Reader Feedback and Q&A Addendum to: Alternative Headache Relief? Ruby reminded me about Reflexology. If you press the nerve in the
web area between
the thumb and forefinger,
you can get almost instant relief from some types of headaches. She says she thinks walking the pressure works even
better than just using point pressure. I
have also fixed many a headache with pressure applied to the hollow at the back of the
neck, pushing upward into the skull. Reflexology is related to acupressure, which is
related to acupuncture. All of these methods are from the idea that you can alter the
brain’s perception of events (i.e., perceived pain) by stimulating a nerve that is
also connected to other areas of the body. I am unsure as to whether any of these actually
are capable of “curing” anything, but they have clearly been demonstrated to
provide short-term relief. Today we also
have a couple slightly off-subject questions, although they do ultimately bear on the
content of these newsletters. Q: First, one
of our readers has suggested that “perhaps you are too analytical
and should show your emotional side a bit more.” A: I suppose we could do that, but then
we would be no different than those people who are trying to sell you a product by using
their high level of excitement (an obvious play on your emotions). Human psychology
is used extensively in product marketing, playing with your emotions to their own ends.
I think that those who are hawking a specific product, often while defaming its
competitive or even its complementary products, cannot be trusted to be telling you
an unbiased truth. Then we would have to get into that whole “belief system”
ideology, and you’d all be wondering which camp we fall into. Many people choose to
believe in a specific religion, a specific social structure, or a specific political
structure without actually applying any logic to their beliefs. Likewise, many people buy
and use a product because they believe in it (regardless of how that belief was formed and
accepted) even if it has been scientifically proven
to have no possible beneficial effects at all. Your personal beliefs play a huge role
in your perceptions of consensus reality, and your personal reality is greatly
governed by them (this is where beliefs affect physical well-being to a major extent). But
I cannot set your beliefs for you (nor would I want to). Therefore, I
choose to maintain a neutral researcher-analyst role. I will give you the facts and
you can decide whether or not to apply your own emotional responses, then add those items
to your personal belief system (or not). Again, as usual, the choice is yours and yours
alone. Q: You claim that proper reasoning is best done using science. Yet science seems to be what you are steering us away from… away from the researchers and the labs that make all the products you say are bad for us. Do you want us to go backward (back-to-the-land movement) or forward toward the future? A: First, the back-to-the-land movement
is not what I espouse here at all. Man has sufficiently screwed this planet that such an
effort is only possible by some isolated groups of homesteaders. The majority population
couldn’t achieve that even if they wanted to. What I am pushing is the eating
of healthy foods instead of the corporate-farmed mass-produced thoroughly-altered garbage
most of us ingest routinely without any thought as to what it is doing to our bodies. Then, I guess I should say that I really
have no beef with scientists (I am one) or with the lab technicians. My anger is
about those people who take the data and twist it to the benefit of their pocketbooks
and the detriment of your health. As to the use of science and its processes
for reasoning, I’m going to throw in something here that I wrote for another list two
years ago (a couple people on this list might have seen this before). Hopefully this will
answer your question regarding my stand on scientific reasoning and processes. If I may take some liberties with this
questioner, scientists know far less than
the average person. The keyword in that statement is “know.” Each of us
claims to know something about some area of life, and the true scientist will be
the first to admit he knows very little about anything. Often, the more he learns,
the less he knows. That word implies you have access to all the facts and have
planted the logical conclusion firmly in your mind. Usually, when someone tells me he
knows all about X, what I figure he really means is that he got hold of one or two facts
(sometimes even pseudo-facts) and has formed a belief based on insufficient data. It is
that type of person I would like to steer all of you away from because most of what he
touts is pure fantasy and BS. The true scientist knows mostly that none of us has access
to all the possible facts and answers for any subject. Never mind the ones
with huge egos who claim to know everything – they decrease all of us by their
actions. As to how we can use science to teach
people to use reasoning, let us first dispel this myth about scientists and what science
is. The picture of some dweeb in a white coat, tape on his glasses, unruly hair, and a
pocket protector full of pens is a cartoon (I have drawn him a hundred times because
he is funny). If that is the image you have, you have been watching way too many Sci-Fi
and fantasy movies (or reading my cartoons). So what is it about? Well, I am going to
borrow heavily from Albert Einstein’s own explanation on this one (greatly
paraphrased, of course). Science is not a “thing” at all
– not like electricity or gravity or atoms. Those are subjects that might be
studied in a scientific manner, but “science” is merely the process
itself – the process by which we study those things, or anything else for that
matter. Science is a process for arriving at conclusions about what is probably true
and what is probably not true. That is all it
is. Its end product is simply reliable information. And the problem of
knowing what to believe – what is true and what is not – is surely the most
important problem that the human race has been grappling with for as long as it has
existed. How many –isms and –ologies have been invented, all purporting to have the
one and only answer? And what are their answers really worth? Most
systems set out to prove or rationalize something that they have made up their minds about
before doing any testing whatsoever. True
Science does not do that. That is a hopeless way to proceed if what you really
want to know is the truth. Its goal is to understand what is really out there
– what the <universe/world/medicine/pick-a-subject> is really like – and
it accepts that whatever the reality is, it will be totally uninfluenced
by what you or I might choose to think, or by how many others we might persuade to agree
with us. The truth is not impressed by our campaigning to recruit others to our cause; it
simply doesn’t care what you choose to believe. That is why most scientists don’t
pay much attention to debating skills (facts are not debatable issues, no matter
what the media would like you to believe – conclusions, however, are often
debatable). We leave debates to lawyers and theologians (though the philosopher in me
often enjoys a good debate). The eloquence and
emotional appeal of the manner in which ideas are presented has absolutely nothing to do
with whether or not they are true. Science is simply a
formalized version of common sense. And because the purpose is to understand the world
as it really is, and not to persuade anyone else of anything in particular, there
is no place for deception,(1) especially unconscious self-deception.
You can’t get away with fooling yourself because all that will happen at the end of
the process if you fail to detect your own errors is that your airplane <pick a
project> won’t fly. Your mind and your perception of results might be deceivable,
but the laws of Nature cannot be deceived. So there is a strong underlying ethical
principle woven into the very fabric of the scientific process – something that is
all too often overlooked in other areas of our lives. Wouldn’t it be nice if all
other fields of human endeavor would use this process? Instead of trying to prop up the things
that you would like to be true, science does the opposite – it tries
everything it can think of to bring its ideas down. That’s what experiments are
designed to do – to prove theories false. And if the theory survives, it comes out so
much the stronger. Therefore, like an evolutionary process, which indeed it is, science is
all the time testing itself and correcting itself. It thrives on questions, challenges,
dissent, and criticism. The most ruthless scrutiny that it is subjected to is its own, so
it stays healthy and grows sturdier. How pathetic and fragile are those
systems of thought that dare not expose their followers to any dissenting view or
alternative explanation.(2) Such systems are forced to ban whatever
they have no answers for and to suppress everything that they cannot compete with.(3) Eventually, those systems will wither
and die. Eventually the oppressors always end up being buried by their intended victims.
Unfortunately, this sometimes takes a few hundred years, so that is why I want to teach
you not to be taken in by them in the first place. Note 1: We have all heard about some scientists who do practice deception, but
they are always those who are in it for the money or the notoriety, not for the pure
science. They might fake their results to get a government grant or to get their names in
the newspapers, but it is not those dishonest types I am talking about here. Note 2: We all know people in that category. They come in all packages and areas
of life, from TV evangelists who have done prison time for fraud, yet still have thousands
of followers, to doctors who invent dubious “scientific” devices that do
absolutely nothing, yet they have hundreds of testimonials that “prove” those
“miraculous inventions” have saved their lives. In all cases, these people
refuse to have their claims analyzed by non-believers (or truly independent labs) because
then they would be clearly shown to be the frauds they are. Note 3: A great example is why the pharmaceutical companies poo-pooh herbals
– if the herb can fix you, the Pharma guys are out of business. “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” - Dresden James
The following is from the University of Illinois Extension Office: Cholesterol is a complex fatty substance found in every living cell. We cannot live without it. It provides the building blocks from which the body makes its own supply of sex and adrenal hormones. Cholesterol can also be converted to vitamin D in our body and used for the calcification of bones and teeth. Your body is capable of making its own supply of cholesterol. In fact, most of the cholesterol found in your body is made there; only part of it comes from the food you eat. The liver and intestines are the primary sites where it is manufactured. Overproduction of cholesterol may be the most important factor contributing to arteriosclerosis(4), a form of hardening of the arteries. Probably 90% of all cases of strokes and heart attacks are due to arteriosclerosis. Note 4: I am amused that even those folks we cheer on for their open-mindedness
often fail to see that it is not our bodies that overproduce the cholesterol that is
harmful to us, but the fungi producing the vLDL that is the cause of problems such as
arteriosclerosis. Numerous dietary studies have been undertaken to determine the effect of cholesterol intake on the level in the body. Thirteen patients at the Highland Hospital in Oakland, California, were fed the equivalent in egg yolks of that found in 15 eggs per day for a three week period. The serum cholesterol did not increase significantly in any except two bedridden, obese patients. Four of the seven ambulatory patients in the study actually showed a slight decrease in serum cholesterol. In the Ireland-Boston Heart Study, the researchers followed 600 Irishmen between the ages of 30 and 60 who had lived in Boston for 10 or more years and their brothers who had never left the old country. The Irish brothers ate about twice as many eggs as their American brothers – averaging over 14/week. Yet, the Irish brothers had lower levels of cholesterol in their bloodstream, and their hearts were rated from 2-to-6 times healthier. The same Harvard doctor examined both groups. “More physical exercise” was given as a possible reason for this difference. Dr. Robert Itchiness, a cardiologist in New York City, specializing in metabolic disorders, has treated over 8,000 patients. He lowered the serum cholesterol markedly in 63% of his patients with a diet high in meat, milk, and eggs. Dr. Itchiness believes that 95% of all heart trouble is associated with high serum triglycerides and attributes this to the staggering increase in sugar consumption – up from seven pounds per person in 1840 to over 100 pounds today. (Because we know that all fungi produce triglycerides, doesn’t it make sense that to feed the fungus by eating more sugar would naturally raise triglyceride levels?) Some rather striking changes have occurred in the average American’s
diet during the past 15 years. Consumption of vegetable oils has increased markedly while
consumption of animal fats has declined. Per capita consumption of eggs, butter, and fat
meats has declined. In spite of these shifts, cardiovascular disease has
increased. This suggests other risk factors are playing an increasingly important
role. (Yes, fungus. Eating more corn oil, soy, whole
grains, and partially hydrogenated oils – margarine – just increases the amount
of mycotoxins and fungi in your system. It’s no wonder heart disease is on the
increase.) Nevertheless, many in the medical profession still
recommend major dietary changes for the entire population. (This is insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a
different result. They can see that their recommended dietary changes haven’t helped;
in fact they’ve made the problem worse, and yet they still persist in promoting it?) We’ll discuss their proposed diets (SAD) versus what is really
healthy in a future issue. The following is from aecl.org (Australian Egg Corporation, Limited).
While that would, at first, appear to be an extremely pro-egg biased report, it contains
facts that cannot be refuted. Spelling has been adjusted for American eyes. J Early epidemiological studies also
identified dietary cholesterol as having cholesterol raising effects, however data from
subsequent population-based surveys has identified only a weak positive relationship
between dietary cholesterol and CHD (coronary heart
disease) risk. Furthermore, this association is often lost when the data is statistically adjusted to remove other factors that
could be contributing to confounding(5) the results. For example, in
one study, dietary cholesterol intake was measured in a group of 871 middle-aged men.
After a 10-year follow-up, intake of dietary cholesterol was not significantly related to
coronary death, but at 20 years a positive association was observed. After taking into
account established risk factors for CHD, the association was found to be not significant.
(This
could be used in both directions – “Spin Doctoring.” Skew the facts and
adjust the numbers, and you can come up with any result you like.) Note 5: The use of confounding and confounders here is intended to mean “those factors that
could not be controlled and which might have negative impact on the results.” For
example, lying about what you ate as a late-night snack last night or any illegal drugs
you might be taking. In a 16-year follow up of 813 men, initially disease free, 123 individuals developed coronary disease. After adjustment for multiple confounders,(5) no significant relationship was observed between dietary cholesterol and CHD risk. A study of 4,546 men and women with a 12-year follow-up identified no association of dietary cholesterol and increased death risk after taking into account energy intake and other risk factors for CHD. In a large study of 80,082 nurses, a 14-year follow-up identified 939 cases of coronary heart disease. After accounting for multiple confounders including saturated, polyunsaturated, mono and trans fats, dietary cholesterol was positively associated with CHD risk but the relationship was not statistically significant. It must be noted that fiber was not included as a confounder in this study even though fiber has been associated with increased CHD disease risk. (Fiber??? As in whole grains? That “heart-healthy” food is actually bad for you? J Interesting that they decided it was bad, even though they don’t know why.) Therefore, the strength of this association may have been even further weakened had this confounder been included in the analyses. However, in a recent study from this same cohort that assessed the effect of dietary fat and cholesterol on the risk of CHD among women with type-2 diabetes, it was found that an increase of 200mg cholesterol/ 1000k calorie resulted in a 37% increase in risk. In a review of dietary cholesterol intake and CHD risk, McNamara supported
the argument that questions the positive association described between dietary cholesterol
consumption and CHD risk. McNamara reinforced the observations that early studies
establishing the link between dietary cholesterol and CHD risk were frequently based on
simple statistical analysis and therefore did not take into consideration potential
confounders such as saturated fat and fiber intake. (Here
we go with the fiber again. What would your dietician say if she knew that increased fiber
intake actually promoted heart disease?) He also identified
recent population-based studies that used more advanced statistical analyses to account
for these confounders, which resulted in dietary cholesterol no longer being associated
with CHD mortality. (So the scientists who studied this
in detail found no relation between dietary cholesterol intake and increase blood
cholesterol… are you starting to get the drift?) In
addition to the population studies described in this review, McNamara further identified a
number of prospective studies that have reported no relationship between dietary
cholesterol and CHD endpoints when more advanced statistical analyses were used. Although
some researchers have interpreted these recent statistical analyses as confirmation that
little or no relationship exists between dietary cholesterol and CHD risk, this viewpoint
is still under considerable debate. (Of course it is, because the American Heart
Association would be out of business if everyone had healthy hearts. They must continue to
blather about eating vegetable oils and meat substitutes (soy) so you can continue to get
sick and need them – and the prescriptions they promote. I don’t give a rip
whether you think I’m crazy or not, but I DO believe there is a conspiracy afoot, and
the pharmaceutical companies – and government in general – are at the root of it
all. You see, I’m the emotional one in this family, not Rich! J) A further note about fiber: the
above-referenced researchers seemed to think that fiber (or too much of it, they weren’t
very clear on that) was bad. It must be remembered that there are many different kinds of
fibers – soluble, insoluble, from grains, from green vegetables, from beans, etc. So
I’m not saying that I think all fiber is bad, but obviously some are. Those
scientists seem to agree, but again, we don’t know which specific fiber they were
referring to. I have to assume it was grains. The fiber obtained from vegetables
(excluding corn and grains) are very necessary to a functioning digestive tract. Lannie’s “guess” here is
based entirely on reading this document as a stand-alone source. From other documents, on
other subjects, but which also brought up dietary fiber as a potential CHD issue, the
fibers they were talking about were indeed grains. And what else is it that we know exists
as a “universal contaminant” in most grains? Yes, mycotoxins, which most
certainly are a CHD problem. Could it be that the above researchers have merely missed
that link? The following
is from Dr. Joseph Mercola’s “Don’t
Be Chicken of the Egg.” He is also author of the Total Health Program. See http://www.mercola.com/2000/nov/12/eggs.htm A number of studies have been conducted
that examined the relationship between egg consumption and serum cholesterol
concentrations. A recent large study used data from 27,378 individuals obtained from the
National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES III 1988-94). In this study,
individuals who reported eating four or more eggs/week had a significantly lower mean
cholesterol concentration than those who reported eating less than one egg/week. (Did
he just say that eating eggs lowers your cholesterol? Why? Maybe because eggs are
antifungal?) In a study among 912 males and females, a complete lack of association was
observed between serum cholesterol levels and egg consumption. In this study, it was
observed that men in the highest third of the egg intake distribution had identical serum
cholesterol levels to men in the lowest third (5.98mmol/L). Women eating fewer eggs
demonstrated slightly higher serum cholesterol levels than those at the highest intake
level (6.23 vs 6.16mmol/L). With respect to risk of coronary events, it was observed that
individuals consuming more eggs were at a slightly higher risk but the difference was not
statistically significant. Moreover, the analysis did not account for any potential
confounding factors. (The article goes on to say that
about 15% of the population is “sensitive” to dietary cholesterol, meaning that
their total blood serum cholesterol rises and falls in relation to their dietary
cholesterol intake. The increases are usually minor, ±2%, which is more than offset by
other factors such as a 73% increase in heart disease risk due to obesity, a
51% decrease in risk due to 90 minutes of exercise per week, and a 42% decrease
in risk due to consuming healthy fats rather than hydrogenated
or trans-fats. Also, for some reason not fully explained in the article, diabetics
should not consume excess dietary cholesterol – consuming more than one egg a day,
for instance, was causing high spikes in LDL cholesterol in diabetics. Evidently it’s
something in the blood chemistry, but it wasn’t explained…) Of course, we could go on with the studies almost indefinitely that
show, statistically, that the cholesterol in eggs does not affect the cholesterol in your
body. So, what’s the real reason we keep hearing that we should stay away from these
foods? It can’t be the money trail, can it? How does a doctor make money from telling
you to not eat eggs? Or is this, perhaps, reverse psychology? Whatever the authority
figures tell us to do, we’ll do the opposite? And then, the money trail can be
followed because the pharmaceutical corporations put many ads on TV that tell you not to
worry because they have a magic pill that will take care of that for you. That puts the
decision back in your hands (psychological manipulation) by making it your choice to solve
your problems as per their suggestions. And, of course, your doctor is only too happy to
write whatever script you ask him for. So now you can eat whatever you like, take your
magic pills, and everyone is fat, dumb, and happy. Except that the statin drugs you are
taking to lower your cholesterol just happen to increase your risk of heart problems more
than any food you could possibly consume. Oh well… not their problem. It was, after
all, you who asked for the drug. Use of the
antibiotic amoxicillin during infancy appears to be linked to tooth enamel defects in
permanent teeth, according to a study in the October issue of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine. Dental fluorosis, a result of exposure to excessive fluoride during enamel formation, is one of the most common developmental enamel defects, according to background information in the article. The clinical signs range from barely noticeable white flecks, to pits and brown stains. Amoxicillin is one of the most common antibiotics used among pediatric patients, mainly for treatment of otitis media – infection and inflammation of the middle ear. There has been some evidence that amoxicillin use could be associated with dental enamel defects, and, the authors suggest, even a small effect on dental enamel could have a significant effect on the public’s dental health because of the widespread use of amoxicillin. Psychiatric
Drugs in the News Investigative reporter Robert Whitaker, author of the groundbreaking book Mad In America, is now pursuing a fascinating line of research into how the mammoth psychiatric drug industry is endangering the American public by covering up the untold cases of suffering, anguish and disease caused by the most widely prescribed antidepressants and antipsychotic medications.
Whitaker exposes the massive lies and cover-ups that have corrupted the Food and Drug Administration’s drug review process, and co-opted research trials in order to spin the results of drug tests and conceal the serious hazards and even deadly side-effects of brand-name drugs like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil and Zyprexa. The story becomes even more frightening when we look at the aggressive tactics these giant drug companies have used to silence prominent critics by defaming them in the press, and by using their money and power to have widely respected scientists and eminent medical researchers fired for daring to point out the hazards and risks of suicide and premature death caused by these drugs. Whitaker starts by debunking the effectiveness of these massively hyped wonder drugs -- antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil, and the new atypical antipsychotic drugs like Zyprexa. His research shows how they often are barely more effective than placebos in treating mental disorder and depression, despite the glowing adulation they have received in the mainstream media. But he goes on to make the startling claim that these new psychiatric drugs have directly contributed to an alarming new epidemic of drug-induced mental illness. The very drugs prescribed by physicians to stabilize mental disorders, in fact, are inducing pathological changes in brain chemistry and triggering suicide, manic and psychotic episodes, convulsions, violence, diabetes, pancreatic failure, metabolic diseases, and premature death. Whitaker originally was a highly regarded medical reporter at the Albany Times Union and also wrote off and on for the Boston Globe. A series he co-wrote for the Boston Globe on harmful psychiatric research was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. When he began his investigative research into psychiatric issues, Whitaker was still a believer in the story of progress that psychiatry has been telling the public for decades. See more at: http://www.newstarget.com/000843.html What is not mentioned in the above
paragraphs is the serious problem encountered by people when they are trying to get off
some of these drugs. A woman on a health forum I belong to was recently recounting her
withdrawal horrors while she was trying to get off the antidepressant Cymbalta. She had
been taking it for a year for depression, but after she changed her diet, she decided that
she no longer needed it, so she began weaning herself off of it, with the approval and
instruction of her doctor. All went well until she stopped taking it completely and then
she started suffering from panic attacks, waking up suddenly in the middle of the night
filled with anxiety, restless motor reflexes (couldn’t stop moving), and insomnia.
She is finally getting better, but she was at the point that she was thinking of going
back on the drug just to stop the withdrawal symptoms. I don’t think this subject is
discussed by your doctor when he’s prescribing the drug in the first place. I don’t
know about the other antidepressants (that woman was taking only one of them), but I have
to assume that because they all have similar physical mechanisms at work, they probably
all have withdrawal symptoms to some degree. As I have been saying for many years,
whenever a doctor puts you on a drug, before you have even taken the first pill, you
should discuss an “exit strategy” with your doctor. Never let a doctor put you
on any drug unless you can also get off of it some day. No one should ever have a
need to take any drug for the rest of his/her life. There are alternatives. Are Foods made just for Women
really Better for Women? by Larry Lindner I tried Quaker’s “Nutrition for Women” Instant Oatmeal, but it didn’t “smooth out” my body’s “changing metabolism” like the label said it would. I guess that’s just as well, though, since, as one of those people with an Adam’s apple, I was eating outside my gender. The ingredient in the cereal spotlighted for metabolism smooth-out is soy. A press release says the oatmeal promotes “hormone balance with soy protein.” But the label on the product doesn’t specify how much is in there, so I called the 800 number. It turns out there is about as much soy in a packet of Quaker’s Nutrition for Women Oatmeal as in a largish forkful of tofu. There are also 13 grams of sugar, essentially the same amount as in a serving of Count Chocula.
But I digress. The oatmeal’s package states, in much larger print than the print announcing the 13 grams of sugar, that it “provides a unique combination of nutrients designed specially for women.” These include varying fractions of the Daily Value for calcium, vitamin D, B vitamins like folic acid, and vitamin E, which is all good; sort of like eating a bowl of Count Chocula and taking a low-dose multivitamin. More hype than nutrition? From Quaker’s Nutrition for Women I moved onto General Mills Harmony, “a low-fat nutritional cereal for women” and “a delicious combination of vanilla, crispy flakes and almond oat clusters.” It, too, has sugar up there in the Count Chocula/Frosted Flakes range along with 440 milligrams of sodium, the amount in two to three snack-size bags of potato chips. Oh, yeah, it has a smidgen of soy as well, and as much vitamin C to “help maintain a healthy immune system” as one third of a glass of orange juice. The press release for Harmony says “the cereal’s name communicates balance and implies that the various elements of women’s wellness from the intricacies of a woman’s body to her attitudes about health are working in harmony with each other.” Promotional materials also say that the package design’s “soft blue and yellow tones add calm to the breakfast table.” Companies market to women You’ve obviously come a long way, Baby, and not just in the cereal aisle. Women can now buy energy bars, fruit smoothies, fruit spritzers, and Femme Vitale vitamin and herb drinks pitched specifically to them. The bars, smoothies, and spritzers come under the Viactiv label, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Mead Johnson. The Viactiv Nutrition Products Fact Sheet says the smoothies “are designed as a morning wake-me-up and a satisfying beverage to curb a woman’s hunger.” An eight-ounce serving contains 150 calories. The spritzers, “made to refresh and revitalize, are a light and tasty blend of zingy real fruit juices and sparkling water” with “a burst of caffeine for an instant pick-me-up.” (Each container has only 10% actual fruit juice.) And the bars, “designed as a light snack for the middle of the day when women want something to pick them up” (Mead Johnson is obviously into picking women up) contains that ubiquitous women’s favorite: soy. The Fact Sheet notes, I kid you not, that the energy bars feature more protein than pretzels (which have about as much protein as the Quaker cereal has soy). I asked my friend Christine what she thought about all this, wondering if maybe it’s like they say in the makeup commercial “I’m worth it.” “Forget energy bars,” responded Christine, a registered dietitian. “When I want to indulge myself I buy Ben ‘n Jerry’s Southern Pecan Pie ice cream.” Obviously I have much to learn about affairs of the shopping cart. But then what would I, a mere demographic footnote in the supermarket, know, anyway? Kids targeted, too Children, too, are given a lot of heed, with food marketers courting them at least as assiduously as they court women. I mean, let’s face it, a frozen meal of Macaroni & Cheese with chocolate chip cookies and “a double puzzle free inside” is for the nursery school set. You’d be pretty surprised to see one of your colleagues cracking open one of those at the corporate conference table. And would you nuke, for yourself, a dinner of Fun Feast Cheese Pizza with a picture of Snoopy on the front or Dinosaur Shaped Fun Nuggets? Of course, with kids, it gets more complicated. They’re even less likely than adults to check out Nutrition Facts labels and find, for example, that the pizza meal has more sugar than a package of Goobers. Or that the Fun Nuggets (made with chicken) have more than 20% of the adult daily sodium limit. Even more problematic than the lost nutrition opportunities is the loss of the family meal. By pitching different dinners for different members of the household, marketers are undermining the nightly ritual of everyone coming together at the table. Influencing kids’
preferences Another way of putting it: It might seem like a microwaveable TV dinner is a good alternative to cookies and chips for parents who work long hours and can’t make it home in time for dinner or are just too exhausted to prepare a meal once they get home. But the prominent ingredient missing from such meals is parent-child-sibling interaction. Without sharing meals, you don’t have a shot at teaching children how to enjoy the variety of foods to which you are accustomed, they grow up thinking that soft, salty, and sugary is the only way to go. You also don’t have a shot at teaching children how to behave during meals. Mealtime is social interaction time, where kids learn everything from how to use silverware properly to how to say, “No, thank you,” to how to engage in adult conversation. How’s a youngster going to get all that if you’re grabbing a bowl of Harmony and she’s eating a Kid Cuisine Corn Dog with “2 Cherry Flavored Frozen-Pops” and the man on hand is chowing down on a Sloppy Joe or some other “man” food? This isn’t just hypothetical blather. Research indicates quite clearly that children’s food choices are strongly dictated by the preferences of their parents and siblings. Indeed, University of Nebraska research shows that when children eat meals with their parents and siblings, they eat more nutritiously. Children who get to enjoy the structure and discipline involved in the family’s getting together at mealtimes also feel more secure and thereby have an easier time advancing their cognitive, or knowledge-acquiring, skills. None of this business about the consequences of parceling out different foods to different family members even begins to speak to the issue of the mayhem created at the grocery store. Granted, each person in a household has his or her preferences, and they deserve to be catered to, to some degree. But do eating regimens really have to become as involved as fitness regimens, with separate foods for women and children? Isn’t life complicated enough without the weekly shopping list getting divided into separate gender and age-based mini-lists? It makes me nervous. I need a Manwich. It makes me shudder! I need a
plateful of broccoli, hold the soy, please. J OK, folks… the above article
demonstrates fairly clearly the following statistic: In 1980, surveys of numerous
chain-type grocery stores showed that approximately 10% of the foods being sold fell into
the category of “processed foods.” Today, the survey shows that processed foods
make up about 90% of all the foods available in those same grocery stores. Now, whose
fault is that? Ours! If we, the consumers, did not buy those foods, the manufacturers
would not continue to make the existing products and continually create new ones to
satisfy the obvious laziness demonstrated by their demographic studies. It is just not
fiscally responsible for them to make something you aren’t buying, but because you
do, and in large quantities, that has become the new “norm” for American grocery
stores. So, once again, read those labels! And stop buying the garbage
that isn’t good for you. (Gee, was that emotional enough?) J |