Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 I've been reading the book Food Politics by n Nestle. She is Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU. Her analysis makes me want to throw my supplements in the trash and solely eat a variety of fruit, vegetables and whole grains with the occasional protein. I was wondering if anyone else has read her and what they think. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Probably mostly correct. But, there may be important exceptions (vitamin D, selenium) among supplements. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:04:27 -0000, joelnofziger <joelnofziger@...> wrote: > > > I've been reading the book Food Politics by n Nestle. She is > Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at > NYU. > Her analysis makes me want to throw my supplements in the trash and > solely eat a variety of fruit, vegetables and whole grains with the > occasional protein. I was wondering if anyone else has read her and > what they think. > Peace, > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Nestle notes that Vitamin D can accumulate to toxic levels and is mostly synthesized from the action of sunlight. She raises good points, that we often do not know how much is too much for many vitamins/supplements, how much can be attributable to economic levels of individuals and overall diet and other variables, and that the elements of food are not completely understood. > > > > > > I've been reading the book Food Politics by n Nestle. She is > > Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at > > NYU. > > Her analysis makes me want to throw my supplements in the trash and > > solely eat a variety of fruit, vegetables and whole grains with the > > occasional protein. I was wondering if anyone else has read her and > > what they think. > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Yeah, but, most folks in the northern regions can't get enough sunlight to produce adequate vitamin D, and deficiencies are epidemic. Toxicity rarely occurs except with outrageously high doses of supplementation. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:37:39 -0000, joelnofziger <joelnofziger@...> wrote: > > > Nestle notes that Vitamin D can accumulate to toxic levels and is > mostly synthesized from the action of sunlight. > She raises good points, that we often do not know how much is too much > for many vitamins/supplements, how much can be attributable to > economic levels of individuals and overall diet and other variables, > and that the elements of food are not completely understood. > > > > > > > > > > > I've been reading the book Food Politics by n Nestle. She is > > > Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at > > > NYU. > > > Her analysis makes me want to throw my supplements in the trash and > > > solely eat a variety of fruit, vegetables and whole grains with the > > > occasional protein. I was wondering if anyone else has read her and > > > what they think. > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 okay. i am still interested if others have read the book. in addition to her discussion on supplements, nestle does an excellent job discussing how food lobbyists and, consequently, the government are so opposed to eat less messages, which is exactly what CR is about! > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been reading the book Food Politics by n Nestle. She is > > > > Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at > > > > NYU. > > > > Her analysis makes me want to throw my supplements in the trash and > > > > solely eat a variety of fruit, vegetables and whole grains with the > > > > occasional protein. I was wondering if anyone else has read her and > > > > what they think. > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 The further I get into CRON (going on 5 years now) the fewer supplements I take. I now take some calcium and the occasional fish oil pill (if I haven't eaten fish that day). You can get Vit D from fish, esp salmon and sardines and of course skim milk has Vit D added. You can get selenium from one or two Brazil nuts a day or mushrooms or fish. See: http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient & dbid=95 on 12/15/2004 1:11 PM, joelnofziger at joelnofziger@... wrote: > > okay. > i am still interested if others have read the book. in addition to her > discussion on supplements, nestle does an excellent job discussing how > food lobbyists and, consequently, the government are so opposed to eat > less messages, which is exactly what CR is about! > > >> Yeah, but, most folks in the northern regions can't get enough >> sunlight to produce adequate vitamin D, and deficiencies are epidemic. >> Toxicity rarely occurs except with outrageously high doses of >> supplementation. >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 True, one can get adequate nutrition with careful food choices, but on CR, this becomes particularly challenging. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:49:54 -0500, Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...> wrote: > > The further I get into CRON (going on 5 years now) the fewer supplements I > take. I now take some calcium and the occasional fish oil pill (if I > haven't eaten fish that day). You can get Vit D from fish, esp salmon and > sardines and of course skim milk has Vit D added. You can get selenium from > one or two Brazil nuts a day or mushrooms or fish. See: > > http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient & dbid=95 > > > on 12/15/2004 1:11 PM, joelnofziger at joelnofziger@... wrote: > > > > > okay. > > i am still interested if others have read the book. in addition to her > > discussion on supplements, nestle does an excellent job discussing how > > food lobbyists and, consequently, the government are so opposed to eat > > less messages, which is exactly what CR is about! > > > > > >> Yeah, but, most folks in the northern regions can't get enough > >> sunlight to produce adequate vitamin D, and deficiencies are epidemic. > >> Toxicity rarely occurs except with outrageously high doses of > >> supplementation. > >> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Hi : At least in my case, two other nutrients need to be added to the two you mention - add calcium and zinc. (I agree with the selenium and and vitamin D). Rodney. > > > > > > I've been reading the book Food Politics by n Nestle. She is > > Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at > > NYU. > > Her analysis makes me want to throw my supplements in the trash and > > solely eat a variety of fruit, vegetables and whole grains with the > > occasional protein. I was wondering if anyone else has read her and > > what they think. > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Fer sure, Rodney, my " list " was just an example, and beneficial supplements will vary according to the situation of the individual. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:27:56 -0000, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote: > > > Hi : > > At least in my case, two other nutrients need to be added to the two > you mention - add calcium and zinc. (I agree with the selenium and > and vitamin D). > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > I've been reading the book Food Politics by n Nestle. She is > > > Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food > Studies at > > > NYU. > > > Her analysis makes me want to throw my supplements in the trash > and > > > solely eat a variety of fruit, vegetables and whole grains with > the > > > occasional protein. I was wondering if anyone else has read her > and > > > what they think. > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Hi folks: It seems to me that it makes sense if you are taking supplements to calculate how much you are getting in comparison with the average north american intake from food. If you find, as I did, that taking 400 I.U. of vitamin E daily I would be consuming forty seven TIMES as much as the average non-supplementing american, it suggests that might be overdose. I take 400 I.U. weekly. That is 6.7 times more than someone not taking supplements, and may be too much also. Vitamin E is not the only supplement to which this type of logic applies. Rodney. > > > > > > > > > I've been reading the book Food Politics by n Nestle. She is > > > Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food > Studies at > > > NYU. > > > Her analysis makes me want to throw my supplements in the trash > and > > > solely eat a variety of fruit, vegetables and whole grains with > the > > > occasional protein. I was wondering if anyone else has read her > and > > > what they think. > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Vitamin E is a complex issue, as there are multiple forms (alpha, delta, gamma tocopherol, etc.) and both sythetic and natural variants available for supplementation. The best strategy for vitamin remains quite unclear, IMO. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:37:00 -0000, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote: > > > Hi folks: > > It seems to me that it makes sense if you are taking supplements to > calculate how much you are getting in comparison with the average > north american intake from food. If you find, as I did, that taking > 400 I.U. of vitamin E daily I would be consuming forty seven TIMES as > much as the average non-supplementing american, it suggests that > might be overdose. I take 400 I.U. weekly. That is 6.7 times more > than someone not taking supplements, and may be too much also. > > Vitamin E is not the only supplement to which this type of logic > applies. > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been reading the book Food Politics by n Nestle. She > is > > > > Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food > > Studies at > > > > NYU. > > > > Her analysis makes me want to throw my supplements in the trash > > and > > > > solely eat a variety of fruit, vegetables and whole grains with > > the > > > > occasional protein. I was wondering if anyone else has read her > > and > > > > what they think. > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 And tocotrienols! On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:54:12 -0500, Dowling <christopher.a.dowling@...> wrote: > Not to mention succinate vs. acetate forms, etc. > > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:53:32 -0500, Dowling > <christopher.a.dowling@...> wrote: > > Vitamin E is a complex issue, as there are multiple forms (alpha, > > delta, gamma tocopherol, etc.) and both sythetic and natural variants > > available for supplementation. The best strategy for vitamin remains > > quite unclear, IMO. > > > > > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:37:00 -0000, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi folks: > > > > > > It seems to me that it makes sense if you are taking supplements to > > > calculate how much you are getting in comparison with the average > > > north american intake from food. If you find, as I did, that taking > > > 400 I.U. of vitamin E daily I would be consuming forty seven TIMES as > > > much as the average non-supplementing american, it suggests that > > > might be overdose. I take 400 I.U. weekly. That is 6.7 times more > > > than someone not taking supplements, and may be too much also. > > > > > > Vitamin E is not the only supplement to which this type of logic > > > applies. > > > > > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been reading the book Food Politics by n Nestle. She > > > is > > > > > > Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food > > > > Studies at > > > > > > NYU. > > > > > > Her analysis makes me want to throw my supplements in the trash > > > > and > > > > > > solely eat a variety of fruit, vegetables and whole grains with > > > > the > > > > > > occasional protein. I was wondering if anyone else has read her > > > > and > > > > > > what they think. > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Not to mention succinate vs. acetate forms, etc. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:53:32 -0500, Dowling <christopher.a.dowling@...> wrote: > Vitamin E is a complex issue, as there are multiple forms (alpha, > delta, gamma tocopherol, etc.) and both sythetic and natural variants > available for supplementation. The best strategy for vitamin remains > quite unclear, IMO. > > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:37:00 -0000, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote: > > > > > > Hi folks: > > > > It seems to me that it makes sense if you are taking supplements to > > calculate how much you are getting in comparison with the average > > north american intake from food. If you find, as I did, that taking > > 400 I.U. of vitamin E daily I would be consuming forty seven TIMES as > > much as the average non-supplementing american, it suggests that > > might be overdose. I take 400 I.U. weekly. That is 6.7 times more > > than someone not taking supplements, and may be too much also. > > > > Vitamin E is not the only supplement to which this type of logic > > applies. > > > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been reading the book Food Politics by n Nestle. She > > is > > > > > Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food > > > Studies at > > > > > NYU. > > > > > Her analysis makes me want to throw my supplements in the trash > > > and > > > > > solely eat a variety of fruit, vegetables and whole grains with > > > the > > > > > occasional protein. I was wondering if anyone else has read her > > > and > > > > > what they think. > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 > > I've been reading the book Food Politics by n Nestle. She is > Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at > NYU. > Her analysis makes me want to throw my supplements in the trash and > solely eat a variety of fruit, vegetables and whole grains with the > occasional protein. I was wondering if anyone else has read her and > what they think. > Peace, > Hi All, The below on food politics hits our CRON home, I believe. Please see: http://tinyurl.com/5ftkp I enjoyed the paragraph: " People may believe that the effects of diet on chronic disease are less important than those of cigarette smoking, but each contributes to about one-fifth of annual deaths in the United States. Addressing cigarette smoking requires only a single change in behavior: Don't smoke. But because people must eat to survive, advice about dietary improvements is much more complicated: Eat this food instead of that food, or eat less. As this book explains, the " eat less " message is at the root of much of the controversy over nutrition advice. It directly conflicts with food industry demands that people eat more of their products. Thus food companies work hard to oppose and undermine " eat less " messages. " Food Politics by n Nestle How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health The Food Industry and " Eat More " This book is about how the food industry influences what we eat and, therefore, our health. That diet affects health is beyond question. The food industry has given us a food supply so plentiful, so varied, so inexpensive, and so devoid of dependence on geography or season that all but the very poorest of Americans can obtain enough energy and nutrients to meet biological needs. Indeed, the U.S. food supply is so abundant that it contains enough to feed everyone in the country nearly twice over-even after exports are considered. The overly abundant food supply, combined with a society so affluent that most people can afford to buy more food than they need, sets the stage for competition. The food industry must compete fiercely for every dollar spent on food, and food companies expend extraordinary resources to develop and market products that will sell, regardless of their effect on nutritional status or waistlines. To satisfy stockholders, food companies must convince people to eat more of their products or to eat their products instead of those of competitors. They do so through advertising and public relations, of course, but also by working tirelessly to convince government officials, nutrition professionals, and the media that their products promote health-or at least do no harm. Much of this work is a virtually invisible part of contemporary culture that attracts only occasional notice. This book exposes the ways in which food companies use political processes-entirely conventional and nearly always legal-to obtain government and professional support for the sale of their products. Its twofold purpose is to illuminate the extent to which the food industry determines what people eat and to generate much wider discussion of the food industry's marketing methods and use of the political system. In my 25 years as a nutrition educator, I have found that food industry practices are discussed only rarely. The reasons for this omission are not difficult to understand. Most of us believe that we choose foods for reasons of personal taste, convenience, and cost; we deny that we can be manipulated by advertising or other marketing practices. Nutrition scientists and practitioners typically believe that food companies are genuinely interested in improving health. They think it makes sense to work with the industry to help people improve their diets, and most are outraged by suggestions that food industry sponsorship of research or programs might influence what they do or say. Most food company officials maintain that any food product can be included in a balanced, varied, and moderate diet; they say that their companies are helping to promote good health when they fund the activities of nutrition professionals. Most officials of federal agriculture and health agencies understand that their units are headed by political appointees whose concerns reflect those of the political party in power and whose actions must be acceptable to Congress. Members of Congress, in turn, must be sensitive to the concerns of corporations that help fund their campaigns. In this political system, the actions of food companies are normal, legal, and thoroughly analogous to the workings of any other major industry-tobacco, for example-in influencing health experts, federal agencies, and Congress. Promoting food raises more complicated issues than promoting tobacco, however, in that food is required for life and causes problems only when consumed inappropriately. As this book will demonstrate, the primary mission of food companies, like that of tobacco companies, is to sell products. Food companies are not health or social service agencies, and nutrition becomes a factor in corporate thinking only when it can help sell food. The ethical choices involved in such thinking are considered all too rarely. Early in the twentieth century, when the principal causes of death and disability among Americans were infectious diseases related in part to inadequate intake of calories and nutrients, the goals of health officials, nutritionists, and the food industry were identical- to encourage people to eat more of all kinds of food. Throughout that century, improvements in the U.S. economy affected the way we eat in important ways: We obtained access to foods of greater variety, our diets improved, and nutrient deficiencies gradually declined. The principal nutritional problems among Americans shifted to those of overnutrition-eating too much food or too much of certain kinds of food. Overeating causes its own set of health problems; it deranges metabolism, makes people overweight, and increases the likelihood of " chronic " diseases-coronary heart disease, certain cancers, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, and others-that now are leading causes of illness and death in any overfed population. People may believe that the effects of diet on chronic disease are less important than those of cigarette smoking, but each contributes to about one-fifth of annual deaths in the United States. Addressing cigarette smoking requires only a single change in behavior: Don't smoke. But because people must eat to survive, advice about dietary improvements is much more complicated: Eat this food instead of that food, or eat less. As this book explains, the " eat less " message is at the root of much of the controversy over nutrition advice. It directly conflicts with food industry demands that people eat more of their products. Thus food companies work hard to oppose and undermine " eat less " messages. I first became aware of the food industry as an influence on government nutrition policies and on the opinions of nutrition experts when I moved to Washington, DC, in 1986 to work for the Public Health Service. My job was to manage the editorial production of the first-and as yet only-Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health, which appeared as a 700-page book in the summer of 1988. This report was an ambitious government effort to summarize the entire body of research linking dietary factors such as fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, salt, sugar, and alcohol to leading chronic diseases. My first day on the job, I was given the rules: No matter what the research indicated, the report could not recommend " eat less meat " as a way to reduce intake of saturated fat, nor could it suggest restrictions on intake of any other category of food. In the industry-friendly climate of the Reagan administration, the producers of foods that might be affected by such advice would complain to their beneficiaries in Congress, and the report would never be published. This scenario was no paranoid fantasy; federal health officials had endured a decade of almost constant congressional interference with their dietary recommendations. As I discuss in Part I, agency officials had learned to avoid such interference by resorting to euphemisms, focusing recommendations on nutrients rather than on the foods that contain them, and giving a positive spin to any restrictive advice about food. Whereas " eat less beef " called the industry to arms, " eat less saturated fat " did not. " Eat less sugar " sent sugar producers right to Congress, but that industry could live with " choose a diet moderate in sugar. " When released in 1988, the Surgeon General's Report recommended " choose lean meats " and suggested limitations on sugar intake only for people particularly vulnerable to dental cavities. Subsequent disputes have only reinforced sensitivities to political expediency when formulating advice about diet and health. Political expediency explains in part why no subsequent Surgeon General's Report has appeared, even though Congress passed a law in 1990 requiring that one be issued biannually. After ten years of working to develop a Surgeon General's Report on Dietary Fat and Health-surely needed to help people understand the endless debates about the relative health consequences of eating saturated, monounsaturated, trans-saturated, and total fat-the government abandoned the project, ostensibly because the science base had become increasingly complex and equivocal. A more compelling reason must have been lack of interest in completing such a report in the election year of 2000. Authoritative recommendations about fat intake would have had to include some " eat less " advice if for no other reason than because fat is so concentrated in calories-it contains 9 calories per gram, compared to 4 each for protein or carbohydrate-and obesity is a major health concern. Because saturated fat and trans- saturated fat raise risks for heart disease, and the principal sources of such fats in American diets are meat, dairy, cooking fats, and fried, fast, and processed foods, " eat less " advice would provoke the producers and sellers of these foods to complain to their friends in Congress. Since 1988, in my role as chair of an academic department of nutrition, a member of federal advisory committees, a speaker at public and professional meetings, a frequent commentator on nutrition issues to the press, and (on occasion) a consultant to food companies, I have become increasingly convinced that many of the nutritional problems of Americans-not least of them obesity-can be traced to the food industry's imperative to encourage people to eat more in order to generate sales and increase income in a highly competitive marketplace. Ambiguous dietary advice is only one result of this imperative. As I explain in Part II, the industry also devotes enormous financial and other resources to lobbying Congress and federal agencies, forming partnerships and alliances with professional nutrition organizations, funding research on food and nutrition, publicizing the results of selected research studies favorable to industry, sponsoring professional journals and conferences, and making sure that influential groups-federal officials, researchers, doctors, nurses, school teachers, and the media-are aware of the benefits of their products. Later sections of the book describe the ways in which such actions affect food issues of particular public interest and debate. Part III reviews the most egregious example of food company marketing practices: the deliberate use of young children as sales targets and the conversion of schools into vehicles for selling " junk " foods high in calories but low in nutritional value. Part IV explains how the supplement industry manipulated the political process to achieve a sales environment virtually free of government oversight of the content, safety, and advertising claims for its products. In Part V, I describe how the food industry markets " junk " foods as health foods by adding nutrients and calling them " functional " foods or " nutraceuticals. " The concluding chapter summarizes the significance of the issues raised by these examples and offers some options for choosing a healthful diet in an overabundant food system. Finally, the Appendix introduces some terms and concepts used in the field of nutrition and discusses issues that help explain why nutrition research is so controversial and so often misunderstood. Before plunging into these accounts, some context may prove useful. This introduction addresses the principal questions that bear on the matters discussed in this book: What are we supposed to eat to stay healthy? Does diet really matter? Is there a significant gap between what we are supposed to eat and what we do eat? The answers to these questions constitute a basis for examining the central concern of this book: Does the food industry have anything to do with poor dietary practices? As a background for addressing that question, this introduction provides some fundamental facts about today's food industry and its marketing philosophies and strategies, and also points to some common themes that appear throughout the book. Cheers, Al Pater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 Hi Al: Thanks for that link and text. It is easy to agree with pretty much all of the text posted, in isolation, as it was stated. I certainly do, and I imagine most of us here do also. But behind it all is a fundamental assumption, which for me disqualifies Nestle's entire thesis. The assumption seems to be that never, in any circumstances, should any individual ever be required to make any effort to determine for him/her self what and how much they should eat (or smoke, or drink, or whatever else, for that matter) to be healthy. Someone else apparently, often the government, but perhaps more accurately EVERYONE BUT THEMSELVES, is supposed to do it for them. In this particular case under discussion the blame is placed squarely on the food companies. They are supposed to put only the very healthiest ingredients in their foods even when/if their competitors are selling junk and the consumers (all brainless sheep apparently) prefer to eat the junk instead and let the company marketing healthy food go broke from lack of sales. A nice utopian dream perhaps, but ridiculous in the real world. Let's be unambiguously clear about this. Companies in pretty much any industry (monopolies excepted) survive only when they search endlessly for what their customers want to buy (i.e. what customers demonstrate they want, by buying it when it is made available) and find a way to produce it and sell it to them profitably at a price the customer finds attractive. The products that are available for sale, are on the shelves because that is what people buy, and they are available in proportion to the amount bought. [The products that remain in existence today are those that consumers have shown they want by buying them in the stores. Ninety percent of new products developed and marketed fail, and no longer exist after a year or two. We had a discussion/argument here a few months ago when one poster complained that there was such a poor selection of whole grain bread available in his neighbourhood. He imagined that eveyone was just itching to buy the stuff and no one was prepared to produce it. The bald fact is that if that were the case the company that did produce this supposedly hugely profitable product would put the competition out of business in no time! The quantity of any product on the shelves of stores very closely reflects the amount of it that is bought. If there isn't much shelf space for it, it is because not many people buy it. That is the way supermarkets must operate in the highly competitive business they are in. They would soon be broke if they didn't.] As usual (as always?) there is the implicit presumption that individuals do not have, and apparently should not be expected to have, any responsibility whatever for their own health. It is always someone else's fault that they continue to stuff their faces until they weigh 300 pounds or more, of foods anyone who took thirty minutes in a library would know are not healthy to eat. Worse, they care so little about their kids, that they will not even make the effort to feed healthy amounts of healthy foods to them either. This total lack of interest in health was clearly underlined when, when a major article appeared in the major DC newspaper a few months ago which provided the website address of , of the millions of people across the nation who must have seen the article, or read the headline, only a few hundred bothered to check us out. ***** THE VAST MAJORITY SIMPLY DO NOT CARE ***** and the author of this piece, Nestle, is just another in a long list of people who are trying to find yet another way to shift the blame for the poor diet and poor health of the population away from those who are truly responsible - the people themselves. The psychology involved here is beyond my comprehension. ---- This evening I was at a party with some friends in an all-you-can-eat restaurant. I ate all I could (didn't eat much yesterday or today in anticipation, will not eat much tomorrow either) of the healthiest foods available - lots of them. I had given a copy of 'Beyond' to the hosts a few months ago. I had attached a short, half page, hand- written introduction that they could not have missed, listing Walford's credentials, summarizing the CVD risk factor data from the WUSTL study, and the mice cancer data. This is a book they REALLY NEED to read. These are two highly intelligent people, with a lot of serious degrees to their credit. Had they read it? Of course the answer is NO. I sit here shaking my head. The woman across the table (another guest) was stuffing herself full of three plates of desserts. None of the contents of which I would touch with a ten foot pole. At the same time she was telling me that her systolic blood pressure was over 200 (seriously, that is what she said). I told her that my systolic blood pressure had fallen about one point for each pound of weight I had lost lately (she wouldn't be slim if she lost 60 pounds). Will this information have any effect? Almost certainly not, even though she surely must realize that she is in danger of keeling over dead on the sidewalk tomorrow or, if she is very lucky, next month. ISN'T IT ABOUT TIME AUTHORS STARTED UNEQUIVOCALLY ASSIGNING BLAME WHERE IT OUGHT TO BE PLACED? --------- This ( ) is an incredibly refreshing place to spend a little time each day - a tiny island of sanity in a great ocean of _______ (you fill in the blank) ....... [Just like the ferry across Lake Titicaca, but that is another story!]. This place is refreshing because the only people who would want to spend time here are those who have enough get-up-and-go to be interested in making a little effort to preserve their health, and life. Evidently we are a microscopically small percentage of the population. Suits me. And given what I have seen of the other 99.99% I see no reason to suppose that any effort I make will have any beneficial effect on others, except in the very rarest of cases. is here for those who are interested. Thanks folks for being here, sharing so much great information and making it such a wonderful place. Rodney. > > > > I've been reading the book Food Politics by n Nestle. She is > > Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies > at > > NYU. > > Her analysis makes me want to throw my supplements in the trash and > > solely eat a variety of fruit, vegetables and whole grains with the > > occasional protein. I was wondering if anyone else has read her and > > what they think. > > Peace, > > > > Hi All, > > The below on food politics hits our CRON home, > I believe. > > Please see: > > http://tinyurl.com/5ftkp > > I enjoyed the paragraph: > > " People may believe that the effects of diet on chronic disease > are less important than those of cigarette smoking, but each > contributes to about one-fifth of annual deaths in the United States. > Addressing cigarette smoking requires only a single change in > behavior: Don't smoke. But because people must eat to survive, advice > about dietary improvements is much more complicated: Eat this food > instead of that food, or eat less. As this book explains, the " eat > less " message is at the root of much of the controversy over > nutrition advice. It directly conflicts with food industry demands > that people eat more of their products. Thus food companies work hard > to oppose and undermine " eat less " messages. " > > Food Politics by n Nestle > > How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health > > The Food Industry and " Eat More " > > This book is about how the food industry influences what we eat > and, therefore, our health. That diet affects health is beyond > question. The food industry has given us a food supply so plentiful, > so varied, so inexpensive, and so devoid of dependence on geography > or season that all but the very poorest of Americans can obtain > enough energy and nutrients to meet biological needs. Indeed, the > U.S. food supply is so abundant that it contains enough to feed > everyone in the country nearly twice over-even after exports are > considered. The overly abundant food supply, combined with a society > so affluent that most people can afford to buy more food than they > need, sets the stage for competition. The food industry must compete > fiercely for every dollar spent on food, and food companies expend > extraordinary resources to develop and market products that will > sell, regardless of their effect on nutritional status or waistlines. > To satisfy stockholders, food companies must convince people to eat > more of their products or to eat their products instead of those of > competitors. They do so through advertising and public relations, of > course, but also by working tirelessly to convince government > officials, nutrition professionals, and the media that their products > promote health-or at least do no harm. Much of this work is a > virtually invisible part of contemporary culture that attracts only > occasional notice. > > This book exposes the ways in which food companies use political > processes-entirely conventional and nearly always legal-to obtain > government and professional support for the sale of their products. > Its twofold purpose is to illuminate the extent to which the food > industry determines what people eat and to generate much wider > discussion of the food industry's marketing methods and use of the > political system. > > In my 25 years as a nutrition educator, I have found that food > industry practices are discussed only rarely. The reasons for this > omission are not difficult to understand. Most of us believe that we > choose foods for reasons of personal taste, convenience, and cost; we > deny that we can be manipulated by advertising or other marketing > practices. Nutrition scientists and practitioners typically believe > that food companies are genuinely interested in improving health. > They think it makes sense to work with the industry to help people > improve their diets, and most are outraged by suggestions that food > industry sponsorship of research or programs might influence what > they do or say. Most food company officials maintain that any food > product can be included in a balanced, varied, and moderate diet; > they say that their companies are helping to promote good health when > they fund the activities of nutrition professionals. Most officials > of federal agriculture and health agencies understand that their > units are > headed by political appointees whose concerns reflect those of the > political party in power and whose actions must be acceptable to > Congress. Members of Congress, in turn, must be sensitive to the > concerns of corporations that help fund their campaigns. > > In this political system, the actions of food companies are > normal, legal, and thoroughly analogous to the workings of any other > major industry-tobacco, for example-in influencing health experts, > federal agencies, and Congress. Promoting food raises more > complicated issues than promoting tobacco, however, in that food is > required for life and causes problems only when consumed > inappropriately. As this book will demonstrate, the primary mission > of food companies, like that of tobacco companies, is to sell > products. Food companies are not health or social service agencies, > and nutrition becomes a factor in corporate thinking only when it can > help sell food. The ethical choices involved in such thinking are > considered all too rarely. > > Early in the twentieth century, when the principal causes of death > and disability among Americans were infectious diseases related in > part to inadequate intake of calories and nutrients, the goals of > health officials, nutritionists, and the food industry were identical- > to encourage people to eat more of all kinds of food. Throughout that > century, improvements in the U.S. economy affected the way we eat in > important ways: We obtained access to foods of greater variety, our > diets improved, and nutrient deficiencies gradually declined. The > principal nutritional problems among Americans shifted to those of > overnutrition-eating too much food or too much of certain kinds of > food. Overeating causes its own set of health problems; it deranges > metabolism, makes people overweight, and increases the likelihood > of " chronic " diseases-coronary heart disease, certain cancers, > diabetes, hypertension, stroke, and others-that now are leading > causes of illness and death in any overfed population. > > People may believe that the effects of diet on chronic disease are > less important than those of cigarette smoking, but each contributes > to about one-fifth of annual deaths in the United States. Addressing > cigarette smoking requires only a single change in behavior: Don't > smoke. But because people must eat to survive, advice about dietary > improvements is much more complicated: Eat this food instead of that > food, or eat less. As this book explains, the " eat less " message is > at the root of much of the controversy over nutrition advice. It > directly conflicts with food industry demands that people eat more of > their products. Thus food companies work hard to oppose and > undermine " eat less " messages. > > I first became aware of the food industry as an influence on > government nutrition policies and on the opinions of nutrition > experts when I moved to Washington, DC, in 1986 to work for the > Public Health Service. My job was to manage the editorial production > of the first-and as yet only-Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition > and Health, which appeared as a 700-page book in the summer of 1988. > This report was an ambitious government effort to summarize the > entire body of research linking dietary factors such as fat, > saturated fat, cholesterol, salt, sugar, and alcohol to leading > chronic diseases. My first day on the job, I was given the rules: No > matter what the research indicated, the report could not > recommend " eat less meat " as a way to reduce intake of saturated fat, > nor could it suggest restrictions on intake of any other category of > food. In the industry-friendly climate of the Reagan administration, > the producers of foods that might be affected by such advice would > complain to their beneficiaries in Congress, and the report would > never be published. > > This scenario was no paranoid fantasy; federal health officials > had endured a decade of almost constant congressional interference > with their dietary recommendations. As I discuss in Part I, agency > officials had learned to avoid such interference by resorting to > euphemisms, focusing recommendations on nutrients rather than on the > foods that contain them, and giving a positive spin to any > restrictive advice about food. Whereas " eat less beef " called the > industry to arms, " eat less saturated fat " did not. " Eat less sugar " > sent sugar producers right to Congress, but that industry could live > with " choose a diet moderate in sugar. " When released in 1988, the > Surgeon General's Report recommended " choose lean meats " and > suggested limitations on sugar intake only for people particularly > vulnerable to dental cavities. > > Subsequent disputes have only reinforced sensitivities to > political expediency when formulating advice about diet and health. > Political expediency explains in part why no subsequent Surgeon > General's Report has appeared, even though Congress passed a law in > 1990 requiring that one be issued biannually. After ten years of > working to develop a Surgeon General's Report on Dietary Fat and > Health-surely needed to help people understand the endless debates > about the relative health consequences of eating saturated, > monounsaturated, trans-saturated, and total fat-the government > abandoned the project, ostensibly because the science base had become > increasingly complex and equivocal. A more compelling reason must > have been lack of interest in completing such a report in the > election year of 2000. Authoritative recommendations about fat intake > would have had to include some " eat less " advice if for no other > reason than because fat is so concentrated in calories-it contains 9 > calories per gram, compared to 4 each for protein or carbohydrate- and > obesity is a major health concern. Because saturated fat and trans- > saturated fat raise risks for heart disease, and the principal > sources of such fats in American diets are meat, dairy, cooking fats, > and fried, fast, and processed foods, " eat less " advice would provoke > the producers and sellers of these foods to complain to their friends > in Congress. > > Since 1988, in my role as chair of an academic department of > nutrition, a member of federal advisory committees, a speaker at > public and professional meetings, a frequent commentator on nutrition > issues to the press, and (on occasion) a consultant to food > companies, I have become increasingly convinced that many of the > nutritional problems of Americans-not least of them obesity-can be > traced to the food industry's imperative to encourage people to eat > more in order to generate sales and increase income in a highly > competitive marketplace. Ambiguous dietary advice is only one result > of this imperative. As I explain in Part II, the industry also > devotes enormous financial and other resources to lobbying Congress > and federal agencies, forming partnerships and alliances with > professional nutrition organizations, funding research on food and > nutrition, publicizing the results of selected research studies > favorable to industry, sponsoring professional journals and > conferences, and making sure that influential groups-federal > officials, researchers, doctors, nurses, school teachers, and the > media-are aware of the benefits of their products. > > Later sections of the book describe the ways in which such actions > affect food issues of particular public interest and debate. Part III > reviews the most egregious example of food company marketing > practices: the deliberate use of young children as sales targets and > the conversion of schools into vehicles for selling " junk " foods high > in calories but low in nutritional value. Part IV explains how the > supplement industry manipulated the political process to achieve a > sales environment virtually free of government oversight of the > content, safety, and advertising claims for its products. In Part V, > I describe how the food industry markets " junk " foods as health foods > by adding nutrients and calling them " functional " foods > or " nutraceuticals. " The concluding chapter summarizes the > significance of the issues raised by these examples and offers some > options for choosing a healthful diet in an overabundant food system. > Finally, the Appendix introduces some terms and concepts used in the > field of nutrition and discusses issues that help explain why > nutrition research is so controversial and so often misunderstood. > > Before plunging into these accounts, some context may prove > useful. This introduction addresses the principal questions that bear > on the matters discussed in this book: What are we supposed to eat to > stay healthy? Does diet really matter? Is there a significant gap > between what we are supposed to eat and what we do eat? The answers > to these questions constitute a basis for examining the central > concern of this book: Does the food industry have anything to do with > poor dietary practices? As a background for addressing that question, > this introduction provides some fundamental facts about today's food > industry and its marketing philosophies and strategies, and also > points to some common themes that appear throughout the book. > > Cheers, Al Pater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 Many thanks! very nice post! My friends I tell, give them good books and science, they not care. They not listen they say I am bore so i quit telling. They eat all fast food, no good food. Very sad they don't think they do to their health. It their lives, they decide, not me I agree, this very good place, thank you! Long life to all! > > > > > > I've been reading the book Food Politics by n Nestle. She is > > > Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food > Studies > > at > > > NYU. > > > Her analysis makes me want to throw my supplements in the trash > and > > > solely eat a variety of fruit, vegetables and whole grains with > the > > > occasional protein. I was wondering if anyone else has read her > and > > > what they think. > > > Peace, > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > The below on food politics hits our CRON home, > > I believe. > > > > Please see: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/5ftkp > > > > I enjoyed the paragraph: > > > > " People may believe that the effects of diet on chronic disease > > are less important than those of cigarette smoking, but each > > contributes to about one-fifth of annual deaths in the United > States. > > Addressing cigarette smoking requires only a single change in > > behavior: Don't smoke. But because people must eat to survive, > advice > > about dietary improvements is much more complicated: Eat this food > > instead of that food, or eat less. As this book explains, the " eat > > less " message is at the root of much of the controversy over > > nutrition advice. It directly conflicts with food industry demands > > that people eat more of their products. Thus food companies work > hard > > to oppose and undermine " eat less " messages. " > > > > Food Politics by n Nestle > > > > How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health > > > > The Food Industry and " Eat More " > > > > This book is about how the food industry influences what we eat > > and, therefore, our health. That diet affects health is beyond > > question. The food industry has given us a food supply so > plentiful, > > so varied, so inexpensive, and so devoid of dependence on geography > > or season that all but the very poorest of Americans can obtain > > enough energy and nutrients to meet biological needs. Indeed, the > > U.S. food supply is so abundant that it contains enough to feed > > everyone in the country nearly twice over-even after exports are > > considered. The overly abundant food supply, combined with a > society > > so affluent that most people can afford to buy more food than they > > need, sets the stage for competition. The food industry must > compete > > fiercely for every dollar spent on food, and food companies expend > > extraordinary resources to develop and market products that will > > sell, regardless of their effect on nutritional status or > waistlines. > > To satisfy stockholders, food companies must convince people to eat > > more of their products or to eat their products instead of those of > > competitors. They do so through advertising and public relations, > of > > course, but also by working tirelessly to convince government > > officials, nutrition professionals, and the media that their > products > > promote health-or at least do no harm. Much of this work is a > > virtually invisible part of contemporary culture that attracts only > > occasional notice. > > > > This book exposes the ways in which food companies use political > > processes-entirely conventional and nearly always legal-to obtain > > government and professional support for the sale of their products. > > Its twofold purpose is to illuminate the extent to which the food > > industry determines what people eat and to generate much wider > > discussion of the food industry's marketing methods and use of the > > political system. > > > > In my 25 years as a nutrition educator, I have found that food > > industry practices are discussed only rarely. The reasons for this > > omission are not difficult to understand. Most of us believe that > we > > choose foods for reasons of personal taste, convenience, and cost; > we > > deny that we can be manipulated by advertising or other marketing > > practices. Nutrition scientists and practitioners typically believe > > that food companies are genuinely interested in improving health. > > They think it makes sense to work with the industry to help people > > improve their diets, and most are outraged by suggestions that food > > industry sponsorship of research or programs might influence what > > they do or say. Most food company officials maintain that any food > > product can be included in a balanced, varied, and moderate diet; > > they say that their companies are helping to promote good health > when > > they fund the activities of nutrition professionals. Most officials > > of federal agriculture and health agencies understand that their > > units are > > headed by political appointees whose concerns reflect those of the > > political party in power and whose actions must be acceptable to > > Congress. Members of Congress, in turn, must be sensitive to the > > concerns of corporations that help fund their campaigns. > > > > In this political system, the actions of food companies are > > normal, legal, and thoroughly analogous to the workings of any > other > > major industry-tobacco, for example-in influencing health experts, > > federal agencies, and Congress. Promoting food raises more > > complicated issues than promoting tobacco, however, in that food is > > required for life and causes problems only when consumed > > inappropriately. As this book will demonstrate, the primary mission > > of food companies, like that of tobacco companies, is to sell > > products. Food companies are not health or social service agencies, > > and nutrition becomes a factor in corporate thinking only when it > can > > help sell food. The ethical choices involved in such thinking are > > considered all too rarely. > > > > Early in the twentieth century, when the principal causes of > death > > and disability among Americans were infectious diseases related in > > part to inadequate intake of calories and nutrients, the goals of > > health officials, nutritionists, and the food industry were > identical- > > to encourage people to eat more of all kinds of food. Throughout > that > > century, improvements in the U.S. economy affected the way we eat > in > > important ways: We obtained access to foods of greater variety, our > > diets improved, and nutrient deficiencies gradually declined. The > > principal nutritional problems among Americans shifted to those of > > overnutrition-eating too much food or too much of certain kinds of > > food. Overeating causes its own set of health problems; it deranges > > metabolism, makes people overweight, and increases the likelihood > > of " chronic " diseases-coronary heart disease, certain cancers, > > diabetes, hypertension, stroke, and others-that now are leading > > causes of illness and death in any overfed population. > > > > People may believe that the effects of diet on chronic disease > are > > less important than those of cigarette smoking, but each > contributes > > to about one-fifth of annual deaths in the United States. > Addressing > > cigarette smoking requires only a single change in behavior: Don't > > smoke. But because people must eat to survive, advice about dietary > > improvements is much more complicated: Eat this food instead of > that > > food, or eat less. As this book explains, the " eat less " message is > > at the root of much of the controversy over nutrition advice. It > > directly conflicts with food industry demands that people eat more > of > > their products. Thus food companies work hard to oppose and > > undermine " eat less " messages. > > > > I first became aware of the food industry as an influence on > > government nutrition policies and on the opinions of nutrition > > experts when I moved to Washington, DC, in 1986 to work for the > > Public Health Service. My job was to manage the editorial > production > > of the first-and as yet only-Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition > > and Health, which appeared as a 700-page book in the summer of > 1988. > > This report was an ambitious government effort to summarize the > > entire body of research linking dietary factors such as fat, > > saturated fat, cholesterol, salt, sugar, and alcohol to leading > > chronic diseases. My first day on the job, I was given the rules: > No > > matter what the research indicated, the report could not > > recommend " eat less meat " as a way to reduce intake of saturated > fat, > > nor could it suggest restrictions on intake of any other category > of > > food. In the industry-friendly climate of the Reagan > administration, > > the producers of foods that might be affected by such advice would > > complain to their beneficiaries in Congress, and the report would > > never be published. > > > > This scenario was no paranoid fantasy; federal health officials > > had endured a decade of almost constant congressional interference > > with their dietary recommendations. As I discuss in Part I, agency > > officials had learned to avoid such interference by resorting to > > euphemisms, focusing recommendations on nutrients rather than on > the > > foods that contain them, and giving a positive spin to any > > restrictive advice about food. Whereas " eat less beef " called the > > industry to arms, " eat less saturated fat " did not. " Eat less > sugar " > > sent sugar producers right to Congress, but that industry could > live > > with " choose a diet moderate in sugar. " When released in 1988, the > > Surgeon General's Report recommended " choose lean meats " and > > suggested limitations on sugar intake only for people particularly > > vulnerable to dental cavities. > > > > Subsequent disputes have only reinforced sensitivities to > > political expediency when formulating advice about diet and health. > > Political expediency explains in part why no subsequent Surgeon > > General's Report has appeared, even though Congress passed a law in > > 1990 requiring that one be issued biannually. After ten years of > > working to develop a Surgeon General's Report on Dietary Fat and > > Health-surely needed to help people understand the endless debates > > about the relative health consequences of eating saturated, > > monounsaturated, trans-saturated, and total fat-the government > > abandoned the project, ostensibly because the science base had > become > > increasingly complex and equivocal. A more compelling reason must > > have been lack of interest in completing such a report in the > > election year of 2000. Authoritative recommendations about fat > intake > > would have had to include some " eat less " advice if for no other > > reason than because fat is so concentrated in calories-it contains > 9 > > calories per gram, compared to 4 each for protein or carbohydrate- > and > > obesity is a major health concern. Because saturated fat and trans- > > saturated fat raise risks for heart disease, and the principal > > sources of such fats in American diets are meat, dairy, cooking > fats, > > and fried, fast, and processed foods, " eat less " advice would > provoke > > the producers and sellers of these foods to complain to their > friends > > in Congress. > > > > Since 1988, in my role as chair of an academic department of > > nutrition, a member of federal advisory committees, a speaker at > > public and professional meetings, a frequent commentator on > nutrition > > issues to the press, and (on occasion) a consultant to food > > companies, I have become increasingly convinced that many of the > > nutritional problems of Americans-not least of them obesity-can be > > traced to the food industry's imperative to encourage people to eat > > more in order to generate sales and increase income in a highly > > competitive marketplace. Ambiguous dietary advice is only one > result > > of this imperative. As I explain in Part II, the industry also > > devotes enormous financial and other resources to lobbying Congress > > and federal agencies, forming partnerships and alliances with > > professional nutrition organizations, funding research on food and > > nutrition, publicizing the results of selected research studies > > favorable to industry, sponsoring professional journals and > > conferences, and making sure that influential groups-federal > > officials, researchers, doctors, nurses, school teachers, and the > > media-are aware of the benefits of their products. > > > > Later sections of the book describe the ways in which such > actions > > affect food issues of particular public interest and debate. Part > III > > reviews the most egregious example of food company marketing > > practices: the deliberate use of young children as sales targets > and > > the conversion of schools into vehicles for selling " junk " foods > high > > in calories but low in nutritional value. Part IV explains how the > > supplement industry manipulated the political process to achieve a > > sales environment virtually free of government oversight of the > > content, safety, and advertising claims for its products. In Part > V, > > I describe how the food industry markets " junk " foods as health > foods > > by adding nutrients and calling them " functional " foods > > or " nutraceuticals. " The concluding chapter summarizes the > > significance of the issues raised by these examples and offers some > > options for choosing a healthful diet in an overabundant food > system. > > Finally, the Appendix introduces some terms and concepts used in > the > > field of nutrition and discusses issues that help explain why > > nutrition research is so controversial and so often misunderstood. > > > > Before plunging into these accounts, some context may prove > > useful. This introduction addresses the principal questions that > bear > > on the matters discussed in this book: What are we supposed to eat > to > > stay healthy? Does diet really matter? Is there a significant gap > > between what we are supposed to eat and what we do eat? The answers > > to these questions constitute a basis for examining the central > > concern of this book: Does the food industry have anything to do > with > > poor dietary practices? As a background for addressing that > question, > > this introduction provides some fundamental facts about today's > food > > industry and its marketing philosophies and strategies, and also > > points to some common themes that appear throughout the book. > > > > Cheers, Al Pater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.