Half of US children on Food Stamps

[ZenGum]

... and the reason for that, in part, is that the new agribusiness farming techniques used to feed our growing population produce more food, in kilograms and calories, per area of land, but that food is poorer in nutrients.

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

... and the reason for that, in part, is that the new agribusiness farming techniques used to feed our growing population produce more food, in kilograms and calories, per area of land, but that food is poorer in nutrients.

The food is not poorer. The customers stopped buying the nutritious stuff. Canvas the shopping carts. Notice how many carts are full of stuff I cannot (do not) eat much of - cookies, sweets, and scam products.

At war with science is Kellogg. Their Cocoa Puffs have always been near zero nutrition. So Kellogg is now advertising higher nutrition in Cocoa Puffs. Science says that increase is still near zero nutrition. Kellogg refuses to concede. Companies such as Kellogg and Beechnut have a long history of selling junk as nutritious. And with so many Americans even believing Saddam's WMD lies, these junk food companies are doing even better.

We could never drink all the coke that is routine today. Want to have the Appalachia smile? Drink Mountain Dew. Or get fat by drinking the same thing called diet soda. Calories are what they preach to the naive. Nutrition is the only thing that matters. Even those energy drinks are nonsense.

Amazing how many families are not dependent on Ritalin because they don't serve two vegetables with each dinner. Blame the advertisers - not the products. Wholesome products are still available. Some even better than they were. But in a country where milk - an extremely healthy food - is hyped a fattening or harmful, well, what is the problem? Diet sodas. Agribusiness did not make people eat crap. They just made it available. Kellogg and Beechnut have always been selling crappier foods.

A major difference is Kelloggs vs General Mills. Gerber vs Beechnut. And yet so many do not even know that.

[DanaC]

I recently bought a pack of mini-pot fromage frais. They're supposed to be for kiddies. Theyre tiny, but delicious (yes I know I am tragic). I noticed on the labelling it said "suitable from weening onwards". Then I read the ingredients, the third of which was sugar. Of course the pack is also full of bright cheery pics of natural things. And bright cheery lettering telling parents all about the good wholesome milk, calcium, fruit pulp, 'all natural ingredients' and even a little colouring picture on the inside of the pack for the little'uns to complete. It had a farm scene with cows and a farmer and milk churns.

They're essentially marketing this sugary dessert as a weening food. Disgraceful.

A while ago, I picked up a pack of 'scooby doo' chicken nuggets meal. Just out of curiosity. I read the ingredients and put it back in the shop freezer. Yes, it had no artificial colourings and flavourings - great! But it did have almost the whole of a child's recommended daily intake of salt in a single meal.

[monster]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I recently bought a pack of mini-pot fromage frais. They're supposed to be for kiddies. Theyre tiny, but delicious (yes I know I am tragic). I noticed on the labelling it said "suitable from weening onwards". Then I read the ingredients, the third of which was sugar. Of course the pack is also full of bright cheery pics of natural things. And bright cheery lettering telling parents all about the good wholesome milk, calcium, fruit pulp, 'all natural ingredients' and even a little colouring picture on the inside of the pack for the little'uns to complete. It had a farm scene with cows and a farmer and milk churns.

They're essentially marketing this sugary dessert as a weening food. Disgraceful.

Akchully........... they're not bad as a weaning food. They're not sweet like candy, and breastmilk is pretty sweet compard to cow's milk. One of baby's main jobs is to lay down a little fat to get them through periods of illness etc. so the calories are not a major problem for most kids. So they're milky and sweet -like breast milk and yet less liquid and with other flavors -like real food. an excellent transition tool. What you don't want to use is chocolate puddings -80%+ sugar, no dairy, no fruit, but the kiddywinks really like them......

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by monster

Akchully........... they're not bad as a weaning food. They're not sweet like candy, and breastmilk is pretty sweet compard to cow's milk. One of baby's main jobs is to lay down a little fat to get them through periods of illness etc. so the calories are not a major problem for most kids. So they're milky and sweet -like breast milk and yet less liquid and with other flavors -like real food. an excellent transition tool. What you don't want to use is chocolate puddings -80%+ sugar, no dairy, no fruit, but the kiddywinks really like them......

Ok I'll bow to your knowledge on that:P I just figured the same could be achieved without the addition of lots of white sugar. I am thinking more of the impact on their teeth as they come through.

[Clodfobble]

Awhile back, I was chatting at the playground with another mother I'd just met, and she was asking about the diet my kids are on.

She said to me, in all seriousness, "Oh no! That's got to be so hard. I could never stop giving him cookies, that's where he gets all his essential vitamins and minerals." The tone made it clear she was earnestly quoting from the box.





Plants love it! It's got electrolytes!

[kerosene]

That movie is messed up.

[Clodfobble]

It was too preachy for my tastes... but it did make me laugh.

[ZenGum]

cocoa puffs to WMD in one paragraph ... TW, you're awsome.

[Stormieweather]

1) I can see how they took the study results (49% of all children are on food stamps AT SOME POINT by age 20) and used canny wording to make it seem like something else.

2) Obesity and malnutrion do go hand in hand, as TW says. I'm a newly educated individual on nutrition, thanks to my bodybuilding, and am of the opinion that the gov'mnt and public officials are doing a piss poor job of both teaching proper food choices and offering decent food to the poor and to the schools.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

1)
2) Obesity and malnutrion do go hand in hand, as TW says. I'm a newly educated individual on nutrition, thanks to my bodybuilding, and am of the opinion that the gov'mnt and public officials are doing a piss poor job of both teaching proper food choices and offering decent food to the poor and to the schools.

I don't know about schools. The poor who go to soup kitchens must take what is offered. Food pantry outfits around here offer macaroni and more macaroni -also lots of sphagetti. You also get canned food made by companies you never have heard of. Very seldom do I see these places hand out milk, fresh vegetables or fruit. Never is there whole grain anything.

On the other hand, you can buy what you want with "food stamps". My diet is far from perfect, but I shop the sales and by green leafies, fruit, lean meat and chicken. I see no reason why other food stamp recipients can't do the same thing.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Very seldom do I see these places hand out milk, fresh vegetables or fruit. Never is there whole grain anything.

Homeless people (at least the ones that I deal with) are notoriously choosy. They won't eat that kind of stuff.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

2) Obesity and malnutrion do go hand in hand, as TW says. I'm a newly educated individual on nutrition, thanks to my bodybuilding, and am of the opinion that the gov'mnt and public officials are doing a piss poor job of both teaching proper food choices and offering decent food to the poor and to the schools.

From The Economist of 29 Oct 2009

Behind the silver lining, though, looms a black cloud: not all omega-3s are created equal. The good ones (long-chain fatty acids) come from expensive sources such as fish. The far less beneficial ones (short-chain fatty acids) come from cheap plant oils like flax seed and soya, as well as from leafy green vegetables. No prizes for guessing which type of omega-3s some less-scrupulous manufacturers have chosen to put in their products in order to imply health benefits.

The problem of dubious nutrition and health claims for foodstuffs is now being addressed on both sides of the Atlantic. America’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said on October 20th that it would overhaul the regulation of such claims on food labels and issue new standards early next year.

See the FDAs recent battle with Kellogg's for adverising nutrition that does not exist.

How did Dannon increase sales by 30%? Advertised 'Digitaliss Rectilitis' or whatever that mysterious substance is. What does it do? Nobody can say. But using their 'Saddam WMD' logic, 30% bought Dannon yogurt. Lying is acceptable as long as so many insist on staying dumb by using 'Saddam WMD' reasoning.

European Union is also involved in a long investigation about so many foods promoting mythical nutritional claims.

On October 1st the EFSA announced its decisions on 523 of a total of around 4,000 claims. About two-thirds of its decisions were negative. In one, for example, the panel decided there was no causal relationship between the consumption of dried cocoa extract and the maintenance or achievement of normal body weight.

Current standards permit so much lying that even fat free cookies were promoted for a healthy diet.

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

cocoa puffs to WMD in one paragraph ... TW, you're awsome.

Look for where both share a common location. In your head. See that. I'm in your head and you cannot get me out. Now. What's for dinner.

[monster]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

cocoa puffs to WMD in one paragraph ... TW, you're awsome.

in my house, cocoa puffs are weapons of mass destruction. when mixed with milk in the correct proportions, allowed to stand for the correct number of minutes and then in 2 nan-seconds spilled over all paperwork with in a 10 mile radius (how do kids do that?), nothing survives