|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: fuck this book started by: Malcolm Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 25 2013,10:59
< This one >. Seems kind of appropriate to mention this what with sugary drinks under siege in New York and caffeine now at the center of heart attack debates.QUOTE In “Salt Sugar Fat,” investigative reporter Michael Moss shows how executives and food scientists at Coca-Cola, Kraft, Frito-Lay and Nestle are well aware that sugary, fatty and salty foods light up the same pleasure centers in our brains that cocaine does. Though they avoid using the word “addictive,” they knowingly concoct “crave-able” foods that have a high “bliss point” of sugar and hefty “mouthfeels” of fat. At the same time, they employ insidious tactics to keep their “heavy users” using and to hook new consumers, especially children. If you had any doubt as to the food industry’s complicity in our obesity epidemic, it will evaporate when you read this book. You are insane. Sugar != crack and fat != heroin. Oddly enough, she touches on an actual point, only as a throwaway thought: QUOTE Convenience, it seems, overrides parents’ health concerns, and companies know this all too well. Yep, damn those companies for making money, like they're ... supposed to. Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 25 2013,11:15
I read the WSJ review of this a couple of weeks ago. I wouldn't quite use the word insane. I agree with you that sugar and fat aren't quite the same level of hard drugs, but I do think that a) the companies are doing whatever they can to trigger responses and b) the human body does have strong reactions to this stuff.If you eat a decent amount of cookies/ice cream/etc, I dare you to give them up and tell me how you feel. I gave up eating ice cream every day, and had cravings for weeks. No, not the same level that I did when I quit smoking cigarettes, but still pretty severe. Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 25 2013,11:42
QUOTE a) the companies are doing whatever they can to trigger responses and b) the human body does have strong reactions to this stuff. a) Sure they are. It's the same reason grocery stores pipe in music designed to make me shop more and arrange their shelves so my eyes fall on certain featured items first and not others. b) Sure it does. I'd argue Type II Diabetes is such a response, in an extreme case. But hell, in an extreme case, enough of about anything will kill you. QUOTE I gave up eating ice cream every day, and had cravings for weeks. No, not the same level that I did when I quit smoking cigarettes, but still pretty severe. Here are three things that have some minor physical pains that come along for the ride, but I think the withdrawal is mainly psychological: Quitting the consumption of sweets might be construed as something of a minor annoyance. Quitting caffeine is a bitch. Quitting smoking is an absolute bitch. There are things far worse things to quit than smoking that carry considerably more real physical withdrawal symptoms. In any case, I don't think the answer to the question "How can we make food companies produce less shit," comes in the form of governmental regulation. It comes in the form of the responsible parties not half-assing their jobs, whether it's a corporate exec trying to cut back the salt in his produce or a parent not taking the easy route and buying prepackaged refuse. Posted by GORDON on Mar. 25 2013,12:00
The point of business is to give people what they want. All these companies did is to determine on a neurological level what people wanted. Should brain research have been made illegal, unless done for the correct reasons?
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 25 2013,12:00
Sorry, sell people what they want.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 25 2013,12:16
Quitting ice cream was as hard for me as quitting caffeine. The behavioral side was almost as hard as quitting smoking (the "i eat ice cream when X happens"/"I smoke when X happens").At any rate, there is an argument to be made that businesses (really, the people that run them) have a moral obligation for their behavior. I mean, each of us has moral behavior in our day to day, so should a business? Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 25 2013,12:35
QUOTE Quitting ice cream was as hard for me as quitting caffeine. I'm not a fan of quitting harmful behaviours. I am a fan of mitigating them to the point where they aren't harmful. QUOTE The behavioral side was almost as hard as quitting smoking (the "i eat ice cream when X happens"/"I smoke when X happens"). Therein, I find, lies the key. In most circumstances, distracted/preoccupied people have an easier time letting things go. Quitting caffeine sucks if the first thing on your daily agenda is something that kills your motivation to get anything done (like shitty daily meetings are work). I could sail through every weekday morning, sans energy drink, if I didn't have a 15-minute drag meeting half an hour after I come in every morning. I have shotgunned a tallboy of Monster and had all alertness drained out of me by an hour long Powerpoint slideshow that was about 90 minutes too long. Giving something up is exponentially harder when you're sitting there doing nothing. QUOTE I mean, each of us has moral behavior in our day to day, so should a business? The only "moral" code we're expected to follow is that which is imposed on us by the bloated fucktard-ocracy that is the U.S. legal system. Anything beyond that is up to us, just like companies have laws to follow and anything beyond those is up to them. Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 25 2013,13:09
QUOTE At any rate, there is an argument to be made that businesses (really, the people that run them) have a moral obligation for their behavior. I mean, each of us has moral behavior in our day to day, so should a business? Are you implying that you consider locating a need and fulfilling it through commerce to be fundamentally immoral? What are you, a commie? I mean, if we were talking about some company dumping toxic chemicals into the swimming pool of a local elementary school then I could understand this sort of question. But here it seems completely out of place to me. Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 25 2013,15:36
I never said that. I said should businesses incorporate morality into their decisions?
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 25 2013,16:22
(TheCatt @ Mar. 25 2013,17:36) QUOTE I never said that. I said should businesses incorporate morality into their decisions? I'd prefer not. Then I don't have to deal with the fallout from their various definitions of "morality." Posted by GORDON on Mar. 25 2013,17:36
I never started smoking, and I never developed an ice cream habit. Their subversion and addiction campaign was never THAT effective.I think in the late 80's, however, Burger King was putting Crack in their Whopper meat. I could, and sometimes did, eat there 7 days a week. Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 25 2013,18:05
(TheCatt @ Mar. 25 2013,17:36) QUOTE I never said that. I said should businesses incorporate morality into their decisions? Oh, well in that cast, yes, of course they should. If grinding up kittens and feeding them to senior citizens turned out to be highly profitable, I think a company should still avoid doing that. It seems a bit wrong. But if the questions is are they responsible for making smart choices for other people - such as their customers - then no. They shouldn't be scamming anyone directly, but making unwise options available to people for a profit is not itself immoral. I know that's not what you asked, but otherwise I can't see the relation to this thread. Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 25 2013,18:11
(Malcolm @ Mar. 25 2013,18:22) QUOTE (TheCatt @ Mar. 25 2013,17:36) QUOTE I never said that. I said should businesses incorporate morality into their decisions? I'd prefer not. Then I don't have to deal with the fallout from their various definitions of "morality." I'd prefer that to the results of throwing morality out the window completely. One of the basic problems with our system is the way incorporation removes any liability from the shareholders from the actions of the company. I'd rather we had a system where liability was split among shareholders, and if company A did something deserving of jail time then the sentence gets split up between then by the number of shares they have. It would be a nightmare to implement (although not so much with modern information systems), but one result is people would care a lot more about what the companies they invest in do. This would lead to more responsible corporate citizens, and less reasons for people to view them as collectively evil. But I'm taking us off-topic. I'll shush about that part. Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 25 2013,18:28
QUOTE if company A did something deserving of jail time then the sentence gets split up between then by the number of shares they have Corporate espionage, step 1: Hire moles to infiltrate rival. Corporate espionage, step 2: Have moles do something insanely illegal to fuck over all higher ups. Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 25 2013,20:38
Step 3: Have it all blow up in your face when the powerful company you fucked over proves you did it.Okay, sure, there are some details that need work. But there's got to be a better way than all liability and morals being cut off somewhere between the corporate operations and the boardroom. Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 25 2013,21:09
(TPRJones @ Mar. 25 2013,22:38) QUOTE Step 3: Have it all blow up in your face when the powerful company you fucked over proves you did it. Okay, sure, there are some details that need work. But there's got to be a better way than all liability and morals being cut off somewhere between the corporate operations and the boardroom. Dealing proper punishment to those who most accurately deserve it always breaks down to two things (assuming some bad shit actually happened): 1) how much info do you have about the "wrong" things that were done? 2) how reliable is that info? < Shit a corporation pretty much got away with >. Granted, they've got a cover for their corp... QUOTE "...if a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." Look up that quote at your leisure. I can rattle off any number of historical examples where a well-connected asshole tanks a comparatively benign, legit rival in the name of profit and\or glory. In the country we live in, the state routinely fucks up with greater frequency with zero competition, so I'm loathe to start holding owners directly accountable for the actions of their underlings with unerring strictness. |