USRTK: Sneak Peek At How GMO Labels Will Be Used.

Hey everyone.  It's been a while, because I haven't really had much new to write about. if you are finding this blog for the 1st time, please go back and check out past posts where I discuss all the major food and ag issues.

A lot has already been written about the USRTK's Freedom Of Information Act requests aimed at 14 publicly employed academic researchers, and I'm not the news. For those not in the know, here are some links to read up on the story:

Discover Magazine - Keith Kloor
American Association for the Advancement of Science - Keith Kloor
Wired - Alan Levinovitz
Biofortified - Karl Haro von Mogel

In making these requests, the US Right To Know campaign has tipped their hand at how they would behave if #GMO labeling went into effect.  Allow me to explain...

The FOIA is widely acknowledged to be somewhat disingenuous in this case.  Despite what the USRTK claims, that researchers are doing the bidding of some corporate master, they know better.  If they had evidence strong enough to prove a direct pay off of(or veiled threat to) academic researchers by ag/food corps, then they would have blown the lid off that story long ago.

This isn't about that.

This is about guilt by association.  Food and ag scientists are employed all over the world in their area of expertise: food companies, ag companies, and public universities.  These researchers often communicate with each other about research, perhaps asking for guidance when something stretches beyond their very specific area of expertise, or to get help with experimental design, or to ask other scientists to elaborate further on recently published research findings.  If we had these methods of communication even 20 years earlier, we would be light years ahead in our understanding of food and ag science. 

Communication between scientists is a very good thing.  

Also, people doing this type of work tend to already cross pollinate the public/private divide through switching jobs.  Two scientists may have already been co-workers, students, or old advisers when the other was doing post grad work and are still keeping lines of communication open.

What USRTK will do with the information retrieved on the tax payer's dime is run a simple keyword search, then publish those emails, regardless of how innocent they are, and try to say that big food/ag is in cahoots with university researchers.  Do not expect anything to be published in context. The USRTK will exploit the highly conspiratorial mindset of the Food Hysterics that follow them. 

Let's say they find an email where Kevin Folta contacts a former student of his who now works for Monsanto about going biking, perhaps their vacation times line up or they both are participating in the same biking event.  In reality, this is nothing... just two people riding bikes, but to a suspicious and cynical food activist, this could be some sort of smoking gun they will show to everyone they are trying to turn against food and ag science.

That brings me to the issue of labeling #GMO.

Labels will be used in the same way the emails obtained through the FOIA will be abused. Watch how USRTK handles the benign, routine communications between scientists and see whether they try to make mountains out of mole hills.  My guess is that they will and this is the same type of strategy that would be employed if #GMO labeling becomes law.  It doesn't matter what the label is, it only matters that it's a label, Just like it doesn't matter what the emails say... only that there are emails.

Please keep in mind that labeling isn't the end of USRTK's strategy, only the very beginning; after which, you will see a massive and very product specific campaign aimed at strong arming companies into dropping ingredients developed using a genetic modification.  Ultimately, they want to end #GMO


p.s.

I am poor, and while nobody has paid me to write this, there is a PayPal Donate button at the top of the blog.  I currently have $50 to my name and I'm in between jobs. If anyone wishes to make a donation, it will be greatly appreciated and will go towards food/rent/utilities. I don't smoke or do drugs, so you have no need to worry about your donation being abused.  Thanks in advance to any who donate. Thanks for reading.

Misinformed & Disingenuous.

I once heard the winning strategy of debate competition explained as quickly taking the other side's argument to an outrageous extreme that shows how flawed it is; usually by tying the viewpoint to nuclear war or the Nazis. Of course, this is a horrible method for making an argument in the real world, and often leads to a much more polarized debate, because both sides quickly drift further away from reason.

This is exactly what Chipotle has achieved in their latest marketing vehicle entitled, 'Farmed & Dangerous'. In this Chipotle sponsored video series, a marketing firm is hired to help clean up the image of a Big Ag company.  The company has a new form of feed called a 'PetroPellet', which is somehow a petroleum based feed. One of the cows eating the pellets is caught on security video exploding, and a massive effort to cover up the deleterious effects of PetroPellet is put into place.

A few things...

What Chipotle is attempting to get away with is constructing an allegory to show how evil Big Food and Ag corporations are, but since the truth is fairly benign, they have to resort to wild hyperbole. The Petroleum tie in is meant to associate agriculture and big oil, obviously.  More subtly, the series aims to tie Big Ag to Big Tobacco - an inaccurate comparison that many activists have already tried to make. The problem with this comparison is that Big Tobacco tried covering up science that showed the ill effects of tobacco, while the vast consensus of all available research regarding food & ag supports the technologies and processes that are currently on the market.

Tobacco was the tobacco industry's only commodity, and there was an irresistible urge to protect that commodity.  The Food Industry and the Ag Industry as a whole has many more commodities and thousands more products made by individual food and ag companies. My point is that they can make money from anything, therefore there's no incentive to fool anyone about the safety of any one product or commodity. Also, food and ag scientists eat the end products and many have their own farms, so their incentive is towards safety. Food and ag scientists are also incentivized to conduct research that will stand up to peer review, since it's the scientist's name on the research and scientists typically work for more than one company or university in their life. A scientist proven to be dishonest will see their career cut very short.  Lastly, the individual food and ag companies have a major incentive to produce safe food and ingredients. If one of these companies fails or is dishonest about it's products, their very existence may be at stake.

This all may sound incredibly naive to someone who isn't involved in food and ag, and that cynicism is owed to tactics from groups like the CSPI and companies like Whole Foods and Chipotle. If Chipotle is right and all of us in food and ag are evil co-conspirators out to poison humanity,then why all the hyperbole? Wouldn't the truth be more than enough?  Of course, that's assuming that the truth is on the activists side. It isn't, and that's why you see Chipotle's Chief Marketing and Development Officer, Mark Crumpacker, Executive Producing non-sense, non-science, fact free propaganda.

McRibbed

This is a perfect example of the problem with the food industry...

The problem is not that this is a formed pork patty that is individually quick frozen in a spiral freezer, packaged, shipped to a distribution center, then trucked to individual McDonald locations... those are all monuments to the advancement of modern food technology.

The problem is that people seemed genuinely surprised at the appearance of the uncooked patty.  It shows the genuine disconnect that people have with their food.

What did they think, anyway?  Did they think that we have ribless hogs?  Did they think that raw pork would be shipped great distances while ONLY being refrigerated?

How do I think the McRib is made?  I could be a little off... but I'll give it a shot:

1. Lean pork w/ trim(skin, fat) is boxed in 40 lb blocks, frozen, and shipped to a further processing facility.

2. That frozen pork is put into large grinder mixers w/ various other seasonings and ground in to a frozen mixture.

3. That frozen mixture is put into stainless steel tubs and those tubs are loaded into a Formax or similar type machine that presses the patties into the familiar McRib shape.

4.  Those patties are individually quick frozen in a spiral freezer, packaged, shipped to a distribution center, then trucked to individual McDonald locations.

It's really no big deal and not at all shocking.

The single most important issue in all of food and agricultural sciences.

Credit to the internet for this meme pic. I think it may be traceable to RDFRS. Beyond that, I don't know.

I replied to a Facebook post in regards to an article posted on the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science Facebook page...  You know how the internet is...  Anyway, I spent enough time on the response that I thought I would post it.  The battle for GMO survival has become the single most important issue in all of food and agricultural sciences. Every scientifically literate person has a responsibility to read up on the arguments for, against, and all of the credible research.

Nothing else has been more closely studied, scrutinized, and validated for safety as GM foods that are approved for market.  No other foodstuff gets more criticism from unsubstantiated claims and from people thoroughly unqualified to discuss plant genomics than GMO.  

For the longest time, subject matter experts in biotech ignored the anti-gmo activists because they just assumed everyone else would see how irrationally hysterical they were being.  So we finally have SME's from both academia and industry speaking on behalf of biotech, but it's almost too late.  

Just as it is with racism, anti-semitism, and creationism, the science minded people will just have to hold on until more smart people are born and understand the scientific principal before we reach a critical mass of science literacy where these fairytale crisis dissipates quietly.  Education doesn't work if the anti side is so dug in and accuses anyone on the pro side of being a 'shill', but that doesn't mean the true SME's and the science literate public won't keep trying.  And similar to opponents of gay rights, the anti-gmo crowd will not be looked upon favorably 20 or 30 years from now.  As I would say to the anti-gay crowd, 'Don't you see where the future is heading?'.

Love it?  Hate it? Have a credible peer reviewed journal link for an article that wasn't already discredited? Post below.

Also... I'm poor.  This is a hard thing to say since most of my readers are fiercely self-reliant, 'up by the boot-straps types', but I was wondering if anyone noticed the PayPal Donate button on my blog.  I'm currently in between jobs and I'm getting behind enough to the point where I don't know how much longer I can stay in my meager apt.  

I'm not asking to be completely subsidized, I'm just asking that those who can, donate.  For my part, I will continue to look for work while posting more than I have been in the past.  I grew up on a hog farm with an outdoor toilet and a wood burning furnace, so hard work is something I grew up on. So while it's easy to grunt, 'Get a job!' and 'Get off yer ass!', please understand I am not a lazy person and I wouldn't so shamelessly promote the donate button if it wasn't getting serious. 

Hopefully, something good will come my way quickly, but until then, hope isn't paying the rent.  Thank you in advance for any donations, and to those who can't or won't donate, I still appreciate you taking the time to read this.

Sam

GMO Labeling or How To Best Protect The Right To Misinform Consumers.

It's been a while since I posted, so I thought I would dust off blogger and add another 1AM missive.  It get's harder to write about this stuff because it's already been said before and also there are now a respectable number of subject matter experts who are finally starting to write about food and ag issues.

What follows is a story about proposed GMO labeling legislation, one person's intro to that story on G+, and my comment on both.  It is not necessary to read the story.  You could even skip the intro to the story, but you may lose some of the context of my comments...

From +Malthus John 

The bipartisan legislation would require clear labels for genetically engineered whole foods and processed foods, including fish and seafood. The measure would direct the FDA to write new labeling standards that are consistent with U.S. labeling standards and international standards.

Sixty-four countries around the world already require the labeling of GE foods, including all the member nations of the European Union, Russia, Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand.

“This legislation is supported by a broad coalition of consumer groups, businesses, farmers, fishermen and parents who all agree that consumers deserve more – not less – information about the food they buy.”

According to surveys, more than 90 percent of Americans support the labeling of genetically engineered foods. In fact, many consumers are surprised to learn that GE foods are not already labeled.

Thanks +Bernie Sanders & Barbara Boxer!

Here is the story about the bill that Bernie Sanders(whom I like) and Barbara Boxer(whom I also like) have cosponsored

And here are my comments on the whole matter from my g+ acct:

 It's not because you want to know or that you want a choice, it's that you think there's a difference.  People who already made up their mind based on whatever misinformation they've bought into, probably already buy organic anyway.  This isn't for them.  This proposed legislation is for the minds of the uninformed consumers that the anti-gmo activists want to pollute with unjustified fear and misinformation.

The fact of the matter is that for all intents and purposes, there is no difference between, for instance, corn that is gmo and non-gmo.  For the consumer, there is no difference, but you want to scare them into thinking there might be.  

Anything approved to be on the market has already had allergenicity and toxicology studies validating it's safety, but no amount of studies will ever be enough for the anti-science, anti-gmo activist.  

It's the same as the conspiracy theorist who believes Sandy Hook was faked or the creationist that can never see enough evidence to convince them that evolution is real.  

You are just like them.

Scapegoat Activism.

I was about to go to bed when I saw an article being promoted by @HuffPostFood on Twitter that said, 'the dark side of soda'.  Curious, I clicked on the article and discovered it was yet another ridiculous piece from Michael F. Jacobson of the ill-named Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The article blames soda for amputations, impotence, and painful dentistry.  Clearly, this is meant to shock people.  I don't know why I expected anything reasonable from that organization.

We live in a time where we can have as much of whatever it is that we want.  With that, we should be mindful of overdoing it; eating too much(guilty), drinking too much, et cetera.  Anything consumed in excess will carry with it certain negative consequences.  Anything.  

Knowing that, should we proceed on a route of zero tolerance, with the logic that if we can't have too much of something then we shouldn't have any of it or should we proceed with the totality of the diet in mind and try to engage in all things in moderation?

Jacobson talks about how we used to enjoy 6.5 or 10 fl oz servings of Coke or Pepsi, but now we have 20 fl oz and up of these beverages and... well, you know... amputations.  He goes on to mention Big Soda, by which he means Coca Cola and Pepsico.  He doesn't mention smaller companies that make the same sort of beverage to sell in organic groceries... 

He goes on to promote an animated short called The Real Bears, which is an attack against the aforementioned Big Soda.  Once again this should be of little surprise to people.

Michael F. Jacobson and the CSPI commonly engage in what I call, 'Scapegoat Activism'.  You see, they have built a big, expensive institution that must be constantly fed with new members and donors.  'All things in moderation' is not a very good recruiting tool, but fear, hysteria, and misinformation are.  So what they do is pick a villain, put the word 'Big' in front of it to signal to you that this is a big, profit hungry corporation that not only doesn't care about you, but hopes to separate you from your money while killing you, and then blame all of society's ills on that one villain.

The villains are things like conventionally grown fruits and veggies, Happy Meal kid's toys, food coloring, and of course, big soda.

They employ a couple methods for scaring people to their side.  One is through giving you some information, but not enough to dissuade you from becoming irrationally afraid.  For instance, they'll have an article talking about the evils of caramel coloring and how it will lead to cancer, but they'll leave out the information about how much of that coloring you would need to ingest to maybe get cancer and how that number means you could never drink enough cola to get there.  Two is through using the same logic that Bush used as rational for a whole manor of policies.  It's the whole, 'if A = B and B = C, then A = C' crap.  Oversimplification would be a vast understatement.

The problem with that method is that food doesn't really work that way.  Our diets are fungible, meaning that we have a certain number  of calories/sugar/sodium and the sources of those things will change from day to day.  You can spend a lot of calories on certain things and still be ok so long as you make room for it.  This is how Michael Phelps could eat 12,000 calories a day and weigh 165lbs and not 1,000lbs, because he offsets the caloric intake with exercise.  It's how that one guy was able to eat a Big Mac every day for 25 years and not be fat.  There is absolutely no data showing that people got amputations, impotence, or cavities from soda alone.  It's the totality of the diet that matters, not a short term indulgence, and not one item in the diet.

He needs new villains to drum up membership, donors, and credibility so more people believe him and so he can publish another article with a new villain to start the process over again.  That, my friends, is Scapegoat Activism.  Don't let yourself get played.

The Need For And Futility Of SME.

Science is facing a huge paradox in the media... perhaps even a goose.  Ok, bad joke...sorry.  The paradox is that we simultaneously need more Subject Matter Experts speaking out on behalf of their area of expertise, while it seems more and more evident that these efforts to educate will fall on deaf ears.  I submit to you one such example.

I joined the group answer site, Quora a while ago and didn't really do anything with it.  Well, I decided to search for food and jump in on a question I felt I could answer and hopefully enlighten someone.  Instead of passing my knowledge on to others, I ran into the mental brick wall that calls itself Kent Fung.

Kent is sort of a compilation of many other online encounters I have had, and more than any other, embodies the conspiracy theory mindset that I have been complaining about that comes from the hysterics and activists.  I will now post the quest that I answered, plus all of the replies...

Here is the main question:

Which animals suffer the most under the hand of humans? Either due to common conditions such animals are kept in, or specific extra suffering to alter the quality of the food product.

Here is the answer that I responded to:

'I would say any non-organic meat that you buy from most of the grocery stores. One of the best documentary about food that we eat is called "Food Inc." you should watch it.'

Here is my response:

'You are much better off checking out a few food science text books or checking out some food or animal science courses at the local university than you are by learning from Food Inc.'

Kent Fung:

'I'm all for education, but to be honest, when it comes to issues affecting public health -- such as agriculture, medicine, and nutrition, what's taught at many -- perhaps even most -- U.S. universities has been compromised by the corporate sponsorships and grants on which they rely. So yes, by all means, take college courses -- but also be aware of who's paying your professor's salary.'

Me:

'No, it hasn't.  There are no corporate overseers telling professors what to say and what to teach.  That is pure non-sense.  When a corp gives money, it's usually towards facilities and not to a specific individual.  The university has say over the staff, not a donor.  You may find a highly publicized scandal here or there, but 99% or more are teaching legit science.'

Kent Fung:

'Sam, the only people who tout this line are either already bought and paid for -- or charmingly naive. Money corrupts, and professors aren't immune to this effect -- particularly when in many cases, professors aren't paid by the universities in which they teach -- but by corporate grants. (Government grants are no better, as many government officials who decide on grants have multiple vested interests in promoting the agenda of big pharma and agribusiness as well.) Very, very few people are going to bite the hand that feeds them. Professors aren't any more ethical than anyone else, and even those who might have resisted will find themselves unable to when, for say, $10 million -- chump change to a major corporation -- a company can endow an entire department. What professor is going to risk not just his own funding, but the funding of all of his colleagues?

The pharmaceutical industry was notorious for exactly this behavior, getting influential medical school professors to not only advocate on behalf of their drugs to other doctors, but to toe the corporate message in their lessons to students. The problem was so prevalent that many universities ultimately had to establish clear policies regarding the matter. Alas, in the real world, crafting policies doesn't solve ethical problems -- it just makes people find creative ways to be unethical.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/public...
http://www.jsonline.com/features...

The food business isn't any different. Like their big pharma cousins, they make huge grants to university agricultural departments, and to professors who profit enormously from their largesse. There are few -- even in academia -- who won't slant their research in exchange for millions of dollars in their personal bank accounts. Take Monsanto for example:

http://www.alternet.org/environm...
http://www.organicconsumers.org/...

Note that the ethical problem is particularly worrisome at public universities because state governments have increasingly slashed support for them, forcing schools to turn to corporations for money to fund operations. I see that you're at OSU. Sorry, Sam, but your education has already been compromised.' 

Me:

'Corps make donations because they need the highly trained graduates that come out of them.  The professors have varied backgrounds as far as food science goes.  Some are life long academics, who just do research in the lab, some came from industry, and some were strictly Chemists or biologists before teaching food/ag science.  I was there and saw with my own two eyes how all this works.  The professors spend all their time wrapped up in helping answer student's questions about their research or grading, or conducting their own research.  Your argument is sounding very conspiratorial.  Really, you sound no different to  me than someone making wild claims about 9/11.  The two links you chose to use to backup your conspiracy theory are from environmental and organic activists, and can hardly be taken seriously.'

Kent Fung:

'Environmental and organic activists "can hardly be taken seriously." I can see who you expect to pay your bills. Incidentally, I suppose now you're going to tell me what's wrong with the articles by researchers at Santa Clara University and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In fact, given the decrepit state of American's general health, I'd say it's mainstream food producers who can't be taken seriously.

Your logic doesn't work. Corporations don't need to make donations to get "highly trained graduates." All they need to do is offer decent salaries and they'll get all the "highly trained" graduates they need. There isn't a labor shortage in this country.

You also clearly don't understand how modern universities are funded.

Lifelong academics who "just do research in the lab" cost lots of money. That money doesn't come from the university, it comes from grants made by external donors. A typical university's budget is focused on maintaining and building more gee whiz facilities to recruit new students. Teacher and researcher salaries are taken care of by government and corporate grants.

What about those who came from industry? Most still have ties to their old employers -- and I don't mean that they go have drinks with their old boss -- I mean that they've started joint ventures on the side with them, or their old employers are actually funding their academic work.

And then you write about people "who were strictly chemists or biologists" before becoming teachers. Unless you're implying that they were independently wealthy and dabbled in chemistry and biology as a hobby, preserving their amateur status for the Olympics, then they were paid by someone, You know who that someone was? A major corporation, because that's where the money is.

"You were there and saw with your own two eyes how all this works," eh? You audited professors' tax returns, looked through their stock portfolio and bank accounts to see where their money came from? What about the departmental budget -- did you examine it, and where the money that funds the department comes from? No? Then you didn't see "how this all works."

You further claim that your professors "spend all their time wrapped up in helping answer student's questions about their research or grading or conducting their own research." 1) Who funds their research? 2) "All their time, huh?" You know this because you lived with your professors and can account for their time every day of the week, including who they speak with?

Let's be clear that this problem isn't limited to the fields of food science, public health, or medicine. All academic research, particularly in the sciences, has proven susceptible to this vulnerability.

Conspiracy? It's enough of a problem that the NIH is looking into it. Do a Google on conflicts of interest in scientific research -- I'm hardly the only one who's noticed there's a problem.

Here's a nice little presentation at the University of Chicago for the Global Health Initiative: http://globalhealthinitiative.uc...

Now yes, this deal primarily with corruption by the pharmaceutical industry. But: Worldwide revenues for pharmaceutical industry are estimated at $2.3 trillion a year. Worldwide annual revenues from the sales of processed foods? Nearly $5 billion, and that's in 2006 numbers. Are you really going to tell me that with that much money involved, the food industry is LESS willing to be underhanded than big pharma?'

Me:

'There are no corp overseers watching over the research.  Classes are all textbook and lab based science, not from one specific corporation.  Corporations do have an interest in seeing that universities have the tools necessary to train students.  It's the universities that supply brain power to the corps, not the other way around.  Go to John Coupland, who is on Quora, and ask him how many corporate overseers he comes across in his food science dept at PSU.  You've made up your mind and bought into the crazy conspiracy theory, which is unfortunate, because you really don't know what you're talking about.'

Kent Fung:

'They don't have to "watch over" research. My boss and his boss don't watch my every move either, but you can bet that I don't do anything to piss them off.

Why don't you go to John Coupland and ask him if he's in the habit of encouraging or publicizing research by his staff that shows (or might show)  that the products made by the corporations who fund his department will kill you? [edit: quick Google of John Coupland shows that his research is of interest only to manufacturers of processed foods. There's no way his opinion will be unbiased. His department, incidentally, has so many ties to industry groups within the food manufacturing industry that you've basically made my point.]

You've made up your mind to enslave yourself to corporate america, which is unfortunate, because you're contributing to the decline in U.S. civilization.'

Me:

'This is all about being anti-corporate for you.  It certainly isn't anything about science and you aren't interested in any sort of truth.  Research often falls in line with Corporate interests because corporate interests tend to follow the science and use scientific research to develop new products and improve existing products.  It isn't some biased atmosphere that exists only to serve corporate America.  You have such a sad and twisted view of science, education, and business in general.  Nothing I will ever show or tell you will convince you otherwise, because you have bought into a conspiracy theory.'

Kent Fung:

'Curiously enough, I'm not anti corporate at all, and I happily work for one of the largest corporations in the world. But the truth of the matter is that the agribusiness corporations are the source of much of the world's ills, and part of the way they are able to get away with it is by corrupting what is taught to students -- from primary school through university -- as "conventional wisdom." Look how good a job they did with you.

I'd love for you to show me evidence that "convinces me otherwise," but all you've put forth in your argument is your dubious claim that you know how the system works because you've "been there." Well, you don't, because you were never more than a cog in the machine.'

Me:

'That's the whole beautiful point, I can't show you evidence.  You are convinced of your view of the world and put me in the position of proving a negative, which is impossible.  Any evidence I show you will NEVER be good enough to get you to change your mind.  You have quite stubbornly painted yourself into a corner after picking your version of reality.'

Kent Fung:

'No, the reason you can't show me any evidence is because you're merely a foot soldier, and no one trusts foot soldiers with the truth or the battle strategy. It's going to be tough for you when, decades from now, you finally figure it out. Have a nice life until then ... and if you;re determined to be a tool, at least make sure you're a well-paid tool.'

Me:

'I'm not a foot soldier for anyone.  Hell, I just paid my rent 3 weeks late and I'm in between jobs.  My employment has had no influence over my views. Facts have.'

Kent Fung:

'Wow. So you're an unpaid shill. Dude, that's sad. Most people ask for money before they sell their soul. Ah well.'

So you see that nothing I said or could say would ever convince Kent that maybe he was wrong.  This is how the conspiracy theorist thinks.  Have you ever tried talking to someone who is convinced that we never landed on the moon or that 9/11 was an inside job or that fluoride is being introduced into the water supply as part of some evil government plot?  It's maddening and every point where you think, 'Ok, he can't possibly have anything to say about that', the person takes it to another amazing, cynical, convoluted level.

I asked John Coupland to respond and, being the English gentleman he is, he politely declined.  As a professor and food scientist, he plays things pretty even handed, keeping an open mind and never saying never.  He mentioned to me that the issue may be slightly more complicated than either of us indicated in our back and forth on Quora.

We need more Subject Matter Experts talking about their specific area of expertise, but it's pointless to talk to people like Kent, whose mind is made up.

Childhood Obesity

 This is sort of a blog request from @WineePamela after some tweets I wrote about how to fight Obesity.  I've written about weight loss before, but I really feel weird about doing it because I'm a pretty big guy.  I guess I'm like a coach, where I know all about the game but I wasn't the greatest player.


If you are really concerned that kids are too fat, then you have to approach things from a more pragmatic standpoint and stop with all the slogans, easy answers, and non-expert speculation. So to fight childhood obesity...


1. Parents:


When kids are little, all parents ever do is tell kids to stop running around, slow down, sit still... and finish your dinner.  I thought all the hoopla over Kids meal toys at McDonald's was silly because most kids I've ever seen eat there waste more than half of their food.


So maybe be glad when the kids are doing winds sprints while giggling and if the kids don't finish their dinner... give them a little less.


2. Coaches:


What I remember the most about playing sports in middle and high school was all the punishment exercise and yelling.  I got horrible anxieties before practices.  Coaches do more to limit physical activity later in life than any video game console.  When one guy screws around, the football/basketball/wrestling coach has everyone run wind sprints, do laps, or do some form of calisthenics as punishment.  This is a horrible message to send.


3. Teachers:


Coming from a food science background, I naturally think it's an ideal subject for high school students to tie together chemistry, biology, and chemistry, but it also gives you a great background in nutrition.  Kids should know what a calorie is, how to calculate the number of calories they need to maintain/lose/gain weight, and how to track their caloric intake.  it's also a great way to learn which foods are the best sources of protein/iron/vitamins/calcium/potassium.  This is very practical knowledge that also reinforces what the kids have already learned in school, while also reinforcing scientific method and critical thinking skills.


4.  Other Kids:

Kids are mean and being fat seems to be one of the last socially acceptable forms of discrimination in this country.  This is a tragic combination.  Fat people in general get very little sympathy because they are just seen as sloth-like lazy buffoons.  Other kids can help by not shaming or being cruel to obese kids.  Furthermore, they can make friends with obese kids and include them in their physical activities.  Shame does not work.  If your feeling down on yourself, you slow down, stay out of view... you don't go for a walk or go exercise.

5.  Food Activists:

I know you think everything is all a big conspiracy and that all processed foods are poison... but seriously, knock it off.  Misinformation serves only to confuse people and prevents them from reaching a solid, science based understanding of food.  Misinformation also allows people to peddle their ridiculous weight loss schemes and bilk the public for billions of dollars a years.  Please stop.

6. Fashion Industry:

Pencil thin models give people an unrealistic yard stick to judge themselves and others by.  We no longer think hometown girls are cute because they don't look nearly as hot as the model.  This also creates a much bigger gap bewteen the beautiful people and the obese.  

If you are a big kid, your clothes aren't only bigger, but they're completely different.  Why?  Why can't you get big sizes from Gap, Adidas, Champion, and Nike.  How easy is it to get active wear in big sizes in the same style as the smaller sizes?  And while I'm at it, stop putting flames or dragons... or flaming dragons on big & tall clothing.  What is that?  So not only do fat people feel ostracized, they have special fat clothes that look completely different.

PayPal

You should see a PayPal Donation button in this blog post and on the side of this page.  I'm currently out of work and behind on rent.  I've done this blog for two and a half years and have many great, informative posts.  If you can spare anything... even $5, it would be greatly appreciated. The donations are anonymous, so you don't have to worry about getting an awkward half sobbing thank you from me or me pledging a life debt to you.  Rent is overdue and I hope to get hired on somewhere... for something, sometime soon.  So if you've read and liked my writing over the past couple years, please send a dollar or two my way.  Even if you think I'm a tool, give me a buck so I can keep writing and giving you more to complain about.