An unhealthy culture: What do we do?

Jason P wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

this is what i'm talking about...plus not all individuals are operating from the same base. i mean the working mom in baltimore city has to walk or ride the bus for miles just to get to a decent grocery store. imagine having to do that after working a long day, then coming home and cooking? i guess compassion for others is tough to do when one lives a relatively privileged life.

Going to a grocery store is now considered part of being privledged???

Well, ohh la la. Looks like I will need to start breaking for afternoon tea now that I appear to have reached the upper edges of high society.

Kel Varnsen wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

I get what you're saying, but cooking good food healthfully is really, really expensive. Partly because non-processed foods and healthfully-sourced fish are pretty expensive, but also because of the waste (the amount of produce my wife and I throw out because we can't finish it before it goes bad is embarrassing).

I am not sure I buy cost of healthy food as a valid excuse. I mean sure shopping at a place like Whole Foods and only buying super healthy food is of course super expensive compared to a quarter pounder value meal. But buying moderatly healthy food is way cheaper than hitting up McDonalds. I mean you can pick up things like bags of frozen vegatbles or rice, or cans of tuna or beans or even chicken pieces or eggs, at the grocery store for super cheap. I mean yes those things are the most healthy things in the world but a meal of chicken, rice and some steamed frozen vegatables is way more healthy and cheaper than eating a big mac. But ordering a big mac or a pizza is easier so I think a lot of that comes down to lazyness.

PJ_Soul wrote:

Good point. There aren't really any grocery stores in Manhattan either I noticed when I went. Just take out places, food carts (including a fruit and veggie cart or stand here and there), and restaurants. No one wants to cook much in NYC as far as I can tell, hence no Safeways.

PJ_Soul wrote:

Good point. There aren't really any grocery stores in Manhattan either I noticed when I went. Just take out places, food carts (including a fruit and veggie cart or stand here and there), and restaurants. No one wants to cook much in NYC as far as I can tell, hence no Safeways.

catefrances wrote:

chadwick wrote:

finally found the thread; what with the title change and all.

did you get some exercise running around looking for it?

riotgrl wrote:

catefrances wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

... I certainly believe in personal responsbility and as a working mother I cook all the food for my family regardless of how tired I am; ...

lets not start thinking we are all the same. because you can do it doesnt mean all parents can. this is not an attack on you, im just saying.

Exactly what I was saying - just because I can do it doesn't mean others can or have the time or even want to. We need alot of options like education, like corporate responsibility, like nutrition labels to help everyone make the best choices possible.

inlet13 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

so let me get this straight, every individual has a timer on them that says when they become responsible for their own behavior, and it starts at exactly the same point in everyone's life cycle? how oversimplistic and absolutely absurd. .

No, I wouldn't say it's exactly the same for everyone. I'd say it's roughly around those points. Regardless of the age, there is always someone responsible (parent or child or mix). I know you dislike the thought of personal responsibility. You want to blame markets, capitalism and broader elements.... which I think (and know) is oversimplisitic and absolutely absurd. Capitalism, markets and broader elements don't put the food you eat in your mouth, chew it, and swallow for you.... You do.

RW81233 wrote:

it's funny that you call me a deflectionist as I am writing a presentation on the collision of being self-responsible, political, and interventionist and the contradictions that we all live with. .

No offense - I don't care what you're writing about and have no clue why this was brought up.

RW81233 wrote:

of course it's easier to sleep at night if we only criticize one (for you the individual, for me the system), and don't think about the other. .

Ironically, I've already said marketing can affect "preferences", for better or worse nutritionally. I've also said big government bodies like the FDA, tend to be corrupt, which can alter food safety. So, yes government and capitalism can have some effect on food. But, it's not like food that's nutritious is not available. Even at McDonalds they now have apple slices, etc. They may not be the best, but there's "more" nutritious options at fast food eateries than there once was. Regardless of the aforementioned, it's still the individual (or the parent, or both) that kinda is responsible in the long run. They make the final decision to walk into McDonalds, avoid the apple slices and choose the large fry. That's what you want to avoid.

RW81233 wrote:

in other words are you any less deflectionist (just in a different way) when you deny the a/effects a neoliberal economy has on shaping people's behavior and responsibility (or lack thereof)? .

No, I'm not. Once again, I admit that preferences may be semi-altered by capitalistic marketing. But, I also KNOW the individual makes the final say. I've never seen neoliberal economies literally put their hands on food and shove it in people's mouths and force them to swallow.

As for you, yes you seem to be a deflectionist. You seem to blame capitalism for individual decisions. Your focus have been completely OUTSIDE the scope of the person who chews the food. It's as if individuals have no choice to put food in their mouths and swallow. They may have less options, but they still have choice.

RW81233 wrote:

i mean jason p just put it out there: under the auspices of corporate capitalism companies like pizza hut have to infiltrate the minds of children (before they are responsible for their behavior based on your complex timeline) in order to stay in business. if this were not effective wouldn't they stop doing it? .

I don't know why you tend to go so far out there. Re-read everything I've written. Of course marketing sways behavior. But, you seem to believe that nutritional marketing does not. I say that's BS. Tons of examples of movement towards nutrition are available, even in fast food. At the end of the day, fatty food ads and nutrional ads should be allowed. And people should be able to decide. I see nothing wrong with being swayed to have a burger now and again. If you're responsible for your own actions, you'll know that you can afford that every now and again.

RW81233 wrote:

however, he claims that he gained weight because he's less active. although the idea that we are less active as a society is fallacious (we are actually more active than ever before), for him, as an individual, this is because work (he needs to make money to be able to keep eating shitty food) and other personal issues have come in the way. plus as he outlines playstation only stays on the market if it sells more, same with pharma companies, gym memberships, and food companies - so the underlying thread here is that capitalism creates the context from which individuals choose to behave. .

I know what you're getting at, but simply disagree on certain points. I agree with you that we're more active now. But, people, particularly in America eat worse, or have for a long time. Many (NOT ALL) parents grew up with a lack of personal responsibility for what they ate, or lack of knowledge of the effects. My point is that's individualized, and in my opinion, is starting to change. Why? Well, people are learning it's bad for them. Markets are responding to this change in demand for nutritious products. For example, my wife and I get organic vegetables delivered to our house. Several years back, we would not have "demanded" that, nor would an organization exist that would deliver that to your doorstep. That's capitalism/markets and that's good. It's not markets' fault. Capitalism or free-markets don't create demand, they respond to it.

RW81233 wrote:

i say it's silly just to blame the individual when it's clearly a systemic problem that creates a situation whereby individuals have the opportunity to make poor choices. this doesn't mean that i'm taking the blame away from individuals, it means that the responsibility is shared between the system and the individual. however, to criticize the system in your worldview is heretic it seems.

Individuals make poor decisions every day. I suppose you'd like to ban the possibility of poor decisions? How would you do that,... with an FDA-like body? ha ha.

I say individuals are capable of making poor decisions. I don't think it's the system's fault for their poor decisions. And further, I think there's absolutely no way "the system" or "government" or "anyone" can stop poor decisions from occurring. I mean, you really need to think through what you're saying. Should we ban alcohol? In that light, your argument seems to say that capitalism is creating liver problems from alcohol. It's not the person who drinks a fifth of whiskey every night or even his addiction, it's capitalism.