Have you seen FED UP - the documentary?

skullshank

I don't buy that the corporation has no culpability when they are willingly presenting and advertising food to consumers they know is addictive and not healthy. This idea that we are all so educated, intelligent and able to make good decisions on our food is just not realistic. Yes, we need to make good choices, but the food industry does everything in its power, including manipulating and funding studies that are pro-sugar and suppressing science that goes against it. The consumer is confused because the mega-corporations have done a marketing job so slick that the average person has no idea they are choosing bad when they pick most of these items off the shelf.

I hope more people stand up for the consumer!!

Wait, you mean no OTHER corporation does that with advertising? Like the music industry, electronic games, NFL, television companies, etc.? Should we be censoring what their advertisements as well?
People have TOTAL control of how much they want to eat. People are over weight because they consume more calories than they need. Again, these same foods are available overseas, yet the weight issues aren't the same.

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

so much this.

this is business.
i'm not going to tell you what they care most about, but don't expect it to be you.

what people do with their products is up to them.

i dont need land o lakes to tell me not to eat a pound of butter a day.
your notion lacks personal accountability, and THAT is the root of the problem.

twinkle150

For hundreds of years sugar was a luxury item...not a staple in the diet. Now the high sugar rates are being linked to a rise of diabetes and even Alzheimers.

lemurcat12

I don't buy that the corporation has no culpability when they are willingly presenting and advertising food to consumers they know is addictive and not healthy.

It's not addictive, but as far as that goes, no one is in an uproar about companies that make and sell alcohol these days.

As for "not healthy" -- who decides? Lots of things that consumers want are unhealthy if consumed in excess quantities. Yet no one blames, say, TV manufacturers for people watching too much TV.

This idea that we are all so educated, intelligent and able to make good decisions on our food is just not realistic.

Sure it's realistic. Do some people choose not to? Sure, but that's their responsibility. I, personally, would rather live in a world where I am free to make mistakes or engage in actions that some people apparently think are "unhealthy" (like eating some ice cream on occasion), then be told by the government (i.e., well-meaning people like you, who think we should hold corporations liable for selling ice cream, it seems) that I cannot make that choice.

ninerbuff

For hundreds of years sugar was a luxury item...not a staple in the diet. Now the high sugar rates are being linked to a rise of diabetes and even Alzheimers.

Diabetes isn't CAUSED by sugar if you didn't know. Diabetes is more genetic ALTHOUGH being overweight/obese directly affects risk of it. Even the ADA states that it's a link, but not the actual cause since increased weight can happen without consuming a lot of sugar.
As for Alzeihemer's, there are SO MANY other things besides sugar that it's linked to.

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

twinkle150

Its not realistic. Sugar is added to everything to make it taste better, so that you will buy it. Why to they do all the taste tests? For example, do you expect you french fries to be coated in sugar? ..probably not...but if you buy them from McDonalds or the store..they are. It make them brown up and look better. I don't know about you , but if I was making fries at home I wouldn't be coating them in sugar first. So how is the consumer supposed to know other than to avoid all processed foods?

lemurcat12

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)

Schools can have dumb policies. Plenty still allow soda, I believe, or the sale of "energy drinks" that are basically soda, so it's not surprising that somehow they've failed to cotton on to the fact that the strawberry milk isn't unlike soda, despite having some more nutrients. I wouldn't say that means sugar gets a "free pass." If it did, your particular school wouldn't allow the soda either. This says more to me about people not being particularly good at thinking things through sometimes.

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.

The same amount of skim milk (which from your post I'm assuming is the main ingredient here besides sugar and flavoring) has about 90 calories and 12 grams of sugar. I don't know what your "strawberry milk" is, but there's some Nesquick beverage that seems similar in the database. It has only 104 calories for 8 oz, plus 8 g protein and 16 g sugar. If that's it, there's only 4 more grams of sugar than in milk otherwise. Just for the record (since the sugar hysteria is such that this often seems to get lost), a substantial portion of the sugar in any milk (including all of it in normal whole, 2%, OR skim milk) is lactose.

Also, since the argument about changes over time was made, I remember both Nesquick and chocolate milk from my childhood (I'm 44), so it's not like that's a brand new thing. Soda was much less common back then, at least as a drink that parents permitted their children to have in unlimited quantities, based of course on my anecdotal experience. Is that because CocaCola has changed? Or is it because something about parenting or cultural norms have? I think the latter.

paperpudding

Sure it's realistic. Do some people choose not to? Sure, but that's their responsibility. I, personally, would rather live in a world where I am free to make mistakes or engage in actions that some people apparently think are "unhealthy" (like eating some ice cream on occasion), then be told by the government (i.e., well-meaning people like you, who think we should hold corporations liable for selling ice cream, it seems) that I cannot make that choice.

I do not agree with banning or governments or anybody telling us what we can or cannot eat - however I do beleive in informing the customer so they can make informed choices.
Thus detailed labelling on all food/drink products showing the sugar, calorie(or kiliojoule) sodium etc per 100ml/ 100g. The alcohol content per 100ml on alcoholic products.

as companies usually wont do this voluntarlly I am in favour of compulsory labelling - like we have here in Australia, in fact.

I also agree that total calorie consumption is what causes obesity - however for many people increased sugar consumption is a major factor in their over consumption of calories.

Simply cutting high sugar foods, like drinking soda or added sugar to several coffees per day and eating cakes etc - goes a long way to cutting calorie intake for many people.
Increased sugar consumption may not be directly the problem - but it isnt an isolated unconnected occurence either

RGv2

IN...to see where this is at when I get to work in the morning.

Edit: They call everything a documentary now-a-days, don't they?

twinkle150

For hundreds of years sugar was a luxury item...not a staple in the diet. Now the high sugar rates are being linked to a rise of diabetes and even Alzheimers.

Diabetes isn't CAUSED by sugar if you didn't know. Diabetes is more genetic ALTHOUGH being overweight/obese directly affects risk of it. Even the ADA states that it's a link, but not the actual cause since increased weight can happen without consuming a lot of sugar.
As for Alzeihemer's, there are SO MANY other things besides sugar that it's linked to.

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

I never said sugar CAUSES diabetes. Exactly what causes Diabetes is uncertain, although it's believed that genetic susceptibility and ENVIRONMENTAL factors play a role in the development. Diabetes is an inability to control you blood glucose levels... glucose = blood sugar... hmmmmm diets high in sugar? Hmmm

twinkle150

For hundreds of years sugar was a luxury item...not a staple in the diet. Now the high sugar rates are being linked to a rise of diabetes and even Alzheimers.

Its not realistic. Sugar is added to everything to make it taste better, so that you will buy it. Why to they do all the taste tests? For example, do you expect you french fries to be coated in sugar? ..probably not...but if you buy them from McDonalds or the store..they are. It make them brown up and look better. I don't know about you , but if I was making fries at home I wouldn't be coating them in sugar first. So how is the consumer supposed to know other than to avoid all processed foods?

Do you have any sources to support your claims?

Source: McDonalds from their Transparency Campaign

The 17 ingredients in their fries
Potatoes, canola oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, safflower oil, natural flavour (vegetable source), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (maintain colour), citric acid (preservative), dimethylpolysiloxane (antifoaming agent) and cooked in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with THBQ, citric acid and dimethylpolysiloxane) and salt (silicoaluminate, dextrose, potassium iodide).

Read More: http://www.trueactivist.com/mcdonalds-transparency-campaign-revealed-17-ingredients-in-their-french-fries

melimomTARDIS

I dont think sugar is making us fat. I think excessive calorie consumption is. I did however have both a packaged granola bar and frosted sugar cookie today, so take that for what its worth.

neanderthin

For hundreds of years sugar was a luxury item...not a staple in the diet. Now the high sugar rates are being linked to a rise of diabetes and even Alzheimers.

Its not realistic. Sugar is added to everything to make it taste better, so that you will buy it. Why to they do all the taste tests? For example, do you expect you french fries to be coated in sugar? ..probably not...but if you buy them from McDonalds or the store..they are. It make them brown up and look better. I don't know about you , but if I was making fries at home I wouldn't be coating them in sugar first. So how is the consumer supposed to know other than to avoid all processed foods?

Do you have any sources to support your claims?

Source: McDonalds from their Transparency Campaign

The 17 ingredients in their fries
Potatoes, canola oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, safflower oil, natural flavour (vegetable source), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (maintain colour), citric acid (preservative), dimethylpolysiloxane (antifoaming agent) and cooked in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with THBQ, citric acid and dimethylpolysiloxane) and salt (silicoaluminate, dextrose, potassium iodide).

Read More: http://www.trueactivist.com/mcdonalds-transparency-campaign-revealed-17-ingredients-in-their-french-fries

A blog is not a reputable or unbiased source of information. Especially not that blog.
Also, that article didn't say anything to your point of McDonald's adding sugar to their French Fries. The only thing the article mentioned was that McDonald's fries are highly processed and have several ingredients added to them to ensure product stability and uniformity. Which is kind of a "no *kitten*, Sherlock". They are a mass produced food after all.

Dextrose is a sugar. Even though they've removed partially hydrogenated oil which is a serious vehicle for trans fats they went ahead and used canola and soybean oil which contain trans fats, albeit in small quantities but still, if they really wanted to they could have chosen oils where no trace exists.

lemurcat12

Sure it's realistic. Do some people choose not to? Sure, but that's their responsibility. I, personally, would rather live in a world where I am free to make mistakes or engage in actions that some people apparently think are "unhealthy" (like eating some ice cream on occasion), then be told by the government (i.e., well-meaning people like you, who think we should hold corporations liable for selling ice cream, it seems) that I cannot make that choice.

I do not agree with banning or governments or anybody telling us what we can or cannot eat - however I do beleive in informing the customer so they can make informed choices.
Thus detailed labelling on all food/drink products showing the sugar, calorie(or kiliojoule) sodium etc per 100ml/ 100g. The alcohol content per 100ml on alcoholic products.

I am confused as to whose response this is (is the quoting screwed up?), but I'm all in favor of labeling. However, we already have this information on the labels. Is someone claiming we do not?

as companies usually wont do this voluntarlly I am in favour of compulsory labelling - like we have here in Australia, in fact.

And in the US.

I also agree that total calorie consumption is what causes obesity - however for many people increased sugar consumption is a major factor in their over consumption of calories.

Sure, but just like you have to be an idiot to not get that adding lots of butter makes something have far more calories or that deep dish pizza or a double Whopper with large fries are high in calories, people who eat lots of sugary treats know (or should know) that they are consuming lots of non-nutrient dense calories. They just don't care. Heck, I used to buy a cookie at Potbelly's (local chain that, despite the name, has reasonably low calorie options) along with my sandwich. The calorie count was right in front of me, yet I knew it would interfere with my enjoyment of the cookie, so I chose not to look. Is Potbelly's responsible for selling the cookies? Or was I? Obviously, me. And now if I on rare occasion want a cookie (or half), I choose to do so within my calories and there's nothing unhealthy about it. (Also, the actual calories in a cookie owe more to butter and then flour than sugar--it's kind of interesting to look at the actual breakdown. It's just sugar is the trendy bad guy.)

lemurcat12

I dont think sugar is making us fat. I think excessive calorie consumption is. I did however have both a packaged granola bar and frosted sugar cookie today, so take that for what its worth.

In that sugar is being blamed for obesity resulting from the eating of McD's French fries, I think you have a point.

neanderthin

Sure it's realistic. Do some people choose not to? Sure, but that's their responsibility. I, personally, would rather live in a world where I am free to make mistakes or engage in actions that some people apparently think are "unhealthy" (like eating some ice cream on occasion), then be told by the government (i.e., well-meaning people like you, who think we should hold corporations liable for selling ice cream, it seems) that I cannot make that choice.

I do not agree with banning or governments or anybody telling us what we can or cannot eat - however I do beleive in informing the customer so they can make informed choices.
Thus detailed labelling on all food/drink products showing the sugar, calorie(or kiliojoule) sodium etc per 100ml/ 100g. The alcohol content per 100ml on alcoholic products.

I am confused as to whose response this is (is the quoting screwed up?), but I'm all in favor of labeling. However, we already have this information on the labels. Is someone claiming we do not?

as companies usually wont do this voluntarlly I am in favour of compulsory labelling - like we have here in Australia, in fact.

And in the US.

I also agree that total calorie consumption is what causes obesity - however for many people increased sugar consumption is a major factor in their over consumption of calories.

Sure, but just like you have to be an idiot to not get that adding lots of butter makes something have far more calories or that deep dish pizza or a double Whopper with large fries are high in calories, people who eat lots of sugary treats know (or should know) that they are consuming lots of non-nutrient dense calories. They just don't care. Heck, I used to buy a cookie at Potbelly's (local chain that, despite the name, has reasonably low calorie options) along with my sandwich. The calorie count was right in front of me, yet I knew it would interfere with my enjoyment of the cookie, so I chose not to look. Is Potbelly's responsible for selling the cookies? Or was I? Obviously, me. And now if I on rare occasion want a cookie (or half), I choose to do so within my calories and there's nothing unhealthy about it. (Also, the actual calories in a cookie owe more to butter and then flour than sugar--it's kind of interesting to look at the actual breakdown. It's just sugar is the trendy bad guy.)

You mean since the advent of nutritional transparency people are gaining weight.:bigsmile:

SanteMulberry

As to the sugar, it baffles me to how otherwise intelligent people are taken aback when that prepared boxed meal that tastes slightly better than cardboard isn't exactly healthy whole food.

whenever someone in my office makes one of those lean cuisine-type meals, the whole building smells of MSG. it's got to be the only thing making them edible.

i know they're low in calories and convenient, but i'd much rather make my own chicken and turkey lettuce wraps. they fill me up a lot better than one of those things do.

I used to eat them back in my "low-fat" days. They were repulsive but that was when the medical establishment was preaching low-fat. I got fatter. Since I cut out added sugar and most of the "healthy whole grain" I was eating, I have lost what you see on my ticker--more or less effortlessly AND I have more energy now than I had 20 years ago. Sugar is making us fat and sick--and it is addictive (that's why they put it in everything). The food manufacturers know that adding sugar will make a product more appealing and it is a cheap filler at the same time. In 1900, the average person ate about 5 pounds of sugar per year (it was fairly expensive in those days). Today, it is estimated that the average person eats 150 pounds per year (and much of it is "hidden" in processed food). Ironically, we eat slightly less fat than they did in 1900. But, we eat a LOT more carbohydrate and much of it is in the form of sugar. The rise of obesity and Type II diabetes perfectly tracks the post-WWII rise in sugar consumption.

wonderfullymadebyhim

Oh and big corporations didn't have any influence the food pyramid, and they never gave donations to American Heart Association, and they don't send people to conferences just to heckle scientists in presentations. Get your heads out of the sand people....

Look, I have a friend who works at a large food company (I won't name here) that produces a very sweet chocolate liquid that goes into white milk to make chocolate milk quick and easy at home. He is the brand manager and relies on this job to feed his family. Once he confided in me that there is a new mandate to reduce the sugar in this drink because they know it is bad for kids and it's been marketed to children and parents as a way to include "healthy milk" into the diet. So he has to figure out how to reduce the sugar but he is facing the ethical dilemma knowing he has to up the nasty other ingredients to reduce the sugar. He doesn't want that to happen because he knows its also the wrong thing to promote kids but on the other hand, he knows if it doesn't taste sweet, the competitor's product will taste better. What to do?

Well, the reality is they will keep selling this product either way because the corporation doesn't care about your health, just the almighty dollar. Yes, you need to be informed... but the reality is you won't be as informed as you need to be because some giant corp who relies on consumer ignorance will spend whatever it takes to keep their shareholders happy.

Keep your right to choose crap... but don't care about the kid facing all the choices at the convenience store who can't decipher all the facts?

eric_sg61

Yep, the tin foil hat crowd has arrived smh