Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Our Junk Food Nation

By Gary Ruskin and Juliet B. Schor, The Nation. Posted August 18, 2005.


The recent conflict over what America eats is an example of how in Bush's America, corporate interests trump public health.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In recent months the major food companies have been trying hard to convince Americans that they feel the pain of our expanding waistlines, especially when it comes to kids. Kraft announced it would no longer market Oreos to younger children, McDonald's promoted itself as a salad producer and Coca-Cola said it won't advertise to kids under 12.

But behind the scenes it's hardball as usual, with the junk food giants pushing the Bush Administration to defend their interests. The recent conflict over what America eats, and the way the government promotes food, is a disturbing example of how in Bush's America corporate interests trump public health, public opinion and plain old common sense.

The latest salvo in the war on added sugar and fat came July 14- 15, when the Federal Trade Commission held hearings on childhood obesity and food marketing. Despite the fanfare, industry had no cause for concern; FTC chair Deborah Majoras had declared beforehand that the commission will do absolutely nothing to stop the rising flood of junk food advertising to children.

In June the Department of Agriculture denied a request from our group Commercial Alert to enforce existing rules forbidding mealtime sales in school cafeterias of "foods of minimal nutritional value" -- i.e., junk foods and soda pop. The department admitted that it didn't know whether schools are complying with the rules, but, frankly, it doesn't give a damn. "At this time, we do not intend to undertake the activities or measures recommended in your petition," wrote Stanley Garnett, head of the USDA's Child Nutrition Division.

Conflict about junk food has intensified since late 2001, when a Surgeon General's report called obesity an "epidemic." Since that time, the White House has repeatedly weighed in on the side of Big Food. It worked hard to weaken the World Health Organization's global anti-obesity strategy and went so far as to question the scientific basis for "the linking of fruit and vegetable consumption to decreased risk of obesity and diabetes." Former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson -- then our nation's top public-health officer -- even told members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association to "'go on the offensive' against critics blaming the food industry for obesity," according to a November 12, 2002, GMA news release.

Last year, during the reauthorization of the children's nutrition programs, Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois attempted to insulate the government's nutrition guidelines from the intense industry pressure that has warped the process to date. He proposed a modest amendment to move the guidelines from the USDA to the comparatively more independent Institute of Medicine. The food industry, alarmed about the switch, secured a number of meetings at the White House to get it to exert pressure on Fitzgerald. One irony of this fight was that the key industry lobbying came from the American Dietetic Association, described by one Congressional staffer as a "front for the food groups." Fitzgerald held firm but didn't succeed in enacting his amendment before he left Congress last year.

By that time the industry's lobbying effort had borne fruit, or perhaps more accurately, unhealthy alternatives to fruit. The new federal guidelines no longer contain a recommendation for sugar intake, although they do tell people to eat foods with few added sugars. The redesigned icon for the guidelines, created by a company that does extensive work for the junk food industry, shows no food, only a person climbing stairs.

Growing industry influence is also apparent at the President's Council on Physical Fitness. What companies has the government invited to be partners with the council's Challenge program? Coca-Cola, Burger King, General Mills, Pepsico and other blue chip members of the "obesity lobby."

In January the council's chair, former NFL star Lynn Swann, took money to appear at a public relations event for the National Automatic Merchandising Association, a vending machine trade group activists have been battling on in-school sales of junk food.

Not a lot of subtlety is required to understand what's driving Administration policy. It's large infusions of cash. In 2004 "Rangers," who bundled at least $200,000 each to the Bush/Cheney campaign, included Barclay Resler, vice president for government and public affairs at Coca-Cola; Robert Leebern Jr., president of federal affairs at Troutman Sanders PAG, lobbyist for Coca-Cola; Richard Hohlt of Hohlt & Co., lobbyist for Altria, which owns about 85 percent of Kraft foods; and José "Pepe" Fanjul, president, vice chairman and COO of Florida Crystals Corp., one of the nation's major sugar producers.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Gary Ruskin is executive director of Commercial Alert. Juliet Schor is a professor of sociology at Boston College and the author of Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
All things in moderation
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Aug 18, 2005 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe I'm biologically different from people who claim junk food is addicted. I eat a few M & M's, and I eat a bowl of carrot sticks. I switched to ovalactovegetarian in college and found after a few weeks, meat was not something I needed. Later, I found myself occaissionally needing more concentrated protein and added seafood back in when stress hit. I have *always* been taught that food is something *I* control, and have to make intelligent decisions about.

And yes, I stole cookies from the cookie jar at home and I spent a fair part of my allowance on junk food. Yet, I always knew fruits, whole grains, and vegetables come first.

I can't say some people *aren't* addicted to bad food, because I don't have their bodies, and it might be as stupid as people saying cocaine isn't addictive because they didn't have trouble giving it up. But I can say that I see a lot of people who's problems don't seemt oc ome from the brands of food they eat, but using it as an emotional crutch instead of facing their inner "demons" of low self-esteem, emotional dependence, passive-aggressive behavoir and other problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marketing to Children
Posted by: Sandra on Aug 18, 2005 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eating is a necessity of life. It's not like smoking or drinking alcohol, which are choices that people make. You have to eat to live. Our children are marketed to from the time they're toddlers. They see the commercials on TV and they want that product. This marketing happens at a time when children are not mature enough to make decisions about their health. Yes, parents have to teach their kids about nutrition and what they should eat and make sure that they get it. Our schools should be adequately funded so that they aren't tempted to have sponsors like Coke and Pepsi, vending machines and fast food franchises on campus to gain financial resources. Some communities are fighting back on the issues of nutrition and obesity. They are making sure that healthy food choices are available for children and linking with local food producers to supply fresh fruits and vegetables. As always, the people have more sense than the politicians on what matters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not just sugar
Posted by: thealou on Aug 18, 2005 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was happy to see this article. It's the first time I have seen anything in national media on this topic. But the author has made one mistake. Yes, sugar and it's producers are evil, but fat is not necessarily so. Look at the relationships between the Edible Oils Council (lobbyists for the folks who bring you hydrogenated corn oil) and the FDA - and you begin to see the same corruption leading to the vilification of animal fats and the promotion of vegetable fats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anoter "GUBBAMINT TAKE CARE O' ME MOMENT" brought to you by Alternut
Posted by: jbeeso on Aug 18, 2005 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Similarity number one is the denial that the problem (obesity) is caused by the product (junk food). Instead, lack of exercise is fingered as the culprit, which is why McDonald's, Pepsi, Coke and others have been handing out pedometers, funding fitness centers and prodding kids to move around.

This is absolutely true. The author should have stopped right there.

Fifty years ago, little kids ate bacon, ham, eggs, toast, gravy, and biscuits. (that was just breakfast) They then did small chores, and spent the rest of the day pushing little radioflyer wagons around the yard or around the town, building mud forts, and building that elusive better rabbit trap.

Fast forward to now: nintendo, and pushing buttons on controllers indoors has overtaken pushing wagons outdoors. It has overtaken after-school activities.

The boob-tube has overtaken the YMCA. Little video game consoles have overtaken little league.

You don't want your 8-year old kids buying sweet stuff at lunch? Make them quit their jobs--oh, wait?...Where ARE they getting that money from, Mom and Dad? Mom, Dad? Likewise, are these kids taking the family car and hitting the drive-through by themselves, Mom and Dad? Mom, Dad?

Placing the responsibility of raising this nation's children is not the answer. The GUBBAMINT can't even balance its own checkbook. Why would you want to turn over the nutrition of your children to the bureauracy?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» GUBBAMINT Posted by: Olympiada
» I take that back Posted by: Olympiada
marketing is persuasive, but good parenting is the key
Posted by: cobrajet on Aug 18, 2005 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IT is easy for parents to blame the schools for providing junk food to children, and its true, SHAME on the administrators for selling out to the sugar corporations !
But it still boils down to good parenting. What children eat daily is what they are taught at home. If good eating habits are not practived at home, then it will not be done at school, especially when the junk food is easily avaible, and there are no parents around to disuade the kids from eating it. If the schools would sell carrot sticks and apples, they would not sell, would they ? SHame on the school admins for pandering to the kids weakness, sugar !! It is not the schools fault, but they sure are contributing to the bad choices. Lets make them accountable for their choices ! IF the masses speak up, the school will have to listen. Speak up people, dont just sit there whining about it, take action !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, Yes, Parenting seems to have something to do with it
Posted by: villinmomma on Aug 18, 2005 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The purpose of the government, OUR government, the one that uses OUR money, is to provide us with services we could not afford on our own. We all pool our funds (taxes) and get to have roads and schools and fire departments and police...
If good parenting is really what the solution is, then we need some help, some support with THAT.
Okay, don't regulate marketing to children (this is for you 'gubbamint' poster), but give me paid leave so that I can be home with my children to teach them how to feed themselves.
Help me afford to buy good food (oh yes, there are such things as 'good' and 'bad' foods). Junk food is cheap and easy compared to quality raw materials (fresh veggies, organic meat, milk, fruit).
So, for MY money, OUR money, do something for US!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Melt Those Pounds Away – Stop Binging on Advertising"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Aug 18, 2005 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't corporate America fun? They want us stupid and ill-educated so we'll respond to their advertising and vote for the government that works for them; they want us fat and lazy so we'll line their pockets by wolfing down junk food made attractive by their advertising (and addictive by loads of added sugar); and when all that fat and laziness results in disease, they'll have us line the pockets of the medical industry as well by taking "quick-fix" drugs that advertising promises will restore health – or at least let us go on with our destructive lifestyle. And line their pockets some more.

Hmmm. . .there seems to be a pattern here. . .a common thread. The real "junk food," the destroyer of good health for our brains and bodies, is advertising. We're so inundated with seductive but stupid and misleading messages in modern life, we can't decide whether to scratch our watches or wind our butts. What's a mind to do when a third of television, plus billboards everywhere, junk mail exploding out of mailboxes, falling out of every envelope and clogging up the internet, are all screaming at us at the same time? Constant distraction (in a way, being "drunk" on Pop Culture) is a great method for getting people to do things that are not good for them.

It's time to jump out of the hamster cage, folks (although at least there you can get a little exercise), and reject ALL of it. The corporations that throw this crap at us want us fat, stupid, and passive. They want us addicted to sugar, and MSG, and fat-food, just like the cigarette industry wanted everyone to be addicted to their product. It's the P.T. Barnum School of Business: "There's a sucker born every minute."

It's time for a little (mental) exercise: for a month, let's buy only what we need, not what we want. Eat what we make for ourselves, not what's prepackaged, precooked, pre-anything. It might be instructive to see if we feel any better – or if the corporations picking our pockets and packing our bodies feel any worse.

Now, back to our program. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is not as hard to control your weight.
Posted by: xyz2002 on Aug 18, 2005 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not as hard to control your weight as long as you care about yourselve and have some kind of self-control. The problem is Americans were taught from the begining to be free of any self-control and blame others for all self-inflicted failures. It really doesn't matter what you eat, just how much you eat. If your total intake times your ingestion effiency equals to your energy consumption you are to maintain any weight! Hence only three factors in weight control including amoint of food you eat, your metabolism and your activity. As you cannot control your metabolism, only way you can lose weight is to eat less or excersize more. No short cut here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Missing the bigger picture
Posted by: LoisC on Aug 18, 2005 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From some of the responses posted it looks like people are failing to see the big picture. What some would call "poison for profit".

When I was a kid our food didn't contain the chemicals that are added to many of the foods today, which not only cause people to over eat and gain weight, but that are also causing many of health problems or new diseases we are facing today.

I would call this genocide! I myself stopped eating processed food (with a few exceptions - organic only). They are putting stuff in foods to make people sick so they can sell more drugs!

Why is soy added to almost all processed foods? Why are artificial sweeteners added and disguised in many foods? It's just like genetically engineered food .. if it's supposed to be good for us then why do they hide it from us.

How can parents teach their children how to eat well, if they don't know of the dangers in the foods now being pushed on us. It's not like anything that was available years ago, people are just not educated about what's happened to our food supply.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Missing the bigger picture Posted by: Olympiada
» "poison for profit" Posted by: Olympiada
It's what's in the food
Posted by: michele0726 on Aug 18, 2005 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that we need to eat foods we prepare ourselves. I think fruits and vegetables are very important. I think whole grains are also important. It is also important to think about who is gaining while we gain, weight. Obesetiy is a growth industry in this country (I know, I know). There are a lot of people making money off it from the medical profession, food industry, diet industry, etc. Another place to look is the meat industry. They give the animals growth hormones so that they will get bigger sooner, then we eat them---I think there is a correlation there.
There are no easy answers or solutions. Take it from someone who has lost 114 pounds over a 4 year span. It takes an overall plan, which included not being angry with myself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obesity is here to stay
Posted by: noelahg on Aug 18, 2005 11:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You need look only as far as the fashion industry. When was the last time you saw an obese person wearing clothes that were way too small? I see it all the time, especially on young girls; and frankly, it's gross. Yet, it seems to be ok, because I see more and more fat hanging over low-rise jeans every day. There is a very real 'normalizing' effort going on in our country. What are the odds that there is a lot of money behind this 'phenomenon.'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pzzp
Posted by: pzzp on Aug 18, 2005 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is just one element of the grand tendency toward which social order gravitates: ill-educated, well-entertained, poorly-fed, richly underpaid, uninformed and fearful masses are what keeps a privileged and wealthy minority atop the pyramid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good comments... now follow 'em
Posted by: LMuney on Aug 18, 2005 11:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a wellness and fitness coach. I read everything that everyone wrote so far... and had my own opinions also.

I'm known for years that our "government" is run on AGENDA-lobbyists. The RDA is based on food councils and lobbyists (hmmm: wonder why there are TWELVE (12) servings of grains in the food pyramid? It's the grain industry, stupid) and the rest of government is no different.

Sure: parents should be teaching their children good lessons about food and behavior choices... that is, if parents are following healthy examples themselves. Raise your hand if your parent (or your adult best friend) is fit and trim. Riase your hand if your friends (or you) have healthy-life behaviors... or if you think it's "too hard" or "too restrictive" to do so.

Start the change-chain on your own:

-If you aren't making good choices on your own, start.
- Stop going to fast food - and tell your friends and children why.
- Read labels, and teach it to your children.
- Explain to children ad-nauseum about the way 'advertising' works.
- Realize that some of depression comes from bad food, badly digested, and playing havoc with your brain cells so that you can't make good decisions or rational thoughts.
- Start exercising and get away from the damn computer :)
- IGNORE "LOSE WEIGHT FAST" SCHEMES. YOU CAN'T LOSE WEIGHT FAST AND BE HEALTHY.

Be aware. Be aware of EVERYTHING you do. Let nothing go to "rote". That includes eating, lifestyle, and buying-habits.

If you have to defy government and be "unAmerican" by not buying processed food on grocery shelves, DO IT. That's just a label anyway: most people want to criticize and berate you for making decisions on your own.

This Bush-led government LOVES to point "moralistic" fingers with nasty names, as if shaming us into their ways of behavior. Well, according to their scripture, only GOD can judge. They can't call us "unAmerican" by choosing healthy foods and not frequenting fast-food stores (and processed food shelves) "to support the American economy".

Do what's healthy... emotionally, physically, morally, family, spiritually.

I'm including my website not for advertising but to back up my claim as a wellness coach. (Please use it for good and not for evil).

Lauren Muney
www.physicalmind.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At least they're consistent...
Posted by: jmoore on Aug 18, 2005 12:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the story: Conflict about junk food has intensified since late 2001, when a Surgeon General's report called obesity an "epidemic." Since that time, the White House has repeatedly weighed in on the side of Big Food. It worked hard to weaken the World Health Organization's global anti-obesity strategy and went so far as to question the scientific basis for "the linking of fruit and vegetable consumption to decreased risk of obesity and diabetes."

Does anyone else besides me see the link between the
White House questioning the scientific basis for the
nutritional and lifestyle value of fruits and vegetables, and
remaining officiallly mum on (and thereby tacitly endorsing)
teaching ID/creationism in schools? Do they want us to be both stupid AND unhealthy?

Guess if we ate more fruits and vegetables the farm
subsidy industry would collapse...and the doctors
would have less to do...and the junk food chains would
go bankrupt...in fact, our entire American way of life
goes to hell in a handbasket if we eat apples and
broccoli. It isn't a far leap for us to imagine a
future where the propaganda will go something like
this: "Are you eating a PEACH?! Why do you hate
freedom?"

The more appropriate question should be, "Are you eating CHEEZ WHIZ? Why do you hate science?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the link Posted by: Olympiada
Soma anyone?
Posted by: radicalmum on Aug 18, 2005 2:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read "Brave New World" lately? It's all about control, keep the masses fat and (pseudo)happy. It's sad and pathetic that people don't take the time to educate themselves about the most important issues in their lives. Food is your life source people! I am the mother of three organic, wholegrain eating children. Sure, they get some junk food, but I make it myself and it is a small amount. They run and play and learn all day because we homeschool (No, we aren't Christians).
They watch some network TV but they know the foods they see advertised are bad foods, those with no nutritional value. They are not "good little consumers" not knowing that children and the environment are exploited to make the products advertised so aggressively. They are only 7,5 and 2 but they already "get it" so it's not that difficult to teach in a child-friendly manor. Watching "Supersize Me" made them boo everytime they see those yellow arches. By the way, we live on a very limited income and manage to feed 5 people a totally natural, home cooked organic diet and I don't spend all day cooking. So cost is NO good excuse, it's all about priorities. There is no great priority than the health and education of our children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Soma anyone? Posted by: Basenjis
IT's not MY fault!
Posted by: ssantee on Aug 18, 2005 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since when do children have checking accounts? When did the under 12 market gain enough purchasing power to blame marketing for their ills? Don't children eat one meal per day at school? How do they have time to get candy and soda if they are in class all day? Back when I was in middle school, lunch was a line-up, get a tray, sit down, and eat situtation. When did schools put in vending machines? And who is sending their kid to school with enough money to buy obesity from a vending machine? The answer to all these questions is; We are never going to let parents rid themselves of every little bit of responsibility for their child. Give it up already! Until they are sixteen or eighteen or whatever, it is your job to make sure they are fed, clothed, and housed, and GAsp!; making sure they do not get ridiculously fat is your job also, NOT the presidents!! He raised his kids; you raise yours.
In conclusion, this report was spawned of ignorance. The authors clearly do not understand the ideas of freedom nor personal responsibility. Take a civics class already!

Future flash 2010:
The National Office of Under 12 Protection and Education released its latest report on shoe tying education today; the number of children who can tie their own shoes is down 4.23% from last year. Concerned parents are attacking the shoe marketing industry over the "glitz and glam" velcro shoe ad campaign of 2009, saying that this ad campiagn led to their childrens inability to tie their own shoes.
"After we shut down Oreo I thought this nightmare was over" said Mille, a Concerned Parent. "You just can't send your kids to the mall with your credit card and expect everything to be okay while you stay at home watching tv and eating the oreos that you have to be 21 to purchase, anymore. I won't be happy until we live in a society where the kids can run free and I can have some private time", elaborated Mille.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: IT's not MY fault! Posted by: Olympiada
Schools should be "intelligent"
Posted by: jimbo48 on Aug 18, 2005 3:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a teacher, it really irks me to see schools justifying making candy, pop, etc available to kids out of deference to a misguided "political correctness." Schools-- at all levels-- are supposed to be centers for learning, but institutional postures that enable poor health choices by individuals reflect a lack of respect for the body of nutritional knowledge that exists. Arguments that there are no "good" or "bad" foods are just plain "bad science" in the service of industry, akin to the "arguments" about the human catalysts for global warming. There is only an "argument" because industry touts a self-serving point of view that flouts the science, about which very few scientists disagree, aside from those in the employ of industry. Schools teach values at every moment of every school day-- even the decision to teach math instead of Greek is a values decision. Schools, IMO, should have the courage to lead by reinforcing what they teach about nutrition by limiting children's choices to foods that have established nutritional value. We don't let them smoke or drink in school; it seems likely that we would not even if it was legal. So why let them eat junk food?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FARMING, FAST FOOD IS NOT FAST ©
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Aug 19, 2005 12:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Juliet B. Schor and Gary Ruskin . . .

I thank you for bringing this information to the attention of a public that has few choices.

Stores stock sugar, salt, and trans-fatty acids. Restaurants offer the same. Farmers produce what they can cheaply and America consumes, junk.

Bodies grow fat. People fall ill and they know not why. Could it be what they eat and what business and government promotes.

I wrote two treatises that touch on this topic, though more needs to be written. I offer these for your review. Please feel free to comment on my writings. I welcome a broader discussion.
FARMING IS FALLING, EFFECTING OUR FOOD AND FAMILIES ©
FAST FOOD IS NOT FAST ©

Betsy L. Angert
Be-Think

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this makes me angry, no enraged
Posted by: Olympiada on Aug 30, 2005 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What kind of f**king bullshit is this?! Oh!
All right folks check this link: Center for Science in the Public Interest for starters.
Now I will admit I have an unfair advantage. My mother is a dietetician and both my parents are runner and I have been an athelete and dancer my self.
This article pisses me off, and I usually do not say that.
What the f**k. Where are the f**king ethics in this country? Where?
I am a mother now, and I am mad, and I am a teacher. This article makes me want to join up with the WHO.
And now I know who this Tommy guy is who has been flaming my posts. He is a satirical guy making fun of Tommy Thomson...
You wanna get mad? Get mad at the food lobbyists. Immoral!
Ah this country...God Bless America.
hahahahahahhahahah

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]