Fed Up

[Steven_Draker]

'Fed Up' Documentary Lays Blame For American Obesity On Food Industry

 

 

[video=youtube;aCUbvOwwfWM]

 

 

In the three decades since the first U.S. dietary guidelines were issued, Americans have become heavier and more saddled with diabetes and other diet-related diseases. The documentary "Fed Up" takes a look at what happened and offers a most poignant profile of what life is like for overweight children.

 

"Fed Up," which opened this week, lays a large share of the blame at the door of the food industry. It looks at the idea that we don't seem to get healthier despite a proliferation of products, surgeries, exercise programs and diets. The film is narrated by journalist Katie Couric, who also is an executive producer.

 

"The conventional wisdom [about obesity and health] turns out not to be true," executive producer Laurie David, who was producer of the 2006 climate change film "An Inconvenient Truth," said by phone on Monday.

 

The most affecting part of the film might be the families that appear — caring families struggling mightily with obesity, diabetes and other health issues. The director, Stephanie Soechtig, said in a phone interview that she has been following some of them for more than two years.

 

The filmmakers also talk to a number of doctors, scientists, writers and others who argue against many of the fat tropes, including that weight is a personal responsibility and that a calorie is a calorie. The history of diet advice — low-fat, low-carb, high-protein dieting; the U.S. government's food pyramid for "healthful" eating — all come under scrutiny.

 

The film blames an industry that it charges is more interested in profit than in the nation's health. Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the advocacy organization Center for Science in the Public Interest, noted that candy and other snacks are no longer available just in food stores; they're in office supply stores, linen stores, "everywhere."

 

"We've got to change the way we produce and consume food," says former President Clinton. And the message of "Fed Up" is to start by cooking real food and avoiding processed items.

 

The film is likely to be met with plenty of criticism.

 

"It's a very myopic view of how obesity develops, and it offers no real solutions," was the assessment of James O. Hill, a pediatrics and medicine professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver.

 

Hill said that he objected to the lack of attention to physical activity in the film and that the assessment of caloric sweeteners as the major problem in Americans' diets was mistaken.

 

"I'm not arguing that the food environment is unimportant. I'm not arguing sugar is not important," Hill said. "I think the food industry has some responsibility," but he believes the food industry and scientists need to join forces to find solutions.

 

From 1977 to 2000, Americans doubled their average daily intake of sweeteners, including high fructose corn syrup, in part because it was used as a replacement when foods were reformulated to remove fat. And at a certain level, sugar is toxic, Dr. Robert Lustig says in the film. Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist at UC San Francisco.

 

And that point has the Sugar Assn. objecting. There is plenty of disagreement over whether it matters to distinguish among sweeteners. Adam Fox, a lawyer who represents the trade group, said Tuesday that consumption of table sugar has been on the decline. "I have to believe that Katie Couric and some of the doctors are well-meaning, but when you lump" all sweeteners together, it's a disservice to the public.

 

The Grocery Manufacturers Assn. said in a statement that, "rather than identifying successful policies or ongoing efforts to find real and practical solutions to obesity, [the film] adopts a short-sighted, confrontational and misleading approach by cherry-picking facts to fit a narrative, getting the facts wrong, and simply ignoring the progress that has been made over the last decade in providing families with healthier options at home and at school."

 

The filmmakers interviewed many well-known researchers and writers about the American diet, including author Gary Taubes, New York University professor Marion Nestle and Kelly Brownell, dean of the public policy school at Duke University. They noted, however, that food industry representatives declined to take part in the movie.

 

"I was floored" by that, Soechtig said. "I am apolitical when it comes to the issue. I think we tried to show both sides where we could. It was a mandate from Katie [Couric]. She's a journalist. She's not an activist."

 

The first change the makers of the movie suggest is to give up added sweeteners — with and without calories — for 10 days. David, who also has a new cookbook out called "The Family Cooks," said she'd like to see school lunch improvements, nutrition education, package labeling reforms to make the information clear and the disappearance of snack foods near store cash registers.

 

source: http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80148426/

[+ buddy12]

I saw this on Morning Joe the other morning. My objection to this kind of "journalism" is that others with access to producing television programs or movies are trying to tell the rest of us what we should eat...how we drive our cars...how we live...what's good for us and bad for us...all because some damn tv or movie producer has an agenda for the rest of us. America is fatter. But is it because of the "sugar industry" who slyly puts that into everyone's food...and now you're an addict on sugar?? Or is it because that people have become lazier and there's no personal self control. But of course they show an MRI scan that says sugar is as addictive as cocaine. I've ingested sugar before...never cocaine but I'm not an addict on sugar. And when they're talking about kids being fatter...where are the parent responsibilities? Who's buying this stuff anyway. It's the same situation when people say that poor Americans are getting fatter because they can't afford nutritious food and they have to go to Burger King because it's cheaper. Bull. They seem to degrade Michelle Obama's "Move" campaign but she is absolutely right. And believe me when I say, I'm not a Barack or Michelle advocate on anything except this. She is absolutely right to try and get people to eat healthier and exercise. Kids today have Xbox, PS4, and all kinds of games that they sit in front of the TV and play for hours. IMHO kids parents are setting up their kids for disaster...not the sugar industry. And when I see a promo that says this film is brought to you from the guy that brought you "The Inconvenient Truth"...it's a no sell for me.

[rocky]

Sorry, rich, poor, middle income, smart, dumb, etc; at some point when are "we" going to be blamed for the decisions we make, not the makers of soda, not the McDonald's/Burger King/Wendy's of the world. It's really easy now to blame others for our own decisions and sham on us all. I'm fat, yes I'm fat. I eat and I drink, I make that decision. Do I blame McD's when they announce their super Monday sunday's or someplace else that says all the wings you can eat. Nope, I make that decision. And as soon as stupid asses who think others are making their decisions for them realize this the better

[+ buddy12]

Couldn't have said it better myself. I get so damn tired of other people who make millions of dollars a year sit there and preach to "us" how we should live our lives. You make the decisions you make for YOUR life. That's what America is all about. If you decide you want to be fat, thin or whatever, it's your personal choice. Great response Rocky...you're my hero!

[+ azdr0710]

http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/Rottenecards_84266097_z5w4yzpq24.png

[MrMiniver]

The continuation of the "lack of personal responsibility" society that we seem to be living in. There is only one person to blame for obesity: the big fat disgusting slob who keeps opening his/her pie hole and shoving more and more food into it. Give me a break about blaming anyone else. No one FORCES these people to eat anything. Period.

[Boink]

On the other hand, go into a 7-11 and see how hard it is to buy a 12 oz can of soda - which used to be the norm. Can't do it - it's now a 20 oz bottle minimum. Buy a small soda at a fast food chain. The small is what used to be a large when I was a kid. If fact, most of those places have excised the word 'small' from their vocabulary. It's now 'medium' and upwards. When's the last time you ate at a restaurant and complained to yourself how small the portions are. Most times I eat out I'm served double the amount of food I desire, with no say in the matter. I can either eat it all up or leave it on the plate - I pay either way. Go into a grocery store and try to buy one or two frozen entrees. If you don't agree to buy, say, '5 for $10.00' you WILL be penalized in the pocketbook. A 'small' popcorn at the movies cost just 25 cents less that a 10 gallon bucket. Today's society has been slowly coaxed into gluttonous excess (and I'm not just talking about the food industry) and the choices have been diminished for anyone who dares to think small.

[Samai139]

The sad fact is that 1/3 will agree with the premise and the documentary and the other 2/3 will be oblivious. There have been at least two instances in my life where "telling others what to do" have had significant impact: seat belts in automobiles and the surgeon general warning of the dangers of cigarette use and the subsequent change in Americans' smoking habits. Exercise? I rmember JFK and RFK pusing this more than 50 years ago; ad nauseum with other attempts to get Americans moving. We might as well blame the inventors of the automobile, the elevator, escalators, and the remote control for Americans' increasing girth. I can only hope this documentary has a short period in the spot light.

[Steven_Draker]

Sorry, rich, poor, middle income, smart, dumb, etc; at some point when are "we" going to be blamed for the decisions we make, not the makers of soda, not the McDonald's/Burger King/Wendy's of the world. It's really easy now to blame others for our own decisions and sham on us all. I'm fat, yes I'm fat. I eat and I drink, I make that decision. Do I blame McD's when they announce their super Monday sunday's or someplace else that says all the wings you can eat. Nope, I make that decision. And as soon as stupid asses who think others are making their decisions for them realize this the better.

 

What about the children and the youth?

 

 

Clinton Foundation: "We could cure 80% of the problem the way they prepare the food in the school."

 

 

 

[Newly]

Love these "take responsibility for yourself" feelings. One of the hallmarks of the American system, where individuality is supposed to matter more than anything else. If you work hard you'll be rewarded. Funny how this seems to break down when the 1% is involved (out of the banking scandals that destroyed a good bit of the world's economic system a total of 1 person has been criminally convicted). Guess everyone but the 1% is irresponsible and lazy, since everyone else is getting poorer and poorer and you have a better chance of moving up into a higher social strata in England and India now than you do in the US.

[Guest countryboywny]

What about the children and the youth? [/color]

 

They need good parents.

[Guest countryboywny]

Love these "take responsibility for yourself" feelings. One of the hallmarks of the American system, where individuality is supposed to matter more than anything else. If you work hard you'll be rewarded. Funny how this seems to break down when the 1% is involved (out of the banking scandals that destroyed a good bit of the world's economic system a total of 1 person has been criminally convicted). Guess everyone but the 1% is irresponsible and lazy, since everyone else is getting poorer and poorer and you have a better chance of moving up into a higher social strata in England and India now than you do in the US.

 

What do the hated one percenters have to do with anyone else's eating habits?

[Steven_Draker]

Of course that the food industry is not the only one to "blame". There are multiple factors that contribute to obesity and the issue is so complex, otherwise it would have been solved a long time ago.

 

Here are some of the best comments about the movie I found and put in quotes for you:

 

"The real villains are the people themselves, who with enough money to either eat out or go through the drive through all the time, are doing themselves in. When you allow those who receive food stamps to purchase pop and donuts with their food debit card, what do you expect?"

______________

 

"People know they shouldn't be eating all of the high calorie food and drinking soda, but they just can't help themselves because willpower is overpowered by the innate and primitive love of sugar and quick access to fast food (include restaurant food as one does not have to shop, cook, or clean up). The modern life with everyone driving their own auto, commuting, and working at a job to just pay for their expensive cell phone contracts and rent, puts people into a lifestyle that they say doesn't make time for normal meal time."

______________

 

"No drug company is working on producing the antidote drug that makes fast processed food distasteful. If food can be manipulated to addict our brains and bodies, then a drug should be able to be produced that restricts and brakes that compulsion."

______________

 

"The issue of obesity and unhealthy lifestyles is not limited to the United States. With the globalization of the food system (particularly the U.S. diet), obesity and diabetes epidemics are appearing in not just western countries, but developing countries as well - particularly China. Our film explores these similar issues, but more globally: http://www.wfdinner.com "

 

______________

 

"Sugar in all its forms is poison. Anyone who says different, or tries to minimize its effects on the human body, has their hand in your wallet. Given the metastasizing ignorance of the public on so many subjects of health and safety (i.e., any number of irresponsible morons driving while staring at smartphones), it's not surprising that millions have no clue as to the toxic effects of sugar: either granulated, as corn syrup, flatulence-inducing maltodextrin, or in whatever masked version the processed food industry serves it up. Who cares what lies they choose to tell the public, and the duplicitous FDA deems "OK"? Until sugar is fully exposed for the eventual killer it is, as were cigarettes, we're doomed to continue this pernicious charade that all calories are the same."

[+ friendofsheila]

I'm taking it, Steven, that you agree with the documentary's thesis. I do, too, only to a point.

 

These companies wouldn't be in business if people were more conscientious about what they eat. They aren't, and companies don't care.

 

Companies see a way to make money and they go after it hammer-and-tongs. People see that they have to be more conscientious about their food and they say "Meh. It's too much effort. I won't bother..." and become unhealthy. (I know this from living a very long time without refined sugar and refined flour, and how much work it is.)

 

I think both parties share in the blame.

[+ friendofsheila]

Thank you, Steven for bringing up an important topic.

[Steven_Draker]

They need good parents.

 

That's a given, countryboyny. What about the constant hammering with junk food ads?

 

 

Children who watch prime-time TV are being 'saturated' with junk foods adverts

 

 

"Viewing between 8pm and 9pm can include as many as 11 junk food adverts, the British Heart Foundation said

 

The British Heart Foundation reported that analysis of more than 750 adverts from prime time television found that 22% were for food

Youngsters who sit up with their parents and watch prime time TV are being "saturated" with junk food ads, a charity has warned.

 

People who watch television between 8pm and 9pm can see as many as 11 junk food adverts an hour, the British Heart Foundation (BHF) said.

 

The charity reported that analysis of more than 750 adverts from prime time television found that 22% were for food.

 

More than one in 10 (13%) of the food ads were for fast food chains and 12% were for chocolate and sweet companies, according to the research.

 

And a quarter of food adverts were for "unhealthy food products from supermarkets", BHF said.

 

The authors of the research reported that the food adverts "seem" to be designed for a young audience, with more than half of ads using children, or "child-aged characters", to promote the food.

 

The charity is leading a group of organisations, collectively called Action on Junk Food Marketing, which commissioned the research.

 

The alliance have called for the Government and Ofcom to take action.

 

They have also launched a new petition calling for ministers to ban junk food marketing for children.

 

"Parents don't expect their children to be bombarded with ads for unhealthy food during prime time TV, but that's exactly what happens," BHF chief executive Simon Gillespie said.

 

"Even when the show is over, junk food marketers could be reaching out to young people online.

 

"A lack of regulation means companies are free to lure kids into playing games and entering competitions - all with a view to pushing their product.

 

"We want the Government to protect children by switching off junk food adverts on TV until after 9pm and putting rules in place to stop children becoming fair game for internet marketing."

 

Professor Mitch Blair, officer for health promotion at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, added: "Currently junk food advertising on television is banned during children's programming - but we know that millions of children are watching 'family friendly' programmes like the X Factor and Ant & Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway later in the evening.

 

"And we know that advertising to this age group at this time, works; not only are children and young people easily influenced and parents worn down by pester power, but food companies wouldn't spend huge amounts of money if it wasn't effective.

 

"Extending the ban to 9pm would not only have a positive effect in changing behaviours, but it would also send a clear message to the industry.

 

"Children should not be commercially exploited and the advertising industry must take some responsibility for helping tackle the growing problem of childhood obesity."

 

A Government spokesman said: "The Government continues to keep this area under review and recognises that there are calls for increased restrictions on junk food advertising.

 

"It is widely accepted that advertising is just one aspect in determining children's choice of food, and the current rules are therefore just one part of the package aimed at tackling childhood obesity and poor diet.

 

"The Government is taking action, including through Change4Life and the Responsibility Deal, to ensure children get the best start possible in life and to make it easier for families to make healthier choices and follow a balanced diet."

 

Shadow public health minister Luciana Berger said: "One third of children in England are either overweight or obese by the time they leave primary school and the Government should be doing everything it can to tackle this crisis.

 

"Yet every day children are being exposed to persuasive adverts for foods and drinks that are high in fat, sugar or salt - the very ingredients from which the current regulations were designed to protect them.

 

"With health problems associated with being overweight or obese costing the NHS more than £5 billion every year, ministers must act now to ensure that the rules around advertising junk food to children are fit for purpose." "

 

source: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/warning-children-who-watch-prime-time-6858287

[Guest]

Well, I saw a really fat dude, BMI probably around 34, in front of me at the soda dispenser. Of course, he takes a large regular Coke. I was thinking "Really? Is just switching to Coke Zero or Diet Coke to much of a sacrifice for you?". I can hardly think of any change in lifestyle that takes less effort than simply not drinking sugary sodas. As for the children, of course, the parents must take most of the responsibility (school districts, too, to a certain extent). Parents are too lazy to parent these days. The children are the bosses from day one. I see a 15 month-old sucking on a bottle, and I tell the parents that this toddler is too old to be on the bottle; it's bad for his teeth. They say "He doesn't want to go off the bottle!" as if the 15 month-old is the rightful decision-maker in the household. Yes, schools should not be allowed to have sugary drinks or non-nutritious snacks sold in school vending machines or cafeterias. But parents need to take the stance that children are not "the deciders" in the household.

http://irregulartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/imthedecidersecond.gif

[Bart]

Boink I have to disagree on one point here, rather than worry about the size of the soda, get the water. Most dispensers have a button for water. Even if you have to pay for the cup or 25/50 cents that is still cheaper than the soda and way better for you. I am happy to say I have not had soda, other than the occasional sparkling water, in over 3 years and never was a big soda drinker. Now if we can get bottled water to be less expensive that is the way to change the market place. Bottled water is more expensive than the soda alternative. You go to a fast food market place or grocery stores and the healthy choices tend to cost more. If you want to start one place to change the market make the less sodium, less fat and less sugar items cost less there is less of it. It has always been a pet pieve of mine that the healthy options cost more. Grant you many Americans use this as an excuse but maybe that is the best way to handle issue. Dont make the fat and sugar items cost more and a penalty, how about a change in marketing and have the healthy options cost less. It is always tax this or the other why not have healthy stuff be cheaper and more accessable to all of us.

[Boink]

I drink TONS of water and soda very rarely. My point was that if and when I do feel like a soda, I have no choice but to pay for a big giant sized cup that holds double what I desire. Then I either end up throwing half of it out, or, worse, drinking all of it even though I didn't want it. (I hate waste.) That's why it drove me crazy that the idea of limiting cup sizes became such a controversial issue a few years ago. All any fattie would have needed to do is buy two or more cups - no limits. But someone who wants a smaller size has no such option. And this is not limited to the soda fountain.

[Steven_Draker]

Buy a small soda at a fast food chain. The small is what used to be a large when I was a kid.

 

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1083572.1337823470!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/burgers24n-1-web.jpg

 

http://www.asiafoodrecipe.com/getimage/fullsize/2012/05/estimate-serving-sizes-using-objects-around-the-house.png

 

 

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/biggulphuge.jpg

[Steven_Draker]

Food packaging 'traffic lights' to signal healthy choices on salt, fat and sugar

Supermarkets and some food producers agree to nutritional labels but critics call for refuseniks 'to be named and shamed'

 

 

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/GU_front_gifs/2013/6/18/1371584178835/food-labels-with-more-tha-010.jpg

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/06/article-1178048-04D4E318000005DC-2_468x333.jpg

 

 

Traffic light-coded food labels indicating how much fat, salt and sugar an item contains are to appear on most food that is eaten in Britain in a move hailed by health campaigners as ending shoppers' confusion over what to buy.

 

All the main supermarket chains and some of the biggest producers of snack foods, such as PepsiCo and Nestlé, have agreed with ministers to use front-of-pack nutritional labels coloured red, amber or green on some or all of their products in an effort to make it easier for consumers to choose healthier options.

 

The traffic-light labels, which many food campaigners and medical organisations have long called for, will be part of a new hybrid nutritional labelling scheme that combines them with guideline daily amounts (GDAs), which senior doctors have criticised as deceptive and utterly baffling to most consumers.

 

The new labels are intended to help shoppers know at a glance whether a product contains a low, medium or high amount of fat, saturated fat, salt, sugar and calories. Big supermarkets, including Tesco, Sainsbury's, Marks & Spencer, Waitrose and the Co-op, will start using them "imminently", though some may take "a few months to rebrand their packaging", the Department of Health said.

 

"People will be able to use the colours to understand the level of nutrients in the food they are eating. The labels are not designed to demonise foods with lots of reds but to have people consider what they are eating and make sure it's part of a balanced diet.

 

"Businesses that have signed up to using the new label today already account for more than 60% of the food that is sold in the UK," a spokesman added.

 

The move follows research that found consumers are confused when more than one scheme is used, reducing their ability and inclination to use the information.

 

Health problems associated with being overweight or obese cost the NHS more than £5bn a year. A 2011 report found that 61% of the adult population in England is overweight or obese – higher than almost all other developed countries. It also found one third of 10- to 11-year-olds and almost a quarter of four- to five-year-olds are overweight or obese.

 

Mars UK, McCain Foods and Bernard Matthews are also among the food producers to have signed up to the scheme, though the multinationals Coca-Cola, Cadbury and United Biscuits have refused. Coca-Cola's decision has surprised some food campaigners, given its recent high-profile campaign intended to reinforce its pledge that "we want to be part of the solution" to the growing global obesity epidemic.

 

The widespread adoption of the hybrid labels represents a significant change because, until now, only a few supermarkets – including M&S, Waitrose and Sainsbury's – have used traffic lights. The Co-op began using them in 2006 before changing in 2011 to labels that incorporated both them and GDAs. McCain Foods is the only major producer to already use colour coding to help guide consumers' choices.

 

GDAs, which supermarkets such as Tesco have always used, purport to tell consumers what proportion of their recommended daily allowance of fat, salt or sugar the product contains, according to official government advice about the maximum amount of each that is good for health.

 

But they have come under fire for misleading shoppers by only giving the GDAs for one biscuit in a packet or one serving of a tin of soup, for example, rather than the entire product thus potentially letting shoppers underestimate what is in them.

 

The public health minister, Anna Soubry, said shoppers were confused by existing food labels: "Research shows that, of all the current schemes, people like this [hybrid] label the most and can use the information to make healthier choices." More manufacturers should adopt the labels, she said.

 

The consumer group Which? welcomed a "big step forward" and the British Heart Foundation said the "first-class scheme … will make it easier for shoppers to scan the shelves and make more informed choices about what's going in their trolley".

 

But Diane Abbott, shadow public health minister, and the Children's Food Campaign (CFC), an alliance of health, education and children's groups, called on ministers to "name and shame" firms that shunned the scheme.

 

"It isn't tenable for any food company, which claims to be socially responsible, to refuse to adopt the scheme," said Charlie Powell, CFC director.

 

source: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/19/traffic-light-health-labels-food

[marylander1940]

Sorry, rich, poor, middle income, smart, dumb, etc; at some point when are "we" going to be blamed for the decisions we make, not the makers of soda, not the McDonald's/Burger King/Wendy's of the world. It's really easy now to blame others for our own decisions and sham on us all. I'm fat, yes I'm fat. I eat and I drink, I make that decision. Do I blame McD's when they announce their super Monday sunday's or someplace else that says all the wings you can eat. Nope, I make that decision. And as soon as stupid asses who think others are making their decisions for them realize this the better

 

The continuation of the "lack of personal responsibility" society that we seem to be living in. There is only one person to blame for obesity: the big fat disgusting slob who keeps opening his/her pie hole and shoving more and more food into it. Give me a break about blaming anyone else. No one FORCES these people to eat anything. Period.

 

Exactly!

Obesity is a national security threat, if you love your country, go on a diet.

http://www.rebellesociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Be-the-change-you-want-to-see.jpg