From: matus [matus@snet.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 9:44 PM
To: matus@snet.net
Subject: MFD List - Fighting Obesity And the Food Lobby 

All, this is from a post I sent to the Caloric Restriction Mailing list
regarding obesity and capitalism in a free society.  It starts with my
comments on the article to the list, and then the article follows.

(I dont know of *any* kind of advertisement that isnt 'inherently
deceptive and exploitative' Companies survive by providing people with what
they want.  If nobody wanted cars no amount of advertising would keep a car
company in business.  Sadly high sugar / high fat foods actually taste very
good, and people want to eat them.  Companies are not inherintly evil and
sacrificing the nations health to overfeed the populace just to make
meglomaniacal ceo's richer.  They are subscribing to simple supply and
demand economics, people actually want to do things that are not healthy for
them (shocking I know) and want to eat high fat high sugar foods that taste
good.  I certainly wouldnt even rank obesity as a 'serious threat' today, as
more than 30,000 children starve to death every day.  In a world full of
despotic non-democratic nations who rule at the expense of the oppression of
thier people, the 'problem' of obesity in comparative wealthy and well off
west is of little concern to me at the moment.  I have read of recent
studies that indicate a sedantary lifestyle is just as much at fault as high
calorie foods in americas 'obesity' problem.  I also know of no 'lobby' that
does not use  power and money to influence national policy (farm subsidies
anyone?) yet this article condemnes the 'food industry' for doing as much.
The libertarian in me can not stand by and support such policies with
justifications like "The nation cannot afford stalling, diversion and
policies with no teeth in the nutrition arena; the human toll is too great"
The same exact thing in context could be said of every risk increasing human
activity, mountain climbing, sports, acrobatics, parasailing, spelunking,
driving, riding motorcycles, etc. etc.  In all of these there is a great
human toll, yet that is the price that the freedom to choose brings with it.
The article closes with "Otherwise, profit prevails over public health and
the nation loses."  I would say it is more reasonable to say that free
choice prevails over the paternalistic nanny state.

I would prefer to see companies create alternative products which are both
good tasting and have a high nutritional content, which science and market
competition will eventually lead to.  - Mike)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15232-2002Jun7.html

Fighting Obesity And the Food Lobby

By Kelly D. Brownell and David S. Ludwig
Sunday, June 9, 2002; Page B07


Obesity in children has tripled in the past 20 years. A staggering 50
percent of adolescents in some minority populations are overweight. There is
an epidemic of type 2 (formerly "adult onset") diabetes in children. Heart
attacks may become a disease of young adults.

In response to this public health crisis, federal and state officials are
seeking ways to protect children from the ravages of poor diet and physical
inactivity. National legislation on the prevention and treatment of obesity
is being considered. California and Texas are working to remove snack foods
from schools. There are proposals for the regulation of food advertising to
children.

One big question facing those who deal with the problem is whether to fight
the food industry or work with it. The industry, of course, favors the
work-together approach. Currently, food industry lobbying groups are invited
to Agriculture Department meetings, participate in professional nutrition
conferences, and have testified before Congress on obesity legislation. A
large and powerful lobby is at work.

But before taking the cooperative approach in these matters some disturbing
parallels with tobacco should be considered.

In 1995 the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that advertising to young
children is inherently deceptive and exploitative. Yet each year the food
industry spends an estimated $10 billion to influence the eating behavior of
children.

The average child sees 10,000 food advertisements per year, 95 percent of
them for fast food, soft drinks, candy and sugared cereals -- all
high-profit and nutrition-poor products. Marketing campaigns link fast food
and soft drinks to toys, games, collectibles, movies and popular
personalities. Soft-drink companies have established lucrative contracts
with cash-strapped school districts tying financial incentives to sales.

By contrast, the entire federal budget for nutrition education is equal to
one-fifth of the advertising costs for Altoids mints. Is it any wonder that
children now consume about 15 percent of their total calories from fast
food, 10 percent from sugar-sweetened soft drinks and only half the
recommended amount of fruits and vegetables?

The obesity epidemic has many causes, but deterioration in the diet almost
certainly plays a central role. Fast food is served in massive portions,
contains highly processed carbohydrate and the worst fats (especially
"trans-fat"), and has little or no fiber. Each of these factors has been
linked to increased risk for obesity, diabetes or heart disease. Excessive
soft-drink consumption is related in scientific studies to increased calorie
intake, weight gain and obesity.

The food industry contends that more research is needed before action is
taken on regulating advertising and sales; that physical inactivity and not
specific foods should be the target for change; that parents must teach
their children to act responsibly; that vending and soft-drink machines in
schools provide freedom of choice; and that no food or company should be
demonized.

We agree on one count -- that more research on children's diets and their
health would be helpful, but the research must be conducted in a rigorous
and unbiased fashion by independent scientists.

More insidiously, the food lobby uses money and power to influence national
nutrition policy. Even the country's main professional dietetic association
has succumbed; it has a Web page on beverage choices sponsored by a grant
from the National Soft Drink Association. Legal Times reported that industry
pressure led to weakening of USDA dietary guidelines aimed at reducing
consumption of added sugar.

Versions of these tactics have been used by the tobacco industry for years.
Largely because of industry resistance, it took decades before the war on
tobacco reduced rates of smoking significantly.

The nation cannot afford stalling, diversion and policies with no teeth in
the nutrition arena; the human toll is too great. There are voices of
reason, or at least enlightened self-interest, within the food industry. But
will they prevail?

The time has come for the industry to demonstrate that it will be a
trustworthy public health ally by adopting the following policies: (1)
suspend all food advertising and marketing campaigns directed at children;
(2) remove sugar-sweetened soft drinks and snack foods from vending machines
in schools; (3) end sponsorship of scholastic activities and professional
nutrition organizations linked to product promotion; and (4) refrain from
political contributions that might influence national nutritional policy.

Otherwise, profit prevails over public health and the nation loses.

www.matus1976.com - Article archives