Comments on: Peter Jennings’ report on obesity in America http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/peter-jennings-report-on-obesity-in-america/ A critical look at nutritional science and anything else that strikes my fancy. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:38:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: maurile http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/peter-jennings-report-on-obesity-in-america/#comment-50655 maurile Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:47:58 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=922#comment-50655 The link in Dr. Eades' post is to a ten-minute clip that is an abridged version of the original report. Here's the whole thing, in five parts (about 43 minutes, total): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXAZ_7JO7EA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEAJTgosdo0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6ksPAEGLgk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqcrQixAKJc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUQOjGq3wRE <em>Thanks for the links. I didn't realize there was more. Cheers-- MRE</em> The link in Dr. Eades’ post is to a ten-minute clip that is an abridged version of the original report. Here’s the whole thing, in five parts (about 43 minutes, total):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXAZ_7JO7EA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEAJTgosdo0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6ksPAEGLgk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqcrQixAKJc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUQOjGq3wRE

Thanks for the links. I didn’t realize there was more.

Cheers–

MRE

]]> By: Anna http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/peter-jennings-report-on-obesity-in-america/#comment-49796 Anna Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:44:20 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=922#comment-49796 Joel Salatin, in his newest book, has a lot to say about the regulation issues that Max brings up. More regulations aren't much of a problem for the "big guys" because they a) hire expensive lawyers to keep the regulation authorities somewhat in line and b) they can spread the extra costs out over an enormous amount of units, but the same regulations (not scaled down in proportion at all, because we "have to have a level playing field") are making it nearly impossible for small scale, local food/farm entrepreneurs to make a go of it. <em>How true, how true.</em> Joel Salatin, in his newest book, has a lot to say about the regulation issues that Max brings up. More regulations aren’t much of a problem for the “big guys” because they a) hire expensive lawyers to keep the regulation authorities somewhat in line and b) they can spread the extra costs out over an enormous amount of units, but the same regulations (not scaled down in proportion at all, because we “have to have a level playing field”) are making it nearly impossible for small scale, local food/farm entrepreneurs to make a go of it.

How true, how true.

]]> By: Max http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/peter-jennings-report-on-obesity-in-america/#comment-49595 Max Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:29:33 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=922#comment-49595 Some things: 1- Businesses can also make money by reducing costs and keeping the margin on the difference. In this case, since you have federal subsidies for corn and veg oils, it's no wonder that many products contain HFCS and, until recently, trans fats (and now, things that aren't transfats but are likely worse). If you eliminated the farm bill completely tomorrow (ignore the chaos this would create, and it would create quite a bit) and liberalized trade completely at the same time, you would see a pretty quick shift from HFCS to sugar, which most folks think wouldn't be a bad thing (though it might not be the out and out solution), as well as some more subtle effects (lowered corn production, lowered soy production, and something like the demise of the monocultured farm, maybe). So, businesses make money, with consumers like this: 1- sell more stuff (without increasing unit costs), 2- cut costs on the stuff you sell, without reducing how much you sell, 3- charge more for the stuff you see, without reducing quantity. That's oversimplified, but what isn't. Poster Chris seems to have a problem with a free market economy. Having scientifically verified ad claims would be a huge drag on the efficiency of the market, increasing costs, which would ultimately have to be passed onto consumers. The short of it is, more regulation equals more cost, and someone has to eat that cost and it's not gonna be Gen Mills, Nestle, or Unilever shareholders, I tell you what. The difference between a social tax on smoking and a regulated marketing environment is really, uhm, nonexistent, at least in terms on the effects an economist would expect to see. And if you think that fewer drugs being sold at a higher cost is a desirable outcome, you are thinking like a social worker, not like an economist, a libertarian, or anyone who can look at policy rationally, without a social goal attached. I know you, Dr. Mike, understand this implicitly. Last thing: if folks are so worked up about an AIDS vaccine for subSarharan Africa, maybe they should get their degrees and work on it out of the goodness of their hearts. Or they should found a privately owned drug development company with their vast private wealth. Either way. Requiring Pfizer to do it for a low return is like requiring General Mills to make low carb processed foods for a niche market (the 10-15% of people who watch carbs), and take a slimmer profit margin on it. It's simply not based in reality. <em>Hi Max-- You wrote: <blockquote>"Having scientifically verified ad claims would be a huge drag on the efficiency of the market, increasing costs, which would ultimately have to be passed onto consumers." </blockquote> Have you not heard of the FTC? Trying to get an ad past them without scientific substantiation is impossible. Plus, the staff at the FTC, none of whom are scientists, make the call on what is scientifically valid and what isn't. I've known people who have gone through the FTC wringer - and it is a wringer - over things that no one would think would be a problem. It's truly unbelievable. Some time I'll post about it in detail. People think they live in what they think of as America until the FTC comes calling. Cheers-- MRE</em> Some things:
1- Businesses can also make money by reducing costs and keeping the margin on the difference. In this case, since you have federal subsidies for corn and veg oils, it’s no wonder that many products contain HFCS and, until recently, trans fats (and now, things that aren’t transfats but are likely worse). If you eliminated the farm bill completely tomorrow (ignore the chaos this would create, and it would create quite a bit) and liberalized trade completely at the same time, you would see a pretty quick shift from HFCS to sugar, which most folks think wouldn’t be a bad thing (though it might not be the out and out solution), as well as some more subtle effects (lowered corn production, lowered soy production, and something like the demise of the monocultured farm, maybe). So, businesses make money, with consumers like this: 1- sell more stuff (without increasing unit costs), 2- cut costs on the stuff you sell, without reducing how much you sell, 3- charge more for the stuff you see, without reducing quantity. That’s oversimplified, but what isn’t.

Poster Chris seems to have a problem with a free market economy. Having scientifically verified ad claims would be a huge drag on the efficiency of the market, increasing costs, which would ultimately have to be passed onto consumers. The short of it is, more regulation equals more cost, and someone has to eat that cost and it’s not gonna be Gen Mills, Nestle, or Unilever shareholders, I tell you what. The difference between a social tax on smoking and a regulated marketing environment is really, uhm, nonexistent, at least in terms on the effects an economist would expect to see. And if you think that fewer drugs being sold at a higher cost is a desirable outcome, you are thinking like a social worker, not like an economist, a libertarian, or anyone who can look at policy rationally, without a social goal attached. I know you, Dr. Mike, understand this implicitly.

Last thing: if folks are so worked up about an AIDS vaccine for subSarharan Africa, maybe they should get their degrees and work on it out of the goodness of their hearts. Or they should found a privately owned drug development company with their vast private wealth. Either way. Requiring Pfizer to do it for a low return is like requiring General Mills to make low carb processed foods for a niche market (the 10-15% of people who watch carbs), and take a slimmer profit margin on it. It’s simply not based in reality.

Hi Max–

You wrote:

“Having scientifically verified ad claims would be a huge drag on the efficiency of the market, increasing costs, which would ultimately have to be passed onto consumers.”

Have you not heard of the FTC? Trying to get an ad past them without scientific substantiation is impossible. Plus, the staff at the FTC, none of whom are scientists, make the call on what is scientifically valid and what isn’t. I’ve known people who have gone through the FTC wringer – and it is a wringer – over things that no one would think would be a problem. It’s truly unbelievable. Some time I’ll post about it in detail. People think they live in what they think of as America until the FTC comes calling.

Cheers–

MRE

]]> By: John http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/peter-jennings-report-on-obesity-in-america/#comment-49520 John Mon, 03 Sep 2007 00:27:45 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=922#comment-49520 Thought you'd get a kick out of this: A new website, wikiscanner.virgil.gr , lets you correlate Wikipedia edits with the IP addresses of the people/organizations that made them. And someone discovered that someone at General Mills has been editing Wikipedia to remove references to the detrimental health effects which highly-refined cereal grains can have. General Mills' edit of 19 April 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=49144740 <em>Hilarious and troubling all at the same time. Thanks for passing it along. It's restored my faith a little in Wikipedia...sort of. Cheers-- MRE</em> Thought you’d get a kick out of this: A new website, wikiscanner.virgil.gr , lets you correlate Wikipedia edits with the IP addresses of the people/organizations that made them. And someone discovered that someone at General Mills has been editing Wikipedia to remove references to the detrimental health effects which highly-refined cereal grains can have. General Mills’ edit of 19 April 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=49144740

Hilarious and troubling all at the same time. Thanks for passing it along. It’s restored my faith a little in Wikipedia…sort of.

Cheers–

MRE

]]> By: Emma Anne http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/peter-jennings-report-on-obesity-in-america/#comment-49354 Emma Anne Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:54:42 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=922#comment-49354 He wants the government to bring the food industry to heel? How about beginning with stopping subsidies for high fructose corn syrup and refraining from being proponents of bad science? <em>That would be a good start. Cheers-- MRE</em> He wants the government to bring the food industry to heel? How about beginning with stopping subsidies for high fructose corn syrup and refraining from being proponents of bad science?

That would be a good start.

Cheers–

MRE

]]> By: Rob http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/peter-jennings-report-on-obesity-in-america/#comment-49346 Rob Sat, 01 Sep 2007 17:48:59 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=922#comment-49346 Minor disagreement: I think the government has a role to play. Smoking has gone down with the educational programs supported by the government (which I strongly support) and from the money from lawsuits (kind of support), and 'social engineering' in the huge taxes laid on smoking (I like the reduced smoking, concerned about being reliant upon sin taxes) Farm subsidies are fueling the calorie pushing. We need to stop it. The food pyramids have inadvertently (I hope) fueled the calorie consuming. Research and education into obesity are proper government functions. <em>Hi Rob-- I disagree. I don't think the tobacco comparison is accurate. There is nothing good about tobacco from a health perspective, so it's hard for the government to go wrong in condemning it. The food situation is different because, as it stands now, if the government started to intervene based on its misguided perception of what is healthful and what isn't, we would see saturated fat being condemned and taxed while high-carb foods would be glorified and subsidized. Cheers-- MRE</em> Minor disagreement: I think the government has a role to play. Smoking has gone down with the educational programs supported by the government (which I strongly support) and from the money from lawsuits (kind of support), and ‘social engineering’ in the huge taxes laid on smoking (I like the reduced smoking, concerned about being reliant upon sin taxes)

Farm subsidies are fueling the calorie pushing. We need to stop it. The food pyramids have inadvertently (I hope) fueled the calorie consuming. Research and education into obesity are proper government functions.

Hi Rob–

I disagree. I don’t think the tobacco comparison is accurate. There is nothing good about tobacco from a health perspective, so it’s hard for the government to go wrong in condemning it. The food situation is different because, as it stands now, if the government started to intervene based on its misguided perception of what is healthful and what isn’t, we would see saturated fat being condemned and taxed while high-carb foods would be glorified and subsidized.

Cheers–

MRE

]]> By: Chris http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/peter-jennings-report-on-obesity-in-america/#comment-49333 Chris Sat, 01 Sep 2007 15:33:30 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=922#comment-49333 Hi Dr Mike, I would just like to once again extend my thanks for the time and effort you put in to your blog. The new layout is great and I have spent many an enjoyable hour rooting through stuff in the archive reading both entries I had not read before and also re-reading many articles I had read when I first found this site. A sure sign of the quality of your posts! I feel that your post today about the food business, particularly the analogy with the tobacco industry, was spot on. Business is business is business. Business needs to make money. No profit, no business. I believe in free markets, but the invisible hand of Adam Smith can only genuinely guide us towards long term benefit if we are in a position to make informed choices. What gets up my nose is the marketing element where companies, be they in the business of food production/processing or drug manufacture, pretend that they are there to help us and are ‘serving’ us. Now don’t get me wrong, there are drugs/foodstuffs out there that are beneficial, but business, particularly big business oversteps the line when it herds us in to an intellectual cul-de-sac to simply milk us gently of our money on the back of sophistry and spin to protect their markets. And let’s be honest, protecting markets, particularly profitable ones, is EVERYTHING to a business. The development of an AIDS vaccine is a case in point. There are over 40 million people worldwide with AIDS – but over 60% are in sub-Saharan Africa. The net worth of the individuals in this demographic is low - and so as a market, (as Barbara Ryan - a pharmaceuticals-industry analyst for Deutsche Bank North America put it), "[is] not a commercially attractive". Dr. Edmund Tramont (head of the AIDS research division of the National Institutes of Health), is also on record stating that big pharma are simply not interested in developing and AIDS vaccine due to its lack of profitability. The statins market (a subject close to your heart, I know!), is another case in point. Worth a cool $27 billion a year, with that kind of money on the table, the big pharma are going to go to any lengths to perpetuate the current status quo with regard to public perception of the ‘evils’ of saturated fat. I mean, if we all went low-carb, the statin makers would be out of business within a few years. It is odd that the food business tries to add ‘value’ (which, lets be honest, means ‘profit margin’), to food through processing. I mean what foodstuff is better for us after some form of processing? I would hazard a guess that we can get everything we need for optimal health from unprocessed food. The market for processed food exists because it delivers profits, NOT because it delivers health benefits. It is similarly the case with the statin manufacturers (it is interesting that the actions of the former is of direct benefit to the latter). Big Pharma needs us to be ill. Ideally it needs rich western countries to provide such a market. We in the West make ourselves ill through the consumption of refined carbohydrate and so provide that market. Once we are ill, all that is needed is a bit of misinformation and bad-science, and hey presto, $30billion a year! If more people realised that they could actually prevent many of the ‘Western diseases’ simply by changing their diets, how could big pharma make money? The answer is that they couldn’t – well certainly not the amounts they make now. Tackling diseases like AIDS that affect ALL countries means that the profit margin would be squeezed as economic and governmental forces would apply, forcing the availability of the drugs to poorer countries. Once the poor get in on your market, your margins will be down. Like Hansel and Gretel, the public are gorging themselves towards their own demise. Now Gretel was smart enough to determine the witch’s true intentions. Thankfully, both you and a few others out there are willing to stand up and challenge big pharma, and for that you have my utmost respect. I am willing to get that this is the first time ANYONE has compared you with someone from a Brother Grimm fairytale! Cheers, Chris Hi Chris-- Thanks for the very kind words - I really do appreciate them more than you might imagine. And, yes, it is indeed the first time I've ever been compared to a character out of the Brothers Grimm. Best-- Mike Hi Dr Mike,
I would just like to once again extend my thanks for the time and effort you put in to your blog. The new layout is great and I have spent many an enjoyable hour rooting through stuff in the archive reading both entries I had not read before and also re-reading many articles I had read when I first found this site. A sure sign of the quality of your posts!

I feel that your post today about the food business, particularly the analogy with the tobacco industry, was spot on. Business is business is business. Business needs to make money. No profit, no business. I believe in free markets, but the invisible hand of Adam Smith can only genuinely guide us towards long term benefit if we are in a position to make informed choices.

What gets up my nose is the marketing element where companies, be they in the business of food production/processing or drug manufacture, pretend that they are there to help us and are ‘serving’ us. Now don’t get me wrong, there are drugs/foodstuffs out there that are beneficial, but business, particularly big business oversteps the line when it herds us in to an intellectual cul-de-sac to simply milk us gently of our money on the back of sophistry and spin to protect their markets. And let’s be honest, protecting markets, particularly profitable ones, is EVERYTHING to a business.

The development of an AIDS vaccine is a case in point. There are over 40 million people worldwide with AIDS – but over 60% are in sub-Saharan Africa. The net worth of the individuals in this demographic is low – and so as a market, (as Barbara Ryan – a pharmaceuticals-industry analyst for Deutsche Bank North America put it), “[is] not a commercially attractive”. Dr. Edmund Tramont (head of the AIDS research division of the National Institutes of Health), is also on record stating that big pharma are simply not interested in developing and AIDS vaccine due to its lack of profitability.

The statins market (a subject close to your heart, I know!), is another case in point. Worth a cool $27 billion a year, with that kind of money on the table, the big pharma are going to go to any lengths to perpetuate the current status quo with regard to public perception of the ‘evils’ of saturated fat. I mean, if we all went low-carb, the statin makers would be out of business within a few years.

It is odd that the food business tries to add ‘value’ (which, lets be honest, means ‘profit margin’), to food through processing. I mean what foodstuff is better for us after some form of processing? I would hazard a guess that we can get everything we need for optimal health from unprocessed food. The market for processed food exists because it delivers profits, NOT because it delivers health benefits. It is similarly the case with the statin manufacturers (it is interesting that the actions of the former is of direct benefit to the latter). Big Pharma needs us to be ill. Ideally it needs rich western countries to provide such a market. We in the West make ourselves ill through the consumption of refined carbohydrate and so provide that market. Once we are ill, all that is needed is a bit of misinformation and bad-science, and hey presto, $30billion a year!

If more people realised that they could actually prevent many of the ‘Western diseases’ simply by changing their diets, how could big pharma make money? The answer is that they couldn’t – well certainly not the amounts they make now. Tackling diseases like AIDS that affect ALL countries means that the profit margin would be squeezed as economic and governmental forces would apply, forcing the availability of the drugs to poorer countries. Once the poor get in on your market, your margins will be down.

Like Hansel and Gretel, the public are gorging themselves towards their own demise. Now Gretel was smart enough to determine the witch’s true intentions. Thankfully, both you and a few others out there are willing to stand up and challenge big pharma, and for that you have my utmost respect.

I am willing to get that this is the first time ANYONE has compared you with someone from a Brother Grimm fairytale!

Cheers,
Chris

Hi Chris–

Thanks for the very kind words – I really do appreciate them more than you might imagine.

And, yes, it is indeed the first time I’ve ever been compared to a character out of the Brothers Grimm.

Best–

Mike

]]> By: CJane http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/peter-jennings-report-on-obesity-in-america/#comment-49280 CJane Sat, 01 Sep 2007 06:33:28 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=922#comment-49280 What a great find. I didn't catch this when it aired years ago, but it is just as I thought and it doesn't surprise me. Gee, and I miss Peter Jennings! I really wish the government would just stay out of it. They've made enough of a mess of things as it is. <em>I miss him, too. He was definitely the best of the talking heads. And I wish the government would stay out of nutrition, but fat chance of that. Cheers-- MRE</em> What a great find. I didn’t catch this when it aired years ago, but it is just as I thought and it doesn’t surprise me. Gee, and I miss Peter Jennings!

I really wish the government would just stay out of it. They’ve made enough of a mess of things as it is.

I miss him, too. He was definitely the best of the talking heads. And I wish the government would stay out of nutrition, but fat chance of that.

Cheers–

MRE

]]> By: kristy http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/peter-jennings-report-on-obesity-in-america/#comment-49252 kristy Sat, 01 Sep 2007 01:57:49 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=922#comment-49252 Doc - have you ever read Food Politics by Marion Nestle? Your thoughts? Her book covered a lot of the isues discussed in this report. Side note - this video makes me miss Peter Jennings. I thought he was a great newsman. <em>I have Food Politics and I've skipped around through it. I think she's right on most of the politics and totally wrong on the appropriate diet. Cheers-- MRE</em> Doc – have you ever read Food Politics by Marion Nestle? Your thoughts? Her book covered a lot of the isues discussed in this report. Side note – this video makes me miss Peter Jennings. I thought he was a great newsman.

I have Food Politics and I’ve skipped around through it. I think she’s right on most of the politics and totally wrong on the appropriate diet.

Cheers–

MRE

]]> By: University Update - Diabetes - Peter Jennings’ report on obesity in America http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/peter-jennings-report-on-obesity-in-america/#comment-49242 University Update - Diabetes - Peter Jennings’ report on obesity in America Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:35:31 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=922#comment-49242 [...] Nile Virus Peter Jennings’ report on obesity in America » This Summary is from an article posted at Health and Nutrition by Dr. Michael R. Eades, M.D. on [...] [...] Nile Virus Peter Jennings’ report on obesity in America » This Summary is from an article posted at Health and Nutrition by Dr. Michael R. Eades, M.D. on [...]

]]>