Neoliberal obesity and coronavirus in Mexico - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Mexico to Argentina.

Moderator: PoFo Latin America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15145633
QatzelOk wrote:You are saying that corporations should be able to throw whatever poisons they want at populations, and then it's up to the populations to "defend themselves" against these mafias.

If you eat donuts and chocolate everyday it's because you're a dumb fat slob and you have every right to make those choices. Maybe you want to start a government war on donuts like the war on drugs and throw people who sell french fries in jail and the donut gangs will move into your neighbourhood and shoot everybody.

Nobody has ever forced you to eat McDonald's except your parents. So maybe you should ask your parents why they chose to feed you poison. If Ronald McDonald can trick your parents then maybe Ronald McDonald isn't the biggest problem here.

Brainwashing techniques are aimed at changing behaviors through psychological prompts on mass media. Are you actually in favor of these being used on young children? :eh:

Young children don't buy McDonald's and don't have cars to even go to McDonald's. Kids want to eat donuts for dinner but parents who aren't dumb don't let them.

Any food that has a commercial is probably not healthy. Grocery stores are filled with aisles upon aisles of them. So we have a bigger problem than McDonalds here.
#15145636
Potemkin wrote:The entire concept of the "free market" is based on an extreme voluntarist model of human behaviour. This makes it very easy to slip in brainwashing and propaganda techniques through the back door, since by definition consumers in a "free market" cannot be manipulated; and if they can, then it's because they "want" to be manipulated. Lol.

Have you ever purchased McDonald's and while sucking down your Big Mac and McFlurry you thought to yourself "I'm getting healthy now". And then a couple of hours later thought "Damn those McDonald's bastards tricked me again with their adverts!"? How exactly are you being manipulated? McDonald's doesn't even market to children anymore...because there are no children anymore.

What I would be in favor of is banning marketing filled with lies or false promises. There's an argument to be made about regulating advertising to children. I'm in favour of warning and information labels (ie: "Nutella is not a healthy breakfast option"). I'm also in favour of more food education in schools and forcing cafeteria's not to sell garbage.

You can tell people that meth is bad for them until you're blue in the face, you can even criminalize it, and yet people still do it. The people I know who consume drugs have crappy parents and upbringing and are also morons.
#15145856
Unthinking Majority wrote:If you eat donuts and chocolate everyday it's because you're a dumb fat slob...

George Orwell and I are a bit concerned about the order of cause-and-effect in this pivotal first-sentence of your similarly questionable two-post rant.

Is "being overweight" a reason why people eat donuts, or is "eating donuts" something that can make people overweight?

Because if we are going to throw away the way we present cause-and-effect, than we can't really analyze anything at a sophisticated level. The level you present is similar to the "Jimmy himself forced me to steal his lunch money" that kids make up when they are teens still discovering logic and adult morality.

The low-brow logic you present here would suggest things like: that the reason the USA needs oil is because it bombs countries. But we all know that it bombs countries because it needs oil. The order of cause and effect is essential in comprehending the problems, and in solving them.

Why do you present the idea that being obese "causes" donut-eating? Does this mean that drowning causes people to "not know how to swim?" That DUI is caused by worrying about road accidents?"

Has the thread really dropped to this level of unthinking? To 4+4=2 ?
#15145888
QatzelOk wrote:Why do you present the idea that being obese "causes" donut-eating? Does this mean that drowning causes people to "not know how to swim?" That DUI is caused by worrying about road accidents?"

This isn't what I'm saying.

Cause and effect: If you eat lots of donuts, you will get fat. Logical solution: Don't eat lots of donuts.

Your solution: Donuts make people fat, therefore ban donuts. If you enjoy donuts every once and a while too bad.
#15145974
Unthinking Majority wrote:Cause and effect: If you eat lots of donuts, you will get fat. Logical solution: Don't eat lots of donuts.

What if your mom points a gun to your head and says 'eat the donut!'? Do you still have the freedom to choose?

What if you are tortured and isolated... in order to force you to like eating donuts. Still free to choose?

What if sophisticated marketing people use psychology and media addiction to turn you into a baby-minded consumer of products you are manipulated into liking?

(Was the last one too complicated for you to understand? If so, enjoy your donuts! :lol: )
#15146364
QatzelOk wrote:What if sophisticated marketing people use psychology and media addiction to turn you into a baby-minded consumer of products you are manipulated into liking?

What has happened is McDonald's used marketing targeting children, similar to sugary breakfast cereals, where the kids then whined to their parents to buy the cereal.

The good thing is parents still have control of food purchases ultimately, the bad being that many still buy this stuff.

The problem isn't so much McDonalds, since most people don't visit McDonalds everyday. The problem is grocery stores filled with marketed products that aren't very healthy and people eating them every day. Things filled with sugar and fat and salt to make them taste better, with salt and chemicals used as preservatives to increase shelf life. So now we have kitchens filled with food that is making us obese and unhealthy.

But people can still eat fairly healthy if they stick to the produce and meat/deli sections as much as possible, but we often don't because we love our sugary/salty/fatty foods, which are substances that evolution has taught our bodies to crave & feel pleasure from. These substances are like any chemical vice, they can be enjoyed from time to time responsibly or abused. I'd say we're slaves to our biology rather than to food companies.
#15146384
Rancid wrote:I think we should ban money.

Wot u sum kinda proudhonist or sumfin? Want ta ban moni but not chang producshon relashons wich monie gets ets valu frum?

Pfft u sum kind of funny fella aint cha
#15146390
Unthinking Majority wrote:The problem isn't so much McDonalds, since most people don't visit McDonalds everyday. The problem is grocery stores filled with marketed products that aren't very healthy and people eating them every day.

The problem with marketing to children is that it's immoral and it harms children for their entire lives.

Since McDonalds does this more than almost anyone else in the advertising world with cartoon characters, a ball room, and the legend of Ronald - the friendly father figure... they are a major source of brainwashing that leads to ill health.

That you can defend them demonstrates how little morality or philosophy still exists in the depleted shitscape that is the United States of vegetable oil and potatoes.
#15146403
QatzelOk wrote:The problem with marketing to children is that it's immoral and it harms children for their entire lives.

I don't disagree with you. I'd even argue that sugary breakfast cereal is even more immoral because kids eat that every day as opposed to a sugary snack, and the cereals are marketed as breakfast rather than dessert...they throw vitamins inside pretend it's healthy. And those cereals use the same "happy meal" tactic of putting toys in the box for kids to pressure parents to buy it, along with cartoon characters in commercials to attract kids. And the tactics are very effective.

Since McDonalds does this more than almost anyone else in the advertising world with cartoon characters, a ball room, and the legend of Ronald - the friendly father figure... they are a major source of brainwashing that leads to ill health.

What do you think the solution is? Regulate or ban marketing to children of unhealthy foods? I'm not against the idea.
#15146463
Unthinking Majority wrote:What do you think the solution is?

A complete re-invention of our culture and economic relationships.

Childhood brainwashing and obesity are currently part of the fabric of "who we are as a society," and that is a failure.
...

Western Civilization Report Card

Child protection and health 101

F

(please see a guidance counselor after class)
#15146469
Unthinking Majority wrote:I don't disagree with you. I'd even argue that sugary breakfast cereal is even more immoral because kids eat that every day as opposed to a sugary snack, and the cereals are marketed as breakfast rather than dessert...they throw vitamins inside pretend it's healthy. And those cereals use the same "happy meal" tactic of putting toys in the box for kids to pressure parents to buy it, along with cartoon characters in commercials to attract kids. And the tactics are very effective.


What do you think the solution is? Regulate or ban marketing to children of unhealthy foods? I'm not against the idea.


FYI

Breakfast cereal has been on the decline since the late 90s. Kids aren't eating that stuff like they used to.

Example, I don't feed my kids that stuff.
#15146478
I would also emphasize beyond simply advertising and marketing but how much regulatory bodies can seem to be impeded by their influence such that dictating standards to best support peoples wellbeing opposed to profits is undermined.

Easy to say simply choose otherwise but neglect the actual matter of how people come to be self determining and choose certain things as opposed to others ie the many influences which impact choice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/17/sweet-excess-how-baby-food-industry-hooks-toddlers-sugar-salt-fat/
Billy Roberts, senior analyst of food and drink at market research firm Mintel, says that there were four times more product launches in the baby and toddler food aisle in 2018 than in 2005, with a huge surge in new toddler foods and drinks, most of which are extremely high in sugar.
What’s driving this surge? Experts point to several factors. Parents are demanding convenient, on-the-go packaging. Industry’s lust for market share has driven advertising aimed at parents of toddlers. And there’s been little nutritional guidance for new parents, who glean what they can from parenting chat rooms, family lore and pediatricians, many of whom had only a single class on nutrition during medical school.
...
Jennifer Harris leads a multidisciplinary team of researchers at the University of Connecticut that studies food marketing to children, adolescents and parents, and how it affects diets and health.
She says that toddler snacks are often positioned as healthier than those for adults.
“But we didn’t find that to be the case in terms of added sugar, sodium, saturated fat and calories,” Harris said. “You wouldn’t give your toddler Cheetos, but you would give them Gerber puffs, which are basically the same thing.”
...
“The amount of funding spent to promote healthy foods, which is mostly via federal nutrition education dollars such as WIC and SNAP-Ed, is dwarfed by food marketing which is mostly for unhealthy and ‘treat’ foods and beverages,” she said. “I fear we will never make a big dent in diet-related chronic disease until we level this playing field.”

Researchers found that children who watch 80 minutes of television per day view more than 800 ads for junk food annually. Toddlers and preschoolers are particularly vulnerable because they can’t distinguish between programming and promotion and don’t yet understand the intent of advertising to persuade.
...
What babies and toddlers drink is equally key. Nearly four decades ago, Nestlé was villainized for convincing Third World mothers that infant formula was better than breast milk. In 1981 an international code limiting the marketing of breast-milk substitutes was ratified by the World Health Organization and was adopted by most countries, but not the United States, Harris said.
“The code was designed to protect consumers from unscrupulous marketing,” she said. “When infant formula is marketed to parents, it is positioned as convenient and more scientific because it’s a ‘formula,’ and that it’s an acceptable — if not a better — alternative to breast milk. All of that is prohibited under the code.”
As a result of the marketing prohibition, sales of formula for infants lagged. The multinational companies behind the $55 billion global baby food and formula industry had to expand their customer base, inventing new products. They developed follow-up formulas for children 6 months and up, often called “growing-up milks” or “toddler milks.”
...

Rick Klauser, chief executive of vegetable-forward Sprout Foods, said that major brands take advantage of government loopholes that don’t require fanciful nutrition and ingredient labeling on the front of packages to match up with the order of ingredients on the back.
...

“By 18 months” he said, “a child’s nutrition journey is more or less forged.”

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/15/health/dietary-advisory-guidelines-infants-wellness/index.html
What's missing from this analysis? The committee didn't tackle the topic of red meat -- a major supplier of saturated fat in the American diet and a huge player in the argument over food sustainability and environmental impact.
Sodium and salt and their role in the growing epidemic of hypertension and heart disease was also not part of the committee's assignment. "The report says remarkably little about sodium beyond that it is overconsumed and people should 'reduce sodium intake,'" Nestle said.
The committee didn't address drinking water over other beverages for hydration. Nor did they touch on the need to limit the American fascination with overly processed foods that lose nutritional value as their shelf life expands.
"Ultraprocessed" is the new way of talking about foods that should not be consumed regularly or in large amounts — tons of evidence has come in within the last five years," Nestle said.
"The word does not appear in the report except in the references," Nestle said. "If the committee considered this evidence, it did not spell it out explicitly."
Those issues aren't addressed, critics say, because the independence of the 2020 Dietary Advisory Committee was removed by the federal government.


Food Companies target kids in the same way tobacco companies do in get em hook young/early you have a more reliable customer base for longer.

And getting people hooked on sugar and such isn’t simply biology but the very state of our world and how its organized also. Same way pregnancy is a biological process but heavily impacted by access to medical care and social relations which impact a persons life. Peoples material being does not exist independently of society which humans have shaped.
#15146555
QatzelOk wrote:A complete re-invention of our culture and economic relationships.

I agree with you. The hard part is that this change needs to be so vast that it's revolutionary.

IMO the Industrial Revolution changed everything, and political ideologies like Marxism, Fascism, Anarchism, etc have sprung up since then to try and deal with those resulting changes. I'm very skeptical that there's any ideology that can deal with the post-industrial revolution era. Humans evolved over tens of thousands of years to live a certain way, and trying to fit that into an era of mega-abundance and ever-advancing technology is like fitting a square peg into a round hole.

I also think the industrial revolution is a pandora's box, the genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in even if we wanted to...unless the entire world can be forced to go back to burning wood instead of fossil fuels.
#15146741
Unthinking Majority wrote:I'm very skeptical that there's any ideology that can deal with the post-industrial revolution era. Humans evolved over tens of thousands of years to live a certain way, and trying to fit that into an era of mega-abundance and ever-advancing technology is like fitting a square peg into a round hole.

I also think the industrial revolution is a pandora's box, the genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in even if we wanted to...unless the entire world can be forced to go back to burning wood instead of fossil fuels.


"Ideology" is like freezing a people's mindset and culture. Ideologies become popular (or even mandatory) because they empower a particular clan or class. So when the world changes dramatically, the elites scramble to find an ideology that will allow them to continue "winning" against all the losers and suckers that they refer to as "subjects" or "customers."

Using advertising that aims at children, and sells them just-short-of-toxic food culture... is a sign that capitalism has reached its sunset years. Ronald McDonald is no more credible than Juan Guaido.

In case you have not noticed Igor, the Chinese apo[…]

Atheism is Evil

No, altruism is totally possible for specific cat[…]

Regardless of due process him continuing in his jo[…]

Everything I needed to know about life, I learned[…]