|
Rick Berman 
Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:45:25 AM PDT
|
|
I've seen two articles lately about the ability of menu labeling to combat obesity. I think obesity is a bit of a false measure of our health, because thin people can be unhealthy just as fat people can be healthy. But there's a very real question in here: Do menu labels help us eat better? And do menu labels make us healthier?
Rick Berman, food industry shill, says that menu calorie labels don't reduce obesity. Berman backs up his point by saying that customers don't look at the labels. But that isn't proof that the labels don't work.
How can that be? After all, if they aren't reading the labels (and quite frankly, I question Berman's statistics... but let's assume this is true for the time being) how is it possible that the labels could be effective? Marion Nestle, professor at NYU and author of 4 of the best books about food you'll ever read, has the answer. Restaurants, scared to reveal how truly sinful their foods actually are, are cutting calories in their dishes! She says:
For starters, calorie labeling in California is having a big effect - on the companies, if not customers. The chains are madly cutting down on calories. The most impressive example is a Macaroni Grill 1,270-calorie scallop-and-spinach salad (I can't even imagine how they did this), which is now just a normal 390.
She later added to the post:
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is keeping track of the research along with policy implications. The bottom line to date? Menu labeling is having some effects, but there's more work to do.
Another Nestle post about Kaiser-Permanente's menu labeling effort says:
Kaiser-Permanente hospital cafeterias in California, Oregon, and Hawaii will soon be displaying information about calories and nutrition on menu boards. This huge not-for-profit HMO has a huge not-for-profit focus on preventive health. It figured out a long time ago that healthy people don't cost as much to take care of, and it constantly seeks new ways to encourage its members to stay healthy. That's why it sponsored a study to find out whether menu labeling helps people make healthier food choices. Guess what: it does.
Oops. Rick Berman, I guess you've now been proven wrong. And I agree with Nestle's point about the trustworthiness of KP's data. They are an HMO looking to cut costs by helping their patients stay healthier. They've got every possible incentive to conduct valid research on how to help people make healthier choices, since it goes to their bottom line.
I would add to this that regardless of calorie labeling's effectiveness, consumers have a right to know what's in their food. Period. If they aren't going to pay attention to the labels, that's their business. But the labels should be there so the consumers CAN find out what's in their food if they wish. As for the idea that few people actually read the labels - has Rick Berman ever met anyone on Weight Watchers? Those guys OBSESS over calorie counts (as well as fat and fiber).
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 00:10:38 AM PST
|
|
Rick Berman, a hired shill for the fast food, alcohol, and tobacco industries (among others), has something new to worry about: BermanExposed.org. The site was put together by CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. It's about time somebody put together a comprehensive source on Berman and his many corporate front groups. I, for one, am sick to death of seeing his front groups quoted as legitimate sources week after week in newspaper articles. More info on Berman (highlights from the site) below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 806 words in story)
|
|
Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 10:31:46 AM PST
|
It's nearly Christmas, and the Center for Consumer Freedom is at it again. Far be it from "Dr. Evil" lobbyist Rick Berman to miss an opportunity for turning the birth of baby Jesus into pro-corporate and anti-consumer propaganda. And shame on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for falling for CCF's bullshit by printing the article Cookie Waiver for Santa:
In today's litigious society, serving baked goods to the jolly old fat man could set you up for a very un-merry obesity lawsuit.
So before he wolfs down the cookies left by the fireplace on Christmas Eve, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) suggests demanding that Kris Kringle sign a "Christmas Cookie Liability and Indemnification Agreement."
The tongue-in-cheek liability waiver includes an agreement that Santa won't haul you into court for "failure to provide nutrition information and a list of ingredients," or "failure to caution of the potential for overeating because cookies taste 'yummy' and are provided at no cost," among other things.
You'll find the liability waiver at: www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/promotional/2008_christmas_cookie_waiver.pdf
What the article doesn't say is that Santa's dietary habits are deadly. A diet of milk and cookies alone is a fast track to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and basically death. Is it Santa's fault that he eats such junk, or should he sue? In most cases, it's probably Santa's own fault. But when the legislative and executive branches do not keep consumers safe from predatory corporations, the courts are all we have left to hold those who wrong us accountable.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:00:00 PM PDT
|
|
It's not new, but it's worth watching. Rick Berman on Colbert, from October 2007. It's like a mini-version of Thank You For Smoking. FYI, Berman is the head of the evil front group The Center for Consumer Freedom. They are funded by a secret list of big corporations. Berman likes to rail against raising the minimum wage, any efforts to curb the obesity epidemic, the UN's suggestion to eat less meat because of global warming, etc... you get the point.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 16:58:52 PM PDT
|
|
This past week the United Nations' Nobel prize winning head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made waves by recommending each of earth's citizens go meatless one day a week - and then attempt to decrease meat consumption from there. I applaud the U.N.'s recognition that meat contributes heavily to global warming - even if I disagree with their tactics of asking people to voluntarily kick the meat habit a few times a month. (I'm sorry but if you're serious about this, you need to do a few things that upsets big business in a BIG way or else we just won't get the change we need.)
But before you start believing those crazies over at the U.N., you ought to take a look at what our friends at the Center for Consumer Freedom had to say about the U.N.'s statement. Oh boy, the beef, booze, and tobacco lobby (which is precisely who funds CCF) thinks we shouldn't stop eating meat? I'm shocked. Let's see how they justify that.
|
|
There's More...
:: (8
Comments, 1801 words in story)
|
|
Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 08:00:00 AM PDT
|
|
Many people who make our food system what it is are well-meaning - even if they are peddling junk. Sometimes people just never really thought things through, or they don't realize the harm foods can cause to human health or to the environment. Rick Berman is NOT well-meaning. And you should know his name. When Berman or his groups, the Center for Consumer Freedom, the Guest Choice Network, the Employment Policies Institute (which includes the site Center for Union Facts), and the American Beverage Institute, pop up in the news, we'll want to be ready with some good letters to the editor to send in to any paper that quotes him as a legitimate source of information.
I'd like to do this as a diary series, and I invite everyone here to join me in writing about other bigtime assholes whose names we should know - Terry Etherton (pro-rBGH blogger extraordinaire) and Dale Bauman (pro-rBGH scientific prostitute for Monsanto), etc. For some gooood info, check out the site Sourcewatch.
|
|
There's More...
:: (13
Comments, 538 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
|
