viscousmemories

Okay, I think I did a pretty good job of responding to what you were obviously implying with your statements, but since you're going to try to wiggle out of it on semantic grounds, I'll be more specific.

When you say, "Any consumer that is so weak-willed as to be "influenced" by some stoopid tobacky ad in Playboy..." you seem to be implying that brainwashing (the existence of which you seem to express doubt about by putting "influence" in quotation marks) is only effective on the "weak-willed", and you are therefore above it's impact. Since I was referring to the influence advertising has on the mind (which to me is synonymous with "brain"), not the will (whatever that is), I surmised that you, in saying you were above its sway, were implying that you have a strong mind. I challenged that assertion (while not, you'll notice, dismissing the possibility entirely) based on the fact that you seemed to disbelieve in the impact of brainwashing on people with average or above-average minds.

I haven't heard you "come right out and say" anything of substance in this thread. All I've heard is a lot of heated rhetoric and sarcastic insinuation, which may afford you the back door you require to escape from the obvious implications of your statements, but doesn't otherwise aid our discussion.

So why not "come right out and say" what's wrong with the fact that the major corporations in our country that market the majority of their junk food products to our most vulnerable segment of society are being forced to make their product more healthy?

vm

Saladin

Frankly, I am of the opinion that those that choose to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, especially in regard to diet, probably deserve the dire consequences. The fact that children are involved makes this rather disturbing, as does the food giants' motivation, which seems to be primarily for legal purposes only.

Kinross

Since when did children start purchasing the food for the household, they don't even have an income. The parents make the purchasing decisions. Perhaps the children should be suing their parents for negligence.


They will also be changing the formulation of their foods to make them more healthful, which will also change the taste.

I take everything in moderation including moderation.

Actually I have struggled with my weight my entire life. I topped out at 40% body fat. I decided something needed to change. Today I stand at 8% body fat.

Sure they influence our decision making process but in the end we still make a choice. Are you going to argue that we don't have free will?

There is nothing wrong with offering healthy food. I do have a problem with people consuming unhealthful food sending market signals to companies that their is a demand for such a product and then turning around and suing the company for the product that they demanded. If you don't want unhealthful food then don't buy it. That sends the signal that you don't want unhealthful foods.

When did it become a businesses responsibility to protect people from themselves? As long as the consumer knows the dangers involved it is the consumers responsibility.

I don't know what a Jack Russell burger is?

King Rat

Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it. Except that I was using quotes around influence because I was quoting you.

See, if I'd been expressing doubt about the use of the word influence, I'd have used single quotations, i.e. 'influence.'

The brain is influenced by brainwashing, the will resists. Clear?

I have no doubt that "people with average or above-average minds" (note the handy use of quotation marks again) are able to be brainwashed. Clear?

Are you saying that the fast food franchises are brainwashing people into eating their death-burgers?

Well see, here's where we have a problem. My comments aren't "anything of substance" to you because they disagree with your position. Whereas I feel your prejudice was clear from your OP. Rhetoric is not necessarily and summarily "without substance." My point is clear, including the rhetoric. See, it's a lot more fun to reply to pedants with rhetoric.

Done and done. Thank you, it was fun.

JGL53

A Jack Russell is a small, VERY active dog, and a burger made from one would probably be healthy, but probably not too tasty.

Anyway, much of the parenting of children these days is done by the government, since most kids go to public schools a large part of the year. And the government, in addition to the parents or legal guardians, have been falling down on the job for years now.

New Yord City government (or the entire state?) has just disallowed soda, candy, and junk food vending machines on school property. Call me a communist, but I think that's a step in the right direction.

And if the big food companies are really going to start taking out the trans fats and simple sugar and replace them with healthier alternatives, i.e., REAL food that's not just processed, refined crap 'faux' food, then I think that is a good thing also - regardless of the motivation behnd the move.

tronvillain

Whose fault was it that I was overweight? I would have to say mine, given that I have managed to lose over thirty pounds thus far. I think what would really prevent people from eating too much fast food would be calorie labels and protein/carbohyndrate/fat amounds printed on everything, instead of tucked away in a booklet in the corner or on a website. If people were reminded that every time they ate a MacDonald's cheeseburger they were eating five hundred calories of primarily fat, they might not find it so easy.

lisarea

I have a couple of questions:

1. What are these lawsuits we're talking about? I honestly haven't been paying attention, but how far exactly did that obesity suit get? I do know that the oft-cited hot coffee case and the Twinkie defense are grossly misrepresented most of the time. (The hot coffee thing involved repeated OSHA violations, if I recall correctly, and the Twinkie defense never went anywhere but to urban legend town.)

2. Do we really want to advocate this "Stupidity should be painful" philosophy as a rule? Yes, adults should be allowed to make their own decisions. We don't need laws telling us what to do. But maybe a little corporate responsibility might be in order, regardless of what's legal. Yes, there are stupid people out there. But stupidity is not a crime. There are also ignorant people, naive people, desparate people, and vulnerable people. Do we really really really want to leave them to the wolves? Is that the sort of 'civilization' we're shooting for?

IMO, we live in a horrifically cruel society. (I'm mostly talking about the US here, but US society has a lot of influence.) I place the blame not on lawyers, but on the economists who so readily sacrifice the loyalty, health, and even the lives of their target markets in the quest for short-term profits.

Yeah, people are stupid. We know that. Corporations know that, too. But beyond simple stupidity, just plain day-to-day life is frustrating and complicated and often, too much to handle. The sheer volume of bureaucracy and pointless technology and mindless crap we have to deal with every day is plenty to keep most people busy. Something's got to give. And that's where corporate America comes in. McDonald's and other fast food chains market their junk as healthy, wholesome, All-American food. Their advertising tends to gear toward minorities, kids, and guilty parents.

Should they know better? Sure, they should. We should also all get the best LD rates and cell phone plans possible, we should build our own computers, cook healthy meals, configure our own software, read every word of every contract we sign, drink plenty of water, get enough sleep, enjoy media responsibly, obey all posted signs when driving, keep up with current social and political developments, floss twice daily, read to our children, and attend all parent-teacher conferences. We do not all do those things, though, do we? We can't do them all all the time.

Many advertising campaigns for companies like McDonald's are designed specifically to represent fast food as a responsible choice, particularly for children. No, the ingredient lists are NOT readily available at most places I've been. (I've gone to fast food places with someone on a diet, and they almost never had that information available.)

I wouldn't ever advocate making fast food ILLEGAL, but if some consumer wants to argue, every now and again, that McDonald's is misrepresenting their products in such a way that it causes actual harm, well, good on them. We need that kind of public dialog. It doesn't make it illegal to sell someone a cheeseburger, but if it makes those corporations think twice before they advocate it as an acceptable substitute for breast milk, well, hallelujah.

The crux of the problem, IMO, lies with our national obsession with myopic economic models. It is very rare to see a business plan or an economic forecast that takes long-term goals into account. It is absolutely in our better interests as a society to keep productive adults alive and productive, but according to many economic models, a case of terminal cancer in an otherwise healthy young person CREATES JOBS, and if we can sell some po' schmuck a bunch of artery clogging cheeseburgers today, the bottom line goes up! Never mind that, in the long term, we've lost a janitor, a teacher, a truck driver, or a paramedic.

So, short of actually sitting down these soulless beancounters and schooling them in being human beings, maybe our best bet is simply to create some spectre of a short-term financial risk.

That said, I still don't believe for a second that lawsuits are actually spurring this kind of thing. How much money have these companies actually had to pay out for things like this? I'm going to guess nothing, or close to it, despite all their wailing and gnashing of teeth.

viscousmemories

In the case of food they eat at home, I have no doubt some kids will (if they haven't already) sue their parents for negligence. However, you're overlooking the fact that a lot of the food kids eat comes when they're not at home. Also, I'm sure the supermarket knows that kids don't have wads of cash or make purchasing decisions, yet when I was grocery shopping the other day I heard an advertisement on the store radio imploring kids to head on over to the bakery to get an "Incredible Hulk" birthday cake. So it seems the people doing market research believe kids have some say in what food is bought.
In that case I would say it boils down to whether or not the greater good outweighs the individual desire, and I am of the opinion that it does.
That is cool, congratulations. Wouldn't it have been a lot easier, though, if you hadn't developed a taste for grossly unhealthy foods from a very young age?
Nah, I have no interest in that debate. But what does it mean to "freely choose" something you've been brainwashed to want?
I respect your sentiment here, but I don't really think supply and demand principles are strictly applicable. More clearly, in the case of fast food for example, I think the biggest reasons people consume fast food are that it's convenient and inexpensive. I suspect that the signals the consumers would be sending up the chain on those issues would still be quite positive even if they sold a healthier product.
I don't know that it is a corporations responsibility to protect consumers from themselves. However, there is a long-standing tradition of government forcing companies to protect consumers from their products. Why should food be any different? Otherwise shouldn't companies be allowed to market real guns to kids?
Jack Russell is a species of dog. I was being a little flippant in saying I can't order a dog burger at Wendy's.

vm

Bunny Lover

Hello,

{deleted-AV} (Glandular and medical issues nonwithstanding).

viscousmemories

From the website of John Banzhaf, famous for his anti-tobacco litigation:
vm