Why is the potential firestorm that this guy wants (against the food industry), not the same as it was in the 90s with the cigarette companies and nicotine? I had this discussion at work today and one of the doctors brought up a really good point.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This is really a matter of evolution. We started off expending large quantities of energy to acquire more energy. Energy was hard to come by so we have mechanisms to place to eat all that we can to save up for any potential lag. Our bodies would be stressed from not catching a meal and our metabolism would slow to compensate while also producing hunger signals to let us know we needed food. Now current day, food is no problem to come by, it is all around us (environment). Our jobs are stressful, but we exert no energy in them, so we are more hungry and metabolizing less food.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot change the mechanisms in place…that is adaptation.
We can change the environment in which we surround ourselves. Cigarettes were never part of our diets and don’t provide any nutritional value even when taken in moderation. In some parts of the country “a little meat on the bones” is considered healthy; whereas smokers cough and emphysema are not.
So I stake my claim in environment reform and that includes reforming what commercials are allowed to sell to kids similar to what they did with the smoking camel. Actually, I have no idea why commercials geared toward children are even legal. They don’t have jobs and can’t buy anything. It is really just conditioning. That whole part of marketing should be dissolved.
Finally, in the documentary "Killer at Large" it is evident the reason we don't see food being regulated like cigarettes is because of lobbyists. Honestly, I think the U.S. regards our corn as we regard Saudi Arabia's oil...it's our big product.
In the documentary "The Corporation," they discussed a survey some corporation(s) did in which they called parents and asked about their kids nagging to buy products. Apparently they didn't specify to these people that their goal was to find out how effective nagging was in getting parents to purchase things, and from then on they aimed to get kids to nag more through commercials. I'd guess fast food, candy, pop, and other ones probably employ the same tactics on Saturday mornings.
ReplyDelete