Katie Couric Talks About Food

Entire show (4.00 / 3)

The first embed (whole show) is about 48 minutes.

---

by: count @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 08:09:49 AM UTC

antibiotics (4.00 / 3)

This episode is well worth watching straight through. Now I need to track down the antibiotics episodes.

---

by: count @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 09:01:49 AM UTC

I agree (4.00 / 2)

My bf and I listened to it last night. Halfway through he said "This is AWESOME! I have a new respect for Katie Couric." I have to say, I agree. My favorite line from her was "I buy organic milk because I don't want hormones in my milk." Hell yeah Katie! Or when she said something about an oreo as an example of junk food. Other people wouldn't say that stuff for fear of getting sued or losing advertisers. That was pretty powerful shit.

I thought that Kessler toed the government line a little too much but usually when he did Schlosser corrected the record. GREAT show!

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:35:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

incentives for change (4.00 / 1)

While I was first posting my suggestion for changing the tax deductibility of advertising expenses, I was thinking it was a crazy idea with no chance of passage. Example: the idea is completely ignored in this video.

Capping deductions seems a practical idea, the more I think about it. Big Goobermint would not get involved in dictating what kinds of advertising would be allowed, or how much advertising could be done during which time periods, or even banning certain ads during certain times. Corporations could advertise as much as they want, whenever they want, but taxpayers would only subsidize the costs up to a limit.

The fight to implement such a change still would be fierce, but...

Pick a number. Any number, say $50 million dollars. Joanne Rigutto could advertise as often as she wished wherever she wished, and we would pay for part of it until costs exceeded $50 million dollars. Sweet deal, right? We wouldn't pay for all of it, only the amount by which her tax bill would be reduced, but still a good deal.

I propose that, if a business owns several subsidiaries, each subsidiary would be subject to the cap - Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin-Robbins would both get a cap, even though they have the same parent company. I don't think Kellog's should have separate caps for each brand, however. Mini-Wheat Big Bites and Mini-Wheat Little Bites should be subject to one cap, along with the other brands marketed by the same business unit. If Kellog's wants to spin off each brand as a separate business, in which Kellog's has no financial interest, fine - then Mini-Wheat Big Bites, Mini-Wheat Little Bites, Apple Jacks, Froot Loops, they could each have a separate cap.

Why should this country continue a tax policy dedicated to making our children, and us, sick?

Does this idea have any substance, or is it ridiculously wispy? What do you think?

---

by: count @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 10:12:48 AM UTC

I think it's brilliant (4.00 / 3)

Did you see this?Jamie Oliver at Ted

http://bit.ly/9j6rFv

from one of my favorite movies V
People should not be scared of their governments, governments should be scared of their people.
And our government is so busy being bought, they not only aren't scared.They are not even listening....

---

by: LeeN @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 13:02:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, no, no, no, no! (4.00 / 2)

Bad Count!

I think the fundamental flaw in your logic is your assumption that we are subsidizing the advertising budgets. That ain't your money they're spending, anymore than it's my money they pay out in wages (neither is subsidized). It's the company's money (or my money in the case of my companies). And in some cases, such as in the recently passed M67 here in Oregon, advertising and other business expenses don't even offset any of some taxes, such as the gross receipts tax that the voters in Oregon passed in M67 on certain businesses.

One thing I see all the time is that people, usually people who aren't currently or have never been in business, keep thinking of business gross receipts like they think of personal income. That may not have been clear, I'm having a bit of difficulty describing this.

In other words, people think to themselves 'I have to pay taxes on all of my income (gross receipts), why shouldn't the businesses have to pay on all of theirs?'

But what they forget is that busineses are a whole different thing than individual humans. That's my biggest problem with the recent SCOTUS opinion on ruling corportations as 'people' and expanding their '1st ammendment rights'. It's ludicrous. Businesses aren't people, and people aren't legal devices.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 14:13:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

words (4.00 / 1)

I used to own half of a pharmaceutical manufacturing business - the legit kind - and paid a lot of different kinds of city, state, and federal taxes.

Don't get hung up on the vocabulary, focus on the substance. An "income tax" bill for a business is based on a pot of money that is reduced by expenses. The question is, would spending behavior be changed if advertising deductions were capped, as an alternative to banning advertising, limiting advertising, dictating advertising content, etc.?

Maybe not, perhaps we would need to go in the direction of maximally intrusive government interference, but I'm wondering if there's a better way.

---

by: count @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 14:33:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In answer to your question (4.00 / 1)

would spending behavior be changed if advertising deductions were capped, as an alternative to banning advertising, limiting advertising, dictating advertising content, etc.?

I don't believe it would. Having been in business, you probably know as well as I, how easy it is to get around regulations the government may put up to control something like advertising expenses. All you have to be is nimble in your thinking, and having a good corporate lawyer (or law firm if you're large enough) to advise you helps.

I also don't believe in controling one entity (business) in order to alter another segment of society (consumers, or parents of child consumers). It's invasive, intrusive, and worse of all, not cost effective.

It also goes a long way to fostering distrust and contempt of government on both the part of the people running the businesses (heavy handed regulations) and on the part of the consumer (nanny state government).

If you really want to encourage healthier eating and activity habbits on the part of consumers, then do so by educating the consumer, not bashing and punishing the companies.

One of the things that approaches like the one you propose regarding business regulations is that it appears to assume that the consumers are too stupid to figure things out themselves. If people want to be healthy, eat healthy, etc. they are perfectly capable of being and doing those things. Access to information allows people to excersize their free will, and the ability to excersize that free will is what sepperates our country from a lot of others. Sometimes that means people are healthy, sometimes it means that we make poor decissions like smoking, drinking and eating too much, all of which I am guilty of, but at least that's my choice.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 15:01:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Our conserv ative brethren (4.00 / 1)

tell us, at every appearance in every forum, that tax policy is a major determinant of business behavior. It is or it isn't - if it is, why not in this case?

All the reasons you adduce against government regulation in general seem like arguments for this change.

Arguments about personal responsibility stopped being the mainspring in this arena years ago. Did you watch the video? The current situation is a community problem, a societal problem, a cultural problem. Bypass operations on 10-year-olds? Prescribing statins for 8-year-olds? Personal responsibility still is important, but what about corporate responsibility? And it's no use saying the only corporate responsibility is to make as much money as they can any way they can.

---

by: count @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 15:14:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The heavy hand of government... (4.00 / 2)

is often not necessary or desirable, I agree, Joanne. But in this case people over eat not just because of lack of personal discipline.

Dave Kessler made the point very well in his book that foods are designed to incorporate fats, salts, and sugars (a great variety of them) and that these foods are in fact actually addictive. You start eating salty foods and pretty soon real (non-salty) foods taste so bland that you start shaking all kinds of salt on them.

And there is very little educating being done (or ever will be done) compared to the massive mis-information campaigns conducted by food companies. The incentives are designed to keep the costs of processed food very low (think subsidized corn and soybeans) compared to real food (think lettuce, carrots, peppers, etc.).  

School lunches and vending machines contribute to bad eating by kids who develop the addictions and bad eating behaviors.

The problem is systemic. I saw yesterday an article in The Guardian (U.K.) that 40 percent of british men were expected to be overweight and 40 percent to be obese in only 10 years.  For women it was something like 30 and 30.  I don't know of any reason to believe it would any different for the U.S. The researchers called our current social gustatory environment an "obesigenic" environment.

Individual behaviors will not change greatly as long as this environment persists. It will take an outside agency (i.e. government) to come in and change the rules and incentives of the eating game. Why should food companies be subsidized? Why should they be allowed to advertise addictive foods? Etc....

Now the design of corrective government policies is a different question.  There I would be alongside you in severely questioning policy design.  So many policies in the past (in whatever field) have been badly designed and have had nasty unintended consequences.  

---

by: DennisP @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 15:46:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

video statistic (4.00 / 1)

I was startled when Couric said the average weight of American women had gone from 127 to 157 since 1960. I hadn't heard that before, and somehow it made the problem more vivid than the percentages of overweight and obese that we hear so often. I gotta admit, though, the UK predictions you cite are also startling.

---

by: count @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 17:39:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One question... (4.00 / 1)

If people want to be healthy, eat healthy, etc. they are perfectly capable of being and doing those things.

Have you ever lived in an inner city food desert without your own personal transportation?

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 19:44:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not to come off... (4.00 / 1)

Sorry if I come off as sort of mean in that question there, but I have to point out that hundreds of thousands, or more likely, millions of Americans (including many, many children) do not have "personal choices" about what they eat, solely based upon where they live and the conditions into which they were born.

Horatio Alger ain't been to Newark's Central Ward.  Or to Vailsburg, where the authorities are apparently more concerned about getting residents to snitch on their neighbors who may or may not have illegal guns, than with providing residents of the neighborhood with supermarkets.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 20:18:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, what's your answer? (4.00 / 1)

The subject I was discussing was food advertising, not food deserts or poverty.

People are not so stupid, in my opinion, that they are slaves to advertising. They have a choice as to whether they pay attention to advertising or not. That choice is a result of free will and freedom. I would rather have people have that choice to do as they see fit than have the government dictate to them what they should do any further than we do at the present.

If a person wants to eat healthy they can do so, even if they are on a limited income and have to take the bus a ways to shop. It takes more effort and more time, but that's the lot a person has until and unless they change that. And they do, each and every one of them does, have a chance to change their lot.

And please don't tell me that there aren't enough hours in the day. I know people who are raising families in rural areas, on low, low incomes, who work their asses off. They get almost no time to themselves, but they are dedicated to their families and providing good homes and food to themselves and their families. If they can do it, others can do it too. The only thing that is necessary is the will to do it. If you have the will, and are willing to do the work, you will make it happen.

It used to be that people had to go to way more trouble than 99% of the people do now, even if those people have to take a long bus trip to shop, and they did so. People now a days are built of no less than they were then.

The key is the drive to eat healthier, and that only will come through education.  

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:03:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My answer is simple... (4.00 / 1)

It's time to stop fucking coddling the destructive assholes who've ruined America, made out kids fat, and bought off our politicians.

If a person wants to eat healthy they can do so, even if they are on a limited income and have to take the bus a ways to shop.

You never have lived in an inner city food desert without your own transportation then, have you?  Some cities don't have bus systems that even make that possible, Joanne.  Especially over the past few decades as supermarkets have fled cities for suburban shopping malls in towns which don't want public transit (didn't we just discuss this the other day?).

The key is the drive to eat healthier, and that only will come through education.

Jo, I defer to you in farming and gardening matters.  But until you spend years in the inner city of Newark, NJ, or other such food deserts, I'm gonna have to insist that you walk a mile or three in others' shoes before you get all right-wing-talking-pointy on them, okay?

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:12:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmmm (0.00 / 0)

If there is a market for a regular grocery store in those areas, then someone should start one back up.

I have a hard time believing that the grocery stores fled the inner cities because of some 'Ward and June Cleaver' ideal. It probably had more to do with the business environment and proffitablility. Land prices, taxes, regulations, etc. in addition to the availablility of a market to sell products into. If a business isn't proffitable, it will leave. That's the bottom line.

As to being all right-wing-talking-pointy, since when has personal responsibility been a right wing talking point? I thought that was part of being an adult.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:44:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Bloomberg admin is trying to address this (4.00 / 1)

for NYC, as it is a big issue. Offering subsidies/incentives etc. I have to wonder if it's going to be a bigger challenge in these economic times though, banks not lending etc. He has also expanded farmers markets and veggie carts around the city and is doing other things.

I lived in a food desert. It ain't easy to eat healthy, or even healthier than fast food. I would have to get off the subway last stop on Manhattan, hit the grocery store, and then continue my journey home. Now that may not sound like much, but after an average 10hr work day, it makes the day even longer. You also have to do it more often because you can only carry so much up and down all those subway stairs etc and the blocks to/from the grocery store and the blocks from subway to apt. (If you have a store in your 'hood, you can shop bigger'heavier and transport it via cart.) Then you add in our winter weather or the lovely hot humid summer days . . . And I didn't have kids or a husband that I needed to tend to after work.  

---

by: nycstray @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 17:50:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps it would be advantageous (4.00 / 1)

for the city to give tax breaks to grocery stores.

The one thing that I think people may not think of when they talk about food deserts is the disinsentives to a business setting up as a complete grocery store.

The two things that determie whether or not a business will start up, or stay in place are operating overhead and market. If you can't make enough in gross receipts from your market to cover your overhead, your business will die.

That's the bottom line. people can talk all they want about food deserts, but if there isn't a way for a grocery store to make a proffit, there is no way that store will stay around, and there is no way that a new store will come in.  

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 01:32:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's no excuse (4.00 / 1)

I'm sorry Jay and everyone else, but it's a person's own responsibility to take care of themselves. It's not my responsibility to babysit you or anyone else by dictating to companies what kind of advertising they can put on the airwaves and in the print beyond what we already have in regulations.

And I'm sorry if a person doesn't have their own personal transportation. I thought that's what buses are for.  

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:43:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Buses... (4.00 / 1)

And I'm sorry if a person doesn't have their own personal transportation. I thought that's what buses are for.

Funny, didn't we just talk about this the other day?  What happens when towns decide they don't want public transit besmirching their Ward and June Cleaverism?

It's not my responsibility to babysit you or anyone else by dictating to companies what kind of advertising they can put on the airwaves and in the print beyond what we already have in regulations

Nobody ever said it was your responsibility.  Do you own Kellogg?

by dictating to companies what kind of advertising they can put on the airwaves

Who owns the airwaves, btw?  Hmmm...

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:17:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oy (0.00 / 0)

And you are a proponent of public transportation. I don't know, are there any large cities that have no public transportation?

You know, there are advantages and disadvantages to living in any particular place. Some cities and areas in cities have better public transportation than others as well as some areas have better or worse shopping than others.

Out here, my closest grocery store is 4 miles away, the next closest is 10 miles away. The produce stand is a bit over 1 mile away. I could walk, but that means walking in ditches (not advisable in the winter when said ditches are full of water), or I could walk on the side of the road about 12 inches from traffic traveling at speeds of between 45 and 55 mph.

Do I whine and complain about that? No. These are the conditions that exist out here. I have a choice. I can stay out here and accept and work within the parameters of life in this area, or I can move into another area. I choose to stay out here, it's my choice, no one else's.

There was a time when I lost my driver license completely for 6 weeks and then was restricted for another 6 weeks. During this time, I couldn't drive myself, had access to little or no public transportation, and was under court order to attend things like diversion and do 80 hours of community service, failure to do so on the court's schedule (which couldn't give a damn as to how difficult it was to get there without personal transportation) would result in more fines and probably jail time. So believe me, Jay, I understand well what it's like to be in a position where you have to do something that is incredibly difficult without personal transport and where public transportation is not as convenient as one would like.

When I was younger and living in Portland, I went everywhere either by walking, bicycle, or bus. I didn't have a driver license until I was 24, when I was making enough money to support myself away from my folks place and afford to buy a vehicle and insurance. I didn't even move away from home untill I was 24. So I have years of experience traveling all over a city both in areas where buses were common and convenient, and where they weren't and the bike or Shank's Mare were more convenient.

That's why I know that if people actually do want to eat better, even if they have to take extra time to do so, if it's important enough to them they will and can do it.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:08:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As to the responsibility issue (0.00 / 0)

Nobody ever said it was your responsibility.  Do you own Kellogg?

I thought that the proposal that Count had made was that perhaps limiting the advertising a company could do would influence what/how much people would eat, which I agree with, to a point.

Given the fact that we are the government, and it's the government that regulates advertising and business deductions, then it would be my responsibility to tell people to eat or not, or influence, what people eat by limiting the advertising that companies do.

We've already done that. The most recent example was that healthy foods marketing campaign that the cereal and other food companies were trying to launch, I forget what they were calling that, it was the one where they were going to put the check mark on the front of the packaging.

I don't argue that the government (you and I) has some responsibility as to regulating advertising, etc. It's just that I don't want things to go any further than they already have for various reasons.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:20:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your arguments (4.00 / 1)

You seem to have said, in this thread, that tax policy does not influence corporate behavior, and that advertising does not work.

Are those your arguments? Doesn't that violate two fundamental tenets of American life?

---

by: count @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 06:20:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Advertising does work to a point (4.00 / 1)

but people do still make the choice, ultimately. No one, short of strapping you in a chair, forcing your mouth open, and forcing the food down your throat, is making you, me or anyone else eat that food. Now in the situation of prisoners in custody, we (the government) are making them eat specific items unless they go on a hunger strike, in which case they may be force fed in certain situations.

Tax policy does indeed influence corporate behavior. I just said that capping advertising budgets wouldn't get you the result you were looking for as there are more ways to get around a policy than there are policies to spicifically shape corporate behavior.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 15:47:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]