Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so the food police are at it again. if you want a healthy diet you have to stop eating all kinds of food that people have been eating for thousands of years.
red meat is bad for you, eggs are bad for you, sugar is bad for you, butter is bad, margarine is bad, milk is bad, pasta is bad, then good, then bad again, salt is bad preservatives are bad, soy is good/bad, etc. etc. etc.
Typical knee jerk reaction of someone with his/her head in the sand. Sure, humans have been eating red meat, eggs and sugar for centuries ... but not in the quantities consumed today, and not along with the preservatives, additives, pesticides and heaven knows what else.
Nevermind that even 100 years ago human life expectancy was 2/3 what it is now. If we're to live to 75 instead of 55, what is the cumulative effect of a richer diet laced with all those chemicals?
You really should look into and learn food science before stating that "ingredients serve no purpose".
These are added to foods but aren't necessary and often lead to other problems. If your comfortable ingesting them go for it, that doesn't mean they're healthy. Also I've read enough negative things about these harmful substances which is why I try to stay away from them. Question to you is will you admit real food is far healthier than food like substances created in a lab?
Last edited by Wintergirl80; 10-22-2017 at 11:18 AM..
I like food documentaries and watched this one but was not impressed. It was basically a PETA commercial mixed with some global warming propaganda.
Are you sure you are thinking of the right movie? The focus was on added sugar and carbs, and the immorality of the food industry from the point of view of getting children hooked on sugar (basically the moral equivalent of marketing tobacco and booze to kids). They hardly talked about meat at all, except in the context of fast food burgers and fried chicken. And I can't remember anyone in the movie saying to eat less meat. If anything, the experts in the movie tended to be the low-carb/paleo types who often tend to be meat-eaters.
Are you sure you are thinking of the right movie? The focus was on added sugar and carbs. They hardly talked about meat at all, except in the context of fast food burgers and fried chicken. And I can't remember anyone in the movie saying to eat less meat. If anything, the experts in the movie tended to be the low-carb/paleo types who often tend to be meat-eaters.
Maybe I'm thinking of a different one, there are a few. The one I'm thinking of is the new one on Netflix.
Typical knee jerk reaction of someone with his/her head in the sand. Sure, humans have been eating red meat, eggs and sugar for centuries ... but not in the quantities consumed today, and not along with the preservatives, additives, pesticides and heaven knows what else.
Nevermind that even 100 years ago human life expectancy was 2/3 what it is now. If we're to live to 75 instead of 55, what is the cumulative effect of a richer diet laced with all those chemicals?
i have been listening to the food police since the 60s, and finding out they were wrong on so much stuff because of their "testing" procedures.
as for eating eggs and red meat, yes it is true, that we dont eat the same quantities of red meat and eggs we used to, we actually eat LESS these days. i will also note that we didnt have the issues with heart disease and other problems until we started going to a higher carb diet that we seem to enjoy today.
I very much liked the documentary - have you considered mentioning this in the Food forum as well?
No I haven't, although the Food and Movie forums be reasonable places for this topic. For the moment I wanted to focus on the political aspects. I've been familiar with the nutritional aspects of this issue for several years. My wife had chronic health issues for decades that finally cleared up once she stopped eating gluten, and she improved even more when she tried the "Autoimmune Protocol" (AIP) diet. She finally settled on a mostly paleo diet. Also, I've already spent time in various forums debating nutrition and food science. The documentary, Fed Up, recently re-kindled my disgust over the political/moral aspects of the problem, so I did a quick search in C-D and didn't see much devoted to this topic, so I decided to start this thread focused on the political/moral aspects of a food industry that, essentially, poisons people for profit and especially targets children.
Just a reminder of what I see as the central issues:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
For example, attempts to curtail the marketing of junk food aimed at children have been successfully thwarted by the food industry. (Deja ve: Just like a few decades ago when the tobacco industry lobbyists were testifying to congress that cigarettes don't cause cancer, today we have food industry experts claiming that sugar is not a threat to health. And, just as tobacco is addictive and killing people, sugar is literally addictive and killing people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Should tobacco and alcohol company advertising be allowed to target children? E.g., using cartoon characters to promote cigarette brands? Selling cigs and booze at child's-eye-level in every supermarket and convenience store? Should cigs and booze be available in school cafeterias?
This is essentially the problem with sugary junk foods today. Children (and their parents) are inundated with enticements to consume sugar. We all know it makes them sick - literally sick - not just teeth with cavities, but diabetes, heart disease, cancer... and we know it is addicting for many people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Thinking in very general terms: If you knew that someone was poisoning children (let's suppose you find out that someone in your neighborhood has Munchausen syndrome by proxy syndrome (MbP) and is poisoning her kid. I'm guessing you would call some authorities to protect the child. Right? We'll, for all practical purposes, the American food industry has MbP. (Unfortunately, in this case, some of the authorities are in bed with the killer.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarallel
Have you also seen the excellent "Food Inc."?
Yes. That's another serious set of issues relating to the treatment of animals, environmental damage, etc., stemming from the food industry.
I highly disagree with the "sugar is poison" mantra that you are pushing, complete B.S. just like Peanut Butter causes cancer scare that went around years ago. I find it hilarious how people will buy into any B.S. put out as scientific fact as long as it's wrapped in a pretty package or movie if you will just like they buy the junk food products based of commercials/packaging.
Sugar in and of itself is NOT poison to the human body, overuse of it can certainly be unhealthy that much is true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it hilarious how people will buy into any B.S. put out as scientific fact as long as it's wrapped in a pretty package or movie if you will just like they buy the junk food products based of commercials/packaging.
