From: matus [matus@snet.net] Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 10:14 PM To: matus@snet.net Subject: MFD List - Conversations on Fighting obesity and the food lobby (All, these are the responses that I recieved from the caloric restriction mailing list on the article I posted and my introductory comments. Some interesting points were made, but most of the argument was with one poster, Anna, who believes whole heartely that capitalism is the evil of the world. It starts with my introduction to the article and then the comments follow. An interesting read. - Mike) "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, steel tarriffs 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 and the freedom of the individual wins. 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. I am curious what other members of the lists feeling on this subject are. Regards, Michael Dickey http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15232-2002Jun7.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- In a message dated 6/11/02 3:42:51 PM, michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com writes: << 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, >> Right. And Osama Bin Laden is going to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Anna ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- "Right. And Osama Bin Laden is going to win the Nobel Peace Prize." I am sorry, I am not following how that is a logical correlation. I seriously doubt the ~3,000 people who died in the WTC attacks would find your parallel of their tragic deaths to people choosing to eat unhealthy very humorous. Michael ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- In a message dated 6/11/02 4:15:17 PM, michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com writes: << I am not following how that is a logical correlation. I seriously doubt the ~3,000 people who died in the WTC attacks would find your parallel of their tragic deaths to people choosing to eat unhealthy very humorous. >> It's been estimated that the typical adult is exposed to 3,500 commercial ads a day. Most people subsist on shitty food, buy shitty products, and are quelled into thinking that they, too, can have a thrilling and glamorous life. Communities are falling apart, housing is disgraceful, and overall health and fitness is dismal. You can debate me about Osama and the WTC off list if you like. Don't BS me, though. Anna ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- [to mike] I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment with which you wrote this post. I just don't think anyone should be advertising anything at children especially unhealthy practices. Adults are supposed to be responsible for themselves. If they become obese it's their fault. A child is a different story. Scott ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- *SNIP* > 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. I am curious what other members of the > lists feeling on this subject are. > > Regards, > > Michael Dickey Feeling that your analysis is mostly accurate that money spent on food is not necessarily linked to calorie consumption. Some members eat enough veggies for a family of six and my cursory examination is that the most expensive foods are those containing isolated or a high percent of omega-3 PUFAs and, then, quality protein. High protein and balanced PUFAs is not the cheapest way to feed yourself. Further, the article has nothing to do with CR or ON. Not that that is your fault. And if it is not obvious (sadly to many dim bulbs it is not) the money spent on advertising has more to do with _branding_ than nutritional content. This is why Coke and Pepsi can charge a premium over store-brand cola. It is why Coke and Diet Coke cost the same despite differing calorie content. People also pay a premium for service at restaurants - not just the food. If they gave you water and hot dirt straight from the oven instead of soda and pasta, it may not appreciably affect the cost of the meal (raw cost of those foods only). Demand fine wine and salmon, then their is more money to be made selling both service and food. Note: "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." They agree on one count. Presumably disagreeing that "parents must teach their children to act responsibly"?! Disagreeing with vending machines that "provide freedom of choice"?! It is only natural that they would oppose freedom AND responsibility. The food industry is an easy target for those who prefer roasting scapegoats than promoting individual responsibility. - Joe C. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- [To anna] "It's been estimated that the typical adult is exposed to 3,500 commercial ads a day." I am still not understanding why you find this abhorrent. Considering the forced collectivized farms that despotic dictatorship communist nations typically resort to, Id prefer the barrage of ads to the 1/3 cup rice per day and threat of execution that many communist / socialist nations presented as an alternative (or outright starvation and murder, take note that despotic communist governments are responsible for nearly 170 million murders *this century*). If you find commercials aesthetically displeasing, good for you, change the channel. But others may not, its a subjective and qualitative value call, and no one persons opinion is more or less valid than other others, since by definition there is nothing objective to base it on. "Most people subsist on shitty food, buy shitty products, and are quelled into thinking that they, too, can have a thrilling and glamorous life." And they live far far better lives than the populace did as a median average 100 years ago, 500 years ago, or 1,000 years ago. As you go back in time, the harder you have to work just to stay alive increases. Even as early as 1900 some 80% of the population farmed, and only farmed. There was no art, culture, poetry, or music to pass the time, as there was no such thing as free time except for the top 1% of the population. Today less than 2% of the population farms. We may subsist on shitty food, buy shitty products, and are convinced by commercials to buy stuff we do not need, but by every account the medial average person on earth today lives better than at any time in history. We still have the longest average life expectancy despite these 'horrific' conditions we allegedly live in. "Communities are falling apart, housing is disgraceful, and overall health and fitness is dismal." My community is just fine. My housing is pretty good, I have electricity, centralized heat, hot running water, and sanitation systems. Something that less than 1% of the population had 50 years ago, and virtually none of the population had 100 years ago. Try taking a look at what people *do have* for once and compare that with what they *did have* 100 or 500 years ago. Our typical kitchen conveniences such as dish-washing machines, toasters, blenders, and food processors would have required an army of poor slave laborers only for the rich 200 years ago. Now almost all of the post industrialized west has these conveniences, and most of the industrialized nations. Even in the poorest of the poor nations, caloric intake has increased by 30% since 1960, and this is primarily because we can make food cheaper now than ever before. Its very difficult for corrupt despotic leaders to keep dirt cheap food out of the hands of its starving populace, and the cheaper it gets the harder it is too keep out of their hands. If over all health and fitness is so dismal, why do we have the longest average life expectancies than ever before in all of human history? "You can debate me about Osama and the WTC off list if you like. Don't BS me, though." I do not see what there is to debate. As a practitioner or follower of CR, you must certainly be concerned with and very much value how long you live. In that respect, I think you should take note that now more than ever we as a medial average have the longest life expectancy of humans that have ever existed. Regards, Michael Dickey ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- Many of these subjects have already been touched on in past postings but as long as we're talking about saving the world I agree with some points you make. Yes, why don't food companies make better tasting, health foods? Probably because nobody is asking them to per se. And those who are wouldn't pay the price. The abundance of fat free albeit not very healthy foods are in response to a general desire to eat healthy but the public has demonstrated weak understanding of even the most basic cause and effect connection between caloric consumption and weight gain. For any who are interested, get out your calculator and figure out what it would cost to make one of Sherm's Mega Muffins. Then compare that to the cost of say a dozen Krispy Kremes. Good food cost more than junk food... that's why it's called junk food... look at what they push as you walk in the supermarket.. high profit margin baked goods.. a few pennies of flour and sugar... It pretty much comes down to demand, which is somewhat influenced by awareness or education. I bristle at the concept that dietary guidelines intentionally undershoot out of fear that nobody would follow honest advice... Aging baby boomers if they're even thinking about it are patiently waiting for the big drug companies to come to the rescue with a youth pill... but in a pretty expensive failure they recently gave up testing a drug to stimulate growth hormone for sale as precisely that. Who wouldn't mind a little more GH? Selling soda and junk in high schools is somewhat defended by the revenues' use in supporting sport and activity programs. I believe books are still in the general budget. However state budgets are tight and getting tighter. The kids are already in a school, why not educate them? I believe there could be huge demand for CRON foods for use by the main stream for short term weight loss.. the big dollar diet industry doesn't really benefit from curing people... when they make much more money, catching them on the yo-yo. JR PS: sorry if I'm a little cynical... it's my nature ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- From: "Dickey, Michael F" > If > over all health and fitness is so dismal, why do we have the longest average > life expectancies than ever before in all of human history? Perhaps because, even though we "break" as often as ever, Doctors have gotten really good at "fixing" us? It seems to me that we could live even longer (not to mention save billions) by focusing on "routine maintanance" (i.e., preventative medicine) rather than eating ourselves into oblivion and waiting for the good doc to bail us out with another quadruple bipass. While I don't really buy into the argument that our standard of living has declined to some dismal level, overeating is definitely holding society back from where it could be. And the food industry is definitely contributing to the problem by failing to market more satiating, nutritive foods. Since I've been on CRON, I've noticed that when I have the occasional "standard American diet" snack or meal, that crap does literally nothing to fill me up. It's almost as if the body is saying, "OK, I don't even know what that stuff *is*, but you're gonna' hafta' put a lot more in me before I can derive any real nutrition out of it." Walking down the snack aisle of a local supermarket, I couldn't find a single item that didn't contain one or more the following: enriched wheat flour, sugar, and partially hydrogenated vegetable shortening. Not even Snack Wells or "Healthy" Choice! So, unless you go to a specialty store, there are *zero* choices. So, yah, we can hang on for dear life longer than we used to be able to, and not all of us live in houses that's falling apart, but the current situation hardly seems satisfactory to me! -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- In a message dated 6/11/02 5:09:40 PM, michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com writes: << My community is just fine. >> I'll bet it is. I asked you to contact me off-list. If you do not understand the relationship between global capitalism and global poverty, you have your eyes wide shut. The arguments that you are making are very upsetting and out-of-touch. Anna [of course anna responds to NONE of the points of the argument, and instead resorts to a pure emotional appeal attempting to make it looks as though I am some well off millionaire. - Mike] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- Anna wrote: > It's been estimated that the typical adult is exposed to 3,500 commercial ads > a day. Most people subsist on shitty food, buy shitty products, and are > quelled into thinking that they, too, can have a thrilling and glamorous > life. Anna, More power to you. Just take a walk in a shopping mall anywhere in America. The majority of people have mutated into obese creatures whose forms never existed on this planet, and it IS directly attributable to rampant commercialism and intentional government misinformation (e.g. the food pyramid)arising from collusion between the USDA and big agro companies. It is not at all un-American to question this phenomenon and to point out that it arises from free- marketeering run amock. I'm definitely in favor of laissez-faire capitalism - but it requires an honest government and honest oversight. In the US, states like Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa have small populations but large political representation because they each have two senators (and excessive representation in the Electoral College). No US Presidential candidate will tell you not to eat corn or soy. There's no way they could get elected. The food pyramid arises directly from the type of political representation that we have in the USA - and the resulting failure of government oversight and misinformation from the government has given us what we see in shopping malls. Ray ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- Hi all! whenever i see something abouit this topic, i have a picture of a carpenter with a saw that saws on the forward push and also on the backwards pull: forwards and backwards! Sell us all the food in huger and huger portions then sell us the Ways to reduce our overweight. then have the Drug/doctor people make lots of $$$ with all of the alments due to our overweight! then have the undertakers make also lots of $$$!!! freestone ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- I'm afraid, in the end, the undertaker's bottom line won't be affected too much no matter what we do. Scott ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- Unless he charges for the weight capacity of the casket.... JR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- From: john roberts "Many of these subjects have already been touched on in past postings but as long as we're talking about saving the world I agree with some points you make. Aging baby boomers if they're even thinking about it are patiently waiting for the big drug companies to come to the rescue with a youth pill... but in a pretty expensive failure they recently gave up testing a drug to stimulate growth hormone for sale as precisely that. Who wouldn't mind a little more GH?" ---------------- John, I agree with your comments pretty much in their entirety. Id only like to add that I think it quite fanciful and delusional to think that the entire population will ever all *want* and *choose* to eat a fit, healthy diet. The only way to reasonably enforce such an attitude in the populace is to *force* them all to eat a particular diet. Such a massive state of paternalistic and statist government would be far more terrible than the obesity caused as a consequence of the freedom of choice. I would rather live in a world where people can freely choose to eat unhealthily than one in which they are all forced to eat healthy. That being said, the only way we will see a world of fit, healthy (and happy) people is through scientific innovations like a CR pill combined with capitalistic competition of such pills or treatment. Scientific innovations that will allow people to have it both ways, satiate their desire to eat more while still staying thin and healthy. Michael ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- From: Dan Manes From: "Dickey, Michael F" > If > over all health and fitness is so dismal, why do we have the longest average > life expectancies than ever before in all of human history? "Perhaps because, even though we "break" as often as ever, Doctors have gotten really good at "fixing" us? It seems to me that we could live even longer (not to mention save billions) by focusing on "routine maintanance" (i.e., preventative medicine) rather than eating ourselves into oblivion and waiting for the good doc to bail us out with another quadruple bipass. While I don't really buy into the argument that our standard of living has declined to some dismal level, overeating is definitely holding society back from where it could be." I completely agree with you, as I just said in a previous post to John, It would be nice if everyone chose to eat a healthy diet (of their own free will) but I can not in good conscience support any notion of forcibly coercing people into eating healthy. It seems that pointing to the cost of an obese society is more a negative reflection on the fact that the public has to shoulder the cost of others who choose to eat unhealthy than the converse of the ability of people to make that choice. The consequences of diet should be adequately reflected in insurance premiums. As far as the standard of living, if you get the chance try to catch PBS 'Frontier House' where a few families moved to Montana and had to make do with 1850's technology. They spent their time laboring away, and come winter (the end of the show) they still would have all frozen / starved to death if they stayed. Imagine a similar show set in 1650, or 1150, or 150...Talk about 'survivor'. "And the food industry is definitely contributing to the problem by failing to market more satiating, nutritive foods." People, unfortunately, also do not seem to demand these foods. Whether the lack of demand is from the advertising, or the advertising is from the lack of demand, remains to be seen. I am sure a valid case could be made each way, but most people, even ones who eat unhealthy, are definitely aware of the existence of healthy alternatives. The only way people will change is if healthy low cal nutritious food is as cheap, tastes as good, and is as easily accessible as the high fat / high calorie alternatives. "So, yah, we can hang on for dear life longer than we used to be able to, and not all of us live in houses that's falling apart, but the current situation hardly seems satisfactory to me!" Indeed, but ask yourself what situation ever would truly seem satisfactory. The grass is always greener on the other said, as the saying goes. In the meantime, more and more people are living longer, healthier, and happier lives than ever before. Michael ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- From: AnnaSimone << My community is just fine. >> Fine is relative, of course. "I asked you to contact me off-list." About Osama, I have no desire nor inclination to debate *anything* about Osama. "If you do not understand the relationship between global capitalism and global poverty, you have your eyes wide shut. The arguments that you are making are very upsetting and out-of-touch. " If you do not understand the relationship between global capitalism, increased standard of living globally, and overall happier healthier longer lived people, you have your eyes wide shut, and your arguments are very upsetting and out of touch. If you wish to discuss / debate the topic further, please contact me privately, as this is OT. Regards, Michael ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- In a message dated 6/12/02 11:22:38 AM, michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com writes: << LEGAL NOTICE Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately. >> Oh, man, you've got it all down, Michael, don't you? Anna [Anna felt it necessary to criticize a rather typical corporate legal disclaimer publicly to the list. I always love intellectually stimulating debates. (sarcasm) - Mike] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- Perhaps, health insurance rates that accurately reflected risk/benefit of obesity could be a significant motivation... (I see that you mention this in a later post). JR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- From: AnnaSimone Mr. Michael F Dickey: I'm sorry, but the global standard of living has not increased. Most people in the world are poor, living off the crumbs of and destruction wrought by capitalism gone amok. You are offensive. You know nothing about the poor or their suffering. BTW, the rise of international terrorism has a direct relationship to this situation. You are shallow. Do not contact me on or off the list. Anna ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- [at this point, I attemtped to write a sincere message to Anna and sent it to her, unfortunately she blocked my email address. A classic example of a true believer who has no interest in empirically edifiying a world view a refuses to even give audience to any contradictory ideas. Instead I posted the article publicly to the list - Mike] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- (All, please accept my apologies, I had attempted to respond to this letter to Anna offline, but messages from my address have been blocked. Anna continues to respond to my posts yet insists that I do not contact her, the contents of this message are intended for her but I am unable to send the message off line. - Michael) Ms. Anna, I base my world view on empirical edification, that is, I confirm it with reality. If you define 'standard of living' and then determine adequately what percentage of the population is at what standard of living, and it is objectively shown that the continual perpetuating trend is that a higher percentage of people continually live at a lower standard of living then I would be more than happy to change my worldview. I am sorry, but the global standard of living has increased (at least according to all evidence I have been privy to). If you dispute this, I would be more than happy to learn other wise. More people are better off today than ever before (even the desolate poor liver better today than they did 1,000 years ago) The very fact that a smaller percentage of people starve to death every day than ever before is because free people are encouraged to interact amongst themselves in freely chosen manners, causing capitalistic competition to led to innovation (electricity, sanitation, running water, agriculture) and these products vital to the increase in the standard of living have become less expensive and more accessible to everyone in the world. Please tell me what I have done to offend, nothing I say is meant in an offensive manner. If you contend that I am offensive because of my worldview, I assure you I am neither a heartless person or non-compassionate person. I value people and lives very dearly, and anything that increases the overall well being of the world I support. If you can enlighten me and show me why my worldview is incorrect, I would not only welcome this, I would enthusiastically support it, as my primary concern is for global well being, not an ideological defense of capitalism. I do certainly agree that most people in the world are poor, but the percentage of 'poor' is smaller than ever, and 'poverty' as absolute wealth is higher than ever before in all of human history. Do I feel that Is enough? Not at all, I would like to see every person live at a standard of living that is even 1/10 that of the post industrialized west. But there are only three ways to accomplish this, lower the standard of living by 90% in the post-industrialized west, kill 90% of the worlds population, or raise the standard of living in the rest of the world. I am sure that you came to your own heartfelt worldview through a great quantity of deliberation and exploration, as did I. Consequently, the worldviews we have come to support are in ideological conflict, but I genuinely came to mind through compassion, intelligent rational observation, and a sincere concern for the well being of others. I can feel sure in assuming that you have done the same, yet we have come to completely different assessments of the situation. I firmly believe that there is an objective reality 'out there' and that neither of our beliefs hold any say over the way reality truly works. In that light, I am sure that one of us is wrong, the other is right, or there is some combination in the middle. I am more than willing to learn the errs of my ways, are you? And I agree that international terrorism has a direct relationship with global poverty, but those impoverished nations are artificially kept at low standards of living by the threat of force from oppressive, despotic governments. Capitalist or non-capitalist, oppressive despotic governments are horrific and responsible for 170 million murders this century. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. etc were all oppressive despotic governmental figures and murdered untold millions of people. I do not believe you know me well enough to call me shallow. Sincerely, Michael F Dickey ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- Postscript Surprisingly I never recieved a response from Anna. Other members of the list sent encouraging messages to me, including a professor of economics in Calirfornia who linked me to a paper he wrote on the subject suggesting why some many people believe this (that the world is worse off than ever before) in the face of overwhelming evidence. He also linked a paper from two members of the World Bank dealing with the primary cause of suffereing in the world being countries which have little to no law enforcement or protection of property rights or encouragement for free trade. A paper which I will write a summary on and post to the list later. A few days later, Anna posted to the list criticzing it for not being open enough to new members, at the a flurry of responses came back citing specific instances from archives where Anna was offensive and arrogant to new members. A long heartfealt post was written by another member to her trying to understand why she is so negative and insists on supporting this worldviews while criticing the list and everyone on it. The only response the poster recieved was a 'Fu#k you'. Michael