Posts Tagged French fries
Obesity Crisis: Time To File a Class Action Suit Against Hollywood
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Opinion, Perspective, Society on June 12, 2012

by JOHN NOLTE
According to the Centers for Disease Control, childhood obesity has “more than tripled in the past 30 years.” Today, nearly 20% of kids age 6-11 and 18% of aged 12-19 are obese. Not overweight,obese. According to Web MD, the cause of this crisis is a ” lack of physical activity, unhealthy eating patterns, or a combination of these factors.”
For the sake of argument, let’s pretend this is all true and that what we have here is a real crisis and not one manufactured by an overbearing government that always uses the word “crisis” as an excuse to grab more control over our lives — you know, for our own good.
The question now is, what do we do about it?
Knock yourself out perusing Al Gore’s invention, but it’s pretty obvious the so-called experts are targeting fast food. Heaven knows the White House is targeting food to the point that no less than Disney has agreed to take a number of measures, including the banning of junk food commercials.
What hogwash.
I’m 46 years-old, just old enough to have avoided this “crisis,” and I’m convinced that the blaming of food is the very worst kind of scapegoating for one very simple reason: When I was growing up there was just as much junk food then as there is now. In fact, there was more junk food. A lot more.
Pre-1980, food didn’t come with a low-fat choice sitting next to it on the grocery store with that greenish label. Furthermore, oil cooked everything. Therefore movie popcorn tasted like movie popcorn, McDonald’s French fries tasted like McDonald’s French fries, and people regularly bought big tubs of Crisco.
In fact, unless you wanted to drink the awful-tasting Tab, there wasn’t even diet alternatives for soda in those days. Diet Coke didn’t hit store shelves until 1983.
Portions today are smaller, as well. A McDonald’s cheeseburger is probably half the size of what they were and every time I unwrap a Three Musketeers bar I feel violated. Those things used to be the size of a loaf of bread.
And let’s talk about bread. How many lunches did I have with real cheese and bologna slathered in real mayo between two slices of Wonder Bread washed down with real root beer all while inhaling my parents’ second-hand smoke?
My point, obviously, is that over the past 30 years, food has gotten infinitely more healthy while, according to the experts at least, our kids have not.
And yet, you can see the writing on the wall. Our government and the left are setting the fast food industry up in the exact same way it did tobacco. The way things are moving, class action suits and big fat government payouts are probably inevitable no matter how many apple slices ruin the Happy Meal.
But this attack on fast food is all a hustle, a lie, a con — nothing more than a power grab for our government and a money grab for bottom-feeding trial lawyers who stuff Democrat coffers.
No one ate more junk food than I did as a kid. I defy any 21st Century kid to intake more Twinkies, cheeseburgers, Oreo cookies, 16 ounce bottles of A&W root beer, and mock chicken legs than I did — more than any kid growing up in the seventies did.
My generation ate tons of junk food and we did so when junk food was really and truly junk food.
Food isn’t the culprit, but if you really care about these kids and really want to solve this problem, you’ll point your finger at the cause of this sudden upsurge in childhood obesity post-1980…
And that’s Hollywood.
What changed after 1980? It certainly wasn’t a surge in the availability of junk food. What changed, however, was the ready availability of Hollywood product. Cable television came of age, video games entered the home, and it would only be a few more years before we all owned VCRs. What plagues the post-1980 generation isn’t the Happy Meal — it’s MTV, the Disney Channel, the Internet, and the one thing I most certainly didn’t have as a kid: something to keep me hypnotized and occupied 24/7 without ever having to move a muscle.
My parents will back me up on this: you have never met a kid who loved television more than I did (and still do). When it was possible, I would sit there for hours on end inhaling potato chips, cream soda, and reruns of every lame sitcom ever produced.
But here’s the thing: that wasn’t always an option.
Eventually something stupid would come on television, and because we only had 5 channels instead of 500, we got bored. During summer vacation days, those five channels were all lame game shows, soap operas, and whatever that crap was they broadcast on PBS. And because we didn’t have a home video library and there was no Internet — we got bored sitting around inside. So…
We.
Went.
Outside.
To.
Play.
And as a result, we enjoyed hours of exercise we most assuredly wouldn’t have had there been cable TV, video games, and the Internet to keep us couch-bound.
If junk food is responsible for blowing up our kids it’s only because Hollywood’s mind-numbing, non-stop, readily accessible, addicting and affordable product is EVERYWHERE keeping kids from burning off those junk food calories.
Bored kids hit the outdoors to run around and explore to not be bored anymore. What’s keeping them inside is a dealer named Tinseltown, and since we’ve become a society where personal responsibility no longer matters, I say let’s sue Hollywood — let’s file a class action suit.
If we’re going to demand McDonald’s make their food healthier and therefore not as good, we should demand the same from Hollywood. Blander programming that will force kids outside due to boredom.
If we’re going to ban Big Gulps and fast food in schools to force healthier choices on kids, we should do the same to MTV and the Disney Channel. During certain hours of the day, children’s programming shouldn’t be broadcast or available on the Internet. Web sites that keep kids inside should be forced to go dark during daylight hours when kids should be outside.
Video games, DVDs, and the like should be programmed so that they won’t play until after the streetlights come on.
If we’re going to empower the fascist left to solve the obesity problem, let’s at least empower them in the areas that will make an actual difference and help to solve the problem.
Disney is more than happy to kneel before the State and kill junk food advertising, but do they care enough to take their programming off the air until 7pm … you know, for the children?
Who’s with me?
Obesity Crisis: Time To File a Class Action Suit Against Hollywood.
Related articles
- Disney Bans Junk Food Ads on Its Children’s Programming (treehugger.com)
- Junk Food (massiskitchen.wordpress.com)
- Obesity Ills That Won’t Budge Fuel Soda Battle by Bloomberg (nytimes.com)
- Should Congress enact taxes on obesity-producing foods? Yes (denverpost.com)
- Junk Food More Appealing When Sleep-Restricted (medicalnewstoday.com)
- Don’t Like Soda Ban? Try the Fat Tax! (thedailybeast.com)
- Brain scans show specific neuronal response to junk food when sleep-restricted (sciencedaily.com)
- Evolution’s Sweet Tooth – NYTimes.com (mbcalyn.com)
- Disney to Ban Junk Food Ads on Programs for Kids (eftimes.wordpress.com)
- Deconstruction: How Do You Put a Nation on a Diet? (nytimes.com)
Evolution’s Sweet Tooth – NYTimes.com
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Social, Society on June 6, 2012
Evolution’s Sweet Tooth
By DANIEL E. LIEBERMAN
Published: June 5, 2012
Cambridge, Mass.

Of all the indignant responses to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to ban the sale of giant servings of soft drinks in New York City, libertarian objections seem the most worthy of serious attention. People have certain rights, this argument goes, including the right to drink lots of soda, to eat junk food, to gain weight and to avoid exercise. If Mr. Bloomberg can ban the sale of sugar-laden soda of more than 16 ounces, will he next ban triple scoops of ice cream and large portions of French fries and limit sales of Big Macs to one per order? Why not ban obesity itself?
The obesity epidemic has many dimensions, but at heart it’s a biological problem. An evolutionary perspective helps explain why two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese, and what to do about it. Lessons from evolutionary biology support the mayor’s plan: when it comes to limiting sugar in our food, some kinds of coercive action are not only necessary but also consistent with how we used to live.
Obesity’s fundamental cause is long-term energy imbalance — ingesting more calories than you spend over weeks, months and years. Of the many contributors to energy imbalance today, plentiful sugar may be the worst.
Since sugar is a basic form of energy in food, a sweet tooth was adaptive in ancient times, when food was limited. However, excessive sugar in the bloodstream is toxic, so our bodies also evolved to rapidly convert digested sugar in the bloodstream into fat. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors needed plenty of fat — more than other primates — to be active during periods of food scarcity and still pay for large, expensive brains and costly reproductive strategies (hunter-gatherer mothers could pump out babies twice as fast as their chimpanzee cousins).
Simply put, humans evolved to crave sugar, store it and then use it. For millions of years, our cravings and digestive systems were exquisitely balanced because sugar was rare. Apart from honey, most of the foods our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate were no sweeter than a carrot. The invention of farming made starchy foods more abundant, but it wasn’t until very recently that technology made pure sugar bountiful.
The food industry has made a fortune because we retain Stone Age bodies that crave sugar but live in a Space Age world in which sugar is cheap and plentiful. Sip by sip and nibble by nibble, more of us gain weight because we can’t control normal, deeply rooted urges for a valuable, tasty and once limited resource.
What should we do? One option is to do nothing, while hoping that scientists find better cures for obesity-related diseases like heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. I’m not holding my breath for such cures, and the costs of inaction, already staggering, would continue to mushroom.
A more popular option is to enhance public education to help us make better decisions about what to eat and how to be active. This is crucial but has so far yielded only modest improvements.
The final option is to collectively restore our diets to a more natural state through regulations. Until recently, all humans had no choice but to eat a healthy diet with modest portions of food that were low in sugar, saturated fat and salt, but high in fiber. They also had no choice but to walk and sometimes run an average of 5 to 10 miles a day. Mr. Bloomberg’s paternalistic plan is not an aberrant form of coercion but a very small step toward restoring a natural part of our environment.
Though his big-soda ban would apply to all New Yorkers, I think we should focus paternalistic laws on children. Youngsters can’t make rational, informed decisions about their bodies, and our society agrees that parents don’t have the right to make disastrous decisions on their behalf. Accordingly, we require parents to enroll their children in school, have them immunized and make them wear seat belts. We require physical education in school, and we don’t let children buy alcohol or cigarettes. If these are acceptable forms of coercion, how is restricting unhealthy doses of sugary drinks that slowly contribute to disease any different?
Along these lines, we should ban all unhealthy food in school — soda, pizza, French fries — and insist that schools provide adequate daily physical education, which many fail to do.
Adults need help, too, and we should do more to regulate companies that exploit our deeply rooted appetites for sugar and other unhealthy foods. The mayor was right to ban trans fats, but we should also make the food industry honest about portion sizes. Like cigarettes, mass-marketed junk food should come with prominent health warning labels. It should be illegal to advertise highly fattening food as “fat free.” People have the right to be unhealthy, but we should make that choice more onerous and expensive by imposing taxes on soda and junk food.
We humans did not evolve to eat healthily and go to the gym; until recently, we didn’t have to make such choices. But we did evolve to cooperate to help one another survive and thrive. Circumstances have changed, but we still need one another’s help as much as we ever did. For this reason, we need government on our side, not on the side of those who wish to make money by stoking our cravings and profiting from them. We have evolved to need coercion.
Daniel E. Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard, is the author of “The Evolution of the Human Head.”
Evolution’s Sweet Tooth – NYTimes.com.
Related articles
- Op-Ed Contributor: Evolution’s Sweet Tooth (nytimes.com)
- Evolution’s Sweet Tooth (nytimes.com)
- All Hail the War on Sugar! (thedailybeast.com)
- Mayor Bloomberg and His Fight to End Obesity (madelinemadfitness.wordpress.com)
- What Is Food? (opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Time to make the Donuts…… (balsamfitsecret.wordpress.com)
- Half of New Yorkers say Bloomberg ban on giant sodas is bad idea (cbsnews.com)
- Bloomberg’s visionary move against obesity (cnn.com)
- New York City Plans to Restrict Big-Size Soda Sales (online.wsj.com)
- Bloomberg’s Attack On Big Soda Lacks One Thing: Scientific Evidence (forbes.com)


Recent Comments