" labels you used to see on dried pasta, these are often on products that don't have gluten anyway or "extra" still means very little. Also, again, some group of badly informed consumers probably do think that gluten free or low fat is always "healthier," and that's not true (unless one is celiac, of course).

But others might have legitimate reason to care about this information, so for example I don't care if yogurt is promoted as no fat. It, factually, is no fat in those cases, and while I think full fat yogurt is healthy too, 0% is not worse for everyone and some might do better saving calories in that way. So similarly, while most "diet" products don't appeal to me, if someone wants to save some calories by subbing a low fat for high calorie dressing or the like, go for it. Now obviously check the calories, but I don't know one person in the US who doesn't understand that calorie information is on packaged food, and anyone who claims otherwise is almost certainly lying and just didn't want to know. (Or so unbelievably stupid that nutrition is really the least of their problems.)

As for names like "Lean Pocket"---that is simply a statement about the comparison with Hot Pockets, not a factual claim and if it does have less (or little) fat (I don't know, I don't eat that stuff and never have), it's true. It doesn't trump common sense, especially in a population as used to marketing as ours should be by now. Certainly I think most people are reasonably cynical about it.

I'd have more issue with stuff like "heart healthy grains" which appears to be doctor certified, but even that is based on facts of a kind, and shows the difficulty of trying to have the gov't decide what's healthy and not given the arguments (plus, probably lots of the anti sugar folks like that just fine, as well as many of the muckraking documentarians). And that's even apart from the whole argument about personal responsibility and the proper role of the government.

It is inaccurate for a company to portray their product as being the answer to someone's obesity problem when it isn't.

I don't think they do this. I don't think anyone with common sense could think that a Lean Pocket is especially healthy except perhaps in comparison with a Hot Pocket. You seem to think they do this because of the name?

Just because you don't think that people believe this doesn't mean it isn't happening. I'm actually a bit confused as to how you don't know anyone who chooses "leaner" options because they think they're healthier. It like the thing with the fake butters that are full of trans fats. People were told that butter was bad and that they should switch to margarine. Even now that trans fats are constantly under attack, we still have people who think that the margarine is virtuous compared to the butter.

I really don't see why you don't think that we should educate people regarding nutrition. I'm not saying that you can't eat as many lean pockets as your heart desires. I'm not saying that Nabisco can't advertise Oreos. I'm saying that there is a pervasive message in our society that making the choice to eat the lighter option is the solution to obesity, and it's incorrect. That message is put out there by the people who make those lighter options so that people who don't want to eat the regular version will still make a purchase.

A great example is low fat yogurt. The commercial portrays to the consumer that choosing that yogurt over a cookie will lead to weight loss. It won't unless you control other factors. That's the point. That's where education comes in.

extra_medium

And for those that are talking about "parental responsibility" and don't have kids, STFU.

No

Sorry but having kids doesn't make you a special snowflake and automatically immune to criticism

Honestly the fact that you would even pull that card is kinda pathetic.

It's pathetic when someone who has NO IDEA on the difficulties of raising a child in this world, blames everything on only one factor - parents and not the environmental impact of the world around. Kids spend 8 hours a day in a school with public education (provided by government), eat in school cafeterias, see billboard after billboard in transport or in stores... but of course, it's absolutely 100% parental responsibility for the impact and education that these children receive -- especially about food.

And that's the cop out parents have used to get out of everything.

Sorry don't care about your sob story. Oh and If you read up I said PERSONAL AND PARENTAL responsibility.

Also I even said that it's not really the parents fault a lot of the time. Sometimes it is though.

And no you can't monitor everything. But you can't expect to control everything. I never made any assumptions like that. You have just decided to attack me because I mentioned that parental responsibility is a problem in many cases .. and it is.

You are just appealing to parenthood to get out of the fact that your argument on sugar stinks and it's not worth wasting any more time on you.

I didn't give you a sob story and you went from saying "The obvious culprit. And the one we want to ignore because we know it is the source.

Personal and Parental responsibility. " to "sometimes" and "You can't monitor....control everything". I see my point sank in.

When you are trying to shuffle your 4 year old through the grocery store and they are wailing for some junk they see at the counter that you have no intention of feeding them but it's there, it will even more.

I take responsibility for my kids. If you don't then you are the problem. My 4 year old does pretty well in grocery stores. She knows what she's allowed, which does include sweets, and funny enough her pediatrician is absolutely amazed at how fit (strong) both our daughters are. It's you, not the industry and sugar. Take responsibility.

Wait until your kids are teenagers and those perfect parent/ perfect child living in a bubble ideals roll away. Great parents can still end of with kids who make bad choices -- why? because they have other sources of influence their whole lives. You may set a good foundation but they will eventually make friends, have boyfriends/girlfriends, read books...

That's what failures say about everything. It's not my fault. I can't control. Of course you don't have 100% control, but the absolute most important influence on any child is his/her parents, and if you're already making excuses with a 4 year old, all I can say is best of luck.

Not an excuse but I can say that my 4 year old is not a robot isolated in a bubble, with a personality that only I can control. A child's will is not simply built by parent.

No it's not. They're intelligent and I treat mine as future adults who can take responsibility for their actions, and learn about nutrition, athletics, and excel academically all at the same time. Set expectations high and encourage. It works. Or make excuses and blame the world around you for your children's problems.

Of course, encouragement is amazing and can really help a child grow and do well. The reality is though, great children and great parents will still have to face failures, mistakes, wrong decision making. Ideally, our children would be perfect and have a perfect environment. Poor people would easily climb social ladders through achievement on their own merits, hard workers would make the most money, the nicest would have the best relationships... etc.

Yea, it's all futile, life is unfair, give up now . . .

Of course life has challenges, so it's better to teach your child how to face and overcome them successfully. Believe it or not life skills can be taught, but you have to do more than throw your hands in the air and complain.

Yes, I agree that you give every effort for your child to survive and thrive. Doesn't mean I give up on things like criticizing the food industry for the impact they have on us, our food choices, our health. My family is ultra important and that's why social justice and accountability to those that have an impact on our health environment means that much more.

So now, is your fault or the industry's that your child can't behave in a grocery aisle? I just want to be clear here.

If my child wasn't surrounded by candy, she wouldn't want it. It's quite well known that grocery items are strategically placed to incite desire. Have you been to a grocery counter that didn't have a pack of gum at arms reach? Do you think they see more or less gum sales from people because they are easy to pick up while you are waiting in line? Do I think that the average person waiting for gum spends time reading the ingredients, analyzing it's negative/positive health benefits or do the marketing people know that we are impulse buyers and our kids will want the candy?

And there it is. The bubble of irresponsible parenting

Now, now, it's also proven fact that supermarkets make people buy Star Magazine. And TV Guide. Hmm, more evidence that they caused obesity.

However, all this was true even before obesity was common--much as one could go to McD and could buy soda back when I was a kid, and yet there were almost no overweight kids--but why bother with reality when there's blame to cast!

Ok smartypants, what has caused the increase in obesity rates then? Offer a reason so we can take your interjection seriously.

Giant increases in portion size.

JoRocka

. I'm saying that there is a pervasive message in our society that making the choice to eat the lighter option is the solution to obesity, and it's incorrect. That message is put out there by the people who make those lighter options so that people who don't want to eat the regular version will still make a purchase.

I agree- there is a pervasive message- and it will continue to happen- because people are stupid enough to believe it.

(I also agree with you- how someone doesn't know someone who wouldn't grab a lean pocket vs a hot pocket thinking it was healthier- seriously- I know tons of people like that- its baffling)

A great example is low fat yogurt. The commercial portrays to the consumer that choosing that yogurt over a cookie will lead to weight loss. It won't unless you control other factors. That's the point. That's where education comes in.

and no where is ANYONE saying take some personal responsibility for educating yourself. Seriously- we all figured it out- no on hand held us- or at the the least it was minimal hand holding.

At some point- you have to reach out of the box and NOT be spoon fed information- and people aren't willing to do that- why because the industry feeds them instant fixes- and they keep buying them because they are convinced an instant fix exits- it's a catch 22- and they just keep feeding into it.

DayByDayGetStronger

It always shocks me how sugar gets a free pass. Our school is not allowed to have flavored milks unless they are 0% fat, as if that makes them healthy. Compare the sugar content of the milk to a can of coke.

Coke: 26g of sugar per 8oz (5.5 tsp of sugar)
My School's Strawberry Milk: 22g of sugar per 8oz (4.5 tsp of sugar)

It should also be pointed out that 8oz of Coke has fewer calories (90-100) than the strawberry milk (130). It does have some protein, though (8g) and a couple extra "non-sugar" carbs (2g) So, it's not all bad.

It really doesn't matter which one the kids decide to drink with their lunch, they're equally bad.

Edit: If you look at the ingredient lists for the milk and a can of coke, the second ingredient in both is HFCS.

Awesome observation and education of other members of the forum! If you'd like to be disgusted even further, check out the "healthier" cereals at the grocery store. Most of them have the same grams of sugar as Frosted Flakes or Trix. I know people who only buy their kids cereal from Trader Joe's here in Los Angeles (supposed healthier grocery store chain). The Trader Joe brands of cereal have loads of sugar in them and aren't any better for you than the Kellogg's or GM brands. So misleading!!

ninerbuff

I'm in agreement that the way to lose weight and get healthy is to change life habits (move more, eat less) I never said it wasn't.
However it doesn't change the fact that low income populations in America are on average fatter than those that have more money. It also doesn't change the fact that making healthy choices harder/more expensive is a dumb decision on the part of our nation.

I don't agree that profit and loss has anything to do (or at least it shouldn't) with the government's decision to subsidize high calorie foods over veggies and fruit. Why would profit/loss of a corporation decide if its better to subsidize donuts over spinach? The government should be making decisions based on the long term benefits for America correct?

You can lose weight eating at mcdonalds. Will you be as successful as someone who can shop at Whole Foods or Trader Joes?
Probably not. Healthy food is expensive and there are changes to current laws that could make that change.

I also don't agree that its just as easy for a low income person to choose the correct foods (education and finances play into this) , eat smaller portions (again, easier if you have fruits and veggies). Physical activity could be seen as a factor but its blurry. Does a lawyer get more activity in his day than a food service worker? They both probably work long hours, but which one feels pressure to work overtime instead of going for a run? I don't know that there's any way to conclusively prove it one way or the other?


Lets look at your example Washington DC:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html

Median income is higher in Washington DC than other cities in america by average.
Poverty is also slightly higher in DC than other cities in america by average.

Per capita money income in past 12 months (2012 dollars), 2008-2012 DC: $45,004 USA: $28,051
Median household income, 2008-2012 DC: $64,267 USA: $53,046
Persons below poverty level, percent, 2008-2012 DC: 18.5% USA: 14.9%

Now lets look at Birmingham Alabama - America's most obese city:

Per capita money income in past 12 months (2012 dollars), 2008-2012 Birmingham: $19,615 USA: $23,587
Median household income, 2008-2012 Birmingham: $31,467 USA: $43,160
Persons below poverty level, percent, 2008-2012 Birmingham: 28.9% USA: 18.1%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/01/0107000.html

While poverty can attribute to WHAT people choose to buy, obesity still comes down to calories in and out.
If you look at the best athletes in US Pro football, basketball, and soccer today, so many of them came from poverty stricken places. They had a talent and their family, relatives, friends I'm sure helped them to excel in it to help them get to the pros. These athletes (with the exception of NFL linemen) aren't obese. They made the decision to take care of their bodies so they can excel in sports. They were still poor though. Best nutrition? Probably far from it. But why weren't they overweight or obese? They ate less than they burned. And others in the same community could do the same, if they wished.

As for cost, lets' look at it objectively. If you set down a plate of cookies or a plate of broccoli then have a toddler come in, which one do you really think they'll eat? Even if broccoli was much cheaper and cookies cost more, kids will choose cookies over broccoli based on taste.
Point is you can make healthy food as cheap as you want, but that's not going to guarantee that people are going to choose it over processed bread or mac and cheese. Palatability goes a long way with how people eat. Liver is better for me than pizza. Even if the liver cost me $1.00 for a pound and a pizza slice cost me $4.00, I'd buy the pizza because I can't stand liver.
Corporations are out to make money. Processed foods make more profit for them. They buy in bulk and it has a long shelf life.
The same can't be said for fruits and vegetables. In fact, there is more THROWN and WASTED fruits and vegetables than any other product in any supermarket. Probably why cost is higher. Again, corporation and government don't care about our health (since money can be made off of that as well), they just care about profit.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

tigersword

$61 million+ a year in taxpayer dollars is used to subsidize the sugar industry...a nutrition-less and high-calorie food.
http://www.usda.gov/documents/FY06budsum.pdf

2006. After all the fighting about the ag bill in the last year, you'd think you could do better than 2006, and maybe actually quote the relevant portions, not just link to the budget as a while.

In any event, while I am personally against agriculture subsidies, this is a sloppy way to discuss the subject that is misleading as to what is actually going on. Indeed, the subsidies have been criticized for artificially RAISING the price of sugar. See http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175569499/farm-bills-sugar-subsidy-more-taxing-than-sweet-critics-say for a decent discussion.

Thanks for calling me sloppy. I also provided data from 2013 (see Wallstreet journal citation in my original message).

Here's the 2013 bill.
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY13budsum.pdf

Shows zero. indicating there was no change from the prior year. The only bill I could find stating an actual number other than zero was from 2006, hence why I use it. Its also the only number referenced in the Harvard university documentation which is another reason I elected to use it in my message.

If you find data showing more money per year is going to veggies than sugar let me know.

0 does not mean no change from the prior year. That's a net number. in 2004 the government paid $61 million in subsidies to sugar. Of course, you're then leaving out the fact that in 2005 the sugar industry actually paid back $86 million to the government. In 2006 the number was $10 million to the sugar industry. In 2007 the government paid out $25 million in subsidies, in 2008 the sugar industry paid back $35 million. Since 2009 it's been 0, no money from the government to the sugar industry.

ThePhoenixIsRising

So if it was just about cost why do they overindulge in the high processed foods, instead of spending the same amount of money on less cals more nutrient dense foods?

If they have the money to eat more than they need in processed food, they have enough to eat what they need in unprocessed food.

Washington University: "Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods."
http://depts.washington.edu/uwcphn/news/summits/poverty_obesity/drewnowski_pov.pdf

So if you have $3 a day to feed yourself, would you pick 3 items from the dollar menu which will make you full and get you more calories for your money, or would you pick 1 bag of carrots and an apple or two which won't come close to fulfilling your caloric needs or stopping your hunger? In order to feel full on a low calorie diet with nutritional value it requires more money.

I think the reason it doesn't happen is pure laziness!

Prepping cooking and cleaning the dishes it takes to make homemade meals is time and energy consuming. A stay at home mom has the time to do these things. A single parent home or a home that needs both parents bringing home an income has little time for these processes. It is easier to eat processed. That is why I believe there is a gap in the weight between the classes.

Preparing healthy food is definitely harder. I totally agree. How then do we help single moms who are already working overtime to feed their families if not by making healthy choices more affordable? Why would we choose to make it harder by subsidizing the foods that encourage overeating and making the healthy foods more expensive?

The monetary expense of the food isn't the problem, it's the time expense! The time it takes to prepare these foods won't change so making them cost less per unit of energy won't change anything.

daydreams_of_pretty

. I'm saying that there is a pervasive message in our society that making the choice to eat the lighter option is the solution to obesity, and it's incorrect. That message is put out there by the people who make those lighter options so that people who don't want to eat the regular version will still make a purchase.

I agree- there is a pervasive message- and it will continue to happen- because people are stupid enough to believe it.

(I also agree with you- how someone doesn't know someone who wouldn't grab a lean pocket vs a hot pocket thinking it was healthier- seriously- I know tons of people like that- its baffling)

A great example is low fat yogurt. The commercial portrays to the consumer that choosing that yogurt over a cookie will lead to weight loss. It won't unless you control other factors. That's the point. That's where education comes in.

and no where is ANYONE saying take some personal responsibility for educating yourself. Seriously- we all figured it out- no on hand held us- or at the the least it was minimal hand holding.

At some point- you have to reach out of the box and NOT be spoon fed information- and people aren't willing to do that- why because the industry feeds them instant fixes- and they keep buying them because they are convinced an instant fix exits- it's a catch 22- and they just keep feeding into it.

Some people are not capable of recognizing that they need to reach out of the box and educate themselves. I'm not saying that we should hold their hands and yank them out. I'm saying that we need to counter the messages produced by the food industry.

snikkins

$61 million+ a year in taxpayer dollars is used to subsidize the sugar industry...a nutrition-less and high-calorie food.
http://www.usda.gov/documents/FY06budsum.pdf

2006. After all the fighting about the ag bill in the last year, you'd think you could do better than 2006, and maybe actually quote the relevant portions, not just link to the budget as a while.

In any event, while I am personally against agriculture subsidies, this is a sloppy way to discuss the subject that is misleading as to what is actually going on. Indeed, the subsidies have been criticized for artificially RAISING the price of sugar. See http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175569499/farm-bills-sugar-subsidy-more-taxing-than-sweet-critics-say for a decent discussion.

Thanks for calling me sloppy. I also provided data from 2013 (see Wallstreet journal citation in my original message).

Here's the 2013 bill.
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY13budsum.pdf

Shows zero. indicating there was no change from the prior year. The only bill I could find stating an actual number other than zero was from 2006, hence why I use it. Its also the only number referenced in the Harvard university documentation which is another reason I elected to use it in my message.

If you find data showing more money per year is going to veggies than sugar let me know.

0 does not mean no change from the prior year. That's a net number. in 2004 the government paid $61 million in subsidies to sugar. Of course, you're then leaving out the fact that in 2005 the sugar industry actually paid back $86 million to the government. In 2006 the number was $10 million to the sugar industry. In 2007 the government paid out $25 million in subsidies, in 2008 the sugar industry paid back $35 million. Since 2009 it's been 0, no money from the government to the sugar industry.

I just want to point out that while $61 million dollars might seem like a lot of money to many of us here, it is literally a drop in the ocean that is the US government's budget. It's hardly anything, let alone anything to get this upset about or try to use to say the government is in cahoots with the sugar industry in the way it is being implied. If they were actually in bed at the level that this is implying, they'd be getting a lot more than $61 million dollars.

For contrast, NASA, who is is known for not getting a lot of funding, is requesting about $17.5 billion dollars for 2015. To borrow the phrase, that's billion with a B, and they're an arguably not prioritized agency.

JoRocka

. I'm saying that there is a pervasive message in our society that making the choice to eat the lighter option is the solution to obesity, and it's incorrect. That message is put out there by the people who make those lighter options so that people who don't want to eat the regular version will still make a purchase.

I agree- there is a pervasive message- and it will continue to happen- because people are stupid enough to believe it.

(I also agree with you- how someone doesn't know someone who wouldn't grab a lean pocket vs a hot pocket thinking it was healthier- seriously- I know tons of people like that- its baffling)

A great example is low fat yogurt. The commercial portrays to the consumer that choosing that yogurt over a cookie will lead to weight loss. It won't unless you control other factors. That's the point. That's where education comes in.

and no where is ANYONE saying take some personal responsibility for educating yourself. Seriously- we all figured it out- no on hand held us- or at the the least it was minimal hand holding.

At some point- you have to reach out of the box and NOT be spoon fed information- and people aren't willing to do that- why because the industry feeds them instant fixes- and they keep buying them because they are convinced an instant fix exits- it's a catch 22- and they just keep feeding into it.

Some people are not capable of recognizing that they need to reach out of the box and educate themselves. I'm not saying that we should hold their hands and yank them out. I'm saying that we need to counter the messages produced by the food industry.

why?

daydreams_of_pretty

As I have stated earlier in this thread, some people lack the intelligence and critical thinking skills necessary to question what they are told by someone whom they perceive to be an authority or expert. It might also shock you to learn that some people are bad at math and many people read at a sixth grade reading level.

These individuals still deserve the opportunity to live a long and healthy life, and as a society we should create an environment where they are exposed to a discussion that counters the misleading messages being purported by the food industry.

lemurcat12

This is exactly what I'm getting at. I personally think it would be best if we could just outright stop the inaccurate messages being presented by food/diet industry people who are trying to hype and sell a product using misleading statements. However, doing so would be incredibly difficult. If people know all of the facts and still choose to purchase the product, then that's on them. Education, or at least more public discussion, could help people make more informed decisions.

Factually inaccurate ads are already illegal.

So let's focus specifically on what you are bothered about here. As I see it, it's products that are (according to you--I'm not sure how we could objectively define this given the disagreements about nutrition) unhealthy are able to promote themselves using terms that some consumers (often poorly-informed ones) understand to mean more healthy. You are particularly bothered, it seems, by the "reduced fat" or "low fat" labels. I would add as equally stupid (although they don't really bother me) labels like "gluten free" or "extra protein" as--like the "no fat" labels you used to see on dried pasta, these are often on products that don't have gluten anyway or "extra" still means very little. Also, again, some group of badly informed consumers probably do think that gluten free or low fat is always "healthier," and that's not true (unless one is celiac, of course).

But others might have legitimate reason to care about this information, so for example I don't care if yogurt is promoted as no fat. It, factually, is no fat in those cases, and while I think full fat yogurt is healthy too, 0% is not worse for everyone and some might do better saving calories in that way. So similarly, while most "diet" products don't appeal to me, if someone wants to save some calories by subbing a low fat for high calorie dressing or the like, go for it. Now obviously check the calories, but I don't know one person in the US who doesn't understand that calorie information is on packaged food, and anyone who claims otherwise is almost certainly lying and just didn't want to know. (Or so unbelievably stupid that nutrition is really the least of their problems.)

As for names like "Lean Pocket"---that is simply a statement about the comparison with Hot Pockets, not a factual claim and if it does have less (or little) fat (I don't know, I don't eat that stuff and never have), it's true. It doesn't trump common sense, especially in a population as used to marketing as ours should be by now. Certainly I think most people are reasonably cynical about it.

I'd have more issue with stuff like "heart healthy grains" which appears to be doctor certified, but even that is based on facts of a kind, and shows the difficulty of trying to have the gov't decide what's healthy and not given the arguments (plus, probably lots of the anti sugar folks like that just fine, as well as many of the muckraking documentarians). And that's even apart from the whole argument about personal responsibility and the proper role of the government.

It is inaccurate for a company to portray their product as being the answer to someone's obesity problem when it isn't.

I don't think they do this. I don't think anyone with common sense could think that a Lean Pocket is especially healthy except perhaps in comparison with a Hot Pocket. You seem to think they do this because of the name?

Just because you don't think that people believe this doesn't mean it isn't happening. I'm actually a bit confused as to how you don't know anyone who chooses "leaner" options because they think they're healthier.

They think they are lower calorie than the regular option. For example, they think skim is lower calorie than whole milk and, indeed, it is. Does that mean it's "healthy" in general? No, the Snackwells thing is probably a good example. But the only way someone thinks some item with "no fat" is low in calories when it's not is if they intentionally don't check the calories. Lots of people don't, because they don't want to know, but IME those are different people than the ones who seek out low fat items.

Are some people still scared of fat irrationally? IMO, yes, but that's not coming from the food companies.

It like the thing with the fake butters that are full of trans fats. People were told that butter was bad and that they should switch to margarine. Even now that trans fats are constantly under attack, we still have people who think that the margarine is virtuous compared to the butter.

Agreed, but this wasn't from the food companies, and having a rule that you can't be misleading (which we already have) wouldn't help, because at the time the kinds of "experts" like those behind the dumb documentaries were on an anti fat fear campaign. All that's changed is that sugar has replaced fat.

I really don't see why you don't think that we should educate people regarding nutrition.

I'm all in favor of education. I just think that it's ridiculous to claim that people eat high calorie, low nutrition processed food because they somehow think it's health food.

I'm not saying that you can't eat as many lean pockets as your heart desires.

Not my thing, as I said before. Ugh.

A great example is low fat yogurt. The commercial portrays to the consumer that choosing that yogurt over a cookie will lead to weight loss. It won't unless you control other factors. That's the point. That's where education comes in.

I don't have a clue what commercial you are thinking of or why you think it's somehow objectionable. Should it be outlawed?

If the education that you want is (a) in schools, and (b) about calories and how weight management works, I'm all for it, but the problem is that it seems impossible to agree on even basic facts. There are apparently people here who think that kids should be taught that sugar is a highly addictive demon-food that should be feared, for example, whereas others are still anti fat, and still others think grains are as bad as sugar. And yet others think that talking to kids about weight and activity is being mean and making them feel bad.

But I'm all for education and the message "eat less, move more," for that matter. I also recall learning a little about the food groups and all that in school that was consistent with the message I got from how we ate at home. It didn't actually lead to me feeling like I understood how to control my weight until I took it upon myself to learn (and then it was easy), but I'd be fine with something like that. The fundamental problem is that our cultural reinforcement is basically gone in much of the country.

JoRocka

As I have stated earlier in this thread, some people lack the intelligence and critical thinking skills necessary to question what they are told by who they perceive to be an authority or expert. It might also shock you to learn that some people are bad at math and many people read at a sixth grade reading level.

These individuals still deserve the opportunity to live a long and healthy life, and as a society we should create an environment where they are exposed to a discussion that counters the misleading messages being purported by the food industry.

they make classes for these things- I'm not baby sitting people who suck at math unless I'm a teacher.

Crap- I'm an engineer for the state- I TOTALLY baby sit people who suck at math.

Regardless- they have to take personal responsibility for themselves- you're stripping them of that. And at some point they just have to pony up.

lemurcat12

as a society we should create an environment where they are exposed to a discussion that counters the misleading messages being purported by the food industry.

Be specific: what should "we" do, how do we decide this, who pays for it?

Commercials on TV? Saying what? "This is your brain on sugar"?

People who want to believe vastly stupid stuff pretty much always find a way, and the gov't saying something else will just be seen as reason to disbelieve and congratulate themselves for not being sheeple. Hmm, I think I've even seen that on MFP.

ThePhoenixIsRising

as a society we should create an environment where they are exposed to a discussion that counters the misleading messages being purported by the food industry.

Be specific: what should "we" do, how do we decide this, who pays for it?

Commercials on TV? Saying what? "This is your brain on sugar"?

People who want to believe vastly stupid stuff pretty much always find a way, and the gov't saying something else will just be seen as reason to disbelieve and congratulate themselves for not being sheeple. Hmm, I think I've even seen that on MFP.

I giggled more than I should have!