Comments

What can we do? - I don't know. I read a report somewhere in the last week or two that American and UK citizens are dying because they eat 'too much' while 20000 people (mainly children) die every day as a result of extreme poverty and that just cannot be right. Maybe the only 'regulation' we need is that a percentage of the profits of all fast food companies should compulsorily go direct to poorer countries. I suspect as usual I will be accused of too much ‘fluffy talk’ in the hard nosed world of business but then I remember what Archbishop Dom Helder Camara famously once said: “When I feed the poor, I am called a saint. When I ask why they are poor, I am called a communist.”

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 14, 2006 9:32 AM

What can we do? We can choose to not eat at places like KFC.

Posted by Macy at June 14, 2006 10:09 AM

Some regulation is valid for public welfare, i.e. motorcycle helmet laws make sense since public "healthcare" tends to pick up the extreme costs of severly damaged heads vs minimal such with helmets.

Same perhaps with trans fat & corn syrup - I'm convinced [unlike Trevor perhaps] that it is not "too much" we eat - more like the chemistry of fast food / junk food puts people into fat storage modes. 7% here - but must constantly trick the caveman body to keep it there.

Read something about northern European stock doing best to avoid sweet since cavepeople north didn't have it - fruit - honey in southern climes only to start with.

Posted by Sean at June 14, 2006 10:43 AM

Short of outlawing the ingredients, the only other alternative I can think of is educating the consumer, i.e. big signs that say "eating this crap may kill you!" Unfortunately, we've done this with tobacco and the percentage of people still smoking as they pass my office window--kids especially; I'm in a college environment--is preposterously high. The article states Wendy's has made a switch in ingredients. KFC wants to preserve their unique taste? My guess is it's more that they don't want to risk the expense of changing their processes and their ingredients. I'm not one into frivolous law suits or micro-regulations but this one doesn't taste all that bad to me.

Posted by Ed Di Gangi at June 14, 2006 11:56 AM

KFC or any other fast food restaurant should post an ingredients listing, daily recommended values, etc., for their products. The tobacco industry puts a warning on a package and the fast food people could, too. People should then contact the restaurant parent company to request a change to better / healthier ingredients. The voice of the customer will get the parent company's attention.

Posted by Gary at June 14, 2006 12:37 PM

Trans fats & high-fructose corn syrup are bad... but selecting one particular restaurant to sue seems kind of silly (and why not go after Coke or Pepsi?)

Educating consumers is part of the solution, to be sure. Alternate ingredients is part of it too. But must we resort to the courts? It hardly seems like justice (unless people are being forced to eat at KFC - which they are not...)

Posted by Dan Ward at June 14, 2006 1:37 PM

Personally, I don't eat at KFC because fried food makes me sick. But, it's hard to imagine that our founding fathers envisioned a federal government that would regulate where and what we eat.

KFC has broken no laws. All of their nutritional information is available on their web site. I'm much more concerned with the vultures who file these lawsuits than I am with the Colonel's chicken stores.

Posted by MikeB at June 14, 2006 3:34 PM

Maybe consumers should sign a release before purchasing fast food (define fast food?). In the medical field, the patient signs a consent to be treated by a caregiver. The consent includes potential risks and alternatives to treatment. The "fast-food" consent would include a list of ingredients, know risks associated with the ingredients, historical health study results and then alternative food items they could choose.

Talk about educating the public! How would that pass FDA? Any lobbyists out there?

Posted by Craig Penno at June 14, 2006 4:30 PM

You know Tom, people in the US got to be a little more responsible for their own good!!

I have lived here in the US for last 8 years and believe me though there is junk all over the place.. it aint so tough to find the right kinda food to eat!! I am vegetarian AND a consultant.. so I travel every week... and despite THAT I have found enough things to eat and remain healthy.

If people do not eat enough of the lousy food the chances are that place will shut off.

I remember when KFC came to India way back in 1995-6 - after the initial interest and intrigue.. it was the BEST place to go on a date.. because it was mostly empty so you could have a better time together ;-)

And btw, McDonalds serves a lot of different types of Veggie burgers in India..

Cheers,
Desh

Posted by Desh at June 14, 2006 4:52 PM

People are confusing food and 'trans fat'. 'Trans fat' is not a food, it's an engineered substance. Trans fat is created by adding hydrogen to vegetable oil--a process called hydrogenation. Hydrogenation increases the shelf life and flavor stability of foods containing these fats.

The question is not whether or not government can control what we eat. The question is whether the government should control the substances found in our food supply. If this was insecticides, cyanides or other poisons, no one would argue.

Of course the government should get involved! A substance that is being added to our food supply has been proven hazardous to our health. It would be irresponsible of the government to not fight this.

Posted by Doug Karr at June 14, 2006 9:31 PM

Pack a pbj in your brown bag like the old days.

Seriously? Don't settle for fast-food. While Sean may take issue with this, you can almost always find a fast, speedy-serviced, Mexican restaurant in just about every city in a strip mall or near a grocery store. Ask for local options. The more we do that, the more we show the chains that we have alternatives. Let's not try and pass legislation against trans fat. Let's make a difference by spending our money somewhere else and talking about it with our spheres.

Now, please excuse me while I sit here after midnight and try to finish my greasy chicken fingers. : ) j/k

Posted by tango5 at June 14, 2006 11:20 PM

Oh, on the fast food - US / HIV/Aids - Africa topic...

If we as Americans saved more money and chose not to live at (and more often above) our means, we would have more money saved up to quit jobs we hate and take our time finding better ones, retire the way we'd truly like to, fund organizations we believe in, etc.

A lack of personal available income is a big issue. I hate to say this, but Christians (all denominations) do not tithe at 10% across the board. If we did, the church would likely not be asking for as much money during church services as the Bible (God) 'suggests' we should be doing. It gets back to the whole living above your means thing.

It's a good lesson for everyone. Don't live above your means and then you can put your money where your mouth is - i.e., combatting the tragic situation in Africa. Kudos to Bono for putting his money and especially his time where his mouth is.

Posted by tango5 at June 14, 2006 11:26 PM

Well said tango5. I think the 10% tithe thing is an interesting debate. My understanding is that ‘choice in giving’ is the preferred option in new Christianity rather than a ‘flat rate top slice regardless for all.’

I can see both arguments as I am sure you can too. I do love your point about each of us having a personal responsibility to live within or below our means so that we can do something positive. I like Bono’s philosophy ‘This is not a CHARITY issue ... It a JUSTICE issue.’

All of us can so something however little money we have. I am sure you have come across this true story called ‘57 cents’ from the 19th Century American pastor Dr. Russell H. Conwell. PLEASE FORGIVE THE LENGTH OF THIS PIECE BUT THE MESSAGE IS POWERFUL.

“A sobbing little girl stood near a small church from which she had been turned away because it was too crowded.”I can't go to Sunday school," she sobbed to the pastor as he walked by. Seeing her shabby, unkempt, appearance, the pastor guessed the reason and, taking her by the hand, took her inside and found a place for her in the Sunday School class. The child was so touched that she went to bed that night thinking of the children who had no place to learn about Jesus.
Some two years later, this child lay dead in one of the poor tenement buildings and the parents called for the kind-hearted pastor who had befriended their daughter to handle the final arrangements. As her poor little body was being moved, a worn and crumpled purse was found that seemed to have been rummaged from some trash dump. Inside was found 57 cents and a note scribbled in childish handwriting that read, "This is to help build the little church bigger so more children can go to Sunday School." For two years she had saved for this offering of love.

When the pastor tearfully read that note, he knew instantly what he would do. Carrying this note and the cracked, red pocketbook to the pulpit, he told the story of her unselfish love and devotion. He challenged his deacons to get busy and raise enough money for the larger building.

But the story doesn’t end there! A newspaper learned of the story and published it. A business man who read it offered them a parcel of land worth many thousands. When told that the church could not pay so much, he offered it for 57 cents. Church members made large subscriptions. Checks came from far and wide. Within five years the little girl's gift had increased to $250,000.00—a huge sum for that time (near the turn of the century). Her unselfish love had paid large dividends.
When you’re in the city of Philadelphia, look up Temple Baptist Church, with a seating capacity of 3,300, and Temple University, where hundreds of students are trained.

Have a look, too, at the Good Samaritan Hospital and at a Sunday School building that houses hundreds of Sunday scholars, so that no child in the area will ever need to be left outside during Sunday school time.
In one of the rooms of this building may be seen the picture of the sweet face of the little girl whose 57 cents, so sacrificially saved, made such remarkable history.

Alongside of it is a portrait of her kind pastor, Dr. Russell H. Conwell, author of the book, Acres of Diamonds. Goes to show what God can do with unselfish love for others and 57 cents.”

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 15, 2006 2:04 AM

viagra in india pfizer

Consumers should understand what nutrition is about (nutrients per calories and not calories per weight).
Explaining why the elite's darling diet (Atkinson) is a death diet might do the trickle-down trick.

Posted by Hans Suter at June 15, 2006 3:05 AM

Why do I now want to go out and get a KFC for lunch? This cannot be logical!

Oddly, in the 1950s when 95% of Britons had sausage, bacon and egg for breakfast, obesity was virtually unheard of. Is it the case that "natural" fats are ok, but food industry chemicals damage us?

Is there any good research on this subject that readers can refer me to?

Posted by Dave Stringer at June 15, 2006 5:54 AM

MikeB - I agree with your point about lawsuits but not the other one. You're right: it's hard to imagine that the founding fathers envisioned a federal government that would regulate where and what we eat. However, it's also hard to imagine that they envisioned a situation where restaurants would stuff their food full of trans-fats, substitutes, preservatives, additives etc. I think the role of government in this is to ensure that food products are not dangerous, to ensure they are properly labelled, to ensure kids get informed about nutrition and diet in their education and then to allow Joe Public to make his own decisions.

We think nothing of regulating Big Pharma. Why should we not be just as concerned about another industry that produces what we put in our bodies to keep us healthy?

Posted by Mark JF at June 15, 2006 6:50 AM

Dave - another factor in play here is that in the 1950's a great many jobs in the UK were industrial, manual and 6-day weeks. Leisure activities were more active, often "making do with what you've got" but outdoors and energetic. Schools actually had playing fields and taught PE! I suspect people back then burned off more energy than people today in a call-centre, clerical, knowledge-based economy where TV and PlayStations are the main leisure choices and keeping fit has pretty much become a lifestyle choice. Just a thought...

Posted by Mark JF at June 15, 2006 6:58 AM

LATE BREAKING: KFC does post all ingredients - so buyer beware - their reps also state the KFC special patented taste is as is - so altering it could change it "adversely". Lawsuit total friv KA-Ching motivated - like the Duke lacrosse "case".

Anyway - agree with the thread that LAWSUITS ARE FAR TOO PREVALENT IN THE USA = 100 TIMES too many lawyers here chasing $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ vs. Japan for example where there are few lawyers due to their advanced civil negotiation skills. USA liberal democrats shepard lawyers as part of their FLOCK of perversion.

Posted by Sean at June 15, 2006 8:48 AM

Deaths related to obesity are targeted to surpass deaths related to cigarette smoking. I’m all for profits, liking my money as well but at what cost. People need to think about their Wellness not Health. Health is reactionary. Wellness is proactive. Turns out you can make a lot of money promoting Wellness with a net benefit to your customer. Not death.

Posted by Frank J. Foti at June 15, 2006 9:29 AM

Dave Stringer, a great resource to start with is "Fats that Heal, Fats that Kills" by Udo Erasmus.

Posted by Shaula Evans at June 17, 2006 12:41 PM

Try Red Hot Indian Chutney!

http://easyindiancookery.blogspot.com/2006/06/red-hot-onion-chutney.html

Jay, from Bangalore

Posted by Jayakumar Hariharan at June 18, 2006 10:28 AM