cito wrote:People are entitled to worship at any altar that they choose, however I am suspicious of such a holier-than-thou "truly altruistic" organization. Believe me, they are also agenda-driven.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you're right, what agenda is it that's driving them? Other than making a living by serving an audience that wants their information? (I'm trying to think of something more cynical than that, and coming up dry.)

riddlemay wrote:

cito wrote:People are entitled to worship at any altar that they choose, however I am suspicious of such a holier-than-thou "truly altruistic" organization. Believe me, they are also agenda-driven.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you're right, what agenda is it that's driving them? Other than making a living by serving an audience that wants their information? (I'm trying to think of something more cynical than that, and coming up dry.)

For whatever reason, Jacobson might feel compelled to try to control other peoples lives. He might also be afflicted with some sort of Napoleon complex
As others have commented upthread, I also can't stand do-gooders.

Hi- I do not agree 100% with Michael Jacobson all the time, and I do not associate him with God, but I do believe that he is trying to do some good, and he certainly is not into it for the money. I just read an article about him a few days ago, and apparently even though he will not set foot inside a McDonald's, he has accepted the fact that his daughter might visit one with some of her friends. His daughter is 19.

I just took a look at CSPI's financial records, and yes individuals and foundations have made some contributions to them, but the majority of the contributions are for a special campaign of theirs such as the reduction of the consumption of soft drinks, and encouraging people to eat a healthier diet, to lessen the incidence of obesity and chronic disease. What is wrong with encouraging people to eat a healthier diet, so the incidence of diabetes decreases? They are just making people aware of what you can eat to decrease your chances of developing diabetes, heart disease and cancer. It kills me that it is often cheaper to eat a junk diet with loads of processed food, than it is to eat a diet with lots of whole grains and fruits and veggies. Thanks, Nancy

NFriday wrote:I just took a look at CSPI's financial records, and yes individuals and foundations have made some contributions to them, but the majority of the contributions are for a special campaign of theirs such as the reduction of the consumption of soft drinks...

And speaking of such campaigns, there's an argument to be made (I'm not going to make it right now, but it's a valid argument) that our culture's very high consumption of sugar is not merely a matter of individual freedom, but is in fact a public health issue. In this sense: The rampant diabetes and obesity brought on by sugar increase the health care costs to the whole society, costs which must be borne by you and me whether we ever touch a soft drink or not. One reason our whole health-care system seems headed for bankruptcy is our population's consumption of sugar. So it's not "nanny state"--in a real sense, it's that Smith shouldn't have to pay twice as much money in health insurance premiums (or have his taxes go up to foot the nation's Medicare bill) just because Jones drinks soft drinks.

Hi- I also post on Jill Cataldo's couponing and deal blog, and right now there is a deal at Dominick's where you can get 4 12 oz. bottles of pop for free at Dominick's this week. If you are signed up with J4U, you can go online, and apply the coupon to your fresh values card, or you can clip the coupon out of the sale flyer. Jill has posted about this deal. I just gave a link to this discussion on her site, and I said that I wish that Dominick's would occasionally have coupons for free bags of carrots or some other healthy thing, in place of processed food such as pop. She just responded that her readers have asked that she post all the deals, and let them decide if they want to take advantage of it. She also does not want to get into politics on her site, and plus she drinks kosher coke all the time, and is skinny. Here is the link:
http://jillcataldo.com/node/25397

I agree with riddlemay that yes we can eat whatever we want, but I also don't like to have to subsidize somebody else's health care, because they feel that they do not have to take good care of themselves. One of my sister's who is a doctor, told me last week, that most people who get their health insurance through their employer, do not realize how expensive health care is. Before anybody says anything, I know that there are some people who exercise and eat a healthy diet, and still die when they are 60. My brother, who died at the age of 58, had MS.

Thanks, Nancy

Mark Bittman's perspective on this - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... sell-soda/

Mark Bittman's perspective on this - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... sell-soda/

Oh, goody.

Hi- It seems like most of the people who have commented about this on Bittman's blog, have sided with Beyonce. She obviously does not need the money though, and it is ironic that she is promoting pepsi, but she has also endorsed Michelle Obama's campaign to get children to exercise more. Maybe if they exercise more then they can drink more pepsi? Thanks, Nancy

NFriday wrote:Hi- It seems like most of the people who have commented about this on Bittman's blog, have sided with Beyonce. She obviously does not need the money though, and it is ironic that she is promoting pepsi, but she has also endorsed Michelle Obama's campaign to get children to exercise more. Maybe if they exercise more then they can drink more pepsi? Thanks, Nancy

These should not be hard concepts to grasp:

Pepsi is a legal product.
This is a free country.
Only Beyonce can determine whether or not she NEEDS the money.
Promoting Pepsi and supporting Michelle Obama's program to exercise more are NOT CONTRADICTORY.
Yes, if kids exercise more they can drink more Pepsi.

When is the meddling in other peoples business going to stop? If you don't want to consume a particular product, DON'T.

I don't get why celebrity endorsements actually sell more shit anyway.

I think it is silly that she endorsed Let's Move and now Pepsi, but that's her business. Apparently she likes being stupid rich; that's the part of Beyonce I would like to emulate, too. If people are worried about kids drinking too much, that's the parents' problem to deal with; I've heard the "I can't monitor my child all the time" argument, but parents don't need to monitor everything. Kids need to be taught media literacy, that this is just a pretty person getting paid to say something's great. As far as serious issues regarding childrearing go, too much soda is not a big deal. My parents and I used to drink it every night with dessert, for chrissakes. Now I'm down to one or two cans a week while my parents haven't changed. I eat somewhat better now, no matter how much Cindy Crawford told me to drink when I was 12.

Celebs have been hawking products for years, so I'm not sure why, other than the Let's Move connection, Beyonce is getting so much flak.

cito wrote:These should not be hard concepts to grasp:

Pepsi is a legal product.
This is a free country.
Only Beyonce can determine whether or not she NEEDS the money.
Promoting Pepsi and supporting Michelle Obama's program to exercise more are NOT CONTRADICTORY.
Yes, if kids exercise more they can drink more Pepsi.

When is the meddling in other peoples business going to stop? If you don't want to consume a particular product, DON'T.

You're leaving out a concept that should be equally easy to grasp as the ones you name:

Since it is a free country, everyone who wants to, and who feels it is an important enough issue, has the perfect right to condemn Beyonce for her support of a product they believe is harmful to the public health.

riddlemay wrote:You're leaving out a concept that should be equally easy to grasp as the ones you name:

Since it is a free country, everyone who wants to, and who feels it is an important enough issue, has the perfect right to condemn Beyonce for her support of a product they believe is harmful to the public health.

You are absolutely 100% correct.

I have a problem when the verbal "condemning" inevitably spirals into a call for increased taxes (in an attempt by self-righteous legislators to solve a perceived problem), and/or an attempt to ban said product.
I consume a lot of Coca-Cola, but I also walk 4 miles a day performing my work. Could I stand to lose 8-10 lbs? Yes, but all of my bloodwork is perfectly normal, and so is my BP.
What it all boils down to is personal responsibility-- The product in and of itself is not harmful to the public health.