61 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

"No, that would be the economics and practicality of food production. Wheat and corn grow easily in the US, so we eat wheat and corn. In eastern Asia, rice grows more readily, so they eat more rice."

You make so many great arguments, but the beliefs you choose to associate with them are kind of counter-intuitive to me. Why are we eating more corn than our parents and grandparents ever ate? Because corn is very cheap to grow, so it started being mass produced for both feed lots and to put it into a majority of the food we eat in the way of high fructose corn syrup. It's in so many things. Bread, spaghetti, soda, french fries. Corn is in nearly everything. You wouldn't pour sugar on your french fries. But you don't have to, it's already there in the form of HFCS. Most of what we eat has tons more sugar in it than it ever did due to HFCS, because corn is vastly overproduced (EVEN when demand for corn is down!) It's the only product we produce in such quantities, and yes, that IS due to the fact that it's so easy to grow. They found they could mass produce it, and so they did. And then they had tons and tons of corn, so they decided to feed it to our livestock, instead of grass. Corn has quite a bit more fat in it than grass. What the livestock eat, we eat when we eat the livestock. But they still had more corn. So they put it in everything else. Everything on McDonald's menu has corn in it, even the salads.

"The customer rules WalMart."

The customers rule Walmart in the sense that every time we make a purchase, we're casting a vote for the products we want. The flip side of that though, is that we have a bunch of idiots (read:uninformed people) walking around buying everything that looks healthy or that they assume can't be bad for them, because our nation (the people, the government, all of us) have allowed big companies to stretch the truth and all but lie to us on FRONT labels. This discourages people from checking BACK labels, which are much more complicated, smaller in print, and typically contains huge lists of ingredients none of us recognize.

"I doubt that. People aren't as stupid as you're suggesting." [This was directed at the blueberry comment]

Check the link. I linked the article for a reason. A lot of people have been fooled by fake blueberries, and that's just one single example of the deception on front labels.

"No. That would be a waste of time. There's already a ton of info on food containers."

It's a waste of time to make our food manufacturers take some responsibility for what they're putting on the market? It'd be a waste of time for all those people to realize the blueberries are fake? They could have spent 50 cents less on the cereal without blueberries, spent a couple bucks on some frozen blueberries (or three bucks on real ones). And yeah, they're spending a little more, but at least the damn things are blueberries. At least the customer can make an INFORMED decision.

"No. People like me block moves to regulate label information."

Yep, people 'like you' help to block label info from happening. But guess what? You're losing that battle, because the people got pissed and the FDA decided it had better start listening. (Look, more links, just for you)

http://www.seattlepi.com/food/434565_Foodlabels1.html

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/diet-nutrition/story/2011/01/Many-food-label-claims-may-mislead-rather-than-inform/43117060/1

So, waste of time or not, helpful to American's or not, things are finally moving forward, changing for the better. Companies are going to have some small amount of accountability. And the government didn't even have to invade our privacy or over-regulate the average American to do it!

If you don't mind fake blueberries or genetically modified meat, that's great. You can save yourself some money. And as long as you're a decently fit person, it probably won't matter (too much) in the long run. But what about people who aren't comfortable eating things that are fake? What about those of us that want to know what we're eating? Should we just be ignored because YOU don't care what you're eating? We as a people don't need to lose ANY of our freedom by having the FDA impose stricter food and labeling rules. In fact, we GAIN freedom. We gain choice, and we gain information, and as we all know, information is power. Why turn your back on all of that? How does it hurt you that someone ELSE may now have the ability to eat the type of food that's natural and actually intended for our bodies?

I'm not saying do away with the junk. Not at all! I love junk food (unfortunate for my body, but we all have our pleasures and our vices). I'm not saying do away with fake blueberries or fake meat or oatmeal Taco Bell beef (as someone mentioned, possibly you but I don't want to look back into the comments, the oats may indeed make the meat healthier, but if I'm eating 40% oats and 40% beef and 20% who knows what, I want the option of knowing that that's what I'm eating).

Look at it this way. 30 years ago, people smoked cigarettes as if there was nothing bad in them. Because as far as they knew, there was nothing bad in them. Choosing to smoke wasn't choosing to lead an unhealthy lifestyle. But all that changed when the information became available, when research was done and we realized that cigarettes can kill people. Before you get on to me about how we're free to smoke, I'm a smoker. But you know what, I'm pretty damn glad the Surgeon General warning is there. Because, despite how dumb I was to start smoking at 18, that warning has given me incentive to quit--several times... and start back up, several times-- but hey, at least I quit during those periods, and at least now I only smoke about 3-4 cigs a day. If the tobacco industry had been able to keep the warnings from consumers, we'd all be smoking like chimneys, and wondering how the hell people keep dying from cancer. At least now I know that I should do everything I can to make sure my nephews don't smoke. At least the information is there, giving me the freedom of CHOICE, to do something that makes me feel good but may be dangerous. I'd never want to take that freedom from an individual. It's your body.
Sweet n Low is another example (it was labeled as potentially cancer-causing due to the ingredient Saccharin). Personally, I'd rather use sugar and possibly gain a pound than use something that might have caused cancer. Two choices there. Eat something 'unhealthy' (sugar), maybe gain some weight. Eat something that's supposed to be healthier (Sweet n Low), possibly get cancer. People were free to choose whichever one they wanted, but that CHOICE was important, and we didn't have it before it was labeled.

"I believe in freedom. Freedom from people like you controlling what I eat."

I don't want to control what you eat. As a matter of fact, I want EXACTLY what you want. I want freedom. I want, and many Americans want, to be informed, to have information that isn't misleading, that isn't detrimental to our health. Freedom of informed choice is just as important as freedom to blindly eat whatever looks appetizing.

• Reply