Re: Re: oreos

[Guest guest]

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

From: " Idol " <Idol@...>

> Adrienne-

> I'm not sure I follow you. You think the FDA wants children to grow up

> addled, brain-damaged and hormonally imbalanced?

Hi ,

Well maybe in not so many words Yes! The fda (imho, which is nothing)

is to me nothing more than an extention of corperate America. They are in

the pockets of you name it adm, rjr, phizer,merk and the like. It is no

wonder to me that the current dietary guidelines are beneficial to them

and will prolly stay that way. Tax dollars is what keeps the govt. going.

More sales more & medical treatments = more tax dollars, so while maybe

the govt. is not " actually " doing it I would say they would turn a blind eye

to benefit themselves for sure.

As I walk through a grocery store I never cease to be horrified at

offerings. Sliced peanutbutter.. Come on folks the problem is you don't

get real bread. Cooked bacon that does not need refrigeration?

Frightening, for sure. The supposed inflation rate is low. How come

bunches of fresh collards has doubled and the bunches are half the size.

How can someone on a tight budget advocate eating fresh when 16oz

cans of greens are 4 for 1.00? Same goes for stuff like flour and sugar

they are twice as expensive as 5 years ago. (not that I am advocating

they are good just a staple in most homes) But that same crappy cake

mix and frosting are still 79 cents

Why are they hydrogenating lard and coconut oil now? Immigrants make

up a large population in the us. They have to target them as well as the

rest

of us. They consume fresh meats and veggies so unlike the SAD. Also

they use sat. fats. Why not get them to part of the ever thriving medical

industry.

I personally feel it could set the economy in the country in a tailspin if

decent food were available to all. Just think of the untold thousands

possibly billions of dollars a day on just antacids. Add that to a

population that does not go to doctors, hospitals daily. Then throw in

all the thousands of unemployed that used to work for the drug companies.

Nope, don't see corperate amarica or those tax collectors letting that

happen.

No more than I see adm letting out that soy is bad. They get prolly

more than a thousand dollars a bushel as soy milk. Maybe .46 on

the open market as animal feed. Just the fact that they have to mix

it with other things to get pigs to eat it tells me that it could not be

good. A pig will eat just about anything.

As long as they are brain dead tax payers that don't question a thing

because they are " protected " by momm ... er, uh, I mean the government

and sit in front of the idiot box munching on chips and soda or beer then

no I don't think the govt. would change a thing. I don't think the govt.

gives a flip about anyone's health.

If so they would allow (legally) farmers to sell direct to the public,

(without having to have a million dollar facility) frankly I am tired

of being protected. I don't need or desire it. I learned to think for

myself and make my own decisions long ago. So have our customers,

yet we have to keep it hush hush or risk " federal " concequences??

Then to boot they condone the garbage that the industry throws

the public?? ( can you tell this burns my butt LOL)

If you would have told Americans 100 years ago that the only meat to

be sold to the people had to be govt approved or illegal there would

have been a revolt like no one's business. Try that today and you

would wind up under the jail.

Take Care,

Adrienne who will now go crawl into the corner

and be a good girl and just read and learn. Thank you all!

[Guest guest]

>---->that's what I had when Heidi said her kids couldn't bring homemade food

>to a public school. I think I woke up on the wrong planet this morning

The raw meat disposal issue is a real one -- that is one of the driving

forces behind the " anything into oil " idea. What DO you do with a million

tons of turkey bones and guts? In the past they have fed the animal waste

to animals, but that is being banned. We have that problem on our property

too -- a lot of waste I can compost or feed to an animal, but you can't

just toss raw meat into the compost bin. Tossing it into the garbage is

awful too. And it does have the potential to harbor disease.

Turning animal waste into fuel oil is a great solution, in my book, though

I've seen very little about it in the news. They say that the US could

produce 4 billion barrels of oil a year, just from farm waste. That is

about equal to our oil imports ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>Stay at home mom's are priceless however THEY

>WORK CHEAP! As in FREE. Again cheap = need no cash.

No, they're generally not paid in cash, but that doesn't mean they're

free. For example, they cost the family the money the mom could earn in

the workplace less the extra money that would spent to put her in the

workplace (on transportation, daycare, whatever). That can be considerable.

-

[Guest guest]

Me too. I have been experimenting somewhat with the atkins diet and I am

astonished how much fat I need to stay on an even keel.

Irene

At 03:36 PM 5/16/03, you wrote:

>Jafa-

>

> >They even consider themselves addicted.

>

>Then maybe try giving them more animal fat (if you can afford

>it). Potentially a lot more. I know all about sugar addiction, and the

>only way I can control myself is to avoid carbs and eat tons of animal

>fat. (And I practically mean " tons " literally.)

>

>

>

>-

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Of course the ultimatel responsibility is with the people. Sueing Nabisco

is part of how people exercise that responsiblity and hold Nabisco

accountable for their actions and their product. It is silly to say people

have to be responsible, and then say people must limit exercising that

responsibility to buying or not buying the product. There are many ways to

be responsible.

Irene

At 03:32 PM 5/16/03, you wrote:

>'companies can also dramatically reshape the market...

>by lobbying

>careful PR campaigns

>promulgation of pseudo-science'

>

>

>

> what I said is 100% true. These facts you list above are also

>true and accurate corporate practices, but their success rides on

>ONE thing...

>

>Sheeple being unable to ask, probe and critically think. Sorry

>friend but the ultimate responsability for the rise or fall of the

>sheeple lies with the sheeple. It can't be pawned off on someone

>else. If you're stupid enough to believe and not question that

>Oreo's or the like are fine, considering the boatload of clear info

>that says otherwise you deserve your own horrible self sealed fate.

>

>It continues to amaze me how intelligent critcal thinkers like

>yourself and other folks I meet simply want to give the sheeple a

>free pass and make it the " fault " of the big bad corporations who

>admittedly suck in the most major way, but still fall short on the

>responsability scale. If you eat oreo's and the like and feed them

>to your kids the responsibility for your consequences and those of

>your kids lie with you not nabisco.

>

>Yes the schools should stop taking their money, yes they should be

>forced to advertise fairly and truthfully, yes they should not be

>baiting children. Yes to all of these, but when someone plunks down

>4 bucks for a bag of oreos the responsibility is nowhere with anyone

>but the plunker. Sorry NO FREE PASS. There is no substitue for the

>capacity to have a critical thought.

>

>DMM

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

>wrote:

> > Mike-

> >

> > This is only partly true. Yes, companies go down the tubes all

>the time

> > because they fail to satisfy the market, but companies can also

> > dramatically reshape the market, and not just by lobbying the

>Dread Demon

> > Government, but by careful PR campaigns and the promulgation of

> > pseudo-science. Government is far from the only tool they use.

> >

> > There's no better book on the subject than _Trust Us, We're

>Experts_, by

> > Stauber and Sheldon Ramton. You can look into it at

> >

>

<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/->http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos\

/tg/detail/-

>/1585421391/qid=1053120144/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9288758-6795103?

>v=glance & s=books

> > and even read a few sample pages there.

> >

> > >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.

> >

> >

> >

> > -

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mike-

> this is awfully myopic. Is it possible that someone has had a

>different experience than you?

I understand why my short reply would seem that way, but let me explain.

I can well believe that kids raised in sugar-free households wouldn't like

sugary foods upon first presentation. In fact, they might not ever like

sugar if they're only ever exposed to it very occasionally. But over time

and in quantity, sugar is an addictive drug. Enough exposures will

eventually addict most people. And yes, of course, there will still be

exceptions to that rule too -- I only said " most " , not " all " .

I was raised in a nearly sugar-free household, the occasional Haagen Dazs

or homemade dessert being the exception, and that didn't help me. In fact,

my grandparents, whom I lived with for much of my childhood, were strongly

opposed to any kind of preservative or coloring or fake food, and anything

with added sugar, and raised me to be extremely hostile to all those

things. In fact, I'm told that as a little kid I'd run around the

supermarket when we went shopping pointing at any processed or sugary food

and shouting " Junk! " . (God only knows what was going through my pointy

little head at the time, but I have it on good authority that I did this

all the time.)

In fairness it's also true that the households I grew up in were mostly

low-fat, and I never got nearly enough animal fat (which is one reason I

need truly ludicrous quantities of fat now, instead of merely large

amounts). Also, there was no real positive understanding of why good foods

were supposed to be good -- let alone why I ought to eat meat and animal

fat, both of which my grandfather loathed. My grandparents ate oatmeal

with orange juice to avoid dairy, and they ate wheat germ and soy and

sprouts and loads of bread and peanut butter and raisins and bananas and

other stuff like that. Even lean beef was a rarity, with chicken and lean

fish and hard-boiled eggs (to avoid the need for butter) being pretty much

the only sources of animal protein. My mom served steak relatively

frequently when she was married to my brother's father, but it was always

accompanied by tons of pasta. And then she went through her horrible tofu

vegan phase, which I still have nightmares about. (Only half-joking

there. I remember having many dreams during that period in which I was a

dog or a wolf or sometimes an unidentified beast slobbering over a huge raw

steak which was always kept just out of reach.)

So, sure, someone raised on plenty of genuinely good foods including loads

of good fats, someone educated with our modern/traditional understanding of

diet and nutrition, will have a lot more resistance to sugar than a sickly

ignorant kid like me, largely fed crappy " health food " , but that doesn't

mean repeated dosings won't eventually result in addiction in many less

dire cases than mine.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi Jafa,

The situation you describe is my fear. My son is 12 months old and has had

no junk. But my cousins feed their children tons of junk food and the kids

seem perfectly fine. I don't know if that will last until adulthood but if

my son want to eat junk when he is older I am sure he will point to his

cousins and say it is OK for them.

That is a bridge I will cross when the time comes I guess.

Irene

At 03:27 PM 5/16/03, you wrote:

>DMM,

>

>Maybe most kids don't eat junk food away from home in a junk food free

>home. Mine do. It is a constant fight. They never even tasted sugar

>tell they were 4 yrs., unless it was a rare occasion. But, once they hit

>school, it was all over. They are in middle school now. They trade with

>their friends and buy it at school and the local grocery. I see the

>evidence they leave behind. They do know better, but tell me they can't

>help themselves. They even consider themselves addicted. I feel I did

>the best I could to educate them. And to tell you the truth, I'm tired of

>it. The constant nagging. They both say they don't know anyone who is

>sick from eating this way and all of their relatives are healthy, who are

>older. This is all true. I say it is preventative. They don't care. I

>do think they eat less junk than others, but it is like talking to a

>wall. They are otherwise great kids, and we have a good

>relationship. It's just getting to be too great an issue between us.

>

>I do offer healthful alternatives, but they don't like them as much. My

>daughter actually brought in a cup of soup from a friends house the other

>day and made it when I was out.

>

>It's quite a predicament. I do the best I can with a difficult situation.

>

>Jafa

>

> " Dr. Marasco " <mmarasco@...> wrote:

>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/>http://www.caberfeidh.com/

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Wow this is so not true. We didn't get vending machinge crap at home but I

sure did eat it at school. We didn't have vending machines back then but we

had a candy store and I ate peanut butter cups ate least once a day. I got

terribly addicted to them. My mother would have been horrified had she known.

Irene

At 12:29 PM 5/16/03, you wrote:

>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.

[Guest guest]

> its just your day to be contrary.

Maybe so, Mike, and if I'm being irascible, you have my apologies. I'm

coming off several very trying days in which to add insult to injury I

almost completely ran out of fat to eat (no dairy, no sausages) and for me

that's a recipe for disaster.

That said, I do think we have to separate two different categories of costs

and benefits -- monetary and non-monetary. Having a stay-at-home mom who

home-schools your kids and is on board with the right nutritional ideas and

so on is obviously invaluable, because how you can possibly put a price on

the benefits to your children and family? And I mean that literally: the

benefits are too immense to be quantified.

But the actual cash-flow issue is separate. It's possible to measure and

meaningfully estimate the _cash-flow_ costs of having one member of a

marriage stay at home, and those costs have tangible effects even if they

don't mean a damn thing about the overall _value_ of doing things that way.

Just for a simplified example, suppose a woman could go out and make

$25k/year take-home (IOW after taxes), but the costs would include a car

(say $8k in that year) plus daycare and a few other things (say $4k in that

year). (These numbers are probably off, but it doesn't really

matter.) Therefore the net cash flow benefit of that woman going to work

would be $13k for the year, or $250/week. That means the actual cash cost

of her choosing to stay at home would be the same -- $250/week -- because

the difference in the family finances will be exactly that.

That certainly doesn't mean the overall value of everything she could do at

home (being a full-time mother to the kids, cooking nutritious food,

educating the kids on nutrition, etc. etc. etc.) is $250/week -- as I said

and meant, the true value of those functions is incalculable and enormous,

priceless in a literal sense -- but it does mean that there's an actual

cash cost. Some people no doubt choose the extra cash when they don't

truly need it, but many people simply can't get along without it.

And of course all this is completely aside from the moral dilemma of

parents who both want to have careers and non-family lives and also want to

have kids. Is it fair to tell them that at least one person, presumably

the wife in the vast majority of cases, should stay at home for the

kids? Is it fair to the kids to have no parents at home? It seems to me

that the answer to both question is no, but where the hell does that leave

us? (I guess that's a rhetorical question, since that issue is beyond the

scope of this list.)

-

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>Kids eat it because their parents tell them to!!!!

And every parent who tells a kid to eat margarine or oreos or whatever is

doing a very bad thing, and is responsible for the kid eating those bad

things. But at the same time, companies creating poisonous products and

marketing them directly to kids are creating demand among kids. They're

responsible too. We have to oppose those companies just as much as we push

parents to be more educated and responsible.

-

[Guest guest]

Well of course. I just find it interesting that responsibility is only for

" sheeple " and not for companies. I say it is for both. I think things will

only get better if everyone takes responsiblity. I was a kid in the 60's

when the tobacco companies were swearing that their product was safe. It

made me think that they probably weren't so bad. My friends thought the

same thing and they thought their parents were rediculous. I didn't smoke

but many of my friends did in spite of their parents telling them not to..

I think had the tobacco companies should have told the truth. It wouldn't

have prevented many people from smoking but it would have prevented some.

Telling the truth about their product wouldn't have destroyed their company

and I think it is is good that they were held accountable for those lies

albeit belatedly.

Irene

At 12:12 PM 5/16/03, you wrote:

>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.

[Guest guest]

Absolutely! That is the point! We take personal responsibility AND hold

them accountable. Not one or the other!

Irene

At 12:52 PM 5/16/03, you wrote:

>,

>

>It is never possible to make someone have a conscience. Corporations are

>simply made up of individuals who may have a collective conscience or not,

>but to expect a corporation to act responsibly if the human beings who make

>up that corporation are not responsible is impossible. We can hit them with a

>lawsuit or stop buying their products, but it is only affecting their

>wallets, not their consciences. You can sue and it will potentially put them

>out of business, or you can refuse to buy their goods and potentially put

>them out of business, but neither will produce a world with a higher level of

>responsibilty or concern for health. That can only be achieved by each

>individual.

>

>Theresa

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think that there are good grounds to ban sugar altogether. It is

addictive, and damages health beyond a shadow of a doubt. Sally

regularly quotes the study which showed that rodents lived longer

consuming just water I believe, than sugar. If a substance can't help

you live longer than water fasting than it fails the most basic test for

being called " food. " Anything that does not pass such a test, if it

could be confused for food, should be labeled " NOT FOR HUMAN

CONSUMPTION. " Heck, put " or animal " ( " or rodent? " ) on the label too.

One could argue that the government is already dictating the foods we

can and can't eat to a very large extent. Look at stevia, raw milk,

laws against small farming/butchering practices, subsidies of big

agriculture while small farms go broke by the tens of thousands,

labeling laws that deceive and benefit the big guys, crackdowns on

really effective supplements and healing technologies, and the last 50

years of gov./biz collusion around fats and oils and the low-fat

paradigm. Not to justify the government's practices, but to point out

what is already happening. I would be in favor of a radical honest

independent reassessment of the food supply, and subjecting every

coloring, flavoring, excitotoxin, sweetener, preservative, additive, as

well as any other proposed food substance sold in the US, to independent

scrutiny - demanding that proof be shown (independent, not

corporate-funded studies) that the substance actually supports human

health both in the short- and long-term (and intergenerationally most

importantly of all!) with no side effects. Nice fantasy eh?

My grandfather, Herbert Dutton, is a lipid chemist who blew one of the

first peer-reviewed whistles on trans fats around the time that

Enig published her original papers on the subject. He is quoted in

" Facts about Fats " by Finnegan as saying that if trans fats were brought

before the FDA today, they would not be approved for use in the food

supply. Why should foods be " grandfathered " into the food supply (is

that a pun or just a play?) just because they were approved before we

knew better?

One key (and essential) victory for consumers would be a change in the

powers of corporations, as others have mentioned on this list. Taking

away corporate limited liability and the current corporate right to

personhood would strike fear into the scheming hearts of thousands of

CEOs and executives who now sit around all day long and devise new

colorful, impossibly sweet and tasty confections to lure kids/parents

into dropping $5 on $.50 worth of wheat, sugar, trans fats, and

colorings (cereal). It figures that most of these guys answer to a

master that has already addicted and killed too many millions - the

tobacco industry (their parent corporation). If Price were still around

I'm sure he would have created another maxim: that food must never

become a commodity like oil or computers, which is bought and sold

between strangers and where the primary motivation is profit. We must

resist the commodification of our lives, and work to regain the richness

of our natural context, which as Irene pointed out, is community. In

that context, it is hard for people to sell poison to each other, and

they certainly wouldn't pollute the river upstream of their neighbors if

they could help it. It will be a long road to get back to some kind of

bioregional self-sufficiency and sustainability for most of us, but

that's where high-quality nutrient-dense community oriented food systems

lead us whether we realize it or not.

Cheers,

Re: Re: oreos

,

Since hydrogenated oils aren't actually food, do not grow, etc, etc, I

support a ban on them just like I would support a ban on deep-frying in

motor oil.

But as for sugar and other junk-- do you really want the same governemnt

that gave us the food pyramid dictating which foods we can and cannot

eat? Geez, that would be a disaster!

Look at that agency in Britain trying to consider fresh meat and fish as

*hazardous waste*! Government always has a tendency to support the big

boys in regulating, and without them there, we wouldn't need any

regulations in the first place. I do *not* think it's the governments

job to tell me whether or not I can eat butter, or whether or not I can

eat sugar. (and guess which one they'd ban first!)

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hallelujah, Rhea

Thank you for stating my thoughts better than I was.

Theresa

[Guest guest]

Irene,

Point well stated. I do not disagree with accountability. My point is that

accountability is more lasting and life changing when it happens at the

individual level. The only flaw with your point though, is that is suggests

that the corporations we are speaking of intentionally are out to harm

people. When the science and information catches up with the market, it then

becomes each individuals responsibility to opt out of the game, addicition or

not.

Theresa

[Guest guest]

I must agree with with Dr. Marasco on this one too. I too grew up in a house

with a Dad who smoked 2 packs a day (and still does by the way). Sitting in a

smoke filled living room was enough information for me to decide I wanted no

part of it. O.K., I did smoke one time as a teen-ager under peer pressure,

but only once. YUK! No thanks.

My father is a very intelligent man, and is fully aware of the dangers of

smoking. He knows he is addicted, but also knows that there are many ways of

quitting if he chose to do so. Unfortunately, his life experiences cause him

to CHOOSE to continue to smoke for the pleasure it gives him while he is on

this earth. I don't agree, but it is certainly his choice to make.

Theresa

[Guest guest]

Mike,

No need to get nasty. I am sorry if I misquoted you but you have said

several times that the bottom line is that parents have to take

responsibility and then there would be no need to sue Nabisco. If I have

misunderstood then I am sorry. However if you really mean that if parents

took responsibility then there would be no need to sue Nabisco then I quite

simply disagree. I consider that as putting most or all of the

responsibility on parents and I quite simply don't think that is the way to go.

Irene

At 06:04 PM 5/16/03, you wrote:

> " I just find it interesting that responsibility is only for

> > " sheeple " and not for companies "

>

>Irene I at no time have said or implied such a statement as a matter

>of fact I have stated exactly the opposite on more than 1/2 a dozen

>times. You should actually read posts before you reply and misquote

>and misinterpret. That would result in a responsible post.

>

>DMM

>

>

> > >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.

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I would say that those of you telling your stories of starting out in a

health-oriented household, and then turning to the " dark side " are testiments

to the point about personal responsibility. Your here aren't you. No one

forced you to join this website. You decided on your own that sugar wasn't

working for you after learning first hand of it's ill effects. Now you are

some of the most outspoken voices against sugar, trans-fats, crappy food,

etc.

And since it was my story about my son's sugar craving, let me clarify that I

do not forbid him to eat sugar. I simply teach him not to be glutinous about

it. A little sugar can go a long way.

Theresa

[Guest guest]

Irene,

Are you concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that Oreos kill? What exactly is

Nabisco supposed to be being held accountable for? Making cookies? I

personally believe the information that says hydrogenated oils are unhealthy,

but I'm sure you can find many who disagree.

Theresa

[Guest guest]

Actually the situation is more like Nabisco selling firearms. Marketing

them to children, Selling them in schools.Making commercialsl showing

beautiful happy children playing happily with guns. Wearing guns. Then when

in real life a kid gets a hold of gun blows their brains out Nabisco says,

" Well we didn't tell you to do that! " Of course not. And parents have a

responsibility to supervise their children. However the manufacturer has a

responsibility here too.

Irene

At 06:11 PM 5/16/03, you wrote:

>I think this is now time number 8. I at no time have said the

>companies should NOT be held accountable. They should.

>

>BUT, its no different than someone purposely shooting themselves in

>the head with a firearm. Who is ultimately responsible. The bullet

>maker, gun maker, gun seller, gimme a break a human being makes the

>conscious choice to put a gun in their mouth and the consequences

>rest comfortably at their own feet, nobody elses. Yes the gun

>maker, seller, etc... you might find morally and ethically

>implicated but it is not their fault or responsibility that someone

>CHOOSES to commit such an act. In the same vane I have NEVER heard

>about the nabisco concentration camps where small children and their

>parents are bathed in coca-cola and forcefed oreos at gun point.

>These things are willingly consumed, as a matter of fact the sheeple

>would raise holy hell if you tried to stop them from feeding this

>stuff to themselves or their kids.

>

>DMM

>

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

>wrote:

> > Mike-

> >

> > >Kids eat it because their parents tell them to!!!!

> >

> > And every parent who tells a kid to eat margarine or oreos or

>whatever is

> > doing a very bad thing, and is responsible for the kid eating

>those bad

> > things. But at the same time, companies creating poisonous

>products and

> > marketing them directly to kids are creating demand among kids.

>They're

> > responsible too. We have to oppose those companies just as much

>as we push

> > parents to be more educated and responsible.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -

>

>

>

>Sponsor<http://rd./M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705\

060950:HM/A=1564415/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60164784 & partid=317\

0658>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mike-

I think the perception problem is coming from the fact that (unless I

missed something) the only remedy you've proposed comes squarely down on

the shoulders of parents: make them be more responsible and educate their

kids more.

>I think this is now time number 8. I at no time have said the

>companies should NOT be held accountable. They should.

-

[Guest guest]

,

I haven't learned how to include text into my e-mails, as I only recently

joined the world of computers.....(see, not everyone buys into commercialism,

ha ha) but I am responding to your e-mail about the rights of children raised

by sheeple.

The difference in ideology lies between the level of importance one places on

ridding the world of all potential dangers vs. the right of the individual to

think for themselves.

The former can infringe on the latter.

Maybe you have concluded that I am not making an intelligent argument, but I

assure you it is not from eating too many Oreos. Ha Ha.

Theresa

[Guest guest]

>>>>>It will be a long road to get back to some kind of

bioregional self-sufficiency and sustainability for most of us, but

that's where high-quality nutrient-dense community oriented food systems

lead us whether we realize it or not.

---->this is such a good post! thank you for an amazing combination of good

sense and eloquence, chris :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>>>>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...

----------->is this in response to *my* post? if so, the i must not have

been clear. i wasn't making the point that poor folks simply can't afford to

eat healthy foods, although that IS an issue too, as well as availability.

but rather that poverty is often profoundly debilitating in a number of

ways - not just financially but also mentally and emotionally, and there

often may be so many struggles (getting evicted, no $ for food at the end of

the month, depression, other mental health issues, trying to survive a

violent relationship, losing a job, battling the very reall effects of

racism, sexism, etc, etc.) that nutrition simply may not be on the radar

screen. when you are sitting out on the street because you couldn't come up

with the rent in your newly gentrified neighborhood, your child is hungry,

and your violent ex is stalking you, you're generally not thinking " oh gee,

I'd really love a grass-fed tenderloin smothered in raw butter from

grass-fed Jerseys, with some homemade organic sauerkraut on the side right

now. " while that may seem like an extreme example, it is not.

i have fed hungry children who's mother forgot about them because she was so

drugged out. they didn't ask to be born into this situation. so i don't see

much point in finger pointing at the mom and calling her irresponsible,

because doing that doesn't provide any *solution* for the children.

community involvement in protecting the interest of the children would be

more of a real solution, imo. these kids stayed with their grandmother for a

while, but there wasn't much food in that house....i think we really should

focus on solutions rather than blame.

couple these issues with lack of accurate info and lack of available healthy

foods. have you ever shopped in a poor neighborhood? I have

lived/worked/shopped in poor neighborhoods as well as middle-income

neighborhoods for years and the local grocery stores provided different

foods for the different income levels. the stores in the poor neighborhoods

had a TON of processed packaged foods and the produce section was pathetic -

limited in variety and wilted. It was so bad, that whenever I could I'd go

out to the middle income suburbs to shop at their stores! they always had a

much larger variety of *fresh* produce...sometimes even organic.

I agree with those who say the responsibiltiy is on *both* the individual

and the corporations, but there is one more party that is responsible,

imo...and that is US - we cannot leave *community* out of the equation.

While it may not be characteristic of euro-americans, there are many other

cultures in the world that revolve around community, where people help each

other and take responsibility not only for themselves, but for those in

their community. i don't see " sheeple " in my community, but rather people

who may benefit from my chapter's activities, and from our extended group,

including local farmers, NDs, etc.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

I think you are absolutely right.

At 08:58 PM 5/16/03, you wrote:

>and that is US - we cannot leave *community* out of the equation.