[Jr_Bullit]

I'm pretty sure there was a thread on it ages ago...never commented as I didn't have a chance yet to watch it.

What I found most insteresting was that, even though the McDude chose the McD's to pick on he didn't focus only on them, just used them as an example because they are a predominant icon in our culture. I really enjoyed the parts where he showed our schools and what lunchtime really looks like for kiddos in most parts of the US...or the facts about the number of americans that are obese, the number that eat out, and so on. I also appreciated that he made it clear that his experiment was on the "very extreme" side and that he was eating the equivalent of what most health officials say you "should" eat in 8 years...but he also put in advertising from McDs stating that their food should be a part of a regular, balanced diet. Pretty amazing.

Then of course you can't deny that his three doctors, his nutritionist, and his physical fitness guy honestly believed in the beginning that only a few parts of his body might be damaged by the binge.

My office is next door to a taco bell, McD's is a mile away or so, BK is somewhere in there, Jack in the crack is a little ways up the road, we have a Dairy Queen, and a few other places nearby that really dish up the fast food. The majority of my coworkers buy their lunch out at least 2xs per week, and only a few of them frequent the teriyaki place across the street - and those that do rarely leave anything uneaten from the massive portions.

What about you? We're all supposedly healthy-ish athletes right? We love being outdoors on bikes....how often do you eat out? If you ate only home cooked meals do you think your belly size or cholesterol or liver or whatever else gets affected, would be different?

 

[BurlyShirley]

I eat pizza alot more than I should because little Caezer's has large's for $5, so I do that at least once a week, which is bad, but other than that and the OCCASIONAL Taco Bell trip or Subway, I dont really eat much fast food. Burger places are not a big thing for me and I generally cook my own food, which is somewhat better. I eat alot of Rice A Roni and Spaghetti and stuff like that because its easy to make. I've noticed a real difference though, from when I used to eat Burger King all the time, in that im in general a little thinner and a little more lively.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

I didn't mention my own eating habits . The last time I had fast food of any kind was at least 3 months ago...I got a side salad from McDs and a small French Fry because I forgot my lunch. For me "fast food" is a treat that I just don't eat much of...and every time I have I end up with a stomach ache and a lot of visits the girls'room.
Generally I'm so tightly budgeted every month that I don't set aside any cash for additional expenses, which to me is what fast food is.
If anything, I think I eat too much canned food, as I love a good bowl of campbells soup at lunchtime.

Mostly I wanted to watch the "super size me" show to validate my own beliefs about what's in most american "fast" foods - namely - sugar sugar sugar, fat, high carbs, and more sugar.

Do you realize that just across the border most of the juices we drink here (like Snapple) don't contain high fructose corn syrup? Everything here has it in it...even my creamer I use in my coffee...

 

[laura]

i eat out once a week. and i go to restraunt, not a fast food place. the last time i ate fast food was taco bell on my honeymoon. i ate a lot of junk on that trip and my stomach wasnt right for a couple of weeks after we got home. i love to cook. as well, i love to know exactly what i am putting into my body. i have been keeping a food journal for the past almost 3 years.


before all of this my belly size was effected, and when i changed my eating habbits i dropped quite a bit of weight. i also had really bad stomach problems until i changed my diet, and they have all but dissapeared.

 

[Toshi]

i don't eat out often. but i eat rather poorly at home , eel for example. good but laden with fat

 

[Snacks]

I agree with Jr_B....I felt that he didn't focus mainly on McD's but America's issue with food and portion control as a whole. I found it interesting when he asked a woman from France about their drink sizes and she said our small is their large.... No wonder we are so fat!

Oh, and the smoking fry! I have sworen off fries for ever

 

[binary visions]

I was hoping someone would start a thread about this - I watched it just the other day.

While I enjoyed the movie strictly on the basis of, "just look at how horrible this stuff is for you," I think they missed the point, as does almost everyone who watches the movie.

Yes, McD is bad for you. No doubt about it. But the movie should have been more of a commentary on the lack of discipline of Americans, not focused so much on the McDonald's diet. As a matter of fact, I believe the McDonald's diet was utterly unnecessary for the movie. The fact is, there are a billion unhealthy things surrounding us every day - even "home cooked" meals can be made bad for you. The problem is absolutely, 100% with the people consuming these foods (or their parents), and no blame whatsoever should lie with the industry providing the food.

The piece about the nutrition facts not being available? Sure, okay, good point, they should be there - but if people actually wanted them, and actually asked for them, they would be. Fact is, nobody cares. How many of these overweight people read the back of the Twinkies box before they eat one? How many of them consider how many calories are in that Trough O' Cola before they suck it down their throat? Only health conscious people worry about that, and they aren't the ones who have the problem.

I thought the school lunch piece was great - hell, I can't count how many days I got just fries for lunch back in middle school, or ate two bags of chips and slammed down a coke before heading off to the vending machine to buy a pack of Zebra Cakes. THAT'S a place where people should be monitored and provided for appropriately.

I liked it, I just think it missed the mark. Too much focus on the demonizing of the unhealthy foods or large portions, and not enough on people's personal/parental accountability. Just because the large size is available, doesn't mean you should order it. Even if it is only two and a half cents more.

 

[dan-o]

All good points BV. Another factor is the economics of obesity. The Boston Globe ran an interesting article on that topic a few days ago.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Fat people and unhealthy people really dont bother me...so long as they're insured of course. I think of fitness as a kind of hobby that not everyone is really into, or should have to be, for that matter. Let people eat what they want, who am I to judge what's correct? I dont care, so long as Im not affected.

 

[binary visions]

All good points BV. Another factor is the economics of obesity. The Boston Globe ran an interesting article on that topic a few days ago.

Link? I'd surf for it myself but I've tried to keep my web browsing to a minimum at work lately.

Fat people and unhealthy people really dont bother me...so long as they're insured of course. I think of fitness as a kind of hobby that not everyone is really into, or should have to be, for that matter. Let people eat what they want, who am I to judge what's correct? I dont care, so long as Im not affected.

If nothing else, you should care that it drives up your insurance rates.

But if you don't care, why are you posting in this thread? You bothered to click in here, read several long winded posts, and reply yourself, all because you simply don't care?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Link? I'd surf for it myself but I've tried to keep my web browsing to a minimum at work lately.


If nothing else, you should care that it drives up your insurance rates.

But if you don't care, why are you posting in this thread? You bothered to click in here, read several long winded posts, and reply yourself, all because you simply don't care?

A bunch of you are saying its wrong for people to be fat, Im saying that it's not necessarily. Why is that any less valid?

And also, the first post was a question, which I answered. :nuts:

 

[Jr_Bullit]

I agree with BV that he really didn't focus a lot on personal accountability, but I also don't think he focused 100% on McDonald's either. The whole concept of food and how much is right and putting together a balanced diet really needs to be analyzed in american popular culture. Just because you're thin doesn't make you healthy if all you eat is junk food, just in smaller portions.

You ever notice how someone who doesn't eat healthy kind of has a funny "smell" as a result? I mean, I'm no rose when I go ride my bike swaddled in high tech clothing, but I also know that people who's bodies are full of unhealthy, high fat, high sugar, high carb and little quality food tend to actually have a "corn syrupy" odor.

I definitely agree with the one "expert" in his show that said - when is it going to be okay to "heckle" obese individuals and unhealthy individuals the same as it is okay now to heckle smokers? I don't think it ever will....because obesity is a personal choice that really has little immediate effect on others around you...the effects are in insurance and paying for health care, in the workforce and your ability to be an effective producer in society, and so forth. But unlike smoking, your desire to shove your face wiht high fat icky stuff may simply ruin my personal appetite for awhile, but has no ill effects on my body.

 

[Snacks]

I definitely agree with the one "expert" in his show that said - when is it going to be okay to "heckle" obese individuals and unhealthy individuals the same as it is okay now to heckle smokers? I don't think it ever will....because obesity is a personal choice that really has little immediate effect on others around you...the effects are in insurance and paying for health care, in the workforce and your ability to be an effective producer in society, and so forth. But unlike smoking, your desire to shove your face wiht high fat icky stuff may simply ruin my personal appetite for awhile, but has no ill effects on my body.

Oh, what others stuff in their own face might not effect your body, but it has a effect on your health insurance!

 

[dan-o]

BV, it was titled the "Cost of Good Nutrition" on 11/30.
It's now in their pay-to-view archives.
The recycling truck just came, otherwise I'd pull a few quotes from it.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Oh, what others stuff in their own face might not effect your body, but it has a effect on your health insurance!

Right, exactly, it's not an immediate effect that is easily tangible.

Also, another question for the conversation - portion control. How many of you read the labels when you shop?

My soup for today is technically two servings, yet the entire can fits easily into a single soup bowl. Fortunately the amount of food in two servings fits my daily diet, but what if this were a small bag of chips - usually those are considered 2.5 to 3 servings of chips...ouch! I don't need 400 calories of potato starch and fat in my body every day.

 

[fluff]

And also,

?? Dude, I thought you were the new grammar queen?

 

[BurlyShirley]

?? Dude, I thought you were the new grammar queen?

Whoever sed thatt?

 

[narlus]

burly, you keep congealed bacon fat around as a food item. you should abstain from this thread.

 

[BurlyShirley]

burly, you keep congealed bacon fat around as a food item. you should abstain from this thread.

But its so good.

 

[.:Jeenyus:.]

The local McDonalds just closed here, I think thats the first time I have ever heard of one closing.

 

[BMXman]

I only eat fast food in do or die situations...I try to eat as much organic food as I can afford and I try to follow a vegan diet 5 out of the 7 days a week...sorry I'm not trying to derail the thread...just trying to answer the original question...but I know that's uncool these days...D

 

[ChrisRobin]

The local McDonalds just closed here, I think thats the first time I have ever heard of one closing.

There's one near my place that was completely levelled....

only to get rebuilt bigger and better!


Another point I think the McDude was trying to point out was that McD's is huge, feeding millions of people all the while knowing it's food is horrible for you. Kinda like cigarette companies. I like the part when he first jumped into his diet and felt sick....made me think back to a year and a half ago when I was healthy and when I would eat something with grease I would feel sick. Ahhh...now I'm fat and love to eat crap! My favorite is Little Caesar's pizza! MMMMMM...and that crazy bread!!!!

If I were to eat McDonkey's again, I stay away from those dirty chicken nuggets.

 

[-dustin]

i liked how he threw up on the 2nd day.

can someone correct me here, but fixing home cooked meals for 1 person seems to get expensive, unless you just eat PB&Js. i went on a little home-cooked-meal craze not too long ago, and that **** drained me.

i eat fast food 2 or 3 times a week. nights when i don't get back from campus til 10pm, or so. probably super-duper bad since i eat late, but whatever. generally Taco Bell, or Burger King. if i don't have money, i'll get fries from McDo.

as a matter of fact, the first thing i ate after watching SuperSize Me was a medium order of McDo's fries. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....i love those. they were a bit salty, though.

--edit--

so, are places like Schlotzsky's considered fast food? and how do burgers at places like Chili's factor into the equation?

 

[punkassean]

i don't eat out often. but i eat rather poorly at home , eel for example. good but laden with fat

yeah eel... ooor frozen hamburger patties with buffalo wing sauce



I eat out more than I'd like but I also cook at home a lot. When I do eat out though it's not traditional fast food. Living in CA there are lots of healthy places to pick from. Whether it's a veggie burrito or a Thai noodle bowl. The problem with that is the expense. I do find though that to have the ingredients at home that I would like to make most meals is a huge PITA because one thing will go bad before I'm ready and I won't have the other thing, etc. I also hate to spend tons of $$$ at farmers market and then not eat it before it goes bad or pretty much looses the majority of it's nutrients.

I try to eat a balanced diet, meaning a little bit of everything. I eat lot's of fish and a little of other meats. If it's not fish, I mostly eat lean red meat. I eat lots of veggies (but not as many as I'd ideally like) same goes for fruit.

I guess what it comes down to is I'd rather pay more for convenient and healthy food.

I would say that I am about 10lb lighter than I would be if I just ate whatever crap and didn't ride too much. I have had times in my life where I was like that temporarily and my max is about 160-165, I am low 150's now. But I also have a little more muscle mass than before so maybe a few more pounds there too.

EDIT: I stay the hell away from anything with partially-hydrogenated oils, that crap is gnar. Most packaged convenience foods are loaded with it, nasty stuff!

 

[binary visions]

can someone correct me here, but fixing home cooked meals for 1 person seems to get expensive, unless you just eat PB&Js. i went on a little home-cooked-meal craze not too long ago, and that **** drained me.

Actually, it's pretty easy to spend significantly less money eating at home than eating out.

I can walk into McDonalds, a "cheap" place to eat, and spend seven bucks.

That same seven bucks will buy me quite a bit of hamburger - certainly more food than I actually get from McDonalds. I could buy hamburger, a bag of frozen veggies, and a two liter bottle of Coke for less than $10 and have twice as much food as I'd walk out of McDonald's with on the same $10.

Mostly, the key is to do proper grocery shoppings, look for sales, etc. instead of going to the store right before dinner to pick up a meal. You can buy a huge honkin' bag of frozen veggies for only margianally more than the small bag. A buy one, get two free sale is a great time to stock up on canned/jar/dry goods that don't go bad. That kind of thing can save you a ton of money - my cupboard is crammed full of food that I purchased during good sales or when I had cupons.

 

[Toshi]

I can walk into McDonalds, a "cheap" place to eat, and spend seven bucks.

That same seven bucks will buy me quite a bit of hamburger - certainly more food than I actually get from McDonalds.

sean can attest to this, as i survived for quite a few days on the below, a box of 20 frozen hamburger patties. it eventually became too gross for me and i threw away half the box.

yeah eel... ooor frozen hamburger patties with buffalo wing sauce

 

[ChrisRobin]

Actually, speaking of home cooked meals...a couple weeks ago I had a nice dinner with my gf. Normally we eat out just because of time constraints, laziness...etc. For what we made and ate compared to eating the equivalent at a restaurant, I saved about $50.

 

[Olyroller]

It's all really simple

Fat = Stupid !

the rest is word fodder

 

[dan-o]

I just saw some CNN special on obesity that mentioned the fact that obesity has now surpassed both smoking and drinking in terms of health care costs.

 

[punkassean]

It's all really simple

Fat = Stupid !

the rest is word fodder

Not really, fat is good. Even animal fat in small amounts is not a bad thing and certain vegetable fats are very good for you.

The most simple way to sum it up is;

Variety is good, the closer to natural the better.

 

[Btyler311]

I loved that flick, made several friends watch it.

Some people I spoke to about it just got all angry about how you have to take responsibility for yourself and shouldn't be able to sue McD's etc. I think they all missed the point though.

It may be our responsibility to watch what we eat and see that we get enough exercise etc. But companies like McD's do market to us heavily from infancy and did it to our parents. It becomes a sort of money farm where we are all lulled into a weird sort of acceptance of the clown's msg and don't really see how bad it is for us and that it wil kill us just like cigs. Movies like this don't serve to make us go "hey lets sue those bastards and make their business model illeagle, the purpose is to make us open up our eyes go "Holy Cow!! What the F*%$ am I actually eating every day on the way to class for dinner. And why am I craving it? And why am I sitting by and letting them feed it to my kids in school. etc.

I think it did a great job of that. They should show that movie in health class for junior high kids.

Ty

 

[Jr_Bullit]

I'm laughing at the pop-up add that just appeared "choose your favorite fry" as I write this reply. Anyways, for those of you who never peruse the rottens, you should! The articles are generally factually correct and fun to read.

That said - enjoy the article below on Sugar!

Sugar
aka Sucrose, Glucose, Fructose, Kiddie Crack
You wouldn't give heroin to a four-year-old. (At least, we assume so, you sick ****.) But you don't hesitate to jack that kid up with heroic doses of the most successful recreational drug in the history of mankind, sugar -- a highly addictive, mood-altering, health-threatening substance that encourages antisocial behavior. (And after you get that kid hopped up on sugar, you have to give him Ritalin to get him to sit still. You sick ****.)
Known on the streets as glucose, sucrose or fructose, sugar comes in crystal, powder, and liquid forms. It's usually taken orally, and often (but not always) cut with some other food substance.

Sugar occurs naturally in many fruits and vegetables. It's mostly innocuous in its natural form. But refined sugars are an entirely different story. Sugar was available in relatively raw forms for centuries, but it wasn't until the industrial innovations of mass slavery and the breeding of the sugar beet that the sweet stuff became a dietary staple. Since the 1800s, there have been steady technological improvements in the refining process. Refined sugar can be produced by several different processes, most of which include grinding the source plant into a pulp, running the pulp through a series of filters and then evaporating what's left to produce a crystallized residue, which can be powdered or dissolved in water.

Like any drug, the potency of sugar increases dramatically when it is refined. The vast majority of refined sugars used in the U.S. comes from corn, but sugar is also refined from beets, sugar cane plants, maple sap, honey and almost every kind of fruit.

Often a very small dose of sugar is enough to get high. The threshold is different for everyone, but the bigger the dose, the more noticeable the effects. The effects of sugar use can include euphoria, increased energy and irritability, increased heart rate, insomnia, tremors, weight gain, ulcers, tooth decay and a depressed immune system.

Some psychologists have argued that these are simply placebo effects, based on user and observer expectations. There aren't any reliable surveys on whether those psychologists are themselves habitual sugar users, but the odds dramatically favor that conclusion. The average American ingests around 160 pounds of added sugars per year ("added" meaning not naturally occurring in food, like in an apple), according to the World Health Organization.

If you are not convinced of that sugar is a drug, we suggest you eat several tablespoons of the substance on an empty stomach. At any rate, the question posed by the psychologists (and by the massive world sugar industry, which funds many studies on this topic) is not whether sugar produces the effects listed above. That's not in question, although the sugar industry would like you to think it is. The studies are only trying to measure the magnitude of the sugar effect.

Refined sugar is extremely addictive. Not "addictive" in the sense that you just really like it, but addictive in the sense that your body suffers withdrawal symptoms if sugar is removed from your diet. While sugar doesn't have the instantly addictive quality of, say, crack cocaine, recent studies suggest that refined sugar activates opioids, the same brain chemicals that fuel heroin and morphine addiction, with similar results at a lesser magnitude.

Drug addiction is defined by a three stage process which includes increased consumption, withdrawal symptoms when a dose isn't available and an urge to relapse even after the drug has been completely removed. Aside from common life experience of these traits by sugar users, clinical studies on rats have shown the addiction pattern at work. The more refined the sugar, the more intense the addiction.

Withdrawal symptoms can include lethargy, tremors, headaches and depression. Generally, these effects are slightly less intense than the similar withdrawal symptoms associated with caffeine.

No one is arguing against the responsible use of refined sugar by consenting adults. For that matter, very few people even argue against the moderate, responsible use of sugar by children. Sugar is a naturally occurring substance that is part of a balanced diet.

Sugar becomes a social problem because of three major factors. First, society is generally in denial about sugar's addictive qualities. Second, refined sugar is rampantly available in nearly unadulterated form in every single food store in the United States. And third, these refined sugar products are overwhelmingly marketed directly to children by adults who have no moral qualms about using sophisticated psychological techniques to manipulate six-year-olds.

Pure sugar products are epidemic in the United States and most developed countries. The vast majority of soft drinks are simply high-fructose corn syrup with only enough water added to make them potable. Usually these drinks include a dash of flavoring as the pretext for liking them. Often, the drinks are paired with high caffeine content, increasing both the stimulation and the addictive power.

Breakfast cereals are notoriously laden with sugar, often promoted by cartoon leprechauns and bunnies who urge children to go to any length necessary to obtain their precious, precious sugar. Some cereals -- such as Cheerios and Kelloggs Cornflakes -- include added sugar and naturally occurring sugar in the product itself, then are served with teaspoons full of refined sugar heaped on top. Other, more shameless products include marshmallow candy interspersed with "healthy" bits of wheat or corn, which are themselves sweetened.

In addition to soda pop and candy, sugar is available in a convenient portable form, in jawbreakers and candy bars, where it is sometimes combined with chocolate, a caffeine-bearing substance thay is mildly addictive in its own right. For the hardcore user, sugar is obtainable through gumballs, which provide an intense initial surge of euphoria followed by a longer, mellower dose of sugar, or Pixie Stix. Particularly insidious, Pixie Stix are tubes full of powdered refined sugar with only a touch of food coloring added. The content of a Pixie stick is poured into the mouth, reminiscent of a line cocaine.

Sugar is also a gateway drug. It can successfully be combined with other drugs for an amplified effect. Sugar and chocolate can be combined with marijuana in brownie form. Cocaine and sugar were mixed in Coca-Cola when the product debuted in 1885. The amount of cocaine in the drink quickly diminished due to bad publicity, but the amount of sugar slowly grew. A 12-ounce can of Coke today contains no cocaine, but it does include about 10 teaspoons worth of sugar.

Clove cigarettes and some cigars are often sugar-tipped for a nicotine-sucrose cocktail. (Cloves are also mild anesthetics.) Heroin is often cut with sugar to reduce its potency. Liquid LSD can be added to a sugar cube, for a tasty and hallucinogenic treat.

As if all that wasn't bad enough, sugar is also a gateway to mind-altering prescription drugs. At the same time that sugar use by children and adults has skyrocketed in the United States, incidents of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder have also soared.

The sugar industry insists there is absolutely no basis to link ADHD and sugar. But the rise in sugar consumption conveniently corresponds to the skyrocketing number of children being medicated for ADHD in the U.S. The rate of Ritalin prescriptions in the U.S. rose 400% from 1990 to 1996. From 1978 to 1999, sugar consumption by a typical teenage boy grew 200%.

In fact, according to the 2001 book Fast Food Nation, a fifth of children aged one and two years old drink soda. Soda makers like Dr. Pepper and Pepsi have included advertising with baby bottles, and amazingly, some parents are idiotic enough to take the bait.

Thanks to bad parenting like this, combined with two or three generations of children who were weaned on sugary cereals, Americans consume more than 8 million metric tons of added sugar and high fructose corn syrup per year. That's 17.6 billion pounds, or 1.7 trillion teaspoons of the stuff.

With that kind of demand, you'd think the sugar industry would be laughing all the way to the bank. Well, you might think that if you were painfully naive and unschooled in the ways of American government. The sugar industry sponsors an annual field trip to Congress, where its representatives whine and bitch about how it's impossible for them to make money, winning various tariffs and subsidies to support their poverty-stricken operations. And that's just cane and beet sugar. Corn subsidies account for billions of dollars of government spending. Directly or indirectly, some of that money goes to pay for marketing that promotes sugar consumption among one-year-olds.

While the profusion of new refined sugar types makes it difficult to be precise, the consumption of sugar is only expected to increase in coming years. Perhaps prenatal IVs will be used to deliver the sweet stuff to hip fetuses who want to be a Pepper too. O brave new world, that has such people in't!
http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/drugs/sugar/

 

[binary visions]

Funny article.

Outlandish and wildly speculative, but funny.

IMO, it would have been a far more interesting and effective article if it wasn't so outrageous (did they actually just put forth a mild implication that sugar is somehow linked to drugs such as heroin or LSD?) - as it stands, to me, it's simply a piece of amusement rather than anything informative.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

I would say "laugh it up" but my own anecdotal experiences, coupled with those of many others' observations of mainstream american society is that over consumption is okay, normal, and we will take "real" drugs to correct the problems with over consuming sugar.

Additionally, you're not going to convince me you've never felt a sugar high, a rush, even the shakiness of having had a few too many jube jubes. There is a chemical reason why, when sitting on the couch munching oreos, your hand tends to reach in and grab a few more, and then a few more. Then you have the issue of the majority of foods you can buy as an american being completely loaded with complex carbohydrates - i.e. sugar....how many foods do you pick up where "high fructose corn syrup" is one of the main ingredients? I'd guess a good bit.

Here is an interesting article discussing the affects of sugar on the brain - it also relates sugar to other known drugs:

http://web.sfn.org/content/Publications/BrainBriefings/sugar.html

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Also, consider this - does the US government want us to be addicted to sugar? After all, it does have some nifty ties to the corn syrup industry...and you can't buy many products without paying a higher cost, to have more natural ingredients. Instead, everything contains a form of corn syrup or sugar.



Government Against Its Citizens
written by Dr. Walter E. Williams

Click here to Print | E-mail this Page

Democrat Mary Landrieu's successful Louisiana senatorial race against Republican challenger Suzanne Haik Terrell highlights some of the less appreciated and uglier aspects of American politics. America's sugar producers contributed heavily to both candidates. In fact, the sugar lobby gives millions of dollars to both parties of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Why? Might it be the sugar businesses' civic interest in free elections and good government? Believing that would make you a prime candidate for a brain transplant.

Both Louisiana candidates criticized the rumored Bush administration trade agreement that would allow for greater imports of Mexican sugar. They said this would devastate the sugar industry.

Congress' sugar program already in force guarantees a minimum price to domestic sugar producers by restricting imports and buying and storing excess production that would otherwise depress market prices. As a result, Americans pay two and three times the world price for sugar. A report by the U.S. General Accounting Office estimated that Americans pay an extra $2 billion dollars a year because of the sugar program. Plus, taxpayers will pay two billion dollars over the next ten years to buy and store excess sugar.

Other losers are sugar-using industries such as confectioners who see their production costs driven up by Congress' sugar program. Since countries in Canada and Europe have no sugar industry, and little lobby pressure to drive up sugar prices, their confectioners become relatively more competitive. Then there's lost export earnings by poor nations in the Caribbean and elsewhere because our import restrictions.

You might wonder how this consumer rip-off sustains itself. After all the sugar industry beneficiaries are tiny in number while victims number in the tens of millions. The answer's simple. It's a classic example of an economic phenomenon know as "narrow, well-defined, large benefits and widely dispersed, small costs." Here's how it works. It pays workers and owners in the sugar industry to come up with millions of lobby dollars to pay congressmen to impose tariffs and quotas on foreign sugar. It means higher sugar prices and hence higher wages and profits. Plus, it's easy to organize the small number of people in the sugar industry.

That's the benefit side but as sure as day follows night there's a cost side. Tens of millions of American families are forced to pay a little bit more, maybe $20, for the sugar we use every year. Since sugar is just a tiny fraction of our lives, we rightly conclude it's not worth the cost of trying to unseat a legislator whose vote cost us $20. There's a more insidious side of this story. In the past some sugar-using companies have found out they can import products like ice tea, distill out its sugar content and still beat the high prices caused by Congress' protectionist sugar policy. To do so was made illegal. Then there's the pot calling the kettle black side of the issue. During Mary Landrieu's campaign, she criticized President Bush's tariffs on foreign steel for costing thousands of jobs in steel-using industries. The heck with whether sugar tariffs cost jobs in the confectionery and other sugar-using industries.

You might say, "What's the beef Williams? I don't mind paying $20 more for the sugar I use!" It's not just the sugar industry that uses Congress to extract higher wages and profits. According to the Institute for International Economics, trade barriers cost American consumers $80 billion a year or more than $1,200 per family.

Walter E. Williams
c1-03
January 6, 2003
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/03/govt.html

 

[punkassean]

I'm with you 100%

high-fructose corn syrup and and other highly processed "foods" don't satiate you. You feel like you need more when in reality you need less of that crap and more of something real.

That's why I eat a little of everything including red-meat. I feel satisfied after a nice lean ground sirloin burger (free-range) the same way I do after grubbing a grilled salmon steak with veggies.

Natural=

Processed=

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Just look down and read the titles in the bibliography of this Econ paper:
http://internationalecon.com/virata/The Effects of the US Sugar.pdf

 

[Jr_Bullit]

A more recent article on the sugar debate (sorry for the lots of reading today guys)

Monday, December 06, 2004 commentary:
As World Health Organization Tries To Battle Global Obesity, U.S. Sugar Giants Wage Campaign of Deception
The World Health Organization (WHO) is trying to combat rising global obesity by adopting and promoting nutritional guidelines that would urge people to drastically reduce their consumption of added sugars (like the sugars found in soft drinks, usually in the form of high fructose corn syrup). But the U.S. sugar industry, sometimes called Big Sugar, is aggressively fighting the guidelines, claiming that sugar isn't bad for you!

Big Sugar's position is ridiculous, of course. Refined white sugar directly promotes obesity, blood sugar disorders, Type-II diabetes, behavioral disorders such as ADD and aggression, and even cancer. These assertions are clearly revealed in the scientific literature. As Professor Kaare Norum, chair of the WHO report's working group says, "I regard the need for a global strategy on diet to be of paramount importance . There is an extensive body of sound scientific research now available which supports the case for immediate action to improve dietary health through the reduction in the consumption of foods containing high levels of fats, added sugars and salt and soft drinks containing high volumes of calorific sweeteners."

Yet Big Sugar wants to block any attempt to reduce global consumption of added sugars since, naturally, that would mean a reduction in their profits. As Professor Norum explains, "It is significant that resistance from business interests, which included the sugar industry and soft drinks manufacturers with US government support, was also demonstrated when a previous WHO expert report, based on a scientific consultation in 1990, made similar recommendations intended to prevent diet-related chronic diseases."

Big Sugar's primary argument against the WHO is that sugar isn't a "bad" food. In fact, according to Big Sugar and the soft drink industry, there's no such thing as a food that's bad for you! To hear it in their own words, listen to Dr Riaz Khan, director-general of the World Sugar Research Organisation, who says, "The concept of 'good food and bad food' displayed throughout Report 916 lacks scientific validity. It singles out single elements of the diet, such as sugar, meat, edible oils and dairy products as being unhealthy. It is the most basic of nutritional principles that there are 'good and bad diets', not 'good foods or bad foods'."

In other words, according to the sugar industry, sugar isn't bad for you at all. It sounds quite familiar to the Big Tobacco executives swearing, before Congress and national television, that "nicotine is not addictive." It's a Big Lie, and it is repeated for one purpose: to save their profits. If people realize that sugar promotes obesity and disease, they might eat less of it, and that would hurt the profits of the sugar industry. So to prevent that, the industry broadcasts what can only be called "nutritional lies" about the health effects of refined white sugar.

It is precisely this sort of behavior that has made the United States the world's largest exporter of disease. As a nation, we export more disease-causing foods and beverages than any country on the globe, and when consuming countries want to protect themselves from the ravaging health effects of our disease-causing products, we call them liars and insist that there's no such thing as an unhealthy food. It's the American way, of course: maximize profits at the expense of public health. The pharmaceutical industry and the FDA are all too familiar with that line of thinking, and it's rampant in the food and beverage industry as well. Too many Americans will do anything for a buck, including blatantly promoting products that cause untold death and suffering around the world. Not that America has a monopoly on evil, of course, but ever since the Bush Administration took office, we seem to be far more effective at actually spreading that evil.

The Bush Administration is relevant to the sugar debate, by the way: Big Sugar raised millions of dollars for his reelection campaign, and since U.S. taxpayers send enormous checks to U.S. sugar growers in the form of federally-approved subsidies, it appears that Big Sugar's involvement in politics will remain high. Top level executives of the sugar industry reportedly have direct phone access to President Bush. It's not hard to tell that there's a high degree of political corruption at work here. If you find this article interesting, be sure to also read 'The U.S. is the world's largest manufacturer and exporter of disease.'
http://www.newstarget.com/000948.html

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Funny article.

Outlandish and wildly speculative, but funny.

IMO, it would have been a far more interesting and effective article if it wasn't so outrageous (did they actually just put forth a mild implication that sugar is somehow linked to drugs such as heroin or LSD?) - as it stands, to me, it's simply a piece of amusement rather than anything informative.

Sooo, if it is so outlandish, how big is your gut and what exactly do you eat? Are you a good representative of the average american? We are afterall discussing this on an athletic-based website

 

[binary visions]

I would say "laugh it up" but my own anecdotal experiences, coupled with those of many others' observations of mainstream american society is that over consumption is okay, normal, and we will take "real" drugs to correct the problems with over consuming sugar.

Sorry, I didn't properly explain myself:

I agree that as a society we consume sugar to gross excess. I agree that it has many "drug-like" effects on your brain and body, including highs, addictions and withdrawals.

However, the article was simply too outlandish to be taken seriously - which is too bad, considering it had some good information in it. I can pick through and sort out what is good information and what is not, but the average person will either accept the entire article at face value (which is wrong), or reject the entire thing based on a few absurdities like throwing into the article that LSD can be placed on sugar cubes. So? What's the point there? Is the point that eating sugar leads to taking LSD? Is the point that sugar is similar to LSD? Are they insinuating that one takes LSD over sugar because it might give you a better buzz?

Asides like that one add no value to an article of that nature and their shock value often causes the entire article to be eclipsed by one sentence.

If I were to post a review of my Thomson stem, stating, "This stem is strong, and lightweight. It is priced very competitively for a high end component. It's clearly a well made part; I did a line of blow off it this morning, and it worked great for that" - do you think anyone would even remember the first part of that review, let alone lend any credibility to it?