Guest guest Posted May 15, 2003 Report Share Posted May 15, 2003 Lierre- Although I completely agree with the people trying to stop Oreos and the like from being sold and served to children, it's ironically not even Nabisco's fault, at least not entirely. What else would public opinion have allowed them to use? Just like there was a huge uproar awhile ago over the use of coconut oil to make movie popcorn, there was outrage over the lard in Oreos. Now, it's probably true that people in Nabisco were aware of the dangers of hydrogenated oils and thus knowingly harmed consumers, but unless Nabisco was somehow involved in creating the obsession with avoiding saturated and animal fats or fomenting the furor over lard in Oreos (not impossible, since hydrogenated vegetable oils are so much cheaper and more profitable than healthy animal fats) they're just not the root cause of the problem. Not that Oreos were ever a health food, but at least back in the day a few of them wouldn't kill you. >Oreos in particular are even more ironic--they used >LARD until pretty recently! - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2003 Report Share Posted May 15, 2003 I'm not sure how this fits but here's my two cents on this. The responsibility here lies squarely with the parents. I know plenty of parents who do not, will not, cannot feed oreos to their children. Does the marketing make it a little more difficult for these parents sure. But nonetheless the full responsibility lies with parents making life or death / health or sickness decisions for their children. My wife and I deal with this daily as I'm sure many of you do. My son is only 9 mos old and the parents in his playgroup have to be told repeatedly that he DOES NOT eat cheerios, goldfish, etc... sure this is a pain in the neck but the responsibility for seeing what he eats and doesn't eat lies with me not nabisco. This is not a question of marketing ethics its about consumers (parents) dictating marketing policy. If 99% of americas parents weren't buying oreos they wouldn't be marketed at all. DMM www.cedarcanyonclinic.com --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > Lierre- > > Although I completely agree with the people trying to stop Oreos and the > like from being sold and served to children, it's ironically not even > Nabisco's fault, at least not entirely. What else would public opinion > have allowed them to use? Just like there was a huge uproar awhile ago > over the use of coconut oil to make movie popcorn, there was outrage over > the lard in Oreos. Now, it's probably true that people in Nabisco were > aware of the dangers of hydrogenated oils and thus knowingly harmed > consumers, but unless Nabisco was somehow involved in creating the > obsession with avoiding saturated and animal fats or fomenting the furor > over lard in Oreos (not impossible, since hydrogenated vegetable oils are > so much cheaper and more profitable than healthy animal fats) they're just > not the root cause of the problem. Not that Oreos were ever a health food, > but at least back in the day a few of them wouldn't kill you. > > >Oreos in particular are even more ironic--they used > >LARD until pretty recently! > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2003 Report Share Posted May 15, 2003 I disagree. I see children all the time smart enough or possibly respectful or scared enough of their parents to know better. The responsibility lies squarely with the parents to instill the appropriate behavior in their kid and in addition get their butts in the school and get the vending machine evicted or filled with something better. It's high time " everybody " else stops getting blamed and the consumers and their offspring take responsibility for what's theirs. DMM --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > Mike- > > I certainly agree that parents need to take a lot more responsibility than > they are, but I don't think that's enough. How can a parent stop a kid > from getting a package of oreos from a vending machine at school, for > example? That's why I think a ban on selling them to minors makes > sense. It doesn't infringe on the right of adults to pick their poison, > but it protects kids. It's not the perfect strategy, but what is? I don't > know, but this seems like a workable compromise between various > ideals. It's better than having sick kids sue their parents once they > become sick adults, or telling ignorant children to take responsibility for > their health. > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2003 Report Share Posted May 15, 2003 > heroic actions on the part of the kid > and parent just to stick to a > known-allergen type of diet, much > less to stick to a healthy one. > > -- Heidi Heidi there's nothing wrong with demanding that parents and their children partake of " heroic actions " to do things that are right for them. I agree life would be much easier for us without this junk. Let me restate that MUCH MUCH MUCH easier. But just because its difficult does not mean that the responsibility lies anyplace else. You seem to use your awesome parenting and bonding with your child as an excuse for everyone else in your post. As if to say that everyone else didn't do that so they somehow can't have as high a standard. Heidi you are the kind of parent that should be used as a standard. Parents need to take the time and make the effort to create such bonds and respect. Your " heroic " efforts don't excuse everyone else. They just demonstrate the quality of you as a parent and human being. I suggest we expect the same " heroic " effort from every parent. Blessings To ALL The Heroic Parents!!! DMM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2003 Report Share Posted May 15, 2003 Irene, I do think personal responsibilty is the key. Maybe the fact that some who take the information presented without asking questions are still just not taking personal responsibilty. In other words, reading information without intentionally seeking out the other sides of an issue might be an expression of lacking the desire to be responsible for making an informed decision. It is much easier to read someone else's opinion on a subject, accept their research, and then do what they said. Then, of course, it is their fault if they are wrong and you suffer the consquenses. " I was just following what someone told me to do " . This holds true for doctor visits, advice from family and friends, counseling from a pastor, etc. Ultimately it is each of our responsibility to learn and live in a way that expresses our " best effort " . I want the credit and am willing to take the blame. Theresa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2003 Report Share Posted May 15, 2003 So am I, however are we really any different? I just happen to believe the NT stuff after being exposed to it. Unless something bad happens that I associate with eating NT then I am not likely to be disuaded. That however doesn't mean I am not wrong. I can't blame most people for believe the cholesterol theory of disease because more often than not there is little reason to doubt it. I had huge health problems before I realised that the conventional beliefs didn't work for me and that took years. And it wasn't because I didn't look for information. It was in fact quite a shock for me to realise that so much of what I believed wasn't true. If people's kids are basically healthy, their doctors are telling that colds, flu and ear infections are normal and common and everything you read says that cherios and kool aid is the way to go, I can't blame people for believing it. Of course ultimately we all take the responsibility for what we do. We don't however live in a vacuum. I spread the word wherever I can but really, why should anyone believe me? Irene At 02:37 PM 5/15/03, you wrote: >Irene, > >I do think personal responsibilty is the key. Maybe the fact that some who >take the information presented without asking questions are still just not >taking personal responsibilty. In other words, reading information without >intentionally seeking out the other sides of an issue might be an expression >of lacking the desire to be responsible for making an informed decision. It >is much easier to read someone else's opinion on a subject, accept their >research, and then do what they said. Then, of course, it is their fault if >they are wrong and you suffer the consquenses. " I was just following what >someone told me to do " . This holds true for doctor visits, advice from family >and friends, counseling from a pastor, etc. Ultimately it is each of our >responsibility to learn and live in a way that expresses our " best effort " . I >want the credit and am willing to take the blame. > >Theresa > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 Irene, They shouldn't believe you. That is my point. No one should take any information they come across as gospel. But what it should do, is make them think. If we take everything for face value, then there is no reason or motivation to think outside the box. A healthy level of skepticism will allow someone to ask their doctor WHY? Why is it normal for my child to have chronic ear infections? And ask if what he/she really means is that it is " common " rather than " normal " . When posed with the question of semantics, doctor's will often clarify their statements to mean that it is " common " not necessarily " normal " . All I am saying is that we, as individuals, or as a society for that matter, cannot expect someone else to provide us with all the facts we need to make our health decisions. Doctors have specialties which sometimes keep them from having a more well-rounded approach to health. Agencies have agendas which keep them from providing unbiased research. People have experiences that keep them from asking questions, but we can never stop asking WHY!? Theresa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 Suze, Some time ago I was reading one of the cooking buletin boards. A person there posted something similar. Their local health department was trying to forbid homemade food for potlucks or church events. They wanted people to bring in packaged food, or food from the grocery store's deli because of " health safety concerns " . It was somewhere in the Midwest. We may see more of this in the future. Marieta > --->no homemade food????? Huh? Is this a public school? i've never heard of > such a bizarre rule. by default then, the kids are only allowed to eat > processed or institutional " food. " (to become future fodder for the > pharmaceutical conglomerates) > > Suze Fisher > Lapdog Design, Inc. > Web Design & Development > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ > mailto:s.fisher22@v... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 > I don't like the situation, but most parents are > doing their best just to get their kids off to school -- > a lot of parents are working two jobs just to make > ends meet. They are walking zombies, and are being > heroic just to dress and feed their kids -- and they > are nice, trusting folk, who believe the government > that the food pyramid is good. They also believe > what the school teaches, and that what the school > distributes are good things. They are very patriotic, > and part of patriotic means supporting your > local school. If the school is having an oreo-stacking > contest, well, that means oreos must be good. As I said in my previous post the fact that you do not fall into the above description does not make you the exception. You should be the rule. Parents who work two jobs just to make ends meet who are walking zombies, who are nice trusting folk, who believe the school and the governement is how you describe most folk here. Who's responsibility is that? Its their own. In the very same community with the very same socio-economic background are parents who DON'T work to jobs, make less money, don't believe the school and gov't. They didn't get that way by some stroke of luck or accident. They got that way because they recognize the value of their own lives as well as the lives of their kids and they CHOOSE to be accountable and responsible adults. Sheep cannot choose to be anything but sheep, we can feel sorry for them if we think they have it hard. Sheeple CHOOSE to be sheeple and be herded by the rest of the culture. They don't need the responsible accountable people like you or I making excuses for them as to they have it so hard its ok or understandable why their sheeple. That just allows them to continue being herded. What they need is someone (for some possibly for the first time in their lives) holding them accountable for their dereliction. You and I can apply just as much peer pressure from this side as they get from the other side. Instead of being uncomfortable next time your child needs to pass on the garbage served at a party or school be enlightening and powerful. You don't feed your kid sludge for a reason not because your a kook. And the sheeple parents feed their kids sludge for one reason and one reason only, their to lazy and or have failed to learn how to have a critical thought. Every person on this group, every WAP member grew up in this same environment, without any special benefits or skills. They just decided that their health was their responsibility not someone elses and the chose to be people NOT sheeple. I don't buy this notion that the sheeple have been brainwashed and it's so hard for them. The like to be herded, they ask to be herded and herded they shall be. Making excuses for them just encourages them to continue their lack of responsiblity and accountability. While I completely agree that many parents are in fact overloaded and barely getting by emotionally and physically and I am in fact compasionate to that fact on a daily basis in my own practice. That does not eliminate or even reduce the fact that the decisions and choices they make for the most part has put them in the sad situation that they're in. And as long as they are too lazy to do anything other than be herded and people like us encourage that and make excuses for how hard they have it. They'll continue to sheeple all day long. My hat is off to every parent out there who has chosen not to raise sheeple for the truly heroic efforts and choices they have made. There's a difference between making bad choices and a resultant heroic effort and a good choice and a resultant heroic effort. The first is admirable when it is a mistake, it is deplorable when it becomes a way of life. DMM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 , I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I am simply saying that parents are getting a free pass on this. An 8 year old is certainly NOT responsible for his own nutrition. My point is that the notion that children will NOT follw a committed parents lead is a weak and cowardly cop out. Because in fact they will. Will they experiment, etc... certainly. But in the final assessment they will follow their parents lead. To suggest that this is nabisco's fault is absurd and ridiculous. Again the market drives these things. No is a fun word to use. And is easy to use against marketers. If nobody wanted oreos, no oreos would be sold. Do I think Nabisco sucks and that they are a morally depraved company knowingly selling harmful " food " ? Yes. Do I think they are responsible for people buying their horrific products? Absolutely NOT! People buy their products because they choose to walk down that asile, pick up a bag, walk it to the register, stand in line, trade their hard earned money for it, rip it open and eat it and feed it to their kids. Its just that simple. Kids who don't get sugar and junk at home generally speaking don't eat sugar and junk out. Do some violate that yes, do most? NO. DMM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 there is a difference between blame and responsibility. Can we blame your mom? No. She like most other parents did everything she could for you the best way she knew how. Was it her responsibility to learn more, ask more? Yes. Should she be condemned for not doing that? Absolutely Not. But yes in fact it is the responsibility of a parent to not be a sheeple. Certainly you can't blame them when they aren't even aware of it. But yes a parent is at fault if they get bad advice and don't think enough to discover that the advice is poor. this is a fact of life. I have taken tons of bad advice and probably will take more bad advice during my life. I'm not a stupid or evil person because of it. Its just what happens in life. But it IS my responsibiliy to think things through and make better choices. Its nobody's fault but my own when I make a poor choice and its nobody elses responsibility but my own to make better choices. I don't want the sheeple parents to be hung in the town square! I just want us to stop making excuses for them and giving them a free pass because " they have it so hard " . That's all. DMM > And can you blame parents for listening to doctor's and dentists? My mom > raised me a single mother and didn't have time to read every book and article > on, say, fluoride, and so she listened to the dentist about what she thought > was best for me, and that ended up being daily fluoride supplements. Thanks > to that I got horrible fluorosis and grew up being called " shit- teeth " > through elementary school. Then my aunt payed *hundreds* of dollars to *kind > of* fix it. Boy I would have loved it if fluoride were banned! > > Chris > > In a message dated 5/16/03 12:16:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Idol@c... writes: > > > . > > > > With all due respect, so what? So there are some (a few) kids who are > > smart or disciplined enough to avoid oreos. You seem to be suggesting that > > > > we abandon all the rest of them to their fates, and that it's somehow the > > kids' responsibility to educate themselves on nutrition even before they > > start solid food, since we obviously can't rely on all parents to do the > > right thing -- and to know to do the right thing. > > > > Yes, we should absolutely expect more from parents, but we live in the real > > > > world in which we just can't expect to get more from all parents and in > > which even parents who try in good faith to do the right thing get misled, > > and given that, shouldn't we try to protect those hapless kids? I > > understand this could form a slippery slope if the principle is generalized > > > > too broadly, but that doesn't mean we should let all these kids be brought > > up on a diet of oreos and white flour and soda and soy. For one thing, > > most kids brought up that way will grow up completely incapable of > > educating themselves on nutrition because they'll be too brain- damaged and > > hormonally imbalanced to do anything. > > > > > " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are > to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and > servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " -- Theodore > Roosevelt > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 You're right chris THIS is a perfect example " Parents should do more, sure, but " This is the free pass I'm talking about. There is NO " but " to the above statement! Why is it unreasonable and unfair to ask sheeple parents to have some critical thoughts about something, ANything? You have critically thought about these things and you had no special endowments. You were raised by a single sheeple mother. I had no special endowments and I was raised by a single sheeple mother. I'm sure there are lots of folks raised by single sheeple mother, father, uncle, aunt, etc... with no special endowments who actually decided as adults that critally thinking and choosing things in their lives was the only accountable and responsible way to behave. How is it unfair to expect and demand this? How can you be such an apologist for such deplorable behavior. DMM --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > Chris- > > This is a perfect example. Parents should do more, sure, but it's just > unreasonable and unfair to expect all of them to pick their way through all > the conflicting information and Official Pronouncements out there, and kids > are the innocent victims of the whole mess. > > >Thanks > >to that I got horrible fluorosis and grew up being called " shit- teeth " > >through elementary school. Then my aunt payed *hundreds* of dollars to *kind > >of* fix it. Boy I would have loved it if fluoride were banned! > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 I think the point here paul is not so much the legal/illegal issue. But more importantly the " why " issue. Why are things this way? Why is there even need for a lawsuit? Not so much should there be one? My point is that without the whole hearted support and passion of the sheeple parents this is a non issue, nabisco is either out of business or they sell real pemmican, jerky and macaroons. Their marketing may " demonstrate " their product but its not tv, radio, magazine hypnosis. Its unaccountable sheeple pledging their allegance. Sorry but that is the responsibility of the sheeple him/herself. DMM --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > Theresa- > > I'm not sure we have enough common ground to have a meaningful conversation > about this, but I'll try. > > Would you say people should be allowed to sell kids guns? Hard > drugs? Vodka? Should children of any age and maturity be allowed to > drive? If not, why are hydrogenated vegetable oils, which unlike guns, > alcohol and maybe even (some) drugs are purely harmful with zero redeeming > features and absolutely no possible positive uses, any different? > > >Give me some of your opposing views, as I am always ready to see things from > >a different perspective. > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 Mike, > To suggest that this is nabisco's fault is absurd and ridiculous. > Again the market drives these things. No is a fun word to use. And > is easy to use against marketers. If nobody wanted oreos, no oreos > would be sold. > > Do I think Nabisco sucks and that they are a morally depraved > company knowingly selling harmful " food " ? Yes. Do I think they are > responsible for people buying their horrific products? Absolutely > NOT! I take a different approach that I seem never to hear anywhere. Without taking away from the parents'/individual's responsibility, I think it's wrong to say it is only their responsibility. " What the market demands " is an easy excuse for corporations, implying that *they* are poor, hapless victimes to the market. I believe that, just like in marriage, both sides bear 100% of the responsibility and both sides should take their responsibility as such. Corporations *can* refuse to sell dangerous products -- particularly food products. If people aren't buying their products, they can put the money into educating, or marketing, why their product is preferred. They certainly seem to have enough money to convince us we should want/need their crappy products. Corporations aren't responsible for people buying their horrific products, but they *are* responsible for producing them. We won't get a mass movement of individual responsibility until it is taken to the higher level of responsibility *across the board.* What good is it to teach the individual must be responsible, but the corporation is a victim to the market? Our society needs an atmosphere/expectation of responsibility and that isn't created by saying responsibility is only for some, ie, the individuals. (This same issue applied to television drives me insane! One side says it's the parents' responsibility. The other side says it's the television producers' responsibility. When will the day come when *both* sides say " It's my responsibility " and mean it? I know that's way off-topic, but I get infuriated by the finger pointing on both sides.) As an aside, my health is poor (CFS) and I just got back from a vacation, so if you respond to this and then I don't respond for a while, it's nothing personal! I've got a few more posts I want to respond to later in the day (have to get off the computer now) and then I don't know if I'll be on the computer this weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 , I am not suggesting that a company not be held to a certain standard and be held accountable for their deplorable actions. I'm not suggesting that at all. However their responsibility is exclusive of ours. The truth is they ARE in fact " helpless " when subject to a marketplace that doesn't want their product. Look at tobacco right now. You have warning labels that say YOU WILL DIE if you smoke these and legal restrictions on their acquisition and the marketplace STILL demands them. As long as the market wants them the company lives. If the market doesn't want them the company dies. It is that simple. All marketing can do is say buy this stuff you'll like it, need it, want it, etc... At the end of the day the final responsibility lies with the individual, you either feed the monster or you kill it. And the bottom line is that sheeple parents today unwittingly or not feed the monster daily. What would nabisco do if sheeple parents actually had a single critical thought (not likely) and stopped buying all Nabisco oreos and the like. Nabisco is absolutely " helpless " , no marketing, apology, lies, hype, etc... would save them. They die on the vine. The market demand does in fact drive these companies. Sure they say and do irresponsible things and help manufacture demand that they should absolutely be held accountable for but to blame them for every individuals CHOICE to blindly poison themselves and their children is nothing short of irrational and cowardly. DMM > Mike, > > > To suggest that this is nabisco's fault is absurd and ridiculous. > > Again the market drives these things. No is a fun word to use. And > > is easy to use against marketers. If nobody wanted oreos, no oreos > > would be sold. > > > > Do I think Nabisco sucks and that they are a morally depraved > > company knowingly selling harmful " food " ? Yes. Do I think they > are > > responsible for people buying their horrific products? Absolutely > > NOT! > > I take a different approach that I seem never to hear anywhere. > Without taking away from the parents'/individual's responsibility, I > think it's wrong to say it is only their responsibility. " What the > market demands " is an easy excuse for corporations, implying that > *they* are poor, hapless victimes to the market. > > I believe that, just like in marriage, both sides bear 100% of the > responsibility and both sides should take their responsibility as > such. Corporations *can* refuse to sell dangerous products -- > particularly food products. If people aren't buying their products, > they can put the money into educating, or marketing, why their > product is preferred. They certainly seem to have enough money to > convince us we should want/need their crappy products. > > Corporations aren't responsible for people buying their horrific > products, but they *are* responsible for producing them. > > We won't get a mass movement of individual responsibility until it is > taken to the higher level of responsibility *across the board.* What > good is it to teach the individual must be responsible, but the > corporation is a victim to the market? Our society needs an > atmosphere/expectation of responsibility and that isn't created by > saying responsibility is only for some, ie, the individuals. > > (This same issue applied to television drives me insane! One side > says it's the parents' responsibility. The other side says it's the > television producers' responsibility. When will the day come when > *both* sides say " It's my responsibility " and mean it? I know that's > way off-topic, but I get infuriated by the finger pointing on both > sides.) > > As an aside, my health is poor (CFS) and I just got back from a > vacation, so if you respond to this and then I don't respond for a > while, it's nothing personal! I've got a few more posts I want to > respond to later in the day (have to get off the computer now) and > then I don't know if I'll be on the computer this weekend. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 My two cents' worth: I have a daughter who will be 7 next month. When we switched to whole milk about 16 months ago, I told her the reason. Of course, I presented the idea in small bites and I had to put it in terms a 5 year old could understand. She apparently talks with her classmates about whether or not they use whole milk, because she is able to tell me which children do. LOL! She does *not* drink soda pop, because I don't drink it anymore and I have never let her have it. When she was smaller, I simply told her it would " bite " her mouth. Since then, I have talked about how children who drink soda pop a lot tend to have cavities. She has reported to me at various times which children she knew had cavities. We're talking about 4 year olds and 5 year olds, in this case. It surprised me to learn that her K-4 and K-5 classmates had fillings! Besides that, many times when we're grocery shopping, she will read the fine print on the labels closely and look for " soy " , loudly pronouncing afterwards whether or not she found it. :-) My point is this: Apparently, even a small child can be taught that certain foods are OK to eat freely, while others might be eaten only once in a while, while still others are better left alone entirely. On the other hand, I don't want her to display the attitude that says, " You guys are all dumb because you drink skim milk, and I'm better than you! " I'd rather see her display an understanding that lots of people haven't learned the things we've learned, and they do think they are right. Over time, she has been able to see that our not having cavities or colds or coughs and our higher level of energy and strength must mean we're doing *something* right. Besides all that, whenever we're out and we're faced with choices that are all second- or third-rate choices, I opt for the choice that offers animal fat and minimal refined grain/sugar. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 I like your thoughts! > > >--->no homemade food????? Huh? Is this a public school? i've never heard of > >such a bizarre rule. by default then, the kids are only allowed to eat > >processed or institutional " food. " (to become future fodder for the > >pharmaceutical conglomerates) > > Yeah Suze -- it really floored me. Worse, they say it is a STATE LAW. > So who passed that one? The cookie factories? They say it is to protect > against food poisoning, to which I answered, who EVER got food poisoning > from a cookie? > > The context was, I wanted my kids to be able to bring snacks for their > birthday, homemade cupcakes, that THEY could eat. Allergies are > even more problematic than trying to be " healthy " -- wheat really > does cause them problems (one reason they don't mind not eating > the snacks -- my daughter gets canker sores reliably, and she does > not like those!). So, they can bring a homemade cupcake for themselves, > but not for anyone else. > > And yeah, every ^ & (* & ^ event is geared around food, wheat food at > that. Even crafts -- the favorite is decorating cookies. Which means > I have to have a constant supply of baked goods for a replacement, > on short notice, so they can " fit in. " Which I can do, because I > don't have a " real job, " their father is very involved, and I have > outside help. But I'm very fortunate in my situation, most people > don't have that much time. > > For what it's worth though, I don't want to see foods " banned " at > all. I think food in school should be a little like religion in school. > Our founding fathers claimed separation of church and state (and > I know this is a sensitive subject!) -- they did this NOT because > they were anti-religion, but because Europe had just undergone > centuries of bloodshed because no one can AGREE on religion. > Puritans and Quakers and Shakers and Anglicans and Catholics > really, really disagreed with each other. And worse, religion was > being used as a tool to keep people in line. > > I think the current situation with food has strong similarities. > > 1. Everyone thinks " their " way of eating is best. > 2. The government uses food as a tool (to make money for companies, mostly). > 3. Food is very, very personal. > 4. Food is considered of life/death importance. > > What I would like to see is the schools push NO food. Offer a > variety in the cafeteria, but don't push any " brands " . If there > is a get-together, make it potluck (let the parents decide -- > sure, a lot of it will be junk, but it will be their junk). Tolerate > all food choices (even vegans! ;-) Teach the spectrum of what > is known about food, and teach the kids (older ones anyway) > how to research it and why there is controversy. > > The contention in the Oreo debate is that the school is PUSHING > a branded food that is known to be bad, and it sounds like > they are banning " school sponsorship " of brands known to > be bad. Which isn't a bad start -- get the " brands " out! Let > the kids at least make choice based on what the food looks > and tastes like, not the jingle " Coke is it " or " Oreos are fun " . > > > -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 I think there are two keys here. Our intents, or primary focus, and whether we are a questioner or follower. For one person " healthy children " might be the primary focus, while for another it falls behind job advancement. Obviously their choices will be different. One will compromise in areas the other would not. [i'm not saying people conciously put their children's health below some other goal, but if you look at where you compromise and where you don't, you will see the order of your intents (goals, focus).] But two people, both with " healthy chidlren " at the top of the list, will still make different choices, and I think that comes down to are they a follower who doesn't question, or someone who asks questions and searches? A lot of what has been described of " sheeple " is a state of not questioning, not looking beyond what they've been told. I don't think the answer is to limit their choices or tell them what to do, but to get them to question. Now I have internet and am often using it to search out answers, but I've been dirt poor and still found answers on vaccination because I was searching for them. Income level alone plays a part in how you go about getting your answers, but is far from the primary determiner of whether someone follows or questions. And maybe the difference there is taking responsibility. It sounds very harsh, but I've known people who simply don't want the responsibility. Just to take vaccinations as an example. It is a very difficult decision when you are bucking the system and it is your child's health that's involved. For some, it is easier, or more comfortable, to let someone else make that decision for them. (Of course I'm not saying this is true of ALL people, but I have known people who have had the information and still chosen differently - on vaccination and birth choices - because they couldn't handle the responsibility. They themselves acknowledged such. Of course it is still their choice, and their responsibility, but somehow following authority brings them peace.) And then again, I know a woman who is sick often and unhappy about her weight, but continues on as a vegetarian because she believes what she's read in the pro-veg camp. She did go looking and that's the choice she made. She does not believe the information I've provided her with. I do not think taking away her choice would be the right answer. My hope is that as her health continues to not improve (or worsen) that she will once again start questioning and searching for answers, but I can't do it for her. None of us can. You can put all the information you want in front of people, and none of it will matter until THEY decide to go looking for answers. Yes, it would be great to get vending machines out of schools, but it wouldn't change much. Both the child who has no vending machines and the child who does, will find themselves at 20 years old faced with numerous choices - - - are they going to follow or question? At 30, faced with working for a company that does something they are uncomfortable with, are they going to follow or question? At 40, faced with illness, are they going to follow or question? That's key. Change someone's path from a follower to a questioner and that's where you would see lasting change. There are some that hold our economy and our way of life in this country would collapse if the majority questioned, that we simply could not handle having a populace that has been educated to THINK, instead of just putting down the answer they know is wanted. I rather think it might be the beginning to something better, something I can't even imagine. Rhea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 Mike, > I am not suggesting that a company not be held to a certain standard > and be held accountable for their deplorable actions. I'm not > suggesting that at all. Oh, o.k. I guess as I've read your posts focusing on individual responsibility, I've had the impression that sole responsibility lies with the consumer. Actually, the rest of this post sounds like it's saying that. > However their responsibility is exclusive of ours. The truth is > they ARE in fact " helpless " when subject to a marketplace that > doesn't want their product. I completely disagree with the idea that they are are helpless. If noone truly doesn't want their product, then they should sell another! It's not like they're forced to sell a certain product and then poor them if no one wants it. However, my impression is that most of the time corporations spend BIG money to *create* a market. In fact, I'm currently invested in a company that makes a morally-neutral product for discretionary income. This is a new product and the company is specifically working to create the market/demand. Companies can spend the same money to create markets for beneficial products as they do for non-beneficial ones. > Look at tobacco right now. You have > warning labels that say YOU WILL DIE if you smoke these and legal > restrictions on their acquisition and the marketplace STILL demands > them. As long as the market wants them the company lives. If the > market doesn't want them the company dies. It is that simple. And, what's so horrible if a company dies? Why is it that the company can do whatever it wants just to stay viable? I.e., the company has no responsibility for the product it sells because it has a basic right to never die? Maybe it should die. Maybe they should sell another product? I wish Monsanto would die; we'd all be better off. > All > marketing can do is say buy this stuff you'll like it, need it, want > it, etc... Marketing purposefully influences. That's it's purpose!! Where is the personal responsibility in choosing to influence people to buy a harmful product? I'll say it again, corporations aren't victims to the market! (Particularly the large, rich corporations. I can see a small company not having the money for marketing/education.) > At the end of the day the final responsibility lies with the > individual, you either feed the monster or you kill it. And the > bottom line is that sheeple parents today unwittingly or not feed > the monster daily. What would nabisco do if sheeple parents > actually had a single critical thought (not likely) and stopped > buying all Nabisco oreos and the like. Nabisco is > absolutely " helpless " , no marketing, apology, lies, hype, etc... > would save them. They die on the vine. The market demand does in > fact drive these companies. And, my point is that they are experts in shaping market demand. They could shape it in a positive manner if they wanted. They could go back to making Oreos with lard or coconut oil and include an educational campaign on why these are healthier and why they are now more expensive. They shape demand EVERY DAY. They know how to do it. >Sure they say and do irresponsible > things and help manufacture demand that they should absolutely be > held accountable for but to blame them for every individuals CHOICE > to blindly poison themselves and their children is nothing short of > irrational and cowardly. You misunderstood me if you thought I was blaming corporations for individuals' choices. What I believe is that responsibility doesn't lie in one sector alone. Responsibility needs to be everywhere. Like marriage -- both are 100% responsible for the success. My response to you was written because I felt you put responsibility only and solely on the consumer. And, how do we create an atmosphere of promoting responsibility if we continue to relegate it to only certain people, i.e., individuals are responsible, but corporations are excused from that because they are victims to the market? You expect a person to be responsible at home, but at work the same individual can proclaim helplessness because the company he works for is market driven? I'm not arguing against personal responsibility -- really! Just wanted the other side thrown in. We won't get anywhere until we all start taking responsibility. And, isn't that your point, too? I just add the corporations to the equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 You know what Irene I'm not a very smart fellow but I'm smart enough to know that sucking in smoke is probably not a great idea. I don't need them to tell the truth, I don't need a study or warning label. The good sense that I was endowed with tells me that putting my mouth on the end of my exhaust pipe of my car is also a bad idea. No warning labels, no legislation, no studies just a teeny tiny amount of critical thought. Just because someone or some company says something is so, don't make it so. The way the market gets the truth is by being smart and doing its homework and making a commitment to not be sheeple. Anything less is an active choice for a life of crud. DMM > >, > > > >I am not suggesting that a company not be held to a certain standard > >and be held accountable for their deplorable actions. I'm not > >suggesting that at all. > > > >However their responsibility is exclusive of ours. The truth is > >they ARE in fact " helpless " when subject to a marketplace that > >doesn't want their product. Look at tobacco right now. You have > >warning labels that say YOU WILL DIE if you smoke these and legal > >restrictions on their acquisition and the marketplace STILL demands > >them. As long as the market wants them the company lives. If the > >market doesn't want them the company dies. It is that simple. All > >marketing can do is say buy this stuff you'll like it, need it, want > >it, etc... > > > >At the end of the day the final responsibility lies with the > >individual, you either feed the monster or you kill it. And the > >bottom line is that sheeple parents today unwittingly or not feed > >the monster daily. What would nabisco do if sheeple parents > >actually had a single critical thought (not likely) and stopped > >buying all Nabisco oreos and the like. Nabisco is > >absolutely " helpless " , no marketing, apology, lies, hype, etc... > >would save them. They die on the vine. The market demand does in > >fact drive these companies. Sure they say and do irresponsible > >things and help manufacture demand that they should absolutely be > >held accountable for but to blame them for every individuals CHOICE > >to blindly poison themselves and their children is nothing short of > >irrational and cowardly. > > > >DMM > > > >--- In , " kili94 " <lm324@j...> wrote: > > > Mike, > > > > > > > To suggest that this is nabisco's fault is absurd and > >ridiculous. > > > > Again the market drives these things. No is a fun word to use. > >And > > > > is easy to use against marketers. If nobody wanted oreos, no > >oreos > > > > would be sold. > > > > > > > > Do I think Nabisco sucks and that they are a morally depraved > > > > company knowingly selling harmful " food " ? Yes. Do I think they > > > are > > > > responsible for people buying their horrific products? > >Absolutely > > > > NOT! > > > > > > I take a different approach that I seem never to hear anywhere. > > > Without taking away from the parents'/individual's responsibility, > >I > > > think it's wrong to say it is only their responsibility. " What > >the > > > market demands " is an easy excuse for corporations, implying that > > > *they* are poor, hapless victimes to the market. > > > > > > I believe that, just like in marriage, both sides bear 100% of the > > > responsibility and both sides should take their responsibility as > > > such. Corporations *can* refuse to sell dangerous products -- > > > particularly food products. If people aren't buying their > >products, > > > they can put the money into educating, or marketing, why their > > > product is preferred. They certainly seem to have enough money to > > > convince us we should want/need their crappy products. > > > > > > Corporations aren't responsible for people buying their horrific > > > products, but they *are* responsible for producing them. > > > > > > We won't get a mass movement of individual responsibility until it > >is > > > taken to the higher level of responsibility *across the board.* > >What > > > good is it to teach the individual must be responsible, but the > > > corporation is a victim to the market? Our society needs an > > > atmosphere/expectation of responsibility and that isn't created by > > > saying responsibility is only for some, ie, the individuals. > > > > > > (This same issue applied to television drives me insane! One side > > > says it's the parents' responsibility. The other side says it's > >the > > > television producers' responsibility. When will the day come when > > > *both* sides say " It's my responsibility " and mean it? I know > >that's > > > way off-topic, but I get infuriated by the finger pointing on both > > > sides.) > > > > > > As an aside, my health is poor (CFS) and I just got back from a > > > vacation, so if you respond to this and then I don't respond for a > > > while, it's nothing personal! I've got a few more posts I want to > > > respond to later in the day (have to get off the computer now) and > > > then I don't know if I'll be on the computer this weekend. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Sponsor<http://rd./M=249982.3179269.4495679.1261774/D=egrou pweb/S=1705060950:HM/A=1524963/R=0/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi- bin/autoredir?camp=556 & lineid=3179269 & prop=egroupweb & pos=HM> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 Firstly I completely disagree that this is an issue of personal economics. Sure there are people who are disadvantaged or had some hard luck but they are NOT the majority. Not to mention if it IS an issue of personal economics they don't belong dropping what little cash they have on oreos. While grassfed meat and the like is near impossible for a poor person. Whole grain is cheap as dirt as are other foods that would nourish better than oreos. The economic disadvantage you speak of is NOT an issue of listening to what they've been told otherwise they'd be eating chicken breast and low fat whatever. Go to the grocery and stand around for a few minutes and look at what food stamps buy. Doritos, oreos, kool aid, pepsi, etc... not whole grains, milk, eggs, etc... -------------As for arguing the other side. They get the right to advertise at the school from the school. The advertising they do isn't graffiti on the wall saying " drink coke and eat oreo's " they pay big money and the schools say fine. The schools and parent whine that the schools need the money which is baloney. Education is not expensive. If Real education was expensive nobody would be able to home school and every inner city kid ever would be an illiterate derelict. It is your responsibility to protect your child as best you can wherever the threat comes from. Once again why not place the responsibility where the permission comes from. 1st the parents grant permission to eat the junk. 2nd the schools permit the advertising. 3rd the companies take advantage. Again I don't support or agree in any way with what these companies do or sell but they are being encouraged and allowed to do business. I don't see the answer being run to mommy (the courts/government) and whine. I see the answer as pull the plug on their lifeline ... cash. DMM > So -- how about you argue from the other side: > what gives the companies > the right to advertise their products on school campuses? > Do we as parents want our children to be bombarded with > advertising at school? WHY should it be MY responsibility > to protect my child from school advertising? Is the only > answer home-schooling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 Christie you missed the point of what I said. We all have grown up in this culture, filled with corporate advertising, horrible western diets and peer pressure. Certainly each of our experiences are different but the culture is the culture and while the circumstances have changed its been a corporate junk food culture for the better part of the last 60-80 years. Its just worse now. I agree the vending machines shouldn't be in schools. But kids who don't get vending machine food at home don't eat vending machine food away from home. So while there are things we can do to help, it begins and ends at home. If parents continue to feed their kids crap they'll continue to eat crap in and out of the home regardless of vending machines. DMM > <<Every person on this group, every WAP member grew > up in this same environment, without any special benefits or > skills. >> > > That is simply not true. My mother never allowed white bread in our house, nor desserts except birthday cake, or pie at Christmas. My grade school had no vending machines. We brought lunch to school every day, as did the majority of the kids I went to school with. We sat down and ate a " balanced meal " every night and never went off to school without breakfast. I had zero opportunity during the day to eat crap, not because I wouldn't have wanted to but BECAUSE IT WASN'T THERE TO EAT. I learned good habits by force of circumstance. > > Did I leave them behind later in life? Yes. But here I am now, remembering many of the things I " learned " as a child, and comparing the way we ate in my school to the way kids eat today, and all the absolute garbage that is being shoved down their throats, both literally and figuratively. Was I raised WAP? No, but neither was I raised to think that sugared cereal, white bread sandwiches, and oreos were a balanced diet! Junk food and fast food literally did not exist as options in our life (much easier in those days - I'm 44). > > If kids don't develop a taste for certain unhealthy foods and habits at certain ages, they will not have as much trouble with those foods and habits later in life. Children who learn to think of fruit and vegetables and meat and milk as food will continue to think of them as food when they are older, even as they experiment with other options. (I'll never forget the first time my little brother saw unhomogenized milk- he thought we were trying to kill him with " sour milk. " And yet I, eight years older, who had as a child experienced milkman-delivered unhomgenized milk, and also goat milk on a family friend's farm, had no such aversion or mistrust.) > > I think it's nonsense to say " maybe a child will eat an oreo and discover how it makes them feel and not eat them anymore " - that's just silly. Oreos are, to most people, delicious. That is how science designed them, and they did a damn fine job. Anything that is self-reinforcing has the power to create cravings and positive associations for that food. If I want my child to not have that experience in the place she is being conditioned to think of as a learning center, then that is a good and valuable goal and shouldn't be dependent on some sort of superhuman parenting skills. > > Get the frigging vending machines and sugared soda pop and corporate food sponsorships and junk food and diet propaganda out of our schools. Period. They do not belong there and they harm children. > > Christie > Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds > Holistic Husbandry Since 1986 > http://www.caberfeidh.com/ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 no I'm not absolving them. I'm trying to deconstruct this ridiculous notion that corporations are so powerful and mighty. That's what I mean when I say helpless. Certainly as I've said at least 5 times in this thread the companies DO need to be held accountable. But everyone is so afraid of them and they are nothing but a paper tiger. Stop singing their song and feeding them money and they simply go away or comply. DMM > In a message dated 5/16/2003 10:21:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, mmarasco@c... writes: > > > However their responsibility is exclusive of ours. The truth is > > they ARE in fact " helpless " when subject to a marketplace > > that > > doesn't want their product. > > A little quick to absolve " personal responsibility, " no? The company is only helpless insofar as they're only responsibility is to make money, more money, and more more money. Since corporations are made of *people*, how about all people be held to the same moral standards? > > Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 you missed the point. He's what I said to a similar comment from Chris. no I'm not absolving them. I'm trying to deconstruct this ridiculous notion that corporations are so powerful and mighty. That's what I mean when I say helpless. Certainly as I've said at least 5 times in this thread the companies DO need to be held accountable. But everyone is so afraid of them and they are nothing but a paper tiger. Stop singing their song and feeding them money and they simply go away or comply. DMM --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > - > > > " What the > >market demands " is an easy excuse for corporations, implying that > >*they* are poor, hapless victimes to the market. > > Good point. Why is it bad to " make excuses " for parents but good to do the > exact same thing for corporations? Surely being exhausted and overworked > and following the advice of doctors and health officials is a nobler or at > least better excuse than following the market even if it wants rat poison. > > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 , I must have not stated this clearly because you are the 3rd person to misread what I said. Companies are HELPLESS to market forces IN THIS MANNER... If nobody buys their product, if nobody likes, wants or needs their product they go away. As they should. Companies die for this reason every day and they should. They do NOT have the right to lie, cheat, steal, etc... and should be held accountable (6th time stated) A company cannot " create " a market. Its either there or it isn't. Its called Niching. There is an observed " need " " demand " and the company markets its product at that Niche. Try and market a product to a market that doesn't exist and that company will be done within a week. Companies are NOT helpless to act, but the are helpless if a marketplace, community, etc... says " we hate you and your stuff and we won't buy it. " The only thing the company can then do is die or provide something of value to that marketplace. As it should be. Point being if your and my friends and neighbors get a clue and stop killing themselves and their kids with oreos, guess what Nabisco Never Sells Another! DMM > Mike, > > > I am not suggesting that a company not be held to a certain > standard > > and be held accountable for their deplorable actions. I'm not > > suggesting that at all. > > Oh, o.k. I guess as I've read your posts focusing on individual > responsibility, I've had the impression that sole responsibility lies > with the consumer. Actually, the rest of this post sounds like it's > saying that. > > > However their responsibility is exclusive of ours. The truth is > > they ARE in fact " helpless " when subject to a marketplace that > > doesn't want their product. > > I completely disagree with the idea that they are are helpless. If > noone truly doesn't want their product, then they should sell > another! It's not like they're forced to sell a certain product and > then poor them if no one wants it. > > However, my impression is that most of the time corporations spend > BIG money to *create* a market. In fact, I'm currently invested in a > company that makes a morally-neutral product for discretionary > income. This is a new product and the company is specifically > working to create the market/demand. > > Companies can spend the same money to create markets for beneficial > products as they do for non-beneficial ones. > > > Look at tobacco right now. You have > > warning labels that say YOU WILL DIE if you smoke these and legal > > restrictions on their acquisition and the marketplace STILL demands > > them. As long as the market wants them the company lives. If the > > market doesn't want them the company dies. It is that simple. > > And, what's so horrible if a company dies? Why is it that the > company can do whatever it wants just to stay viable? I.e., the > company has no responsibility for the product it sells because it has > a basic right to never die? Maybe it should die. Maybe they should > sell another product? I wish Monsanto would die; we'd all be better > off. > > > All > > marketing can do is say buy this stuff you'll like it, need it, > want > > it, etc... > > Marketing purposefully influences. That's it's purpose!! Where is > the personal responsibility in choosing to influence people to buy a > harmful product? I'll say it again, corporations aren't victims to > the market! (Particularly the large, rich corporations. I can see a > small company not having the money for marketing/education.) > > > At the end of the day the final responsibility lies with the > > individual, you either feed the monster or you kill it. And the > > bottom line is that sheeple parents today unwittingly or not feed > > the monster daily. What would nabisco do if sheeple parents > > actually had a single critical thought (not likely) and stopped > > buying all Nabisco oreos and the like. Nabisco is > > absolutely " helpless " , no marketing, apology, lies, hype, etc... > > would save them. They die on the vine. The market demand does in > > fact drive these companies. > > And, my point is that they are experts in shaping market demand. > They could shape it in a positive manner if they wanted. They could > go back to making Oreos with lard or coconut oil and include an > educational campaign on why these are healthier and why they are now > more expensive. They shape demand EVERY DAY. They know how to do it. > > > >Sure they say and do irresponsible > > things and help manufacture demand that they should absolutely be > > held accountable for but to blame them for every individuals CHOICE > > to blindly poison themselves and their children is nothing short of > > irrational and cowardly. > > You misunderstood me if you thought I was blaming corporations for > individuals' choices. What I believe is that responsibility doesn't > lie in one sector alone. Responsibility needs to be everywhere. > Like marriage -- both are 100% responsible for the success. My > response to you was written because I felt you put responsibility > only and solely on the consumer. > > And, how do we create an atmosphere of promoting responsibility if we > continue to relegate it to only certain people, i.e., individuals are > responsible, but corporations are excused from that because they are > victims to the market? > > You expect a person to be responsible at home, but at work the same > individual can proclaim helplessness because the company he works for > is market driven? > > I'm not arguing against personal responsibility -- really! Just > wanted the other side thrown in. We won't get anywhere until we all > start taking responsibility. And, isn't that your point, too? I > just add the corporations to the equation. > > 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.