fatty, fatty, 2x4

[sway2sway]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin

this is a rather long, yet interesting article- I only skimmed after the first page.....the question being, why is obesity linked to income? and not in the ways of old, when the rich kings and nobleman were the tubs o' lard and the serfs were Jack Sprat.

"... the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly — and get fat.

This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?"


The system is designed this way by what crops are heavily subsidized. it makes me wonder, the govt's talk the talk about battling obesity, getting people off the couch, 5-10 serving of fruit & veggies, yet they undermine everything by the policy they've tentacled onto our fatty, dimpled asses...so is it just another PR deal where they really don't care about the outcome, only the media perception- or are they just not smart enough to realize how they are sabotoging their own efforts, not to mention the health of the constituents.

[the duke]

yeah, it's been shown here too that it costs less to buy shit than it does to buy fresh food...There's a food court in the city that charges $15 for a salad sandwich (a large one at that) but it costs $2 for fries...it's ridiculous!

But the funny thing is that the farmers get the smallest amount of money possible for their crops...SO bad...supermarkets screw people over badly...which is why I totally support the fruit market and the fresh food market...supermarket is only for sauces, toiletries and milk...

And now I'll stand down from my soapbox :)

[sway2sway]

oh I like it when you get up on the soapbox duke.

here's one more blurb from the article (my delusions don't extend into the realm where I think very many articles that I post actually get read ;) )

"The result[of the current farm bill]? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow."

[Miss Shark]

Because most of us assume that, true to its name, the farm bill is about “farming,� an increasingly quaint activity that involves no one we know and in which few of us think we have a stake.

Are there any quaint farmers left in America? It's business, BIG business.

[Miss Shark]

http://economics.about.com/od/americanagriculture/a/farm_business.htm

I'll see your blurb, and raise you one, or share boundaries of delusions(wink, smile):

The advent of agribusiness in the late 20th century has meant fewer but much larger farms. Sometimes owned by absentee stockholders, these corporate farms use more machinery and far fewer farm hands. In 1940, there were 6 million farms averaging 67 hectares each. By the late 1990s, there were only about 2.2 million farms averaging 190 hectares in size. During roughly this same period, farm employment declined dramatically -- from 12.5 million in 1930 to 1.2 million in the 1990s -- even as the total U.S. population more than doubled. In 1900, half of the labor force were farmers, but by the end of the century only 2 percent worked on farms. And nearly 60 percent of the remaining farmers at the end of the century worked only part-time on farms; they held other, non-farm jobs to supplement their farm income. The high cost of capital investment -- in land and equipment -- makes entry into full-time farming extremely difficult for most persons.

As these numbers demonstrate, the American "family farm" -- rooted firmly in the nation's history and celebrated in the myth of the sturdy yeoman -- faces powerful economic challenges. Urban and suburban Americans continue to rhapsodize about the neat barns and cultivated fields of the traditional rural landscape, but it remains uncertain whether they will be willing to pay the price -- either in higher food prices or government subsidies to farmers -- of preserving the family farm.

[sway2sway]

I'll see your blurb, and raise you one, or share boundaries of delusions(wink, smile):


have I told you that I am glad you joined us here? that's just what a girl like me wants to hear.

anyway this is a quote from someone paraphrasing something from the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn (haha, that's giving credit where due)

{Ishmael says that it is "Taker" civilization itself, the hierarchical structure that locks up food and spreads through the idea that people must live the same way, that is actually inferior. Why? To put it simply, we grow more food than we need, which causes our population somewhere on the Earth to increase. Now we need to grow more food, which means we clear-cut a forest or plow up a prairie to grow it, but that only causes more people to survive and reproduce. This puts us back in the same situation we were before, and causes the diversity of the world to be diminished. Why? As any farmer knows, anything that eats or competes with the crop needs to be controlled or eliminated. As any rancher or sheepherder knows, anything that competes with or eats the herd or flock must be controlled or eliminated. This process, occurring for thousands of years since the agricultural revolution in the Fertile Crescent, all over the world, has caused the reduction or elimination of countless species. }

That's one thing, just knowing that control over food has been eeked away over time. It's another to know that the way production is getting bigger and bigger is of serious detriment to the world. It's another to realize, as you posted, about the decline of the family farm and employment in farming. Kinda reminds me of how they say the richest 2% of the people in the world own half the world's wealth http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1222-04.htm
But for some reason I find it really disturbing to realize the effect of what the government chooses to subsidize and how that is impacting health. I guess it's always the shock of finding out some new way you're getting screwed over. In a lot of ways, I think, we acclimate to taking the government shaft (ouch), but when they send in a fresh new fucker, or you just thought they were gonna take a break for a while, but NOT, and then the shit just keeps coming, well it hurts a little.

[Miss Shark]

Thanks sway. I thought the article you posted was disturbing, and interesting I was surprised that the blame was not laid one big business. What does it come down to? Who has the bigger, badder lobbyists the agribusiness or the insurance companies?

[sway2sway]

yeah, spot on about the lobbyists. did you see that movie 'thank you for smoking'? sounds like we could make a sequel outta this thread.

[the duke]

hehehe thank you for smoking was a great movie!

Don't forget that many products today have added water in them to make them seem more full, esp. meat...it's when sausages and burgers shrink when you cook them...that's the water evaporating...

BUT i guess we all just need to accept the fact that the govt doesn't give a shit...as long as they're looked after, they don't care what happens....

[Miss Shark]

Never seen it. I was thinking about that when duke, you said you don't have time for the movies with school. I've seen, at best, a handful of movies in the past 5 years, not that I was a big movie person prior to having kids.

[the duke]

yeah, that i saw on DVD. I can't remember the last movie I saw at the cinema...I believe it was early this year.

[sway2sway]

I hardly go out to movies, unless it's a kiddie one, my last theater excursion was Charlotte's web. I do enjoy a movie from the comfort of my bed though. I just watched night at the museum, I thought it was hilarious. I wasn't even going to watch it cause I thought, 'that looks stupid', but I kept getting sucked in.
I loved little miss sunshine, but that's old news, everyone has probably seen that.
Last week, I watched Pure, I thought it was pretty good, rather disturbing, about a little boy and his junkie mom. It starts off with the little boy cooking up his mother an injection, bringing it to her like breakfast in bed. She gets all pissed off once she rouses, telling him he knows he is never supposed to touch her medicine (he doesn't yet realize the reality of the situation). Turns out he was making it cause it was his birthday and he was just trying to make the day be a good one, but of course mama forgot the birthday.
Ill Fated is another good one, one of those weird ones, with only one copy at the video store and a sundance award logo on the front. I usually like those ones.
fatty fatty 2x4
couldn't get off the movie theater floor.
her ass was too heavy
winch her out with a chevy.
butter stains are everywhere,
sour patch kids are in her hair,
you know this lady....
she don't share.

[gumbolimbo]

"Today the problem is overnutrition, but a school lunch lady trying to prepare healthful fresh food is apt to get dinged by U.S.D.A. inspectors for failing to serve enough calories; if she dishes up a lunch that includes chicken nuggets and Tater Tots, however, the inspector smiles and the reimbursements flow. The farm bill essentially treats our children as a human Disposall for all the unhealthful calories that the farm bill has encouraged American farmers to overproduce."

This is my big issue, our children go to school and eat pizza, hot dogs french fries and hig fat processed shit full of artificial everything, and then the school has the nerve to send home to parents information on healthy eating; increasing fruits and vegetables to 5-10 servings, avoiding sugar and fat.

I am sick of it! My child eats very healthy at home and he brings a lunch to school everyday from home that has veggies and fruits and multigrains, and lean protein. However IF your child has even a dollar in their pocket and they can buy processed packaged cookies for .50 cents or a Hersheys "milkshake"for $1.00 that has 630 calories and 32 grams of fat, and parents would never know unless the child is honest and tells you. The school shamelessly sells these children this crap and parents can't even consent.

[sway2sway]

there has been a big push here to get unhealthy vending machines out of schools. I don't know what the cafeterias are like in the bigger kid schools- because I'm in a smaller town, we don't have all the big food programs like da big sparkly city would. When I was in nurse school I did a paper on nutriton and kids and school. It's amazing all the ways that childrens nutrition is compromised because of $. Even if they serve more healthy food at school, the're still coming home with a coupon for a happy meal because they've read 100 nights. EVen with say having coke vending machines in a school, the school gets a lot of perks and financial incentives, which the schools really want to take because it provides programming or supplies they can't otherwise afford. The coke company is pleased to do it because these are impressionable kids and are betting on brand loyalty if they're a fixture.
My sister worked in florida for a while and her impression was that there are a lot of supersized people there and a lot of unhealthy food. don't know if that really is true in comparison, but it was her impression.

[Miss Shark]

snicker snicker

I have seen quite a few kiddie flick too, but we watch them at home. Once a month we have 'girls night', we kick daddy out, make popcorn on the stove, amass a pile of pillows and blankets watch our movie then sack out. I've started selecting movies based on the soundtrack(why did I set up an old mac here and teach them how to use iTunes?). Cars is in heavy rotation, always on demand in the car , in politest manner, with my 3 year old asking for me to turn it up please. I've no idea why she like's to listen to it SO loud.

I have seen 'American Splendor' recently and liked that. I actually saw 'The Last King of Scotland' at the theater. Good stuff I've always thought Forrest Whittaker brilliant. Have yet to see 'Little Miss Sunshine'.

I to lean towards 'those wierd ones'.

I think you are so right gumbo they should not be selling junk food in schools period. What a coup that was for the soft drink companies, and aren't some schools even selling Toca Bell and McDonalds foods now?

YIKES: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodreview/may1996/may96i.pdf

The number of schools serving
fast food is low but growing. Cur-
rently, approximately nine fast food
chains sell to schools across the
country: Pizza Hut, Little Caesar’s,
Domino’s, Taco Bell, Subway, Chick-
fil-A, McDonald’s, Blimpie’s, and
Arby’s (fig. 1). (Little Caesar’s,
Domino’s, and McDonald’s are not
aggressively pursuing the school
lunch market and are not monitor-
ing the number of schools they
serve. Arby’s and Blimpie’s are in
fewer than 50 schools.)
PepsiCo’s Pizza Hut has the high-
est school presence, in approxi-
mately 5,000 of the just over 94,000
schools across the country in 1994-
95, up from 4,000 in 1992-93.

[Miss Shark]

What was that movie called, never saw it myself, about the guys that only ate McDonalds, and had to 'supersize' it when asked? He did get quite 'super' if I recall...

[sway2sway]

I think that was 'supersized' or something like that, it was good, worth watching. I think you'd like the 'little miss sunshine' too. I was dithering over that Forrest movie in the movie store yesterday, so it's good? I like him too.
instead I picked 'the pursuit of happyness' with will smith, haven't watched it yet though

[Miss Shark]

The popcorn was a let down. The movie was great. I thought it would be more political and general it was however, rather personal. It was a glimpse of Idi I had not seen before. It left me wondering how people wind up that way Idi, Hitler. On the one hand so charming and great orators, and on the flip side so deeply disconnected to humanity.

[the duke]

it's called supersize me...

In Australian schools they've taken away vending machines and stuff, and canteens are being encouraged to serve healthy options. It's a program run by the govt called "healthy eating schools" and it's pretty good.

Also, if you've ever watched any Jamie Oliver shows, he did a series here where he tried to change the school lunches in the UK. He lobbied the govt in the UK and i believe got through. But he got a ton of backlash with a shitload of parents complaining that their kids were getting healthy food instead of crap. So really, it's a parental issue too in a way...

Oh, and Sway, I haven't actually seen LIttle Miss Sunshine...I seem to miss out every time I go to the video store!

[lietuvaite]

our middle school cafeteria has healthy choices such as a salad bar, fresh fruit, cut up veggies w/dressing, sandwiches on whole wheat bread, etc. the kids instead choose to eat a double helping of french fries, fried chicken nuggets, soft pretzels, chips, etc. - carbs and more carbs. no pop is sold, but there are a ton of different juices to buy, which are just as bad, imo, b/c of all the sugar. the healthy choices are there, but the kids need to be taught at home what is healthy, and need to have healthy eating habbits set as an example in their home for it to carry over to school.

super size me was pretty inetersting. it's part of our district's middle school and high school curriculum for health class.

yeah, i guess i can see why some people might get in a rut of eating fast food - it's cheaper than making a meal at home, fills you up better, and is easier than cooking at home. not to mention it is addictive. i don't eat fast food very often, but when i do, i often want it again relatively quickly soon after.

the mayor of detroit proposed a tax on all fast food not too long ago that people nicknamed the "fat tax". don't know if it ever passed or not, but it was a controversial issue in the news for a while. don't think it did...

[sway2sway]

the mayor of detroit proposed a tax on all fast food not too long ago that people nicknamed the "fat tax". don't know if it ever passed or not, but it was a controversial issue in the news for a while. don't think it did...

in my opinion they should tax it, just to be consistent. well I guess you're not as taxed up the hoo-ha as we are up here, but in Canada's case, booze and cigarettes are heavily taxed (a pack of smokes is at least 8 bucks, a 6 pack of regular old beer is easily $10), some of the rational being that the money is needed to pay for all the healthcare that these consumers will disproportionately use in their life. Fair enough I say; but, if that's the reasoning, it's only fair to tax fast food. same difference

[lietuvaite]

i'm not against it, mainly b/c it doesn't affect me and it would hopefully deter some from eating so much unhealthy fast food. however, i don't think anyone has the right to tell me or others what i should eat, smoke, drink, etc. if i want to eat unhealthy, get cancer from smoking, etc, it's my choice/right, and i don't see why it should cost me more than something that is healthy. our tax dollars don't go toward national health care, so that rationale doesn't quite work here.

[the duke]

yeah, if the taxes were going to national healthcare, then it'd be a different story...but you're right, you can't force people.

it's so sad that the kids at your school eat the crap instead. I'm very much for the 'if it's not there, they can't eat it' which means getting rid of stuff. Like we don't have chips and chocolate in our house, therefore we can't eat it. My mother just got diagnosed with type 2 diabetes last week, so we're going to have to watch it even more now...

[sway2sway]

you hear of the 'epidemic', see the fat butts, but this is what I find most ugly of it all- what is happening to the kids. Sure they're getting bigger, moving less- you can see that. But on the inside, they're getting old too, taking medication usually reserved for the middle aged. crazy


Number of U.S. girls taking diabetes drugs doubles


Published: Thursday, November 08, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The number of U.S. girls taking diabetes drugs more than doubled between 2002 and 2005, almost certainly because of rising obesity, researchers reported yesterday.

Children of all ages are increasingly taking drugs originally formulated to treat adults with illnesses often caused by years of eating too much and exercising too little, the researchers told a meeting of the American Public Health Association.

They saw a 166-per-cent increase in prescriptions for Type 2 diabetes -- which once rarely or never occurred in children -- among girls aged 10 to 14, and a 135-per-cent rise among teenage girls 15 and above.

More U.S. children and teens also used blood pressure, cholesterol, asthma and depression medications, the teams at Saint Louis University School of Medicine and pharmacy benefit manager Express Scripts Inc. said.


© The Vancouver Province 2007

[Miss Shark]

So why is it exactly, that this seems to be aimed at the lower income areas? I heard this story last night. It's not like fast food is even cheaper. We may have it maybe twice a month tops, but for the same price that I pay for that, I can make a nice pot roast with all the trimmings they'll be 2 meals for us. Fast food, fast to pop pills, or worse pop them into your kids. I don't know, but it does drive me a little batty.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fastfood10sep10,0,4559964.story?coll=la-home-center

A Times analysis of the city's roughly 8,200 restaurants found that South Los Angeles has the highest concentration of fast-food eateries. Per capita, the area has fewer eating establishments of any kind than the Westside, downtown or Hollywood, and about the same as the Valley. But a much higher percentage of those are fast-food chains. South L.A. also has far fewer grocery stores.

Thirty percent of adults in South L.A. are obese, compared with 20.9% in the county overall, according to a county Department of Public Health study released in April. For children, the obesity rate was 29% in South L.A., compared with 23.3% in the county.

And the figures are higher than a decade ago. In 1997, the adult rate was 25.3% in South L.A. and 14.3% in the county. South L.A. also has the highest diabetes levels in the county, at 11.7%, compared with 8.1% in the county.