This morning's report on BBC Breakfast about the added sugar in snacks targeted for childrens' lunch boxes really got my attention.
Interestingly enough, the discussion did not appear on the Breakfast website ... which begs one question.
Why?
What could be more relevant to the health of the nation than the garbage we are feeding our kids? (Ok, that's more than one Don!)
Two people were being interviewed ... one suggesting that it was an outrage that manufacturers persisted in coming up with products containing added sugar. The other interviewee represented the interests of retailers and food manufacturers and actually had the gall to say that the selected items were being taken out of context and that generally products of this nature had a more healthy balance of less sugar.
He also tried telling us that the two reasons food manufacturers did this was for "taste" and "technology". Uhh ... what technology please? Oh, the technology of addiction. Or can't we say that?
What surprised me was that this particular gentleman appeared to genuinely feel that products with less sugar could be referred to as "healthy" and that the industries he represented were actually operating in the best interests of parents and children alike.
Which tells me two things: either he has been totally brainwashed like the rest of the British public and thinks that Frosted Flakes and juice concentrates with added sugar and preservatives are part of a "balanced diet" because levels of these toxic substances have been reduced.
Or ... he knows exactly what he's doing and is not only tolerated, but highly remunerated for so eloquently distorting the truth.
Hmmm ... I wonder, do you think?
As long as food manufacturers are allowed to peddle artificial "foods" under the guise of a "healthy, balanced diet" the population will continue to get fatter and sicker. This of course will benefit those peddling drugs to control the behaviour of kids eating this rubbish ... as well as all those people standing in line to cash in on the growing problem of childhood obesity (including the tax man).
And well-intentioned mothers will continue to think that nothing is rotten in the State of Denmark.
The words "healthy, balanced diet" are rapidly becoming the most misused words in the modern lexicon.
People, please ... the lessor of two known evils does not constitute a healthy choice. Or are we now saying that a little added sugar never hurt anyone because the scientific evidence is inconclusive?
How convenient.
Stop whining Don and pass the chocolate-coated, frosted sugar bombs. Tasted great. Less calories. Why thank you Hobbes!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yes, stop your whining Don! People believe what they want to believe, and the majority of people do not think for themselves. They find it easier just to accept the pseudo-scientific garbage peddled in prime time tv rather than have to go to the effort of verifying anything for themselves. And it's truly not their fault. That is how the majority of sheeple are. Most of the people I meet socially spout whatever was on the tv news last night as if it were gospel, and they truly believe that they are being told facts. They have not been taught to differentiate truth from lies. You and I, we were "lucky" to have had that opportunity!
Not sure I agree with a lot of what you say Jan ... but at least I picked up a typo as a result of your comment ... thank you!
You see I give people more credit than you do. I think that absolutely ... it is their fault!
I think that people buy into this idea that it is someone elses's responsibility ... or that their shocking state of ill health is primarily a function of their genes.
It must be hard being you (one of the "lucky" ones), having to tolerate so many people on a daily basis that have not had the privilege of being taught how to think correctly.
I don't come at this from an elitist standpoint at all. Sorry.
In fact, I am fascinated by the psychology that drives the culture we have.
Yes, people can be predictably meat-headed (aren't we all at times?), but I'm actually referring to the arrogance of those who create the system responsible for this "programming".
You can't teach instinct Jan.
But if you purport to be suitably qualified and you are in a position to influence mainstream thinking, then surely you at least have some responsibility to be impartial?
Of course the media highlights the problems with their own agenda.
I use BBC Breakfast as a catalyst for some of the posts I write. But I am aware that they can be deliberately obtuse and inflammatory.
So can I!
Government experts (and anyone with eyes and common sense) have identified that we are getting sicker and fatter. No news there.
This is a problem to "those that control us", not for reasons of altruism, but because the health care system can't handle the load without increasing compromise and it's all about the bucks.
Let's never kid ourselves.
My problem is that no-one involved in decision-making is prepared to call a spade, a spade (and the public who are a lot brighter than you give them credit for Jan, accept this without any apparent resistance).
So we have the most qualified, most seasoned dieticians and nutritionists in the world effectively sanctioning the lie that meat and milk and artificial fat and sugar are "healthy" for our kids in "moderate" quantity.
And, because of the "credibility" of the source, people embrace this.
If I have to put a disclaimer on my site because I tell people to eat organically grown fresh fruit and vegetables and drink clean water (how's that for quackery!), then what part of the system brings the official element to book?
The voters?
That's where my problem lies Jan.
Regarding opportunity in life ... we all get (and squander) our fair share.
All of us!
I think the way I do, not because of privilege ... but because of my nature.
I hate other people telling me what to do or how to think. Always have. Always will. Quirky sucker, I am!
Oh and Jan ... it's my blog and I'll whine if I want to ...
Post a Comment