POL 300 Day 10: Feb 21

Nestle stated in the conclusion: “Government intervention in dietary choice is unnecessary, undesirable, and incompatible with democratic institutions.” Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? What could be changed if anything?

Government intervention in the sense of protecting people and ensuring that they are not consuming foods that are tainted with pesticides or pathogens is certainly necessary and desirable. However, that's about the extent to which there should be government intervention. It is certainly undesirable to have the government tell us that we are no longer allowed to eat cake or fried food because they are bad for us. What the government should do though, is ensure that that people are well aware and educated on the foods they are eating so that they are aware of what health problems can come with eating such foods (i.e. investing in unbiased research that shows what the consequences are and keeping research funded by food industry interests out of the equation unless confirmed by completely independent researchers with no links). When people vote for a politician, they generally have a fairly decent idea of what that candidate generally stands for; ultimately, people are responsible for what they put into their bodies and should know better when it comes to consuming garbage food.

When commercials or advertisements specify that a product is FDA approved, how many products do you think you consume that are not FDA approved? Give specific examples.

My guess is that I consume probably zero products that are not FDA approved. I have consumed protein shakes (Muscle Milk) and "energy-enhancement" supplements in the past, though. I was a bit younger (19-21), in the military, and loved working out. At the time I was taking them I attributed my strength and endurance gains to the supplements I was taking but thinking more about it now, I was eating healthy (chow hall food was fairly bland and we had a great fruit and salad bar), and I worked out 1-2 times a day 5 times a week. It was definitely a perception thing when it came to taking those supplements since the most muscle-bound Marines I knew were taking the "Weight Gainer 5000" and similar products. It made perfect sense at the time but definitely not something that I would ever take again (maybe whey protein).

POL 300 Day 9: Feb 16

Would it be in the public interest to have some federal system that establishes that the products they are consuming are safe, but also effective? Do you agree with Nestle’s notion that there must be some type of regulatory framework to control misleading claims over big industry and the economy?

Yes. However, we have already tried that with the FDA and lobbyists have been allowed to taint the system. It is certainly in our best interests to have a regulatory commission that brings clarity to the supplements and foods that we are consuming. There is a reason why we are having epidemic rates of cancer, heart disease, and the like, and the most likely culprits are the fact that we are consuming enhanced foods and supplements that have not been adequately tested prior to their availability to the public.

The FDAMA allows for a kind of loophole for industries to bypass when wanting to approve of their product, do you think that this loophole should be fixed immediately? How should the FDA go around to fixing this loophole (through Nestle’s eyes)? Should this act be overturned or just modified? Give a brief plan/modification to the FDAMA.

Certainly not! The FDA should be more vocal and move more towards the public. Unfortunately for them they are going to need to fight fire with fire which requires more money. The act needs the attention from the FDA so they can bring it to the public who, I hope, would see that it is morally lacking. Again, the FDA would need to be even more bold in their approach (i.e. why not threaten to resign if you're the head; yes it would take someone who is financially stable but it's start).

Big industry has been an issue for the production and distribution of products that may or may not be what the company is claiming it to be. Would FDA officials postpone their decision-making in order to favor big industry and not claim any responsibility for the decision? Should the FDA be held responsible even if they did not vote review that petition? How should they be held responsible? Do you think that Congress or the FDA is more influenced by big industry?

I think the FDA, given the background of many of the people who work there from the bottom up, genuinely care about the public. Congress should be held accountable for effectively neutering the FDA by cutting off a great deal of their funding and listening to people who are obviously interested in making money and that's about it. Congress is easily more influenced by the industry given the fact that they receive a great deal of money from them for their political campaigns. It's a sad reality and the best solution, but one of the toughest, would be for people to vote with their health in mind rather than their pocketbooks.

How was the internet affect by FDA regulations in the past? Now? Future? Many internet ads have been known to be misleading the consumer now with our society being so technologically-based, will this only get worse?

In the past the influence of the internet was probably very slim given the number of people in the audience. However, the internet has become such a great place to confuse consumers and provide nothing but misinformation. Since people can get away with just about everything on the internet, I think it is very likely the companies will do their best to confuse the public and convince consumers that their products are healthy and actually do what they claim that they do.

POL 300 Day 8: Feb 9

Put yourself in Coca-Cola or PepsiCo’s position as their marketing director. With the rise of childhood obesity and schools and government action out against beverage companies, what approach will your company male to continue brand loyalty? Do you believe, for instance, that Powerade will be marketed to schools as its healthy choice in vending machines?

Given the current call for healthier foods and drinks I would certainly try to market my product as being healthy or synonymous with a healthy lifestyle. It's the reason why Sprite or Pepsi always show healthy, athletic people drinking their product and having a great time doing it. I would take parts of the strategies that Vitamin Water uses to make their product seem good for people. After convincing a large number of the population that my product is not as bad as once thought, thus giving me the ability to lobby Congress with the support of the some of their constituency. But then again, I have morals and enabling younger children to die of coronary heart disease before their 40th birthday isn't something that I could encourage and still sleep at night.

Now put yourself in the shoes of a school administrator belonging to an urban population. While the education in cities is not considered the greatest, what boundaries do you set up with your “pouring rights” contract? Do you accept the money to afford things like computers, arts, sports, metal detectors? If you don’t, how do you get more funding from government? Which do you value more then: nutrition or funding?

As a school administrator, I would worry about the overall health of my students. As a concession with the companies, they would only be allowed to bring in juice drinks that they produce. Personally, kids need to be taught from a young age what they should and should not consume. They are not always going to make the right nutrition decisions so it makes no sense to inhibit their wants for junk foods and drinks in an environment that they spend more than half of their time until they are 18. In order to get more funding it would be best to find other sponsors that would not be related to unhealthy foods (i.e. I'd rather have Exxon posters throughout my school rather than Pizza Hut). Also, lobbying government for money would have to be a priority. If we need outside help from Coca-Cola or Pepsi to provide an adequate education to our young people, shouldn't we be giving more money to it then???? How is that our grandparents never had this problem but now there is an epidemic of education revenue shortages? People need to vote.

There's a Fungus Among Us

This article was pretty shocking. I had no idea that fungicide was allowed in our orange juice in the first place, let alone the fact that the FDA was even being asked to raise the bar on the "tolerable" level. It said that the EU allows no traces of fungicide to be present in its juice imports. Last time I checked, Americans and Europeans are all human beings with the same susceptibilities to disease and toxins. How can the government justify this? The juice industry wanted the bar raised to give it time to transition to higher standards (less toxins in their juice). ?&@%&^*#@!!!!!! So we are meant to be exposed to a higher degree of toxins through juice, something that many people drink, for the sake of the industry?? It's such a bold move to make on their part given our health is at risk. What worries me most is how many instances the FDA has been asked to raise limits regarding pesticides, fungicides, etc., and said yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46418593/ns/health-food_safety/#.Tz2Lo3qa_t8

Moral Candy Company?

I found this article interesting. Do they truly want to move towards a more nutritious product OR do they want to charge more money for a nutritious product? Also, they claim that they will no longer run ads on TV where 25% of the audience is likely 12 and under. Interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46405456/ns/business-retail/#.TzxlQnqa_t8

POL 300 Day 7: Feb 7

Think back to when you were a young kid, watching TV. What is the most memorable commercial you ever saw? Did the advertising work on you? Do you still use the product? Thinking back, how do you now feel about the way the advertisement affected you?

As a kid, one of my favorite commercials was for Lucky Charms cereal ("They're magically delicious."). I was a complete sucker for these commercials for a number of reasons such as the fact the leprechaun was in cartoon form and it had sugary goodness in every bite. Fortunately, I wised up with age and no longer eat overly sugary cereals (I'm a Kashi kind of guy these days). The commercials were very influential on me given I knew that marshmallows were sugary and tasty, and I absolutely loved watching cartoons as a kid. To say that these commercials are not geared towards kids is an absolute lie (how many adults watch cartoons?).

Imagine for a moment that you are a parent. Your children have been watching TV all morning and now you have to go to the store. You know you are in for a long trip of “mommy get me” or “daddy I want.” How do you handle the minefield that is a grocery store? Take into account not only the ads they have seen, but the product placement in the store as well.

As an educated adult, my kids would get whatever I felt was good for them. It IS okay to say no to your children. Recently, I went to a Bloomington Blaze game. One of the fans there was an extremely obese man who had an overweight daughter there with him no older than 7. She looked at him asking to buy a hot dog and he replied that they had just ate. She then went on whining for one and until, not even a minute later, she got her way. People should have more control of their children when it comes to issues like this; if I say no, that means no. Needless to say, I was fairly annoyed and disgusted with what I saw given the state of the man's health and what he was allowing to happen to his young daughter's. Regardless of whatever garbage is being marketed to your kids, you are the first line of defense in protecting them and letting them get their way is not in their interests. I'd rather listen to my kids whine about not getting their way then hear them whine later on in life that they are too fat.

POL 300 Day 6: Feb 2

Were you aware of the controversy surrounding the marketing of infant formula to developing countries? Do you think that the invention of the internet has increased public awareness of such issues? Why or why not?

As a male, I have generally not concerned myself with infant formula period (hopefully won't have to for another 8 years I hope.... fingers crossed). The internet has given people the opportunity to learn just about whatever they want. Effectively, it is a living encyclopedia of information that can be accessed by anyone so yes, public awareness has certainly been helped by the internet. Not to mention using as a tool to organize. Arab Spring anyone??

After learning about the epidemic of mad cow disease, Oprah Winfrey said “… It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger! I’m stopped.” Do you think that even the most horrendous facts about the meat industry could do it real harm? If the information was not false, is it a violation of the First Amendment to scare the media through veggie-libel laws?

I think harm could come to those in the beef industry who are mistreating their animals and not following safety regulations while processing the beef. The fact that Oprah made this statement would harm places like McDonald's, Burger King, or the Cattlemens Association, not Henry the butcher who gets his beef from Al the farmer up the road. The reason being is that those people buying from Henry are most likely aware that ol' Bessie came from Al. It is most definitely a violation of First Amendment rights to scare the media from reporting negatively on the food industry when the allegations are true, especially since it is the best means of communicating to the public what is wrong. By effectively shutting out the government, solutions cannot be working out. I do have hope though, given the popularity of social media and YouTube that people will see more of what is the issues and, hopefully, it pisses enough people off to do something about it. Vegans and vegetarians saying, "Stop the violence" *Guy on the bridge voice* just isn't going to cut it.