# think about it



## dagger (Feb 4, 2005)

saw an ad on TV for low sodium Goya chic peas and I'm sure  they are right next their high sodium peas, does this make sense. Campbell's makes chunky soup and Healthy Request soup half the fat and sodium sold side by side. Duh, why not just make all products with less sodium and fat.


----------



## pete (Oct 7, 2001)

Because not everyone wants that.  There is a definite taste difference between 2 items like that.  These companies are in business to make money, not police what people put into their bodies.  If it ever got to the point where the full sodium/full fat versions were no longer making money then these companies would probably drop those items.


----------



## dagger (Feb 4, 2005)

Well in NY they are passing laws doing just that. Limiting types of fats and amount of sodium restaurants can use. They even trying to limig size of soft drinks and ages on who can buy them. My god these kids text and play video games all day, get up and move. Not everyone was ment to be thin, some are over weight by no fault of their own


----------



## pete (Oct 7, 2001)

Do you really want government intruding into your life that much-telling you how big of a soda to drink?  Personally, I don't want the government that involved in my life, nor is that the duty of the government.  Sure, right now it's trans fats and overly sugared soft drinks, but what happens when they determine that that grande frappucino contains more sugar or caffine than a person needs, or that you can't decide for yourself whether to risk eating that sunny side up egg?  People need to take responsibility for themselves, but it isn't the government's job to babysit them if they don't.


----------



## grande (May 14, 2014)

The lady teaching my Servesafe course a few years ago said, "You can make that choice, for the good of your customers, to bring your meat in precooked." I about gagged.


----------



## phatch (Mar 29, 2002)

The manufacturers and canners have voluntarily acted to reduce sodium and sugar in general in their products. Like the MPAA or the Comics Code, this is about reacting to fears of restrictive legislation. By making efforts to adapt to the market proactively, they stay ahead of what could be stringent and restrictive legislation. But they'll keep what they can on the market because there are limits to how much you can reduce salt and still have the right flavor.


----------



## pete (Oct 7, 2001)

Manufacturers label their products, so is it really the government's responsibility to "save us from ourselves" by enacting restrictive legislation on things such as sugar, fat content, etc?


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Choices schmoices. Hate to bring this up, but the U.S. is the one of the very few developed countries that doesn't really have a health care plan. The countries that do have one are concerned about putting stress on the whole medical field (and general health of the public at large....) and are looking for ways to avoid this. One way is to limit sodium and high calorie intake.

Hey,I'm a cook and a pastry chef, I know nothing about nutrition or sodium, and I hate paul-ticks.

_*HOWEVER *_I do know the same thing that every bartender the world over knows:

That salt is a thirst and appetite stimulant.

Avoid consuming large quantities of sodium, and you avoid consuming large calorie intakes of sweetened beverages and high calorie foods.

People are stupid and put a lot of trust and faith in advertising. Sometimes you need a whack over the head to wake you up. Maybe mandated regulations are a "good" whack over the head.

But then again, what do I know? I'm just a cook and pastry chef........


----------



## chefross (May 5, 2010)

foodpump said:


> Choices schmoices. Hate to bring this up, but the U.S. is the one of the very few developed countries that doesn't really have a health care plan. The countries that do have one are concerned about putting stress on the whole medical field (and general health of the public at large....) and are looking for ways to avoid this. One way is to limit sodium and high calorie intake.
> 
> Hey,I'm a cook and a pastry chef, I know nothing about nutrition or sodium, and I hate paul-ticks.
> 
> ...


It would seem that people can not take responsibility for what they put into their bodies and must therefore blame someone or something.


----------



## pete (Oct 7, 2001)

I don't disagree that diets that are high in sodium and fat and not healthy, but do you really want our government intruding even further into our lives, dictating what we can and cannot eat?  And unless we outlaw all things bad for us then doesn't just become arbitrary?  I don't see a whole lot, healthwise, that is redeeming about bacon, or pizza or burgers.  So why stop at some things, but allow others?  And who makes that decision for us?  Sorry, but I don't want the government trying to regulate us into healthy living.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

I dunno Pete,

I'm currently on my second season of "Madmen" on Netflix.  I still can't get over the fact that everyone smoked back then (early '60's): Doctors while examining, their patients, pregnant women, in the office, etc.

Q: Who, in the U.S., put the screw on smoking, and for what reasons?

An other thing in Madmen was the mentality that it was O.K to drive a car when totally drunk,   Again, who cracked down on drunk driving and for what reasons?

U.S. car mnfctrs wouldn't put seat belts in their cars, who made them do it and why?  And again U.S. car mnfctrs refused to wean themselves off of leaded gasoline.  Who made them wean themselves off of it and why?

Personally,  I feel the world is a much better place with no smoking in public areas and "O" tolerance to drunk driving, I'm pretty sure everyone else does too.

Personal choices are one thing, but when personal choices affect those around them, it really starts to get people and Gov'ts thinking.  Childhood obesity is steadily rising in N.America and the strain it will put on the health care system--not to mention on those affected, will be staggering.

Chef Ross is right on the money with his  observation that people need someone to blame for their choices. I'm sure we've all seen customers blame their servers for their choices--on  daily basis.  It takes very strong character to acknowledge your own choices and their consequences.....


----------



## cerise (Jul 5, 2013)

Dagger said:


> *saw an ad on TV *for low sodium Goya chic peas and* I'm sure they are right next their high sodium peas, *does this make sense. Campbell's makes chunky soup and Healthy Request soup half the fat and sodium sold side by side. *Duh, why not just make all products with less sodium and fat.*


I am unclear re your query/title re what you are asking. Re "I''m sure they are next to..."

There are multiple choices out there, and multiple brands. Choose what is right for you and yours.

If you don't care for the way your local market is set up, talk to the Manager, or seek another market.

I feel, like legs are being pullèd.


----------



## chefwriter (Oct 31, 2012)

I'm with Pete on this. Being an informed consumer is the goal of having calorie counts on menu items, ingredient info on labels and other various other nutritional information available. This is beneficial to making good choices. But millions now know that fast food and soda aren't a healthy daily diet. They still have the choice to eat it or not. In response to those choices, many fast food corporations began offering healthier menu items. Government isn't making fast food illegal, it is just making sure consumers are informed. Consumers then make their own choices. 

     This isn't comparable to smoking, driving drunk or seat belts. Those activities had a direct, immediate and measurable impact on others.

    Smoking in public places made those places immediately unhealthy and uncomfortable for anyone in the vicinity. Anti smoking legislation is designed to minimize the social impact on a directly measurable public problem. 

Driving drunk has an immediately negative effect on other drivers, pedestrians and property.  

     Seat belts prevent serious injury and death in otherwise survivable accidents in direct and measurable ways. Manufacturers were reluctant to install them because of the additional cost and concern that car sales would be negatively affected, much as fast food companies were initially concerned that calorie counts on menus would negatively impact sales but the direct relationship between wearing a seatbelt and better survival rates was never really in question. 

      Eating habits and the impacts on health are too varied, include too many factors and are too subjective to be legislated with an across the board mentality. On the flip side of this thinking, would we legislate that every person eat a salad every day? Or legislate and somehow enforce everyone drinking 8 glasses of water a day? Those are both healthy choices but legislating and enforcing them is absurd. If I can't get a massive soda at a fast food restaurant, is the grocery store going to limit how much soda I buy and insist that I instead buy bottled water for my own good? 

      Childhood obesity is currently under scrutiny but no single cause has yet been identified. If there was a single, defining cause for fat kids, we could discuss the potential for legislation. But like so many other facets of life, there are many factors at play and a simple solution is not forthcoming any time soon. 

     Some people enjoy learning and being informed about food. Others don't care so much. Providing for informed choice is a laudable goal for legislation but legislating personal decision making is not.


----------



## cerise (Jul 5, 2013)

I think you are making a mockery of this sitè.

Don't get your screen name either.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Cerise said:


> I think you are making a mockery of this sitè.
> 
> Don't get your screen name either.


O.K. But more importantly, why do you think this?

Everyone has opinions, and no one's calling anyone dirty names or arguing tooth and nail. I don't agree with Pete or Chefwriter, but they both make some valuable and intelligent points. This is what healthy discussion is all about.


----------



## dagger (Feb 4, 2005)

I rember a cooking show done by to drs that yes we need to limit the amount of sugar but also crapy ingredients the food manufacturers started using to save money like corn syrup. The body processes foods different ways and they said corn syrup is one the body can't handle or burn up right away like sugar. Not all sugars are alike like salt, think before refrigeratesion salting food was the only way to preserve meat. All this has been around for centuries and we are still here bigger and stronger, why so bad now? I don't rember reading about millions dropping over from a can of soda or eating a donut.


----------



## panini (Jul 28, 2001)

Oh, Excuse me. I'm sorry. I was looking for The Late Night Forum, ya know, off topic. I want to throw something out there and see what others thought.

/img/vbsmilies/smilies/drinkbeer.gif

/img/vbsmilies/smilies/drinkbeer.gif


----------



## pete (Oct 7, 2001)

Exactly who is making a mockery out of this site?

I think the question is a very legitimate one and, while I might not agree with all the answers, the dialogue has been a good one, with everyone contributing something to the conversation.  I don't see what the problem is.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Mmmm... Oh we are define


Dagger said:


> think before refrigeratesion salting food was the only way to preserve meat. All this has been around for centuries and we are still here bigger and stronger, why so bad now? I don't rember reading about millions dropping over from a can of soda or eating a donut.


Well yeah, we are getting bigger, just ask any airline or any casket mnfctr. Schools too will tell you that there are more and more overweight and obese kids every year.

Point I want to make, is that no one is going to drop dead over a can of soda or donut, but the fact that that obesity is putting one heck-uva strain on every developed nation's healthcare system. For the health care workers, this means more injuries on the job moving heavy patients, getting them bathed/dressed etc. For the obese, it means much higher odds of getting type II diabetes, and the side effects this can have (blindness, amputation, etc). For everyone else, it means much higher health care insurance premiums, longer wait times for specialists, and longer wait times for surgeries and procedures in hospitals. One other point I need to make is that a stressed healthcare system will not perform as well when a natural disaster strikes, or an epidemic like bird flu, e-coli, etc. comes a-calling.

But you are right, our forbears have eaten enormous quantities of food and survived, quite well in fact. Thing is, our forbears also expended an enormous amount of calories too....

Look 40 years ago when I went to school every kid would walk the 3 or 5 blocks to school. At lunch, we got 90 minutes lunchbreak and walked home and back for lunch. At recess and after school we would play hockey in the winter and street hockey in the summer (guess you can tell I'm Canadian, eh?). In other words, we expended calories. At home we had chores, like lawn mowing, raking leaves, painting fences, and whatever else our parents could dream up. Today, any kid under 15 who walks to school un escorted by an adult will get his parents arrested, or have Social Services pay a call and issue a fine, lunchbreaks are under 30 minutes, recesses shortened, etc. Is this purely coincidence or can we connect children's obesity to lack of exercise and consumption of foods rich in sugar, fat, and salt?

While I am in no position to ponder the origins of obesity, or why it is exploding so quickly in the last 20 or so years, I do know two ways of controlling obesity: Control calorie intake, and control calorie expenditure. Having coke machines in schools is no help, neither is lobbying the Senate to accept french fries as a "vegetable" and pizza as a "fruit" (on account of the tomato paste, rich in Vit. C and a tomato IS a fruit...) for school lunches.

I also beg to differ that salting was the only method prior to refrigeration to preserve meat. From Pemmican to dried Cod, from waxed duck to blachan, every nation and culture has a method for drying meats, fish, and produce.

But this is a great topic and I hope others will contribute to it.


----------



## pete (Oct 7, 2001)

Foodpump, I don't think anyone will disagree that our Western, American diet can be pretty terrible and we have become, generally, lazy as a society, where kids would rather play on their Playstations than go outside, move around, and play pretend like we did when I was a kid.  But I have to ask, do you seriously advocate letting our government intrude into our lives so much that they can dictate what we eat?  Let's face it, our government is divided on things like global warming and vaccines (please don't air your views on either topic here-the point is they are divided) so what makes you think they can come up with a comprehensive solution to healthy eating?  Remember a few years ago when everyone was saying that eggs were terrible for you, but now are okay, at least in moderation.  There was a time when fat was pure evil and to be avoided at all costs, now we understand that some fat is vital to a healthy diet.  What if our government acted on those "fads." And how does the government handle that person that, since jumbo sized sodas are outlawed, now drinks 3 20 oz Cokes per day instead of the 1 large 32 oz. cup of soda?  If we are going to legislate what we can and cannot eat, then do we also legislate how many hours of exercise we must get per week?

No, you cannot legislate people into being healthy, nor does that really jive with our country's moral standards of freedom.  If you want to educate people and guide them to a healthier lifestyle then hit them where it counts, in their pocketbook or reward for good behavior.  My insurance company offers a $20 a month discount for non-smokers.  My company recently ran a contest where you had to swap out an unhealthy drink with a healthy drink 21 days out of the month, and if you did you won a Fitbit.  Now, these aren't perfect solutions as people can lie, but it goes towards getting people to be involved in modifying their behavior which is much better, and a heck of a lot less messy than trying to legislate them into healthy behaviors.


----------



## cerise (Jul 5, 2013)

n/a


----------



## phatch (Mar 29, 2002)

An interesting article on topic

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/health/30salt.html?_r=0&referer=



> Even as it was moving from one line of defense to another, the processed food industry's own dependence on salt deepened, interviews with company scientists show. Beyond its own taste, salt also masks bitter flavors and counters a side effect of processed food production called "warmed-over flavor," which, the scientists said, can make meat taste like "cardboard" or "damp dog hair."
> 
> Salt also works in tandem with fat and sugar to achieve flavors that grip the consumer and do not let go - an allure the industry has recognized for decades. "Once a preference is acquired," a top scientist at Frito-Lay wrote in a 1979 internal memorandum, "most people do not change it, but simply obey it."
> 
> ...


----------



## chefwriter (Oct 31, 2012)

I remember the anti egg scare well. NY jumped on it with the idea of legislating that no one would be allowed over easy eggs. Well done or nothing. That lasted about five minutes before they dropped it. But it was considered. Many of our breakfast customers had a good laugh while talking about it while eating their over easy eggs. 

    Certainly video games play a role in kids' lack of outside activity. And as was brought up, there have been recent cases where authorities were called because children were playing/walking without supervision. My child hood was filled with running throughout the neighborhood and the woods out back, over the hills all afternoon. I still ended up a chubby kid but I like eating so maybe that was inevitable.

     Processed foods have been around much longer than the last twenty years so I'm reluctant to consider that a major contributing factor. A factor perhaps but not a major one. If we limit the time frame for childhood obesity to twenty years, than the potential factors at work become much more limited. Computer use in that time frame has skyrocketed for everyone, with effects large and small. Consider how much less we go to the movies because of computers. Not a big exercise in itself but an example of how computers and the internet have constricted our activity. 

 Another contributing factor are the numerous housing tracts where no sidewalks are installed, just lawns and driveways. And these housing developments are nowhere near anyplace you might want to walk to if they do have sidewalks. Colorado Springs is loaded with them. Phoenix is too. So rather than walk to the store, we get in our cars. 

      I love that article quote, phatch. For me it touches on the important aspects of food science in ways that "molecular gastronomy" misses. So much information about the chemistry of food remains behind the factory doors. All the fancy foams and spheres are fun but I'd love more knowledge about the basic science behind what we cook with, processed or otherwise.

 Much of the food industry knowledge like that discussed in the quote could be applied to every day cooking. I find Herve This to be a bit wordy for the amount of info he imparts and I can't afford a copy of Modernist cuisine but I suspect the food industry has much more information than we realize. Perhaps I should take a road trip back to Cornell.  Or a trip to the bookstore tomorrow.


----------



## dagger (Feb 4, 2005)

I think this whole issue of soda machines in schools is stupid. First they aren't dispensing 2 litter bottles at a time and walking around to classes and gym twice a week is burning it off. Not its not the crapy lunches made with carpy ingredients to blame. I wasn't snacking in school when I went, working.

Why does a TV dinner need over 2k of sodium, its frozzen. Does it really need to last until the next ice age


----------



## dagger (Feb 4, 2005)

foodpump said:


> For the obese, it means much higher odds of getting type II diabetes,
> 
> A Dr. wrote and article stating this isn't true since just as many proper weight people have Diabetes as over weight people. Since type II seams to show up in people over 40 he felt it was just part of aging and his felt the body puts on weight to fight over production of insulin. Why do people who have that new stomach weight loss thing loss weight even after eating the same amount and diabetes goes away, they don't know why people are over weight and some are not who eat even more
> 
> ...


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Hi Dagger,

Tried copying and pasting your above post because there is a lot that needs to be adressed, but this function doesn't seem to work.

Firstly, are you of the opinion that obesity and type II diabetes in first world countries has dramatically _*increased*_ over the past 25 years, (especially childhood obesity) or dramatically _*decreased*_?

Secondly, are you of the opinion that obesity can be controlled or _*regulated by controlling calorie intake and calorie expenditure (exercise), *_or do you think _*obesity has absolutely nothing to do with food and exercise*_?

Because without a definite answer from you on these two questions, I can't go on any further.

You see, I'm the kind of guy who would rather deal with 10 small problems than one large problem, and I see big problems with our food, and even bigger problems with our food manufacturers--They keep dumping salt into processed and manufactured foods. I used to buy breakfast snausages for the kids, when nutritional labels became mandatory, I noticed the sodium content was 22% of the recommended daily intake per serving. A few years later it was up to 25%, when it got up to 28% I stopped buying the crap, and today it's at a whopping 33%.

Waay back when, (before my time, anyway) it became mandatory for food mnfctrs to put ingredient lists on their products. I heard Coca Cola put up one heck-uva court fight not to print their secret recipie on their bottles. But it was Gov't mandated, and it was the only way people could actually know what was in the stuff they were buying.

Then in the late 80's I think, it became mandatory to print a nutritional value panel on the label of packaged foods. It was Gov't mandated and it was the only way people could actually figure out the calorific value and nutrition.

Then, in most parts of Europe, Gov'ts mandated that G.M.O foods be labeled as such. At least people knew what they were buying.

Now, we all have to accept that people have been adulterating foods and selling crap as long as man has been around, and cheating still goes on, but for the most part, the labels are fairly accurate--at least in the first world countries anyway.

But the pattern is that food mnfctrs will put crap in packages as long as it sells, and it is the Gov't who makes them at least declare what is in those packages.

What do you think the next logical step would be?


----------



## dagger (Feb 4, 2005)

obesity Isn't a 20th century invention, its been around since humans walked the earth. Diabetes, is it really on the rise or are we testing more now making seam so. I see kids all around and they aren't a bunch of fatty so what is the definition of over weight. I just think its people with to much free time crying wolf thinking they know what is best. Never wore a seat belt, sat on open tail gate while being driven around collecting news papers, never had a car seat, never had a fence around my pool, and so on, 55 years later and I'm still here. Many feel now its genictis, switches that turn on and off illnesses in people. Food isn't the blame cause not everyone is overweight but its easy to blame.


----------



## pete (Oct 7, 2001)

Dagger, while I will agree with you to a point, that there are many factors that contribute to obesity, diet is a huge one.  Sure you can point to those skinny people that are couch potatoes and eat terribly, and I can point out "fat" people who watch what they eat and get a good amount of exercise, those aren't the norm.  Study after study have shown a direct link between diet, lack of exercise, and diabetes.  Americans, as a whole, are not as active as we used to be, and much of the highly processed foods we eat contribute to this.  The studies keep piling up.  Sure, we don't fully understand all the aspects of nutrition and diet, as evidence by the fact that our nutrition guidelines change often, but we definitely understand the major components of it and understand enough to make direct correlations between diabetes and diet-and yes, some people, because of genetics, are at higher risk, and some at a lower risk, but that doesn't negate the general, overall causes.

This doesn't mean that I've change my mind about government interference in our lives by trying legislate us healthy, but I do understand that people need to take responsibility for their health, and in this day and age, that can be much more difficult, with all the processed foods that we eat.

I also agree with you that, as a society, we have become overprotective, but I think a lot of that has to do with our country's penchant for wanting to blame others for our mistakes and then trying to sue them.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Dagger said:


> obesity Isn't a 20th century invention, its been around since humans walked the earth. Diabetes, is it really on the rise or are we testing more now making seam so....... Food isn't the blame cause not everyone is overweight but its easy to blame.


Dagger, no one here is arguing that obesity is new, certainly not me.

However I asked you a very specific question:_ Do you think obesity and diabetes have increased in forst world nations in the last 25 years or decreased? _ By this I mean not individual cases because our population is always increasing, I mean the overall percentage of obesity and diabetes. Before you answer, talk to some "field experts": teachers, in particular phys. ed/gym teachers.

Diabetes, including type II has a long list of symptoms. People don't get tested for diabetes randomly, they go to doctors because of the symptoms, then they get tested.

Food by itself is not to blame. Food consumed in excess is, unbalanced diets are.


----------



## dagger (Feb 4, 2005)

question: Do you think obesity and diabetes have increased in forst world nations in the last 25 years or decreased? Has it or are we testing more which makes it look like more, I don't know and neither do they. There are as much thin as fat people with diabetes.

Food by itself is not to blame. Food consumed in excess is, unbalanced diets are. Then explain joie chestnut and other competitor eaters who aren't over weight. Medical industry constantly changes its mind, this is it no that is it. Cholesterol, they said it was diet now the finding diet has nothing to do with it. You either have it or not. Ford can make 100 engines same plant same parts but they will not all have the same compression, why who knows. Every fat person with diabetes has a thin counter part. Every fat person who over eats has a thin counter part that isn't. If I know the definitive answer I would be god and have a pill to fix it.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Dagger said:


> question: Do you think obesity and diabetes have increased in forst world nations in the last 25 years or decreased? (Foodpump's quote)


I can't explain until you've answered the question I gave you two posts ago. If you don't know the answer, start getting some opinions from teachers, phys.ed teachers, doctors, and airline hostesses.


----------



## pete (Oct 7, 2001)

Dagger to say that there is no correlation between diabetes and diet is just plain wrong.  Sure there are other factors such as genetics, and exercise, and stress, but diet is the most important factor in Type II diabetes.  As I said in my previous post there are always exceptions to the rule, but the evidence is monumental.  I am a great example of it.  Once I left the restaurant world and became a food service administrator where I pretty much sit for 8 hours a day as opposed to standing and running for 12 I watched my blood work go down the drain.  My cholesterol rose, my blood pressure rose and my blood sugars rose to the extent that I was labeled borderline diabetic.  I haven't changed my exercise patterns much but I've really started to watch what I eat.  I'm on medication for my cholesterol and high blood pressure but through diet alone I've lowered my blood sugars and have kept myself from becoming diabetic.


----------

