Re: money and health (was Nutrition 101)

January 9, 2004

In a message dated 1/9/04 10:32:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> If food companies had any " public interest " at heart they would not put out

> the garbage that they do.

[snip...]

>If the food companies were allowed to be guided purely by money the " food "

>they produce would be far worse than it is now.

Mc's recently had a board meeting to determine how to reverse their

decrease in profits, and two of seven of the members suggested returning to

frying in tallow to increase their profits.

The self-interested pursuit of money led them to consider turning to tallow.

The non-profited pursuit of the " public interest " caused them to switch to

hydrogenated oils in the first place, under pressure from so-called " public

interest " groups.

>

> People eat the junk because it is heavily promoted as " healthy " and because

> it is quick and easy.

> And if you take a good look at the " regulations " you will find that they

> regulate in favor of the food industry. Those regulations you mention are

> put in place so that cheap " food " can be marketed under less stringent

> sanitary and handling practices.

Their pretense is public health. Regulations on meat safety, pushed by

public interest reformers, fueled the conglomeration of agribusiness.

Regulations

on raw milk were pursued by public health advocates. Yes, they favor certain

businesses. That's my point-- the self-interested pursuit of money benefits

everyone, while the pursuit of the public interest benefits leeches.

> The food companies, along with and especially the patent drug and medical

> industries, know full well that to promote, or to allow the promotion of,

> whole, unprocessed foods would likely mean their end.

It would be the end of some of them surely. But Mc's is considering

avoiding their end by returning to less processed foods-- such as tallow in

place of hydrogenated vegetable oil.

> Already the bakeries are complaining that the low carb lifestyles are

> " cheating " them out their profits.

They are the kind of public spirited leeches who believe that people are

" entitled " to profits. Pursuit of the " public interest " would require

supporting

existing businesses to keep jobs in place, to keep the economy stable, to

distribute profits " fairly. " The self-interested pursuit of money says no one

is

entitled to anything except what they acquire through their own productive

achievement and voluntary exchange with others.

Chris

January 9, 2004

Do you deny that the proposed changes at Mcs are anything but a ploy

to maintain the health of their bottom line? It's a " change or die "

situation.

The truth is that people are sick and tired of being sick and tired. And are

looking for better ways to live. The promise of perfect health offered by

the low fat diet has been found out for the lie that it is, and people are

dropping it in droves as they discover for themselves the benefits of

following the dietary lifestyle changes recommended by the likes of Atkins,

Eades and Schwarzbein.

Expect to see quantities of " news " reports on the " dangers " of these

lifestyles. Low fat will not die without much screaming and struggling. The

drug and medical industries stand to lose the most in the battle and will

scream the loudest.

Who needs statin drugs, with their life threatening side effects, when

eating meat and fat will bring the numbers down with much less cost and

effort? Same for diabetes and many other drugs.

Judith Alta

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

In a message dated 1/9/04 10:32:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> If food companies had any " public interest " at heart they would not put

out

> the garbage that they do.

[snip...]

>If the food companies were allowed to be guided purely by money the " food "

>they produce would be far worse than it is now.

Mc's recently had a board meeting to determine how to reverse their

decrease in profits, and two of seven of the members suggested returning to

frying in tallow to increase their profits.

The self-interested pursuit of money led them to consider turning to tallow.

The non-profited pursuit of the " public interest " caused them to switch to

hydrogenated oils in the first place, under pressure from so-called " public

interest " groups.

>

> People eat the junk because it is heavily promoted as " healthy " and

because

> it is quick and easy.

> And if you take a good look at the " regulations " you will find that they

> regulate in favor of the food industry. Those regulations you mention are

> put in place so that cheap " food " can be marketed under less stringent

> sanitary and handling practices.

Their pretense is public health. Regulations on meat safety, pushed by

public interest reformers, fueled the conglomeration of agribusiness.

Regulations

on raw milk were pursued by public health advocates. Yes, they favor

certain

businesses. That's my point-- the self-interested pursuit of money benefits

everyone, while the pursuit of the public interest benefits leeches.

> The food companies, along with and especially the patent drug and medical

> industries, know full well that to promote, or to allow the promotion of,

> whole, unprocessed foods would likely mean their end.

It would be the end of some of them surely. But Mc's is considering

avoiding their end by returning to less processed foods-- such as tallow in

place of hydrogenated vegetable oil.

> Already the bakeries are complaining that the low carb lifestyles are

> " cheating " them out their profits.

They are the kind of public spirited leeches who believe that people are

" entitled " to profits. Pursuit of the " public interest " would require

supporting

existing businesses to keep jobs in place, to keep the economy stable, to

distribute profits " fairly. " The self-interested pursuit of money says no

one is

entitled to anything except what they acquire through their own productive

achievement and voluntary exchange with others.

Chris

January 9, 2004

In a message dated 1/9/04 12:45:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Dpdg@... writes:

> ~~~ it could also be taken to mean that people who acquire money are more

> interested in keeping as much of it or spending it on what THEY value which

> might be everything except what they consider to be, expensive food...

That's not what he said, and I don't think that's what he meant, but were it,

then so what? I buy healthy food with my own money. Why should I be

entitled to spend someone elses money on healthy food?

> those same people might not have the knowledge nor wish to know, how

> 'taxing' their cheap and abundant food is on the environment, other peoples'

> livelihoods or even their own future health...

Well, first of all, poor people eat crap food, middle class people eat at

health food stores, and rich people eat at restaurants. But whoever is buying

it, no one else buying any food they choose interferes with my ability to buy

healthy food, even if I have to go to a farm and get it. I know; I do it every

day.

Chris

_____

wrote:

>This so-called " public interest " should be written exactly as you did -- in

>quotes. In the vast majority of cases, including the pasteurization of

>dairy, it's a pretext, nothing more. Dairy pasteurization, factory

>farming, grain feeding, etc., is ALL done purely in the self-interested

>pursuit of money. And before you go blaming government, the

>self-interested pursuit of money will ALWAYS lead people to lie and

>propagandize whether there's any government around or not. I'm not saying

>there shouldn't be plenty of self interest, just that the self-interested

>pursuit of money is something of a double-edged sword, and if we don't

>recognize that, we'll be forever getting cut.

It's not " the government " per se that I blame, but the ideology of public

interest. The looters are in industry and government, and " public interest " is

the mantra for looting of every type, whether the working class laborer is

looting from his employer, the welfare recipient looting from the rest of the

populace, or the big industrialist looting from the middle class. It's all the

same-- people clammering to buy their wealth with the barrel of a gun they

didn't even make, rather than by their own achievement.

The self-interested pursuit of money can be good or evil, depending on

whether it is pursued with violence or through achievement. If there is no

violence, and each party engages voluntarily, then either one party is

irrational, or

both benefit. Period. When force is involved, you get the above.

Chris

_____

January 9, 2004

In a message dated 1/9/04 5:08:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >The self-interested pursuit of money led them to consider turning to

> tallow.

> >The non-profited pursuit of the " public interest " caused them to switch to

> >hydrogenated oils in the first place, under pressure from so-called " public

> >interest " groups.

>

> This is a disappointingly foolish analysis. Why do you think the

> perception of " public interest " was engineered to be hostile to tropical

> oils and to animal fats? Because domestic vegetable oils and domestic

> hydrogenated vegetable oils were much cheaper and therefore much more

> profitable.

Oh, I certainly agree that the food industry welcomed and encouraged the idea

for that very reason, but I think it is equally foolish to believe that every

researcher was a tool of the food industry, or that those Center for Science

in the Public Interest fools were actually tools of the food industry. I'm

sure *they* thought they were opposing them!

In the unlikely event that beef tallow is now cheaper than

> hydrogenated vegetable oil, I expect it's either because tallow has become

> an undesirable waste product or because they're accounting for expected

> long-term losses due to lawsuits over their use of hydrogenated oil.

No, it's quite clear this is wrong if one is familiar with the context.

Mc's profits have been going down the tubes for quite some time. This has

been in the business news semi-frequently in the last few years. The

conference was explicitly addressing this issue, and the proposal was proposed

as a way

to increase sales, by increasing the flavor of the fries.

> Do you really think all the tentacles of the lipid hypothesis are

> anti-capitalist anti-self-interest arms of the government? Is CSPI

> secretly government-funded? Are the AMA and the AHA actually arms of the

> government? What about Big Agro?

> These lies are largely born of greed.

Sure. But what do you consider " capitalism " ? If " capitalism " is considered

with a meaningful definition rather than to be the bastardization of it we

currently live under, then I would suggest that yes, these folks, and huge

portions, maybe the majority, of industry are anti-capitalists.

Chris

January 9, 2004

In a message dated 1/9/04 5:08:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Do you really think all the tentacles of the lipid hypothesis are

> anti-capitalist anti-self-interest arms of the government? Is CSPI

> secretly government-funded? Are the AMA and the AHA actually arms of the

> government? What about Big Agro?

Oh, and as to the last: Didn't you know Big Agro is one of the fiercest

opponents of capitalism in the country? One of the biggest welfare bums in the

world?

Chris

January 9, 2004

In a message dated 1/9/04 5:29:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Dpdg@... writes:

> <<Well, first of all, poor people eat crap food, middle class people eat at

> health food stores, and rich people eat at restaurants.>>

>

> ~~~ is that so ?

No, it's a gross generalization. But it's definitely true that poor people

tend to eat lower quality food and people with money tend to eat higher quality

food, for somewhat obvious reasons.

You had said:

>it could also be taken to mean that people who acquire money are more

interested >in keeping as much of it or spending it on what THEY value which

might

be >everything except what they consider to be, expensive food...

I responded with the above gross generalization that described a general

tendency to show why it makes little sense that people eat poor food in order to

horde money, when the people eating the poor food are the ones with no money to

horde, and the ones who pursue wealth or are more successful at it, generally

buy more expensive food.

Chris

_____

January 9, 2004

Chris-

>The self-interested pursuit of money led them to consider turning to tallow.

>The non-profited pursuit of the " public interest " caused them to switch to

>hydrogenated oils in the first place, under pressure from so-called " public

>interest " groups.

This is a disappointingly foolish analysis. Why do you think the

perception of " public interest " was engineered to be hostile to tropical

oils and to animal fats? Because domestic vegetable oils and domestic

hydrogenated vegetable oils were much cheaper and therefore much more

profitable. In the unlikely event that beef tallow is now cheaper than

hydrogenated vegetable oil, I expect it's either because tallow has become

an undesirable waste product or because they're accounting for expected

long-term losses due to lawsuits over their use of hydrogenated oil.

Do you really think all the tentacles of the lipid hypothesis are

anti-capitalist anti-self-interest arms of the government? Is CSPI

secretly government-funded? Are the AMA and the AHA actually arms of the

government? What about Big Agro?

These lies are largely born of greed.

-

January 9, 2004

In a message dated 1/9/04 9:49:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, jzbozzi@...

writes:

> I am sure the trans fat high carb diet would have been over before

> it started if the people who benefit from it were not able to make

> it the LAW. Lies come and go, such is human nature, but once

> something becomes a law it's gonna be around for a loooonnnnnngggg

> time. a free non-violent society is the most NATURAL form of

> society. destroy the ring, none should have its power.

Thanks Joe. This is the point I'm trying to make. I don't believe that it

was noble anti-capitalist anti-industry heroes who were tragically misguided

that brought us the lipid hypothesis, nor do I believe that Big Business is our

innocent and benevolent benefactor who fought the lipid hypothesis with all

its strength.

It's the whole idea of public interest that *allowed* Big Business to use it

for looting, pillaging, and destroying for gain.

Chris

January 9, 2004

ChrisMasterjohn wrote -- That's not what he said, and I don't think that's what

he meant, but were it, then so what? >>

~~~you're right Chris... I was quoting YOU and your interpretation of what

said.

<< I buy healthy food with my own money. Why should I be entitled to spend

someone elses money on healthy food? .... >>

?????

<<Well, first of all, poor people eat crap food, middle class people eat at

health food stores, and rich people eat at restaurants.>>

~~~ is that so ?

Dedy

January 9, 2004

Chris-

I don't have the time to keep up with this argument, so my participation is

going to be spotty, but I highly, highly, highly recommend that you read

_Trust Us, We're Experts_. The ideology of public interest (which, like

the pursuit of profit, can be used to good ends or bad -- do you really

object to the concept of public sanitation?) as used to promote

hydrogenated vegetable oils and low-fat high-carb refined-carb diets is a

TOOL, a CREATION of the business interests which profit from

it. Noble-minded fools didn't pave the road to hell with good intentions

and force agribusiness to switch the American public from animal fats to

vegetable oils and hydrogenated vegetable oils, agribusiness created the

perception that animal fats and tropical oils are harmful and that

vegetable oils and hydrogenated vegetable oils are healthy and thus foisted

their high-margin products on us. The tropical oil and animal fat

industries, partly due to partly overlapping with the rest of agribusiness

and partly due to having lower margins and therefore less wealth with which

to fight, lost the war, at least for a few decades.

>It's not " the government " per se that I blame, but the ideology of public

>interest. The looters are in industry and government, and " public

>interest " is

>the mantra for looting of every type, whether the working class laborer is

>looting from his employer, the welfare recipient looting from the rest of the

>populace, or the big industrialist looting from the middle class. It's

>all the

>same-- people clammering to buy their wealth with the barrel of a gun they

>didn't even make, rather than by their own achievement.

-

January 9, 2004

What baffles me is not that people lie, but how long these lies

about nutrition have persisted.

My wife is a personal trainer. She was told by the head personal

trainer that he believes, like her, the food pyramid is crap, but

she still has to teach it because that is what the government

recommends and that will protect them from liability.

I am sure the trans fat high carb diet would have been over before

it started if the people who benefit from it were not able to make

it the LAW. Lies come and go, such is human nature, but once

something becomes a law it's gonna be around for a loooonnnnnngggg

time. a free non-violent society is the most NATURAL form of

society. destroy the ring, none should have its power.

> In a message dated 1/9/04 5:08:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> Idol@c... writes:

>

> > Do you really think all the tentacles of the lipid hypothesis

are

> > anti-capitalist anti-self-interest arms of the government? Is

CSPI

> > secretly government-funded? Are the AMA and the AHA actually

arms of the

> > government? What about Big Agro?

>

> Oh, and as to the last: Didn't you know Big Agro is one of the

fiercest

> opponents of capitalism in the country? One of the biggest

welfare bums in the

> world?

>

> Chris

>

January 9, 2004

Joe-

But it isn't the law at all. Again, though it doesn't really touch on food

at all (and the authors would probably take the wrong view anyway) I highly

recommend _Trust Us, We're Experts_. Yes, government is abused quite

often, but it's far from the only tool in the liars' toolbox.

>I am sure the trans fat high carb diet would have been over before

>it started if the people who benefit from it were not able to make

>it the LAW.

-

January 9, 2004

Chris-

Depending on how you define " the whole idea of public interest " , maybe, but

even if you abolished government completely, there'd still be perceptions

of public interests, and people would still use and abuse those

perceptions. It's a fundamental component of human nature.

>It's the whole idea of public interest that *allowed* Big Business to use it

>for looting, pillaging, and destroying for gain.

-

January 9, 2004

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Joe-

>

> But it isn't the law at all. Again, though it doesn't really touch

on food

> at all (and the authors would probably take the wrong view anyway)

I highly

> recommend _Trust Us, We're Experts_. Yes, government is abused

quite

> often, but it's far from the only tool in the liars' toolbox.

>

> >I am sure the trans fat high carb diet would have been over before

> >it started if the people who benefit from it were not able to make

> >it the LAW.

>

> -

,

I think Joe was using " trans fat high carb diet " as a euphemism for

all the laws that do impact negatively what we eat.

Nonetheless you are correct, government is not the only tool in

the " liars " toolbox, the problem is that it is the tool with a

difference. Unlike any other institution in our society, it carries

the power of the gun behind it. Gov't has a legal monopoly on force.

It is a point most folks fail to appreciate or even understand. I

have posted an article below that I think helps clarify the issue.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1408

Why the State Is Different

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

[Posted December 30, 2003]

A common accusation against libertarianism is that we are unnaturally

obsessed with tracing social and economic problems to the state, and,

in doing so, we oversimplify the world. If you let the people who say

this keep talking, they will explain to you why the state is not all

bad, that some of its actions yield positive results and, in any

case, the state should not always be singled out as some sort of

grave evil.

It is not inconceivable, they say, that the state is performing

actions that weave themselves into the normal operation of society.

The state is not always exogenous to the system but is sometime

intrinsic to it. To constantly blame the state for our ills is as

cranky as those who single out the Bilderbergers for all the world's

ills; it is a half truth gone mad.

Without attempting a wholesale refutation of this position, what this

criticism overlooks is the uniqueness of the state as an institution.

Let us turn our attention to a news item that underscores in what

respects the state is different from the rest of society. It concerns

the new law passed by Congress and signed by the president that

criminalizes the sending of commercial spam. From this one case, we

can observe a number of traits of the state that demonstrate just how

truly outside of society it really is, and therefore why it is right

to focus such close attention on it.

There are a number of commercial products on the market designed to

crush spam, which can be defined as email you never asked to receive

and do not want. It is not at all clear that sending someone such an

email is really a coercive invasion of property rights, but it is

surely annoying, and so there is a market for methods of stopping it.

As always in commerce, there are those who stand to make a buck by

solving problems. Entrepreneurs dream up new methods and capitalists

take risks to bring them to market. Each product that is offered is

distinctive. Consumers try out a number of different ones. The ones

that work better than others—and sell for the right price and are

easy to install—displace those that work less well. Profits flow

to

those who have done the best job.

This is the way the market works, and all is done voluntarily. The

power to judge, to make some products succeed and some fail, is in

the hands of consumers. Consumers base their judgments on what is

good for them personally, so there is a constant feedback mechanism,

from the desktop to the capitalists to the entrepreneurs to the

traders who buy and sell stocks of companies that bring the products

to market at the least-possible cost.

We can only marvel at how all of this is coordinated by the price

system, which is the link between our subjective valuations and the

real-world of technology and resources. To succeed in this market

requires creativity, imagination, a keen sense of judgment, a

technological sense, and relentless attention to the needs of others.

People make money even as society is served.

Now, let us contrast this gorgeous web of trial and error with the

ham-handed approach of Congress and the president. Someone had the

idea that spam is bad, and thus does the solution present itself:

make it illegal, which is to say, threaten spammers with fines and

jail and, if they resist enough, death. It is no more or less

complicated than that. There is no trial and error process, no

imagination required, no permission from consumers to be sought, and

no investors to issue a judgment on the merits or demerits of this

approach. Congress speaks, the president agrees, and it is done.

What if it doesn't work? Only under the rarest conditions does the

state reverse itself or admit error. Its tendency instead is to keep

pounding away with its one and only hammer, even if the nail is all

the way in or hasn't budged at all.

Hence Lesson One in the uniqueness of the state: the state has one

tool, and one tool only, at its disposal: force.

Now, imagine if a private enterprise tried that same approach. Let's

say that Acme Anti-Spam puts out a product that would tag spammers,

loot their bank accounts, and hold them in captivity for a period of

time, and shoot spammers dead should they attempt to evade or escape.

What's more, the company doesn't propose to test this approach on the

market and seek subscribers, but rather force every last email user

to subscribe.

How will Acme Anti-Spam make money at its operation? It won't. It

will fund its activities by taking money from your bank account

whether you like it or not. They say that they can do this simply

because they can, and if you try to stop it, you too will be fined,

imprisoned, or shot. The company further claims that it is serving

society.

Such a company would be immediately decried as heartless, antisocial,

and essentially deranged. At the very least it would be considered

uncreative and dangerous, if not outright criminal. Its very

existence would be a scandal, and the people who dreamed up such a

company and tried to manage it would be seen as psychopaths or just

evil. Everyone would see through the motivation: they are using a

real problem that exists in society as a means to get money without

our permission, and to exercise authority that should belong to no

one.

Lesson Two presents itself: the state is the only institution in

society that can impose itself on all of society without asking the

permission of anyone in particular. You can't opt out.

A seemingly peculiar aspect of the anti-spam law is that the

government exempts itself from having to adhere to its own law.

Politicians routinely buy up email addresses from commercial

companies and send out unsolicited email. They defend this practice

on grounds that they are not pushing a commercial service and that

doing so is cheaper than sending regular mail, and hence saves

taxpayer money. It is not spam, they say, but constituent service. We

all laugh at the political class for its hypocrisy in this, and yet

the exemption draws attention to:

Lesson Three: the state is exempt from the laws it claims to enforce,

and manages this exemption by redefining its criminality as public

service.

What is considered theft in the private sector is " taxation " when

done by the state. What is kidnapping in the private sector

is " selective service " in the public sector. What is counterfeiting

when done in the private sector is " monetary policy " when done by the

public sector. What is mass murder in the private sector is " foreign

policy " in the public sector.

This tendency to break laws and redefine that infraction is a

universal feature of the state. When cops zoom by we don't think of

them as speeding but merely being on the chase. Killing innocents is

dismissed as inevitable civilian casualties. So it should hardly

surprise us that the state rarely or even never catches itself in the

webs it weaves. Of course it exempts itself from its anti-spam law.

The state is above the law.

The problem of spam will be solved one way or another. The criminal

penalties will deter some but the real solution will come from the

private sector, just as the problem of crime is lessened by the

locks, alarm systems, handguns, and private security guards provided

by the private sector. The state of course will take credit.

Historians will observe the appearance and disappearance of spam

coinciding with the before and after of the criminal penalties, while

it will be up to those dismissed as wacky revisionists to give the

whole truth.

This is the final feature of the state (for this article) to which I

would like to draw attention: it gets to write the history. Unlike

the other three issues, this is not an intrinsic feature of the state

but rather is a reflection of the culture. This can change so long as

people are alert to the problem. And this is the role, the essential

role, of libertarian intellectuals: to change the ideological culture

in ways that make people aware of the antisocial nature of the state,

and how it always stands outside of society, no matter how democratic

it may claim to be.

The case of the latest anti-spam law is only one chapter in a very

long book that dates back to the beginning of recorded history, and

extends as far as our existence on this earth. There will always be

those who claim to have special rights over the rest of society, and

the state is the most organized attempt to get away with it. To focus

on these people as a unique problem is not an obsession, but the

working out of intellectual responsibility.

January 9, 2004

I'm sure you are aware that there is no scientific basis for the " healthy "

diet. The food pyramid was created by politicians, not by scientists. If you

can get your hands on a copy of J. 's " Heart Failure " (or is it

Heart Attack " ?) do so. He explains out very well how the cholesterol scam

was devised to create a " disease " for which people would have to take an

expensive medicine for the rest of their lives.

The book was written in 1989 and is long out of print so it will probably be

hard to find.

http://www.oralchelation.net/heartdisease/ChapterFive/page5g.htm

Here is the first paragraph of the pertinent chapter on cholesterol:

ONE MORNING IN EARLY OCTOBER OF 1987 THE U.S. health authorities announced

that 25 percent of the adult population had a dangerous condition requiring

medical treatment. Since there were no symptoms, it would be necessary to

screen the entire population to identify those in danger. More than half of

those screened would be dispatched to their physicians for medical tests and

evaluation. Then for one out of four adults treatment would begin. The first

step would be a strict diet under medical supervision. If within three

months the dieting had not achieved specified results that could be verified

by laboratory tests, a more severe diet would be imposed. The final step for

many patients would be powerful drugs to be taken for the rest of their

lives.

Judith Alta

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

Chris-

Depending on how you define " the whole idea of public interest " , maybe, but

even if you abolished government completely, there'd still be perceptions

of public interests, and people would still use and abuse those

perceptions. It's a fundamental component of human nature.

>It's the whole idea of public interest that *allowed* Big Business to use

it

>for looting, pillaging, and destroying for gain.

-

January 9, 2004

The major reason the news media has not publicized the fallacy of the lipid

hypothesis is that advertising dollars swing a huge stick.

Should a magazine or TV station, etc. go against their advertiser's wishes

they stand to lose a huge chunk of money.

Another excellent book on the cholesterol hype and the lipid hypothesis is

" The Cholesterol Myths " by Dr. Uffe Ravnskov of Sweden. He very carefully

details all the studies that " prove " lowering cholesterol will prevent or

cure coronary heart disease.