Re: food from large corporations

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/13/04 5:15:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> Something most people don't realize is that:

>

> Diet information comes from the big food corporations.

Like Atkins.

> Medical information comes from the big drug companies.

Like my doctor, who keeps Nourishing Traditions in her office.

> Pet nutrition information comes from the pet food companies.

Like the BARF advocates.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>if large farms are inherently producing

>worse milk nutritionally, then I will by default never buy from large farms

>based on my value of good nutrition. So the point is immaterial.

No, the point is not immaterial. Big business can keep trying to maximize

the size and minimize the number of farms while lying about what's

healthy. People like us can seek to publicize the benefits of grass-fed

high-fertility agriculture and -- for those of us who agree -- small

farms. The whole battle will never be fought strictly in a marketplace

populated by purely rational actors.

>How do you propose to achieve this vision without violence?

Education. And yes, regulation, and if you say that enforcing a government

ban on, say, terrible pollution is violent and immoral, than color me

violent and immoral -- by your lights.

>So it becomes

>moot, because, if you're right, we will necessarily see an economy that

>reflects the dynamics you insist are innate.

I said the pressures are innate; there isn't one final, inevitable shape of

the economy. However, resisting the undesirable pressures takes effort,

often a lot of effort, and vigilance which can never be relaxed.

>If the farmer had the wherewithal or regional market to operate as the Amish

>farmer, then he would, no?

Not necessarily. It can be scary to go it alone, especially for people who

don't know how to do so, but more to the point, in today's climate a lot of

people don't know there's any such thing as raw dairy available or that

there's a market for it.

>So, given *the situation he's in*, going with OV

>must be the best choice for him, thus, offering him an advantage over the

>other

>available options.

Exactly as I said, going with OV provides the farmer with a relative

advantage compared to selling to the conventional channel, but it doesn't

mean it's the theoretical best choice. People don't always make the best

choice. You seem to be applying an extremely simplistic view of human

nature and behaviour to the world in which most conditions are boolean and

all actors are rational.

-

[Guest guest]

Something most people don't realize is that:

Diet information comes from the big food corporations.

Medical information comes from the big drug companies.

Pet nutrition information comes from the pet food companies.

Now who in their right mind would expect these companies to tell the truth

about:

Whole foods.

Inexpensive remedies

The natural way to feed a pet.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Chris-

>if large farms are inherently producing

>worse milk nutritionally, then I will by default never buy from large farms

>based on my value of good nutrition. So the point is immaterial.

No, the point is not immaterial. Big business can keep trying to maximize

the size and minimize the number of farms while lying about what's

healthy. People like us can seek to publicize the benefits of grass-fed

high-fertility agriculture and -- for those of us who agree -- small

farms. The whole battle will never be fought strictly in a marketplace

populated by purely rational actors.

>How do you propose to achieve this vision without violence?

Education. And yes, regulation, and if you say that enforcing a government

ban on, say, terrible pollution is violent and immoral, than color me

violent and immoral -- by your lights.

>So it becomes

>moot, because, if you're right, we will necessarily see an economy that

>reflects the dynamics you insist are innate.

I said the pressures are innate; there isn't one final, inevitable shape of

the economy. However, resisting the undesirable pressures takes effort,

often a lot of effort, and vigilance which can never be relaxed.

>If the farmer had the wherewithal or regional market to operate as the

Amish

>farmer, then he would, no?

Not necessarily. It can be scary to go it alone, especially for people who

don't know how to do so, but more to the point, in today's climate a lot of

people don't know there's any such thing as raw dairy available or that

there's a market for it.

>So, given *the situation he's in*, going with OV

>must be the best choice for him, thus, offering him an advantage over the

>other

>available options.

Exactly as I said, going with OV provides the farmer with a relative

advantage compared to selling to the conventional channel, but it doesn't

mean it's the theoretical best choice. People don't always make the best

choice. You seem to be applying an extremely simplistic view of human

nature and behaviour to the world in which most conditions are boolean and

all actors are rational.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/13/04 9:16:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> Compared to the huge food corporations the ones you mention are grains of

> sand. They reach very few people and do not have the advertising dollars to

> promote their claims.

My doctor and the BARF people might be, but everyone knows who Atkins is. At

one point, almost everyone at the church my family goes to was on Atkins, and

I overhear customers mention his name at the restaurant at which I work many

a night.

Yes, the majority opinion is currently against him. But so what? What is

that Ghandi quote again? " First they laugh at you, then they something, then

you win, " or something to that effect (I'm sure I'm " bastardizing " it).

People *do* have access to this kind of information. Atkins makes headlines,

gets on national tv, etc. It is not inevitable that the current majority

opinion remain the majority opinon. Just look at how every major scientific

advance in history was laughed at, mocked, ridiculed, and punished. But only

for

so long.

>

> If Atkins had spent billions of dollars in advertising as any of the three

> that I mentioned have his diet would have been accepted long ago.

No, it wouldn't. That's why a politician can't win a campaign with just

money. There's no lack of access to information about the Atkins diet. Any

press

is press, good or bad, and anyone with half a brain can decide to read both

sides and make their own view if they choose. Money can get your message out,

but it can't make people accept it. If it could, Steve Forbes would be

President.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/13/04 11:32:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I have two responses. First, Atkins is a microbe compared to Monsanto and

> its ilk.

I bet that your average person on the street knows who Atkins is and has no

idea who Monsanto is.

Second, as Atkins did begin to morph into an actual big food

> company (albeit a tiny one compared to the true giants) look what happened

> -- he started selling and pimping harmful fake foods!

True enough, although, to be fair he seemed to openly advocate avoiding

replacing real food with them, though he probably never should have sold them

anyway. Mercola's a media mogul, of the internet anyway, and he sells good

products. Though true enough, not as big as Atkins.

>

> >>Medical information comes from the big drug companies.

> >

> >Like my doctor, who keeps Nourishing Traditions in her office.

>

> Are you really denying that most doctors get most of their medical and even

> nutritional information from drug companies, whether directly from product

> reps and the like or indirectly through company-created press and " studies " ?

No, not at all. I'm just making the point that there's no reason a

grassroots campaign to educate people can't succeed.

>

> >>Pet nutrition information comes from the pet food companies.

> >

> >Like the BARF advocates.

>

> I see, just like with your doctor -- the exception proves there's no rule,

> no trend, no correlation -- the fact that a small (albeit growing) minority

> of people are finally escaping the tyranny of big-business lies now that so

> many pets (and, in the case of human diet, people) are sick proves that

> there's no relationship at all? Come on!

No, but it shows that people can and do listen to alternative viewpoints when

they are presented, and can make big impacts on other people. And can grow.

WAPF's small, but it's growing fast, and is about doubling every year. Their

conferences went from church basements to professional conferences over a

couple years, and since they are attracting businesses (farms) and health care

providers, they have a great opportunity for growth in the years ahead.

I don't know if BARF per se has a large following or not, but the general

idea seems to be having a huge impact in the HFS market, since B & C in Hadley has

a " pet food " freezer section, with chicken feet, bones, ox tails, lamb

tongues, etc.

I guess my one-liners didn't make me very clear, and Judith's one-liners

didn't make her very clear, but I took her as giving a somewhat fatalistic view

and was just pointing out that *we* CAN make a difference, there's no reason not

to hope, and we should go and do so.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/13/04 11:51:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> If money cannot make people accept an idea how did the low-fat diet get

> pushed on the world?

Judith,

If it was that simple, the beef and egg and pork industry would have their

way. If it was that simple, Steve Forbes would be President and Bill Gates

could run for World Dictator. If it was that simple, people would think that

Exon's sole purpose is to benefit the environment. In fact, if it were that

simple, there simply wouldn't be any anti-business sentiment at all, even though

polls show anti-business sentiment is more popular than pro-business sentiment.

The low-fat diet not only had money, but power. It had the cloak of

non-profit objectivity in the form of government endorsement. It had the

perception

of government and public interest groups fighting the rich and powerful food

industry, and it appeals to peoples puritanical anti-pleasure instincts. " If it

tastes good, it musts be bad for you " is fundamentally illogical and

backwards, but appeals very deeply to our fundamentally illogical and backwards

culture.

I *do* believe the pro-fat side can win and *do* believe that an advertising

campaign would further the cause. But it is definitely NOT simply a matter of

" whoever has the most money wins. "

Hell, if it were, then Guilded Age industrialists would never have gotten the

reputation of robber barons!

Chris

[Guest guest]

Huh?

Compared to the huge food corporations the ones you mention are grains of

sand. They reach very few people and do not have the advertising dollars to

promote their claims.

If Atkins had spent billions of dollars in advertising as any of the three

that I mentioned have his diet would have been accepted long ago.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

In a message dated 1/13/04 5:15:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> Something most people don't realize is that:

>

> Diet information comes from the big food corporations.

Like Atkins.

> Medical information comes from the big drug companies.

Like my doctor, who keeps Nourishing Traditions in her office.

> Pet nutrition information comes from the pet food companies.

Like the BARF advocates.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > Diet information comes from the big food corporations.

>

>Like Atkins.

I have two responses. First, Atkins is a microbe compared to Monsanto and

its ilk. Second, as Atkins did begin to morph into an actual big food

company (albeit a tiny one compared to the true giants) look what happened

-- he started selling and pimping harmful fake foods!

> > Medical information comes from the big drug companies.

>

>Like my doctor, who keeps Nourishing Traditions in her office.

Are you really denying that most doctors get most of their medical and even

nutritional information from drug companies, whether directly from product

reps and the like or indirectly through company-created press and " studies " ?

> > Pet nutrition information comes from the pet food companies.

>

>Like the BARF advocates.

I see, just like with your doctor -- the exception proves there's no rule,

no trend, no correlation -- the fact that a small (albeit growing) minority

of people are finally escaping the tyranny of big-business lies now that so

many pets (and, in the case of human diet, people) are sick proves that

there's no relationship at all? Come on!

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/13/04 9:16:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> Compared to the huge food corporations the ones you mention are grains of

> sand. They reach very few people and do not have the advertising dollars

to

> promote their claims.

My doctor and the BARF people might be, but everyone knows who Atkins is.

At

one point, almost everyone at the church my family goes to was on Atkins,

and

I overhear customers mention his name at the restaurant at which I work many

a night.

Yes. And they know who Atkins is mostly by his books and word of mouth. Not

because of any big money advertising campaign. He had some TV exposure but

nothing compared to what the prescription drugs and fake foods get.

Yes, the majority opinion is currently against him. But so what? What is

that Ghandi quote again? " First they laugh at you, then they something,

then

you win, " or something to that effect (I'm sure I'm " bastardizing " it).

No. The majority opinion is in favor of Atkins. It is the big money of the

drug companies and the government that are against him. And it's that same

big money that keeps the deadly low-fat diet alive.

People *do* have access to this kind of information. Atkins makes

headlines,

gets on national tv, etc. It is not inevitable that the current majority

opinion remain the majority opinon. Just look at how every major scientific

advance in history was laughed at, mocked, ridiculed, and punished. But

only for

so long.

What you say about how difficult it has been to get real advancement in

medicine is true. And look at how many have suffered and died because of it.

Atkins has made headlines in the last very few years. But his headlines are

nothing compared to the food and drug companies screaming that to be

healthy, wealthy and wise you MUST forgo all good food and eat processed

junk. And many of those headlines are negative.

If people had not read his books and listened to friends and family they

would never have tried the lifestyle because of the negative headlines.

If Atkins had spent billions of dollars in advertising as any of the three

> that I mentioned have his diet would have been accepted long ago.

No, it wouldn't. That's why a politician can't win a campaign with just

money. There's no lack of access to information about the Atkins diet. Any

press

is press, good or bad, and anyone with half a brain can decide to read both

sides and make their own view if they choose. Money can get your message

out,

but it can't make people accept it. If it could, Steve Forbes would be

President.

Yes it would. For the same reasons the low-fat diet has been " successful. "

That may be true now, with access to information on the internet, but it was

not true before then. Except for his books most of the available information

was negative.

If money cannot make people accept an idea how did the low-fat diet get

pushed on the world?

Chris

The Atkins diet has spread because it works. People tried it, liked it and

talked about it, and more people tried it, liked it and talked about it. And

on and on. It lives on it's merits no matter what the Establishment says.

People are living the Atkins lifestyle because they have seen it work for

others and they wanted the benefits for themselves. So they read the books

and they tried it and for the majority of those who tried it it worked. And

they are doing it in spite of the Establishment and Establishment money.

The low-fat diet spread because huge sums of money have been spent promoting

it. Doctors who didn't go along with it lost their licenses. It has been

pushed by force and greed on the population.

Had the low-fat diet had started out as a book the same way Atkins did and

at the same time it would not have had a chance. People would have tried it,

discovered how sick and miserable it made them and they would have pitched

it. Without force and big money the low-fat diet would have gone nowhere.

Judith Alta

[Guest guest]

Not only CAN we make a difference, we ARE making a difference.

We received an ad in today's mail advertising Blimpie low carb sub

sandwiches. I understand that Subway is doing the same thing.

This is happening, not because big business and the Establishment are

pushing it at us. It is happening because it's what the people want.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

[snip]

I guess my one-liners didn't make me very clear, and Judith's one-liners

didn't make her very clear, but I took her as giving a somewhat fatalistic

view

and was just pointing out that *we* CAN make a difference, there's no reason

not

to hope, and we should go and do so.

Chris

[Guest guest]

That is one of the most sensible posts you have written on this thread.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

In a message dated 1/13/04 11:51:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> If money cannot make people accept an idea how did the low-fat diet get

> pushed on the world?

Judith,

If it was that simple, the beef and egg and pork industry would have their

way. If it was that simple, Steve Forbes would be President and Bill Gates

could run for World Dictator. If it was that simple, people would think

that

Exon's sole purpose is to benefit the environment. In fact, if it were that

simple, there simply wouldn't be any anti-business sentiment at all, even

though

polls show anti-business sentiment is more popular than pro-business

sentiment.

The low-fat diet not only had money, but power. It had the cloak of

non-profit objectivity in the form of government endorsement. It had the

perception

of government and public interest groups fighting the rich and powerful food

industry, and it appeals to peoples puritanical anti-pleasure instincts.

" If it

tastes good, it musts be bad for you " is fundamentally illogical and

backwards, but appeals very deeply to our fundamentally illogical and

backwards

culture.

I *do* believe the pro-fat side can win and *do* believe that an advertising

campaign would further the cause. But it is definitely NOT simply a matter

of

" whoever has the most money wins. "

Hell, if it were, then Guilded Age industrialists would never have gotten

the

reputation of robber barons!

Chris

[Guest guest]

Its happening because its what the industry Wants you to WANT

People are sheep and easily manipulated into thinking what they want is what

they want

Especially with the media bombarding you.

_____

From: Judith Alta [mailto:jaltak@...]

Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2004 3:01 PM

Subject: RE: food from large corporations

Not only CAN we make a difference, we ARE making a difference.

We received an ad in today's mail advertising Blimpie low carb sub

sandwiches. I understand that Subway is doing the same thing.

This is happening, not because big business and the Establishment are

pushing it at us. It is happening because it's what the people want.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

[snip]

I guess my one-liners didn't make me very clear, and Judith's one-liners

didn't make her very clear, but I took her as giving a somewhat fatalistic

view

and was just pointing out that *we* CAN make a difference, there's no reason

not

to hope, and we should go and do so.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/16/04 10:43:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,

kristenchavez@... writes:

> You're in the Boston area, correct? Could you give me the name and number

> of your doctor? My family is in the South Shore, and I know my sister would

>

> love to go to a doctor who follows NT.

Actually, , I live in West Brookfield, which might be a bit of a

drive. However, her name is Gwen Broz, her pratice is West Brookfield Family

Practice, and her number is (508) 867-8977. If you do happen to hook up with

her,

please mention you were referred by the WB WAPF chapter.

Also, if you want a Price-friendly dentist, closer to you too, I highly

recommend Dr. Nordin of West Newton Dental Associates, 1306 Washington

street,

West Newton, MA 02465, (617) 527-1600. Not only are they familiar with

Price's work, but I swear they offer the most thorough and friendly care I've

ever

witnessed from a health care provider.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> Like my doctor, who keeps Nourishing Traditions in her office.

>

-----

You're in the Boston area, correct? Could you give me the name and number

of your doctor? My family is in the South Shore, and I know my sister would

love to go to a doctor who follows NT.

Thanks!