Junk science on the menu

Washington Times ^ | November 10, 2003 | Steven Milloy

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Connecticut Democrat, introduced a bill last week that would require fast-food and chain restaurants to display nutrition information for food choices on their menus. But experience with food labeling and a new study suggest the bill's rationale may be based more in wishful thinking than fact.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Politicians are putting the squeeze on businesses, they're looking for campaign cash and tax revenue - they don't give a damn about our health.

[jazzlite]

You are exactly right! As long as we allow it, they will continue to blame the deep pockets for what people have to be responsible for themselves. It is just a shake-down game and it is despicable. It does appear that lack of exercise rather than too many calories is the culprit in the obesity epidemic here. Who can they blame for that?..Television, cars no hiking trails around the office?
Oh, I know..They will try to sue companies who do not have state-of-the-art exercise rooms along with personal trainers.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

AND - who ends up paying the freight for this in the long run?

WE do - the consumers do. Everything is passed down to the consumer.

[RaceBannon]

If they put her pictureon the box, we would all eat less.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Sadly for Rosa's husband, that's true.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

 

[Holly_P]

They will try to sue companies who do not have state-of-the-art exercise rooms along with personal trainers

I weigh 98 pounds. Skinny people like me don't have anybody to sue dammit.

[CalvaryJohn]

Yo quiero Rosa! Pant pant pant.

[aruanan]

nutrition label information is qualified by fine print that reads, "Values are based on a 2,000-calorie diet" implying that 2,000 calories is the universal daily nutritional requirement.

No, it doesn't. You have to have some kind of standard and then let people figure out their own requirements based on the standard. It's impossible to have on a nutrition label a custom-tailored estimate for each and every person based on their weight, metabolism, age, and physical activity. The fact is that too many people are too ignorant to extrapolate from a standard to their own condition, and if they weren't too stupid, they just wouldn't care because food tastes too good. These are problems that will never be solved by nutritional labeling.

[aruanan]

AKA: Skeletor

[aruanan]

Adding to the uncertainty, say the researchers, "no previous study has addressed the impact of caloric intake, physical activity and body weight (all three considered together) on CVD risk."

This really isn't true. Stephen Blair at The Cooper Institute in Dallas has been studying the effects of physical exercise on CVD in the context of obesity or lack of it. They had already come to the conclusion that, in men, sufficient physical activity offset several risk factors for CVD (obesity, type II diabetes, smoking, HBP) even in men considered at risk due to percentage body fat. Overweight men with physical exercise were much less likely to die from CVD than lean, inactive men.

The implication is that it isn't being fat that will kill you but being fat and inactive and that you're more likely to be inactive if you're fat and fat if you're inactive.

[Explorer89]

Overweight men with physical exercise were much less likely to die from CVD than lean, inactive men.

Purely anecdotal: my father is really overweight, but jogged every day at lunch (the joke being that he was running up to the Custard Stand!) and now that his knees have disintegrated, he power-walks every day. As heavy as he is, he only has moderate blockage being taken care of by one stint (sp?). His much leaner best buddy died a few years back of a massive heart-attack....but this guy was a heavy, heavy smoker. My dad's cardiologist told him that he was better off being heavy than a smoker.

[aruanan]

Purely anecdotal: my father is really overweight, but jogged every day at lunch (the joke being that he was running up to the Custard Stand!) and now that his knees have disintegrated, he power-walks every day. As heavy as he is, he only has moderate blockage being taken care of by one stint (sp?stent). His much leaner best buddy died a few years back of a massive heart-attack....but this guy was a heavy, heavy smoker. My dad's cardiologist told him that he was better off being heavy than a smoker.

In the studies by Blair and others at the Cooper Institute, you're better off being heavy and a smoker that gets sufficient exercise than being a lean couch potato and not a smoker, at least as far as risk of death due to CVD is concerned.

[samtheman]

I don't see the big deal here. I've worked in factory-labelling operations. Once you create the new templates, it cost as much to print out the new packaging as it did the old.

And as a matter of fact, I'm one of those people who does read the calorie count on foods. I like to keep my eye on it.

It won't cost that much. It's information. Information is good.

I have to go against the consensus here and say: I agree with labelling food.

And remember, labels actually PROTECT the manufacturer. A lot of frivolous tobacco suits either never got filed or were thrown out precisely BECAUSE of those warning labels on packs of cigarettes.

So tell me how many calories is in my next order of fish'n'chips. It won't run you out of business... and I appreciate the info... and it might keep you out of court.

[Old Professer]

This picture tells me the years have not been kind to Corporal Klinger.