|
|
Post by suze on Sept 5, 2012 7:40:13 GMT
Finally got around to watching these recordings.
Is is all about the changes in the have a direct link to how we ALL eat - the harm it is doing to us all, and the link to ill health including cancer..
I am going to make notes as I watch it ...
|
|
|
|
Post by suze on Sept 5, 2012 17:56:02 GMT
Staggering facts about the epidemic of fatness that surrounds us:
2/3 of GB adults are over-weight
1/4 is classified as obese (i.e 40% 0ver ideal body weight)
on average we are 3 stone heavier than we were only 50 years ago
Programme sets out to explore how this has arisen, and how we have been force-fed by the food industry.
We are not lazier of greedier, but the nature of what we eat has changed ...
and even slim ppl might have gloops of dangerous fat lurking inside them, around their organs.
|
|
|
|
Post by suze on Sept 5, 2012 18:08:21 GMT
Main culprit is explosion in corn-oil as a sweetener used in enormous range of foods and also corn used as feed for cheap beef. Started in USA in the 70s and spread from there .
Calorie intake has doubled in a few years. Massive over consumption.
Biggest single trouble is corn syrup in soft drinks. Coke is your enemy!
Soda marketing was very aggressive, empty calories for all.
High fructose corn syrup is sweeter than sugar.
Susan Neely spokesperson of American Beverage Association denies that soft drinks contribute to obesity, and says it is like saying because you swim in the ocean you are going to get bit by a shark. Which it isn't! She says 1000s of ppl go swimming without getting bit, (ignoring the fact that almost all soda drinkers get fat!! ) but she makes the usual point about causality the get-out clause which always allows these business-sharks to get away with stuff... cos you cannot prove the direct link. The sugar industry is organised like the Tobacco industry, vehemently denying the links between their poisons and our health.
Sugar and tobacco - makes me think ---- these were two of the staples of Souther states production ... no doubt still held in the hands of the same slave-trading families of yester-year .. they have never given a monkey's about other people!
The mushrooming use of corn-syrup was a simple business decision with staggering consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by suze on Sept 5, 2012 18:13:37 GMT
Some sugars are more likely to be converted to fat in our bodies that others. Fructose and table sugar are the worst for conversion to fat. Sugar industry denies their implication (of course) but scientists have found that fructose interferes with a hormone called leptin which usually switches off our appetite when we've eaten enough. Without leptin going to our brain we do not have the sense of having enough. Which leads to a vicious cycle of consumption Leptin on wikipedia suggests that fat ppl have lots of leptin, but they seem to be de-sensitised to its message about satiety. |
|
|
|
Post by suze on Sept 5, 2012 18:27:15 GMT
Snacking was created by the food industry, we never used to do it, but it has encouraged more eating and more sugar like kiddy's chocolate bars. "Give yourselves a treat."  Exposion of Macdonalds and other fast food outlets has pushed rise on obesity Is is FAT or SUGAR that makes us fat? One nutritionist who was very influential was called Key -- his theory that sugar was just energy and harmless. He believed that it is FAT causes heart disease, he correlated the epidemic of heart disease in the 50s with fat consumption -- he decided this b4 he did any studies! This became the orthodoxy. Meanwhile another nutritionist, John Yudkin published a contrary view in the 70s: Pure white and deadly, he blamed sugar, but he was ahead of his time and got ridiculed. Made enemies in the sugar industry and Key himself contributed to ridiculing Yudkin too. Not to say too much saturated fat is a not also a health risk, but the danger of sugar has been overlooked/ actively suppressed by the wealthy sugar lobby. Links to pdf of Yudkin's book |
|
|
|
Post by suze on Sept 5, 2012 18:48:39 GMT
Research into what goes on in our brains when we see/think about food.
We like the taste of sweet / high calorie foods and when we see such food we set off bits in our brain to do with REWARD. which triggers our appetite.
The brain stimulates appetite, the HEDONIC and the food sellers want to exploit it and scientists want to learn how to rein it in!
We are deluged with food cues all day every day. Some of us find this overwhelming and cannot resist this sort of circuitry in our brains which some scientists label as ADDICTIVE thanks to the neuroscience which is not about greed.
In the 70s there were warnings that things were going bad with obesity , but in trying to fix it they made it worse! McGovern headed up the committee to write a report on nutrition. Nick Mottern gathered the nutritionists together which recommended moderate reductions, but the food industry kicked back on the modest proposals. ESP the sugar industry which got the news suppressed and kept the focus on FAT.
As a direct result of this, "Low fat" products had more sugar in them! Junk foods sprung up with the low-fat label. Turned the attack from nutritionists into a new marketing device for the food industry.
The reduction of fat did not reduce the number of calories when sugar went in instead. The increased sugar negated any potential benefit that the low-fat shift might have made. New dogma that only fat makes you fat was wrong!
Soda and fruit juices have no fat, so they sold well.
Same for high carb biscuits marketed as diet foods. "snackwells" were the market leaders, no fat, but plenty of calories!
By 2000 tide was turning and scientists were realising the problem with sugars. So the sugar producers start to fight back.
WHO was about to publish anti-sugar recommendations, but threatened with loss of funding they caved in.
Do not under-estimate the power of the food industry.
Obesity fuels their profits. They are not really interested in our health.
|
|
|
|
Post by suze on Sept 6, 2012 12:37:39 GMT
Programme 2
Exploring the concept of super-sizing:
It all started in the USofA late 60s in a cinema with bigger pop-corn buckets
Then adopted by MacDonalds in 1972 .. the good thing for their profits being that extra food was the cheapest part of the chain's fixed costs. they could charge more for bigger portions which led to exponentially more proft ...
and ppl will eat it, though they wont buy TWO of something they will buy the big box, and the notion that size = value has become a common place notion to us in other high fat-sugar foods.
Imported to the UK in early 70,started with our own Wimpy and then Macdonalds themselves.
Rats in labs are hard to fatten up on normal rat food, but they will all over eat and gain weight immediately on diet of cookies etc Like us they seek out high calorie food when available to have stores when supplies get scarce (only our supplies never get scarce!) Let's call that the TOXIC FOOD ENVIRONMENT.
We find it hard to resist foods high in sugar and fat.
In early 70s in UK only 2% of adults were classed as obese! Compared to 60% now! This is a staggering change in my life-time!
|
|
|
|
Post by suze on Sept 6, 2012 12:42:05 GMT
Another big boost to their profits was the increas on counter-service - far more throughput on the same land-space.
Another push was the carton sizing offer developed by Sweetheart carton company to sell more.
This all happened with no debate about nutritional consequence or fears of obesity, so soon after shortages post WWII .
We had ready access to quick food on the streets. Attitudes to grazing and in public have totally changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by suze on Sept 6, 2012 12:53:54 GMT
Meanwhile in the USA in the 80s the markets were drooping and the new way to increase profits was the concept of "bundling" a value meal.
Grouping items is a way of telling you you are getting a bargain, but actually you are buying more and paying more! It also speeds up time spent choosing, so that increases speed at counter and profits go up again!
1993 Jurassic Park and McD teamed up around the film started the super-size concept. ! (later withdrawn after the expose film)
Drinks,and thus sugar, were great for up-sizing, meet The Double Gulp - 64oz two litres of coke, more calories than a meal: 800 cals, 50 tsps of sugar
Originally the original soda in McD was only 8oz.
Dr Barbara Rolls studied the impact of up-sizing in her lab. Very easy to over-eat. Esp dangerous with energy dense aka calorie dense food.
Needless to say what USA does, we soon follow, super-sizing came here ...
|
|
|
|
Post by suze on Sept 6, 2012 13:02:28 GMT
Chocolate sizes got bigger in the UK when Yorkie introduced their chunky bad ... targetting adults rather than kids
Kids were targetted with snack size packs. Shows shift away from chocolate as a treat to a daily event. Daily treats ... into the lunch box.
Snacks became normal part of kids' diets.
by 1996 Tessa Jowel commissioned report on kids' obesity. Prof Philip James exposed a new world of kids spending on soda and sweets on route to school. There was unanimuos agreement that something needed doing among the medics. Tessa Jowell made him go to meet the food and drink federation chief execs who harangued him on the very nerve of limiting adverts to kids ...
the executives demanded their right to advertise and the report was shelved.
2003 Cheif Medical Officer warned of obesity time bomb ... and health committee formed an Enquiry. David Hinchcliffe (former MP who led it) speaks of how powerful the food lobby is, and the double-speak they trot out about parents' responsibility and that there is no such thing as a bad food.
|
|
|
|
Post by suze on Sept 6, 2012 13:08:12 GMT
Food industry wants to blame our lack of exercise for the obesity crisis.
Terry Wilkins, enodcrinologist has proved that fatness causes inactivity not the other way about. His study explored why type 2 diabetes was starting in kids.
300 kids studied tagged with little chips that read what kids do 24/7 to really see how much they moved - no sign that they move less than in the past .. but they eat a lot MORE of really rubbish stuff, and the increase in portion size is quantifiable.
GUESS WHAT -- the Dept of Health ignored his findings and withdrew the funding in 2005!
Let's face it, blaming the kids for inactivity is easier than really looking at the crap the food industry bombards us with!
|
|
|
|
Post by suze on Sept 6, 2012 13:19:06 GMT
Mars has withdrawn king size bars, under pressure, but then ...
.... introduced giant twin bars, for ostensibly sharing!
Same goes for crisp bags. Snacking is a big issue for weight control. People do not always SHARE these foods!
Tescos and other 3 supermarkets are also on the war-path to get you to buy more than you really need ... on multi-buy deals which seem to be better value!
e.g.
each bag of crisps is only 14p in multi-packs
each can of coke is only 25 p in multi-packs
which just means the single prices we pay are ludicrous, of course! I see this as over-charging on single items but they tell us it is offering us good value in the multiples.
Multi buys (buy two for price of three) are very important to the Big Four, used to be just to shift a bit of excess stock, but now it is their routine sales ploy to expand their sales, "expendables" infinite capacity to expand. e.g. Fresh meat is not very expandable, snacks are almost infinitely expandable!
During a promotion sales really do zip up to 5 or 6 times more sold.
No evidence that BIG FOUR is reducing these, despite they said they would reduce!
There are moves afoot in the USA to introduce taxes on sugary foods, cos the cost in health care --- more next week ...
|
|
|
|
Post by suze on Sept 9, 2012 6:48:13 GMT
Sadly episode 3 "series link" recorded BLOODY WIMBELDON instead of the show, which is not on BBC-i anymore, but the summary of its contents is:
Jacques Peretti examines assumptions about what is and is not healthy. He also looks at how product marketing can seduce consumers into buying supposed 'healthy foods' such as muesli and juices, both of which can be high in sugar.
He speaks with Simon Wright, an 'organic consultant' for Sainsbury's in the 1990s, who explains how the food industry cashed in on the public's concerns around salmonella, BSE and GM crops. By 1999 the organic industry was worth over £605M, a rise of 232% within two years.
How did the mainstream food producers compete? Peretti speaks with Kath Dalmeny, former policy director at the Food Commission, who explains some of the marketing strategies used by mainstream food producers to keep our custom.
The programme also explores the impact of successive government initiatives and health campaigns, such as the proposal of 'traffic light labelling', the introduction of which the food industry lobbied hard against.
But in 2012, when we have an Olympic Games sponsored by McDonalds and Coca Cola, has anything changed?
|
|
|
|
Post by suze on Sept 9, 2012 6:54:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by suze on Nov 20, 2013 9:18:56 GMT
|
|
