Free healthcare for all...

[3rdnlng]

agreed. we all pleasure seek. plenty of science to support that: rats starving for an endorphin buzz and such.but does the agribiz and restaraunt industry have to exploit it so aggressively? just check out kessler's thesis in the book i cited. there are food scientists targeting brain pleasure centers to sell more blooming onions and the like. and there damn good at it. and it works.so what is the solution? one possible countermove is to tax unhealthy foods, especially these designer foods. this makes them less attractive to produce and consume. just like cigarettes. but i'm sure this will be summarily dismissed by much of the rest of the board.

 

 

Is there a word that means quicker than "summarily"? If so, that's what I did. Another tax to get people to behave the way you think they should?

[Oxrock]

Inactivity has nothing to do with it?

I live a pretty inactive lifestyle and recently lost 25lbs while eating very well. So, it's possible. Watch the carb intake. Lower carbs burn fat (notice I did not say zero or no carbs).

[meazza]

agreed. we all pleasure seek. plenty of science to support that: rats starving for an endorphin buzz and such.but does the agribiz and restaraunt industry have to exploit it so aggressively? just check out kessler's thesis in the book i cited. there are food scientists targeting brain pleasure centers to sell more blooming onions and the like. and there damn good at it. and it works.so what is the solution? one possible countermove is to tax unhealthy foods, especially these designer foods. this makes them less attractive to produce and consume. just like cigarettes. but i'm sure this will be summarily dismissed by much of the rest of the board.

 

Good assumption though most of the board probably has a good reason to dismiss this:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/13/denmark-scraps-worlds-first-fat-tax/

 

I think perhaps it's easier for nature to take its course. The incentive of looking better, living longer and possibly shagging with more attractive mates should be enough for people to get off their ass. If not, then lets nature take its course.

 

I live a pretty inactive lifestyle and recently lost 25lbs while eating very well. So, it's possible. Watch the carb intake. Lower carbs burn fat (notice I did not say zero or no carbs).

 

Food consumption is 75% of the job. Carbs should be strictly from vegetables.

[CosmicBills]

Good assumption though most of the board probably has a good reason to dismiss this:

 

http://www.washingto...-first-fat-tax/

 

I think perhaps it's easier for nature to take its course. The incentive of looking better, living longer and possibly shagging with more attractive mates should be enough for people to get off their ass. If not, then lets nature take its course.

 

 

 

Food consumption is 75% of the job. Carbs should be strictly from vegetables.

I don't advocate taxation as the solution to the GMO/Monsantos problem facing the world. But to dismiss the mountains of evidence that GMOs cause massive increases in cancer, digestive diseases, diabetes while LOWERING crop production and consolidating the control of the world food supply into the hands of a few companies is living with your eyes closed.

 

We let them !@#$ with our food. They've been doing it now for 50 years and we're seeing the effects of this within our own population and escalating health care costs. There are any number of reasons why this is the number one threat facing the world today -- but ask yourself this. If companies like Monsantos have nothing to hide -- why did they spend over 400 million dollars to prevent a law which forces them to IDENTIFY WHAT IS THE FOOD THEY SELL?

 

Inactivity has nothing to do with it?

Of course it does. Tgreg is insane.

 

I can shovel in 15,000 calories a day. If I burn 15,001 calories a day, Im not getting fat. Thats a scientific fact.

Inactivity alone does not make you fat. You must consume more than you burn as RK said.

 

But culture doesn't make you fat. Nor does politics. Not in the literal sense -- the only thing that can add mass is what you consume. And these massive companies are changing the very genetic makeup of our food, not to make MORE food or feed more people, but to make CHEAPER food that tastes better and thus sells more.

 

GMOs are in everything right now and the companies are not obligated to identify it on their labels. Why? If GMOs aren't bad for you, why wouldn't the companies embrace the labeling?

 

Answer? Because THEY KNOW THEY ARE POISONING US FOR PROFIT.

[Chef Jim]

I don't advocate taxation as the solution to the GMO/Monsantos problem facing the world. But to dismiss the mountains of evidence that GMOs cause massive increases in cancer, digestive diseases, diabetes while LOWERING crop production and consolidating the control of the world food supply into the hands of a few companies is living with your eyes closed.

 

We let them !@#$ with our food. They've been doing it now for 50 years and we're seeing the effects of this within our own population and escalating health care costs. There are any number of reasons why this is the number one threat facing the world today -- but ask yourself this. If companies like Monsantos have nothing to hide -- why did they spend over 400 million dollars to prevent a law which forces them to IDENTIFY WHAT IS THE FOOD THEY SELL?

 

 

 

Inactivity alone does not make you fat. You must consume more than you burn as RK said.

 

But culture doesn't make you fat. Nor does politics. Not in the literal sense -- the only thing that can add mass is what you consume. And these massive companies are changing the very genetic makeup of our food, not to make MORE food or feed more people, but to make CHEAPER food that tastes better and thus sells more.

 

GMOs are in everything right now and the companies are not obligated to identify it on their labels. Why? If GMOs aren't bad for you, why wouldn't the companies embrace the labeling?

 

Answer? Because THEY KNOW THEY ARE POISONING US FOR PROFIT.

 

So if it's in everything why are we requiring them to identify it on their labels?

 

That will solve nothing. But then again I'm not surprised a government sponsored solution will solve nothing.

[CosmicBills]

So if it's in everything why are we requiring them to identify it on their labels?

 

That will solve nothing. But then again I'm not surprised a government sponsored solution will solve nothing.

You know better than that Chef, of course labeling will solve things. The reason they don't want to label is because they don't want people to know. Right now the average american has NO idea they are consuming GMOs when they drink their Pepsi or Coke -- or when they serve their family steak or even a bowl of "healthy" cereal like Special K.

 

This isn't a government sponsored solution -- it's a free market solution. Let the customer educate himself by leveling the playing field.

[meazza]

I don't advocate taxation as the solution to the GMO/Monsantos problem facing the world. But to dismiss the mountains of evidence that GMOs cause massive increases in cancer, digestive diseases, diabetes while LOWERING crop production and consolidating the control of the world food supply into the hands of a few companies is living with your eyes closed.

 

We let them !@#$ with our food. They've been doing it now for 50 years and we're seeing the effects of this within our own population and escalating health care costs. There are any number of reasons why this is the number one threat facing the world today -- but ask yourself this. If companies like Monsantos have nothing to hide -- why did they spend over 400 million dollars to prevent a law which forces them to IDENTIFY WHAT IS THE FOOD THEY SELL?

 

 

 

Inactivity alone does not make you fat. You must consume more than you burn as RK said.

 

But culture doesn't make you fat. Nor does politics. Not in the literal sense -- the only thing that can add mass is what you consume. And these massive companies are changing the very genetic makeup of our food, not to make MORE food or feed more people, but to make CHEAPER food that tastes better and thus sells more.

 

GMOs are in everything right now and the companies are not obligated to identify it on their labels. Why? If GMOs aren't bad for you, why wouldn't the companies embrace the labeling?

 

Answer? Because THEY KNOW THEY ARE POISONING US FOR PROFIT.

 

Just an FYI i have no information on GMO's but I'll have to look into it.

 

Inactivity alone does not make you fat. You must consume more than you burn as RK said.

 

The average person burns approximately 2000 calories a day. Go through the average diet and tell me if they are consuming more than 2000 calories a day.

 

Breakfast, Muffin + coffee = 500 calories.

Lunch = Subway + soft drink + snack = 900 calories

Supper = rice with meat + soft drink = 900 calories

 

That's an average diet of someone who doesn't eat like a pig and you're already at +300 calories. Throw in the junk food (chips, etc) and you'll easily find people consuming 3000-4000 calories a day.

Edited November 16, 2012 by meazza

[Adam]

The US is the fattest country on the planet. That and other things makes the US population incomparable to other countries with socialized medicine. Which is why I've been saying that Obamacare will be the death of the country.

I figured stupidity would be.

[CosmicBills]

Just an FYI i have no information on GMO's but I'll have to look into it.

 

[/background][/font][/color]

 

The average person burns approximately 2000 calories a day. Go through the average diet and tell me if they are consuming more than 2000 calories a day.

 

Breakfast, Muffin + coffee = 500 calories.

Lunch = Subway + soft drink + snack = 900 calories

Supper = rice with meat + soft drink = 900 calories

 

That's an average diet of someone who doesn't eat like a pig and you're already at +300 calories. Throw in the junk food (chips, etc) and you'll easily find people consuming 3000-4000 calories a day.

Without question. I am not trying to excuse people from personal responsibility. There is clearly a need for more of that throughout our culture and society. But what's alarming in this thread is how many people are so quick to dismiss the bigger picture. Personal responsibility plays a role -- but you have to factor in the changes that have been made to our food supply in the last 50 years -- especially the last 15-20.

 

If food is cheaper, tastier it stands to reason people are going to consume more (it's our nature). But when you factor in that the food is not only cheaper and tastier but ENGINEERED to be that way, it becomes an issue of addiction. People can't change their habits if they don't know which habits are the ones killing them. And Monsantos has waged war against the average consumer, denying them the right to know what's in their food.

 

That's criminal.

[Adam]

Without question. I am not trying to excuse people from personal responsibility. There is clearly a need for more of that throughout our culture and society. But what's alarming in this thread is how many people are so quick to dismiss the bigger picture. Personal responsibility plays a role -- but you have to factor in the changes that have been made to our food supply in the last 50 years -- especially the last 15-20.

 

If food is cheaper, tastier it stands to reason people are going to consume more (it's our nature). But when you factor in that the food is not only cheaper and tastier but ENGINEERED to be that way, it becomes an issue of addiction. People can't change their habits if they don't know which habits are the ones killing them. And Monsantos has waged war against the average consumer, denying them the right to know what's in their food.

 

That's criminal.

Don't worry, the ammonia gas will cleanse the food for you.

[CosmicBills]

Here is what I don't get about GMO, or whatever you want to call them:

 

there are currently, what? 6.5 billion humans on Earth? What the hell would you like to feed the planet with? Without fertilizers and modifiying plants to grow in drier climates, we will starve. I simply do not see any way around that.

 

However, as Chef points out, eating smarter can make a difference too. Don't cram yourself with soda, fatty, salty foods, and have a minimum abount of excercise and you will be better off.

 

I cook as much as possible for the family as I can, and try to teach the boys that they need to eat healthier foods. They don't get soda, and I push fruits as much as possible. We limit junk food snacks. I would like to get suggestions from you guys as to what kind of stuff you suggest for making meals at home (30-45 minutes max cook time) for a family with two small boys...

What you're parroting here (and no disrespect intended) is the company line that's been sold to the public for the past 20 years. On the surface, genetically altered foods seems like the only solution to our ever increasing population concerns. That's how they sold us on the concept.

 

But then you have Monsantos designing Round Up Ready crop to corner the world market, an ever increasing amount of GMOs in nearly 90% of the stuff sold in your supermarket, all without the consumer being told what's happening. And when the consumers dare ask the companies to label their products so they can have a more educated view of what they're consuming, they're told outright lies about the costs associated with re-labeling food.

[Doc]

agreed. we all pleasure seek. plenty of science to support that: rats starving for an endorphin buzz and such.but does the agribiz and restaraunt industry have to exploit it so aggressively? just check out kessler's thesis in the book i cited. there are food scientists targeting brain pleasure centers to sell more blooming onions and the like. and there damn good at it. and it works.so what is the solution? one possible countermove is to tax unhealthy foods, especially these designer foods. this makes them less attractive to produce and consume. just like cigarettes. but i'm sure this will be summarily dismissed by much of the rest of the board.

It starts and ends with personal responsibility. I love Big Macs. But I made a conscious decision to stop eating them because they're bad for me. I don't/didn't need a "Big Max tax" to keep me from buying them. And again this is why Obamacare will destroy this country.

I figured stupidity would be.

Same difference.

Without question. I am not trying to excuse people from personal responsibility. There is clearly a need for more of that throughout our culture and society. But what's alarming in this thread is how many people are so quick to dismiss the bigger picture. Personal responsibility plays a role -- but you have to factor in the changes that have been made to our food supply in the last 50 years -- especially the last 15-20.

 

If food is cheaper, tastier it stands to reason people are going to consume more (it's our nature). But when you factor in that the food is not only cheaper and tastier but ENGINEERED to be that way, it becomes an issue of addiction. People can't change their habits if they don't know which habits are the ones killing them. And Monsantos has waged war against the average consumer, denying them the right to know what's in their food.

 

That's criminal.

Read what I wrote to birddog.

[CosmicBills]

It starts and ends with personal responsibility. I love Big Macs. But I made a conscious decision to stop eating them because they're bad for me. I don't/didn't need a "Big Max tax" to keep me from buying them. And again this is why Obamacare will destroy this country.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Read what I wrote to birddog.

Doc, answer me this. It's a simple question:

 

How can you take personal responsibility for watching what you eat when you're not told the truth about what's in the food you're buying and consuming?

[Chef Jim]

Doc, answer me this. It's a simple question:

 

How can you take personal responsibility for watching what you eat when you're not told the truth about what's in the food you're buying and consuming?

 

Eat less exercise more.

 

Now I'm going to ask you a question I've already asked. If it's in all our foods, as you say, how will labeling solve this problem?

[meazza]

Doc, answer me this. It's a simple question:

 

How can you take personal responsibility for watching what you eat when you're not told the truth about what's in the food you're buying and consuming?

 

I know all the food I eat is genetically modified. I don't need labels to tell me.

[Rob's House]

 

What you're parroting here (and no disrespect intended) is the company line that's been sold to the public for the past 20 years. On the surface, genetically altered foods seems like the only solution to our ever increasing population concerns. That's how they sold us on the concept.

 

But then you have Monsantos designing Round Up Ready crop to corner the world market, an ever increasing amount of GMOs in nearly 90% of the stuff sold in your supermarket, all without the consumer being told what's happening. And when the consumers dare ask the companies to label their products so they can have a more educated view of what they're consuming, they're told outright lies about the costs associated with re-labeling food.

I find your attack on the Monsantos to be racially motivated & highly offensive. Monsanto's are people too, damn it.

[CosmicBills]

Eat less exercise more.

 

Now I'm going to ask you a question I've already asked. If it's in all our foods, as you say, how will labeling solve this problem?

It's not in 100% of our foods, but over 85% of what's on the shelves in any local market. Labeling allows consumers to know what they're buying and, if they choose, buy the equivalent product without the GMO.

 

This leads to more choices for the consumer and allows the free market to dictate to the company which model is more profitable. If consumers still buy GMO product, then the Monsantos of the world can carry on by being upfront about what they're putting in their product. If the consumers react to the label as I suspect (like a poison label), then they would be forced to change their business model and eliminate or at least reduce the amount of GMOs they're using.

 

Free market solution.

[Nanker]

Come on. You guys know you're salivating over this.

Go ahead. Post it on OTW and watch the cascade o f drool-infused posts.

[CosmicBills]

I find your attack on the Monsantos to be racially motivated & highly offensive. Monsanto's are people too, damn it.

Actually, they're not. I'm all for businesses making profits, I'm all for free market and survival of the fittest. But Monsantos's entire profit model is driven by the exploitation of their consumer's ignorance. They're intentionally poisoning us, lying to us about poisoning us, and laughing all the way to the bank.

 

It's not us that are going to pay the price but our kids.

[Rob's House]

 

It's not in 100% of our foods, but over 85% of what's on the shelves in any local market. Labeling allows consumers to know what they're buying and, if they choose, buy the equivalent product without the GMO.

 

This leads to more choices for the consumer and allows the free market to dictate to the company which model is more profitable. If consumers still buy GMO product, then the Monsantos of the world can carry on by being upfront about what they're putting in their product. If the consumers react to the label as I suspect (like a poison label), then they would be forced to change their business model and eliminate or at least reduce the amount of GMOs they're using.

 

Free market solution.

I wouldn't really have a problem with the label, but I don't know that it's really necessary. I have a lot of friends that are big on this wheat grass eating hippie movement who only shop at organic grocery stores where they advertise not having GMOs. So people who are concerned about this have options.

 

And why do you lay this off on Monsantos? Plenty of white people are involved as well.