The conspiracy to make (and keep us) fat...

HotrodsGirl0107

The OP is wrong. There's no conspiracy to make us fat. There's a concerted effort on the part of companies to create foods people want to buy. They don't really care whether or not we get fat eating it.

I think this is equivocating. The conspiracy described by the OP is between food companies and evolution. So I don't think it is fair to assume she is talking about the 'secret plan' type of conspiracy. I think she is clearly talking the 'confluence of factors' type of conspiracy. Which is a valid usage of that word.

She is saying their goal is to make us fat, which is ridiculous. Their goal is to sell us food.

I did not read this whole thread but she did not say that in the OP.

Um... it is in the post title... plus throughout the op.

2FatToRun

Just another opportunity to not take personal responsibility for what YOU shove into YOUR piehole. Nobody is forcing you to eat these foods. It's a choice.

You are a genius *hands you a slice of turkey bacon* :drinker:

2FatToRun

Wouldnt it better serve an unknowing individual to instead teach them that the above mentioned has nothing to do with them if they had self control and were to abide by the clear labels on the packaging? Here let me shed a little more light on it.....everyone knows drugs are bad but you never hear arguments like this over them. They are abundant in my world and very very much a craving and satiating exp for me. BUt when I took responsibility for my own life I stopped using them. Do I want to use..hell yes....will I? I dont know...depends if I lose self control. If a dealer comes over and wants to give free rides in order to TRY and HOOK me again there is always the possibility I may get weak and do it. So yes avoiding these situations is key but not realistic. Self control is the only way to truly do this.

I know addicts. They avoid situations where drugs are present and consider that a key factor in their continued sobriety. They also take full responsibility when they use. You can, and should, do both. We can, and should, talk about all aspects of the obesity epidemic.

I take just as much full responsibility for using as I do for staying sober...it is never a part time action lol One side makes me feel like a complete loser the other a strong aware individual. Yes avoiding is key but like I said b4 not realistic. How about this? Go to a country or deserted island where there is no over abundance of any of products that are telling you to buy them and eat them every which way you turn. Or stay here and have self control. The result is the same...weight loss lol

holothuroidea

And I already explained the meaning of this.

The way we evolved to survive and the way food manufacturers design food in order to maximize sales conspire to make (and keep us) fat.. That is true.

But...why? Why do they want to make us fat?

Fatter people buy more food.

holothuroidea

I can't believe that people don't think that these food companies want to make us fat! Of course they do!

Fat people need more calories. Fat people eat more food. Fat people buy more food. Fatter people = higher profits.

The food industry is unique in that there are limits on its product's consumption, and that limit is the average person's stomach. You make their stomach bigger, you can move more product and make more money.

It's in their best interest for everyone to have a very large stomach. This is why they make more money selling larger sizes for only pennies more (supersize for only 10 cents!), the more we eat the more we need to eat and the more we will buy.

RingSize8

I love how conversations like this always turn into an issue of mutual exclusivity. I didn't see the original post say anything about not being personally responsible for ones own weight or health. Just because the original poster believes that companies add **** to their food to make it more enticing, doesn't necessitate that she believes that is the sole reason why people are overweight. It can't be that the original poster understands that corporations are out to make money, thus making their product as appealing as possible, no matter what the consequence, AND believes in personal responsibility, and that people do in fact have the ability to make choices about their own health and bodies? Why is this an either/or proposition? I don't think the original poster phrased it in a way that suggested mutual exclusivity (even if that was her intention), so why are so many people here responding as if she did? All of you pro McDonald's, I eat ice cream every day, blah blah blah people, good for you, you can suffer whatever consequence may or may not come from that later, but what, exactly, does that have to do with acknowledging the fact that companies use additives in their food with the specific purpose of making their food more addictive? ...the two ideas aren't in opposition.

holothuroidea

I love how conversations like this always turn into an issue of mutual exclusivity. I didn't see the original post say anything about not being personally responsible for ones own weight or health. Just because the original poster believes that companies add **** to their food to make it more enticing, doesn't necessitate that she believes that is the sole reason why people are overweight. It can't be that the original poster understands that corporations are out to make money, thus making their product as appealing as possible, no matter what the consequence, AND believes in personal responsibility, and that people do in fact have the ability to make choices about their own health and bodies? Why is this an either/or proposition? I don't think the original poster phrased it in a way that suggested mutual exclusivity (even if that was her intention), so why are so many people here responding as if she did? All of you pro McDonald's, I eat ice cream every day, blah blah blah people, good for you, you can suffer whatever consequence may or may not come from that later, but what, exactly, does that have to do with acknowledging the fact that companies use additives in their food with the specific purpose of making their food more addictive? ...the two ideas aren't in opposition.

^^^^^^yep

zubiedoobydoo

It's true that food is a business and the business goal is to profit, but also, we don't have to be so ignorant about it. People have been told their WHOLE life to eat their vegetables. So I don't think it's Big Business's job to make us healthy, it's our job to be informed then not buy the bad products. I blame HOLLYWOOD for most of our social demise because were do you see the ads that make you drool? Usually TV. And why are we watching TV? Hollywood fantasies. Hollywood misrepresents people, places and concepts and then we sit through that and sit through hours of advertising along with it. Set aside the TV and I bet half of hte fat battle in this country would be won.

When I was a kid, cable TV was something you paid for so you could watch movies with no advertising. Now you STILL pay, the ads are not only back but there are ticklers, popups, and channel pimping going on throughout your program. And, a kid can now feed on sugar while atching Nickelodeon 24 x 7 instead of PLAYING OUTSIDE like we used to do.

People have gotten lazy and quite frankly, more ignorant (the nicest word I could find). And there would be a BIG BUSINESS catering to health but quite frankly, there is not a customer base for that. If that is what we demand, believe me, the businesses will rush to meet that need. I too avoid meats as much as I can. I abhor factory farming for what it does to the animals...and what crap we are eating when you consider the anibiotics, the feed thru fly control, and the bad chemistry an animal has surging through its veins from pure frustration and boredom of being tightly confined in tehir own manure. That's not waht animals were put on this earth for.

CoachReddy

You know, I have a conspiracy theory about organic foods. Slap a label on anything that says "organic" and certain folks will gladly shell out as much money as you ask - no questions asked. Organic foodies are totes brainwashed.

QFT

Also, when the FDA changed the rules on what can be labelled as "organic," the "anointed" Kraft Foods was leading the lobby charge. They recognized a great marketing campaign when they saw it and used the force of government to get in the game.

I thought there were no conspiracies? or did that only apply to processed foods? conspiracies a-plenty when it comes to organic food!

lol

No conspiracies? Visit Washington DC sometime or view C-SPAN. I'm just saying that you are looking at the wrong place for the root cause.



ETA:The widest conspiracy yet (imo) is the demonization and subsequent prohibition of the cannabis plant.

where am I looking if not the gov't and its ties with big food corps like monsanto? please enlighten me.

Ok, you didn't carefully read what I wrote. The U.S. government is to blame for the mess we are in regarding food and health. The corporations exist because of government. They thrive because of the regulatory/bureaucratic process. Monsanto specifically is protected in legislation, especially quite recently, to the detriment of U.S. farmers and consumers.

Basically, I view the FDA/USDA/DEA as being run similiarly to cartels. I say the government deserves the brunt of the blame because they have the power to use force. Private companies do not have such power. They simply try to earn a profit no matter the market conditions.

so... we agree about all this.

you said I'm looking for conspiracy in the wrong places... but we agree... I'm really confused.

CoachReddy

Many of us have heard of the "Bliss factor". I believe it. In fact, I eat foods that are delicious and make me feel great due to high sugar and fat content. However, I take responsibility for the things I eat, and don't go hog wild and blame it on the industry. It's hard to fight it when there are high calorie foods everywhere that you just want to keep eating. But in the end, it's up to the person whether or not they'll do what the industries want.

^ This.

You can look at this two ways, IMO.

1. It's a conspiracy and "food corporations" are in cahoots with the pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and hospitals to get us sick and wring money from us.

or

2. We, as consumers, demand cheap, tasty, fattening food and the market is willing to provide it for us.

I think option #2 is much more likely.

you'd be wrong...#1 is the right answer. I know, because I work for a pharmaceuticals company. Nothing they love than sick people living longer....and the younger they get sick, so very much the better.

they want us to all live a long time with at least one chronic malady that requires pharmaceutical treatment to control. 'tis the way of capitalism.

It has *nothing* to do with capitalism. It's the regulations imposed by the progressives that gave us the mega-corporations where smaller businesses are unable to compete in an open market. These mega-corporations are chosen by government to be "the anointed ones" and protected through the regulatory process (check the board of the FDA, for starters). It is the use of force that created the current U.S. food & drug market, not freedom or capitalism.

Quite true, Wendy. The coercive Nanny State is a product of "neo-liberalism" which is anything but new and certainly not liberal in the original meaning of the word, as favoring the common man. I give you the original meaning of the term "liberal": "Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."

Our current brand of "neo-liberalism" is ill-disguised fascism. Here is Mussolini's favorite definition of fascism: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

you realize of course that liberalism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, yes?

CoachReddy

I love how conversations like this always turn into an issue of mutual exclusivity. I didn't see the original post say anything about not being personally responsible for ones own weight or health. Just because the original poster believes that companies add **** to their food to make it more enticing, doesn't necessitate that she believes that is the sole reason why people are overweight. It can't be that the original poster understands that corporations are out to make money, thus making their product as appealing as possible, no matter what the consequence, AND believes in personal responsibility, and that people do in fact have the ability to make choices about their own health and bodies? Why is this an either/or proposition? I don't think the original poster phrased it in a way that suggested mutual exclusivity (even if that was her intention), so why are so many people here responding as if she did? All of you pro McDonald's, I eat ice cream every day, blah blah blah people, good for you, you can suffer whatever consequence may or may not come from that later, but what, exactly, does that have to do with acknowledging the fact that companies use additives in their food with the specific purpose of making their food more addictive? ...the two ideas aren't in opposition.

^^^^^^yep

double yep. :flowerforyou:

Gizziemoto

Must have seen the book Salt Sugar fat.

#1 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER From a Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative reporter at The New York Times comes the explosive story of the rise of the processed food industry and its link to the emerging obesity epidemic. Michael Moss reveals how companies use salt, sugar, and fat to addict us and, more important, how we can fight back.

holothuroidea

you realize of course that liberalism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, yes?

Nope. Liberalism is opposite conservatism. Both assume moderate government power, but allocate the power differently.

The opposite of fascism would be anarchism, they're on a completely different spectrum from liberal/conservative and are more related to the amount of power invested in hierarchy.

CoachReddy

you realize of course that liberalism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, yes?

Nope. Liberalism is opposite conservatism. Both assume moderate government power, but allocate the power differently.

The opposite of fascism would be anarchism, they're on a completely different spectrum from liberal/conservative and are more related to the amount of power invested in hierarchy.

well ok if you want to get technical. but if you were putting ALL of them on one line it would go (simplifying a bit obviously):

facism::conservativism::liberalism::socialism::anarchism

my only point was that facism is closer to conservatism than liberalism.

holothuroidea

you realize of course that liberalism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, yes?

Nope. Liberalism is opposite conservatism. Both assume moderate government power, but allocate the power differently.

The opposite of fascism would be anarchism, they're on a completely different spectrum from liberal/conservative and are more related to the amount of power invested in hierarchy.

well ok if you want to get technical. but if you were putting ALL of them on one line it would go (simplifying a bit obviously):

facism::conservativism::liberalism::socialism::anarchism

my only point was that facism is closer to conservatism than liberalism.

lol, no!

You can be a liberal fascist, or a conservative anarchist but you can't be a conservative liberal or a fascist anarchist.

Wow, could we derail the thread anymore?

ldrosophila

WTF! I come back and were talking about facism! LOL do you people have jobs?

OK here's my list of fastest to slowest animal.

Cheetah:Ostrich:Horse:Bear:Human:Sloth:Slime Mold

holothuroidea

I'm an anarchist, I don't believe in "jobs."

JUDDDing

well ok if you want to get technical. but if you were putting ALL of them on one line it would go (simplifying a bit obviously):

facism::conservativism::liberalism::socialism::anarchism

my only point was that facism is closer to conservatism than liberalism.

The anarchist is right - this is amazingly wrong.

SanteMulberry

Many of us have heard of the "Bliss factor". I believe it. In fact, I eat foods that are delicious and make me feel great due to high sugar and fat content. However, I take responsibility for the things I eat, and don't go hog wild and blame it on the industry. It's hard to fight it when there are high calorie foods everywhere that you just want to keep eating. But in the end, it's up to the person whether or not they'll do what the industries want.

^ This.

You can look at this two ways, IMO.

1. It's a conspiracy and "food corporations" are in cahoots with the pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and hospitals to get us sick and wring money from us.

or

2. We, as consumers, demand cheap, tasty, fattening food and the market is willing to provide it for us.

I think option #2 is much more likely.

you'd be wrong...#1 is the right answer. I know, because I work for a pharmaceuticals company. Nothing they love than sick people living longer....and the younger they get sick, so very much the better.

they want us to all live a long time with at least one chronic malady that requires pharmaceutical treatment to control. 'tis the way of capitalism.

It has *nothing* to do with capitalism. It's the regulations imposed by the progressives that gave us the mega-corporations where smaller businesses are unable to compete in an open market. These mega-corporations are chosen by government to be "the anointed ones" and protected through the regulatory process (check the board of the FDA, for starters). It is the use of force that created the current U.S. food & drug market, not freedom or capitalism.

Quite true, Wendy. The coercive Nanny State is a product of "neo-liberalism" which is anything but new and certainly not liberal in the original meaning of the word, as favoring the common man. I give you the original meaning of the term "liberal": "Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."

Our current brand of "neo-liberalism" is ill-disguised fascism. Here is Mussolini's favorite definition of fascism: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

you realize of course that liberalism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, yes?

Well, actually Coach, I was a political science major in university---yes I do know the difference between classical liberalism (I supplied a definition) and fascism. Both socialism and mercantilism (what the world is presently embracing) go in the direction of rigid control and totalitarianism (thus we get the monstrosity of communism on one hand and fascism on the other---but they are basically "sisters under the skin" because both seek to put vast measures of control into place). Nobel prize-winning, economist Paul Samuelson observed, before he died, that China has been following a mercantilist course since it emerged as a trading powerhouse. The formerly liberal (in the classic sense as in Adam Smith "laissez-faire" capitalism) nations of the Western democracies have gotten dragged in that direction because their workers have been forced to try to compete with the trade juggernaut represented by China and other emerging nations. All of the economic strides made by the laborers are now in danger of being reversed as the wealth of the West has been drained into the coffers of the international finance/oil/multi-national corporations elite oligarchies as they have exploited laborers in China and other emerging nations---at the expense of labor in the Western democracies. (For the record, mercantilists despise labor movements and would dismantle all unions and the victories they have won over the last century.)

In the past, there were different types of mercantilism but one thing that ALL mercantilists agreed upon was the need for economic oppression of the laboring classes---farmers and laborers were to be kept "firmly in their places" at the "margins of subsistence". Adam Smith's, "The Wealth of Nations" was a major attack on the tenets of mercantilism. Smith was a devout Christian and considered mercantilism to be immoral. Too much power has been handed to the international merchants of the multi-national corporations and that, in itself, will inevitably lead toward fascism--if it is not turned around. Mercantilists always seek to enrich themselves and their trading groups at the expense of ordinary citizens. And they are always able and willing to buy influence in government to effect policies that will further enrich them.

songbyrdsweet

I can't believe that people don't think that these food companies want to make us fat! Of course they do!

Fat people need more calories. You make their stomach bigger, you can move more product and make more money.

It's in their best interest for everyone to have a very large stomach.

I don't think you understand how stomachs or metabolism work...