The 'good' doctor stated that drinking it wouldn't harm him. In that much the science says he is correct, the toxicity tests on the concentrations used for application say that. The toxicity of the concentrated form is way higher, but even then the cases of deliberate attempted suicide by drinking it often fail. The maximum concentration for application is 10%, but ranges all the way down to 0.1%.

When one guy talks about the effects of 0.1% concentrated substance, and the other talks about the effects of nearly 100% concentration, you get different results. That's because you are talking apples to oranges. That IMHO makes you both fools, but I have to tip a bit of the hand to the guy that is at least talking about the real world application levels rather than the one that makes the story he wants.

You could make a similar story out of vinegar and how the food industry is pouring a poison into our food chain. After all, highly concentrated form of the acid will even burn your skin, never mind trying to drink it. The reality in application of the low concentration vinegar most of us regular consume though is fine, with the recommendation that pouring it in your eyes won't be fun, and if you were asked to drink a glass you'd likely refuse despite the knowledge it wouldn't be so bad for your health.

Yeah, I've seen references like this. It's crap. A quick Google search turned up articles where fat people were motivated to lose their weight because of fat shaming. There was a recent article in our local paper that made a similar point. You can always find a study to support your view. I prefer the evidence of my own eyes.
Obesity has soared in one generation because we now refer to fat women as BBW. Manufacturers of planes and cars, clothing are now designing for heavier people.
Acceptance of fat has led to the current crisis (and I do acknowledge the role of the fast food industry which I compare to the tobacco industry).
Remember how cigarette smoking was once seen as glamourous? Not any more... it was re-branded as a disgusting vice that took its toll on your health, your looks, your breath and people (like me) dropped the habit so that in one generation it's the exception rather than the rule.
Sure, there are hardcore smokers who will never be cured. And some fat people are always going to stay fat rather than develop some willpower. But it should never be accepted or promoted somehow.

i ran a rather succesful pizza franchise for a while. i was quite generous with my pay and even in a low-mid income pizza store, i could easily afford to pay $15/hr to all my staff (of 20). Tim Hortons (canada) sells enough volume of coffee at roughly $2 a cup (plus other things) to afford starting wages of $11/hr in my town (plus benefits like basic health care stuff/drug palns blah blah blah) and pay/hour only goes up from there.

big corps have the margins to support this, in theory based on experience, for most low level income areas (10-15k sales a week) have a 10-15% proft margin. thats a week. once the mortgages and other build loans are paid, a business runnings expenses half. and that margin doubles. so in practice, most major fast food chains could easily afford to pay more and the only people who suffer most is the top level. they would raise prices to make the same yearly income. so, yes, an economy could sustain and only really gain from paying its own employees more. happy employees at home means less drama and stress related "mishaps" (food industry is very stressful) in the kitchen, would in theory benefit the company.

primarily, the only real people to suffer is the top level. the guys that skim the left over (profit margin) after expenses are paid.

if a company raised its prices because its employees wanted more wages, and they actually did pay them more and treated them better, i would shop there more often as that is a business i want to succeed. but thats another issue altogether to discuss is the need for people to spend as little as possible, making places like walmart and black friday sales so succesful. in part, we are to blame for what is happening, but we do not ask those companies to treat their staff the way they do to achieve this goal.

um, also good for them, most of those franchises lost thousands in one day due to loss of sales. so remember that if you think this wasn't successful.

Ok here's some of my ideas. The first thought of course is that there needs to be a revolution. But what would that achieve - the people that have the money and the power would still be there to influence the new Government. So the only way to achieve real change (not ObamaChange) is to get rid of the people making this mess and also stop the mechanisms that allow it to happen. So serious thought needs to go into listing all the major ways by which corruption is occurring and may occur (legal and non-legal) and then even more serious thought needs to go into better alternatives or proposals. This list of changes then needs to be put forward and if the changes are not made by the existing Govt., then the people need to demand that the Govt. steps down and be replaced by one that will make the changes. Until people are willing to put their lives on the line for this, things will just continue to escalate downwards.

In my opinion the first change that needs to happen is with the media. All of these millions and billions of dollars that get raised/spent to fund campaigns have one major purpose - to buy time with the media outlets to spread a message. Staggering sums of money are being given to mainstream media outlets by the GOP/Dems to spread there propaganda, how on earth can we expect those same media outlets to provide honest coverage of events when they are taking hundreds of millions of dollars from people that don't want honest coverage. So no matter what happens in terms of election funding, the first and most important step is to break this connection between political parties and media channels so there can be honest rather than 'balanced' reporting.

So of course, the next major change that needs to happen is to switch to a publicly funded election system.

Then other issues/resolutions should include at the very least:
Lobbyist influence : An outright ban on lobbyists making donations
Lack of accountability : There needs to be a direct link between what people vote for and what is delivered, i.e. the platform that a candidate runs on cannot be changed or watered down once they take office.
Corrupting influence of power : There needs to be a better way of restricting the time groups or individuals can stay in power/office.
Environmental degradation : Environmental laws need to be improved and updated with assistance from experts, scientists and community members.

Also, one issue that is close to my heart, but others may find silly is the issue of advertising. Advertising has allowed for the widespread popularity and adoption of fast food. The fast food industry needs to be looked at in a similar way as the smoking industry, and the costs of advertising for a fast food business need to matched by the public health cost that the business will have on the population at large. So in other words, advertising for Mickey D's, Wendy's and other chains that sell rubbish needs to become prohibitively expensive, because the damage they are causing to the people in the way of obesity, diabetes etc is of epic proportions. This approach should really be applied to most aspects of industry, so for example the oil and gas industry provide an energy dense product, which by comparison to other forms of energy is quite efficient - however if the cost to the environment is taken into account, it becomes less attractive, so I think more thought needs to go into sustainability in policy making.

Anyway, that's just a couple of examples, my main point is that a systematic look at corruption in the system needs to be completed and documented and then the well thought out and logical changes need to be implemented. I mean, protesting individual issues is good, and sometimes it even works, e.g. with the SOPA 'win' and the Keystone XL 'win', but in the long term it's just not enough to have anything but a delaying effect.

>> ^rottenseed:

I just watched "Fat Head" a response to "Super-size Me". It contained a lot of appealing facts that I will never bother to fact check. If you, too, are mentally lazy like me, you should watch it. It's low-budget but it's amusing.>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^gwiz665:
Jebus christ. I mean, seriously, they should have layed off the big macs back in school. America, you need to run your ass around the block a few times.

As someone who is currently (perennially) trying to lose weight, I wish it was something as simple as running around the block a few times. I trained for a marathon two years ago and simply stopped losing weight during the process. I remained 30 lbs above my goal weight, and ran (and finished) the marathon like that. For people who are not naturally lean, it is the difficult (near impossible) combination of proper exercise with proper diet that causes them to often simply give up. It also an unhappy truth that the cheapest food is the least healthy, so poor people are much more likely to be malnourished into obesity.
As to the video, in this particular case, laughing is totally appropriate. But when it's a fat person by themselves, I am usually just saddened. And I always remember that phrase, "Are you riding a scooter because you're fat, or fat because you are riding a scooter?"



I've read about "Fat Head" and it makes a compelling argument. It is theoretically possible to have a healthy weight while eating crappy food. However, we shouldn't be looking at what a single person can accomplish while on a mission to debunk a fear-mongering documentary. We should be looking at the statistics of the category of people who are obese: what is caused their obesity and what is preventing them from losing the fat?

I have no specifics to back up my current opinion. It is a position I have decided upon after many years of personal experience and reading a wide variety of books on getting in shape. It is my belief that the core ingredients of fast food are simple carbohydrates and saturated fats. These ingredients have a 1-2 punch on the metabolism, spiking the insulin response which pushes calories into formation of fat, then crashing the insulin response making the body feel hungry again. Riding this cycle over the long term creates larger and larger appetites, encouraging the consumer to purchase more and more food. Bad for the body, but good for the restaurants. Protein can help reduce the insulin spike, but fast food usually comes with very fatty protein, so that's not much of a help. And vegetables aren't very tasty, so they are easily overlooked.

What I'm saying is that people who are overweight are trapped in a cycle they don't understand, and even if they do understand it, it is very hard to break out. It is literally an addiction like smoking, except you can't quit cold turkey (pun not intended). You can't stop eating. You have to keep eating, but choosing foods you don't enjoy because your habits have been warped by the cheap food industry.

I don't think we should legislate. I'll be the first to stand up and say don't blame McDonald's for your weight problem (even though it's kinda their fault). I'm saying we need to educate. And make that education based on clinical studies, not lobbyist funding like the USDA's myplate program. Teach people the proper balance of protein, carbs, and fat. Teach them the proper forms those nutrients should come in (lean and whole, not processed and sugary). Teach them the benefits of vegetables. This information has got to be in our faces so that we can't ignore it.

But even if we do that, this generation is a lost cause. I work my ass off to get in shape, but I keep falling off the wagon because the craving for fast food gets to be too much. That "high" from a sugary insulin spike calls to me. I'm not kidding that it's an addiction. We need to teach people that, so that kids and parents can keep away and not get hooked.

@peggedbea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
"In the U.S., HFCS is among the sweeteners that have primarily replaced sucrose (table sugar) in the food industry. Factors for this include governmental production quotas of domestic sugar, subsidies of U.S. corn, and an import tariff on foreign sugar; all of which combine to raise the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS less costly for many sweetener applications."
So there are politico-economical reasons sodas in Europe contain beet sugar.

>> ^BoneRemake:

What gives you more pleasure, Final Fantasy or Robot Chicken ? @kceaton1


If I could have both at the same time like this, it would be completely obvious.

Otherwise, it's Robot Chicken. Now if we could create a videogame-Robot Chicken-Spielberg/Lucas/Nolan/James Cameron/Ridley/Peter Jackson/Guillermo del Toro /Joss Whedon (to keep the others on the up & up) and then Hans Zimmer/Williams (I know)/Jerry Goldsmith/Trent Reznor/Cliff Martinez/ & Dennis McCarthy for sound. Lot's of the people involved would innately clean up mistakes (like Lucas at some point; for example).

It would be the best thing ever...

Did you want a short answer?

My biggest criticism regarding this whole "killing us softly" dialog is that it's always presented as a clear cut crime, there's an offender (media) and a victim (women).
While this is true at a very basic level I find it to be a very innocent approach. If you're going to be candid regarding this whole image issue then at the very least you have to ask yourself, what is my part in this, as an individual?
The answer in my opinion is a sad one, we perpetuate these concepts, we reward this behavior, not just the media, not just men or women, almost all of us. In the company of most women I know I find myself to be (sadly) more of a feminist than they all are combined. Sure, they're quick to fire criticisms about these issues, but when it comes to their part in playing the role that mainstream media and history has defined for them as women they are usually not only content in abiding but find satisfaction in perpetuating these anachronistic concepts.

What I'm basically trying to say is that this issue, to me, is very similar to the whole fast-food industry problem. The industry provides fast, cheap and extremely unhealthy food. People consume, then they rage about having been harmed by these companies. Of course there's an argument to be made against these companies, but to view yourself as a helpless victim is just immature. What are you doing to denounce these concepts? To say, as an individual, I refuse to abide, I refuse to play along, I refuse to eat up what is served to me just because it's being served.
We are not helpless. We need to understand the part we play in a capitalist consumer-driven society, not just cry out as victims.

Remind me to promote this.

This short documentary does a good job of covering all different angles.

I am personally against the fast food industry altogether for many other reasons including factory farming, and resource waste, but this video manages to take every side of the spectrum and collaborates it well. The video tries looks at the government policy, the scientific argument (or what seemed like it. Keep in mind Morgan Spurlock's work wasn't perfectly scientific either), as well as its impact everyday neighborhoods. It's good journalistic work.

*nochannel *controversy *cooking *documentaries *health *law *talks *politics

>> ^blankfist:


News flash. Income tax doesn't pay for roads. Also, I've gotten sick TWICE in the past year from food poisoning. Um, I think during that period of time we still had the FDA, right? And the Supreme Court has upheld in every single case that has been brought to them when police refused or failed to protect the people that the government has zero obligation to protect it's citizens.
Not an investment in the country's future, thank you very much. It's just theft.


bf, you're right about the FDA; they're mostly useless due to being more heavily influenced by the food industry than they are by the people they're supposed to protect. That said, local and federal taxes do fund state health departments, which in some cases can be very, very good. To go back to state's rights; if you're concerned with the food poisoning aspect you're free to move to a state that doesn't have a crappy health departmet.

>> ^ulysses1904:

Yeah his voice is obnoxious. And the editing and sound effects are the usual manipulative crap. The only thing missing is the mushroom cloud at the finale. Or was it there, I stopped watching before the end.


However, the message for the cars is completely true. I am not a wealthy person, so fluctuations in used car parts is a real pain for me...and it has been noticeable. Even moreso since many of the components I have needed of late have been engine related.
>> ^handmethekeysyou:

I almost upvoted this video after the beginning sequence.
But after the narrator's obnoxious tone, and then specifically the line, "but this government misallocation of money and resources always[emphasis mine] leads to unintended consequences," I stopped watching.
Always? Now there are a few ways of interpreting this sentences. First would be that when the government misallocates money and resources, there are unintended consequences. I won't disagree with that semantically, but if that's what he's saying, does it really need to be said? When the government screws up, it screws up. The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.
A second interpretation is that government policy always misallocates money and resources & there are always, without fail, unintended consequences. Well, now I'll disagree semantically. Saying that all policy misallocates $$ & resources is ludicrous. If the video is going to talk about the fact that in all policy, there is always some money misused, that sounds interesting and is a worthwhile, constructive criticism. But something in those ominous clouds composited behind the Capitol Building tells me this isn't going to be an objective, in-depth look at government spending.
I suppose this video is 10 minutes of cherry-picked policies that the government screwed up. I'd love to watch and get worked up about it, but now I know it would just be anti-government propaganda.
...
I decided to watch some of it since maybe it was unfair to rail on it so hard after only a minute. Things that struck me:
- Use of Uncle Sam to suggest overbearing government propaganda. Video then proceeds to lay the propaganda on heavier than a North Korean campaign to get you to trim your hair. People in the streets, in photo negative! Capitol building with dollar signs coming out it, heading right for the lens, in photo negative! How about you composite some more shots over other shots to make this all seem so overwhelming? I think there was a full 5 seconds in there without a single hit or sting. I was bored and not emotionally outraged during those 5 seconds. Please reedit to fix.
- You're going to argue against "regulations" at large? All regulation is hurting me, the consumer, the citizen? [Regulating the amount of lead in my paint ultimately costs me more money, which means I can't provide as well for my children, who are currently eating paint chips.] Strange that he doesn't name a single specific regulation. Though it's actually nice. It saves me from having to think. Now I know, regulation=bad, and I don't need to worry my pretty little head about the whys and hows of it all.
- Nor does he explain the line "We have recently seen that sometimes it's the regulator that keeps bad businesses in business." Ok, sometimes that happens...like, when? Oh, I don't actually know any examples, just sometimes it happens. I can't wait to put on a smug expression of intellectual superiority after I wow the crowd at my next cocktail party when I pull this nugget out.
- During the regulation bit, he does relate that we're paying a "regulation tax" that's priced into my health insurance, shoes, clothing [shoes aren't clothing?], food, cars, homes, and pretty much anything I buy. I hate taxes! I buy at least 3 of those things! [So what?] So...I hate regulations! Which regulations do I hate again? [Not sure.] All of them! [Did I mention this is propaganda?]
I stopped after the regulations part [can you tell I didn't like that bit?]. I have no conclusive paragraph to sum everything up. This video is terrible and offensive.


There are many examples of bad companies staying in power because of using the power of law to enforce their agenda. For instance, the enjoyed legal monopoly of most telco and cable companies. Or, the higher prices Americans pay for sugar because of import tariffs on sugar. And thusly making corn sugar, its unhealthier cousin, the mainstay of American diets. Or, the corn subsidy that makes corn feeding beef more economical, even though it causes ecoli to then be produced by said cattle; this all benefits fast food industries to the defiant of us all. Or minimum wage, it necessarily raises unemployment by denying low skilled workers access to market priced labor; this protects high skilled labor from ever being found wanting for lower priced labor mainly benefiting large union positions, while relegating to perpetual unemployment/illegal employment a low skilled migrant worker.

But I admit, there needed to be more examples and less dogma in the video.

I don't see this as string pulling. I see this as a singular corporate-governmental beast with two backs bludgeoning anyone or anything that stands in its way.

I just read a wikileak cable in which the USGovernment talks about strong-arming France into weakening their nutritional standards in order to boost profits for Monsonto and the biotech food industry.

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/12/07PARIS4723.html

Here is a related news story: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aQGg.HOIcKv8

If our government will go to bat internationally for frankenfood distributors, then what makes you so sure they wouldn't do the same at home for the banking industry. It wasn't the will of the people to give Bank of America 20 billion dollars.

Here is another cable in which the USG fights for the international domination of Visa/Mastercard. The same government that denies us healthcare is out in Russia, fighting for leaches in the credit industry. http://213.251.145.96/cable/2010/02/10MOSCOW228.html

I'm standing by my hypothesis.

err, there are plenty of touchscreens near food and on cooking apparatuses in the food industry.

>> ^Entropy001:

This has to be the best coverage I've seen. I can't believe that I didn't hear anything on CNN about Transocean recommending a temporary halt in production.
I had thought they were actually responsible, as the media did report that the rig was their's.


Ya, it is an odd relationship for sure. BP owns the oil because of the leasing agreement with the USA. Transocean is in a bad position to argue because BP already OWNS the oil even before it is drilled. So, if Transocean causes to much headache, BP can just get someone else to drill. For all intents and purposes, BP is the boss because Transocean is just the labor portion of the equation. This situation points to some problems with the current state of mineral rights property rights. It is in about the same sate as intellectual property rights, you can have someone buy something with money, do nothing with it except exploit other people who want to do something about it. The current state of IP and MR in the US encourages people who have capital and do nothing over those who are people on the ground. And Obama shows no signs of reforming this discrepancy any time soon. Tighter regulations on oil drillers is almost part of the problem. What I mean is small time drillers who could potentially be more responsible because they are drilling where their families live do not have access to leasing rights due to larger oil companies being able to craft the regulation book in their favor; then just as easily dodge the regulations they just mandated.

You can see cases of this in the food industry as well. I recommend watching Food Inc. The FDA wanted to shut down this small time farming community that slaughtered their farm stock in the open air. The FDA claimed this wasn't sanitary. But ecological tests came back, their meat was many times more clean that meat form the major industrial meat factories. This really does seem to be the case of captured regulators, government corruption, and poor definitions of mineral rights. The problem of the oil rig exploding is just the Pandora's box if you will.

>> ^ghark:
>> ^Heartspark:
He has lots of bad points in that speech though.
For one he fails to understand lots of things about food industry. Simply put you can NOT in this day and age go back to provide natural food in everything. The reason you get a big mac for $1 and not $18 is because it's mass produced.
Supple and demand would simply not happen at all in the world he wants.
In fact, if you wanted to make a meal like he wants for every school in america to be healthy, you would simply bankrupt the school because it would send costs skyrocketing (esp when schools now are having a hardtime).
You have to understand, its not simply a matter of food, its a matter of peoples mindset. People in Asia don't think rice and fish are disgusting, because they eat it in lots of meals. In the USA lots of kids don't care for it at all (unless its taco bell for rice and fish sticks in the oven).
For his "utopia" to work, it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, millions of jobs at stake. So yes, we can afford not to do it.

You don't seem to understand the food industry yourself, the fast food isn't just cheap because of mass production, it's because the corn/wheat/soy industries are heavily subsidised by the government. Secondly, you exagerate your numbers, a non mass produced hamburger only costs a few dollars, i can make a healthy burger at home for not much more than a big mac and i'm sure a lunch lady can do just as well as me.
Not sure what your perogative is, but you seem to be on the wrong track, i suggest you educate yourself a little on what real food is, and the reasons Jamie is doing what he is.


You missed the whole point. The whole reason from the START is why mass produced food started was because supply and demand could not keep up with making food from organic means. That is why organic food is expensive, it does cost more than mass produced food because more work is needed in the long haul to the store. Try farm grazing cows naturally for 300 million people and then wonder why meat cost you a paycheck each month. Sure you can make a hamburger NOW for the same price as a big mac and its healthier..

You simply can't have mass produced organic food, for healthy meals at home in todays world.

I have nothing against what he is doing, its Nobel and good he is taking a stance naturally. Its simply unrealistic goals..as of now.