Why ‘Big Food’ will lose.

The insanity of ‘food addiction’ must surely be plain for all to see. It’s no different to ‘breathing addiction’ or an addiction to not being dead. Obviously ridiculous.

The food industry see this absurdity and take great pains to point it out. If eating signifies an addiction then we are all food addicts. If eating certain foods over others signifies an addiction then again, we are all addicts. Everyone has foods they really like to eat and other foods they don’t like so much – and everyone has a food they really don’t want to eat at all. This preference means you are addicted. If you were not addicted you would eat all foods with equal preference.

It’s patently rubbish and everyone with half a brain can see it’s rubbish, as is the ‘science’ behind it all, but the food industry will not win against the zealots for one simple reason, and it’s stated in that article.

Image2

(I can’t cut and paste directly from the site, I hope this is readable, perhaps with a click)

The definition of addiction, as Rose pointed out a while back, was changed in 1994 so that smoking could be classed as an addiction. It could not have been so classified with the true definition, the old one. That change meant that any repeated habit, anything you do just because you like doing it, can be classed as an addiction. Anything at all.

As long as that new definition of addiction is in place, any repeated behaviour in any circumstance at all can be classed as an addiction. Including food consumption.

The only way to get rid of the ‘food addiction’ idiots is to change the definition back to what it was before – but that would relegate smoking from ‘addiction’ back to mere ‘bad habit’ alongside nosepicking and arsescratching (which, under the new definition, are also addictions). It would once again become something that some people disapprove of, but nothing at all to do with the medical fraternity nor their Pharmers.

As long as the food industry, the drink industry, the hospitality industry and all the others who thought they were safe when ‘they came for the smokers’ continue to support the denormalisation programme aimed at smokers, they are doomed to lose. They will experience the same denormalisation programme and they cannot win – because the only way to stop this is to roll it back to the beginning and stop it at the source. Reverse the change made to that definition of ‘addiction’ and it all stops. Keep the new definition because you want to keep calling smokers addicts, and it will never stop.

It’s up to you, food industry. I don’t care whether this juggernaut stops or not, it’s already rolled over me anyway. I might as well sit back and watch it roll over the rest.

To put the Pastor’s old rhyme in a different perspective…

First they came for the smokers, and I was a smoker, and nobody spoke up for me.

Then they came for the food industry and I thought ‘Fuck you, you left me to suffer, now it’s your turn’.

Then they came for… well the rest is all the same really. Only the name of the industry or hobby changes. The method does not change.

See, every time the Righteous turn on a new target it takes a tiny bit of pressure off we smokers. So if they want to bang on about the amount of sugar in jam (we can grow tobacco and make booze, jam shouldn’t be a problem) or whether Halal should be EU-standardised (get extra popcorn in for that one, it’s Righteous vs. Righteous in the main arena) or whether child buggies should have airbags, side impact bars, independent suspension and L-plates, or anything else, it’s all time they are spending not bashing their primary target – me.

When the good Pastor Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller wrote his verse using all the letters of his name and a few spare ones he found behind the couch, his perspective was from that of the last one on the list.

My perspective is that of the first one on the list. I do not have the guilt of being the one who did not speak out. I have the rage of being the one abandoned by all the other groups.

So when the food industry moan about the same template applied to them as has been, and still is, applied to me, I feel no urge to help them out. None at all. When they came for me, the food industry did not speak out.

Now they have come for the food industry, all I plan to do is laugh as I watch the same template unfold. Sure, the smokers could warn them. We can predict what comes next. We’ve seen it several times over. We can arm them with all they need to be ready for the next stage.

But I say we don’t. Let them feel how it feels. Let them go through the things they were happy to let us go through. Let them feel the isolation and the hate and the spite. Let them suffer.

Rolling back halfway will not work. Pushing the Righteous to leave food alone might work for a while but not for long. You have to push them all the way back to the start. Right back past that first line of ‘First they came for…’

The industries and the drones are not ready for that. they still love to hate smokers. Well, the Panjandrum Wheel rolled past this way some time ago, the fireworks it left are still going off but they are less frequent and more like comical ‘poppers’ these days. They will get less and less as the Wheel rolls over its new targets with its full power of new fireworks and each new target will react with surprise and dismay, They helped to start it rolling, why is it coming for them now?

Smokers, the ones you lot rolled it over first, told you it would roll your way one day. You didn’t listen then. Are you listening now?

Doesn’t matter. We’ve given up talking to you.

Food industry, I would say ‘good luck’ to you but I wouldn’t really mean it.

 

 

Advertisements

44 thoughts on “Why ‘Big Food’ will lose.

  1. WRT the “can’t cut and paste from that site”, there are two options:

    i) Select the block of text you desire, then instead of invoking “copy” select from your broswer “view selection source”. This will, in Firefox at least, present you a new window with the HTML for the block – and the text you originally selected highlighted for easy copying 🙂

    ii) Install some sort of script blocker (NoScript is a perennial favourite) and don’t let the page even load the script that stops you copying the text.

    Here’s the text in case you want to go back and edit the article:

    It is well established that adverse addictions, such as gambling, smoking, drugs, compulsive and obsessive over-consumption of many foods which can be anything from alcohol to carrots (hard to believe, but true), can be clinically significant.

    Like

  2. Could you have a hidden addiction? – 2008

    “We all joke about being addicted to chocolate.

    But how many of us crave certain every day foods without realising we have developed a dependency?

    An increasing number of health professionals claim that many of us are unwittingly addicted to some of the apparently harmless products we eat – from curry to sugar, potatoes and bread.

    Scientists at Nottingham Trent University recently discovered that spicy foods arouse and stimulate the senses – causing people to become curry addicts.

    PROMIS, a company which specialises in rehabilitating people with addictions, deals with a whole range of obsessive behaviour. Alongside patients addicted to drugs and alcohol they are now treating people dependent on certain foods.”

    ‘There are definite reactions the body has to certain addictive foods,’ she said. ‘They create cravings and gets you hooked.’

    Althea has identified four ingredients in everyday foods that cause cravings. They are wheat, dairy products, potatoes, and sugar and with the exception of sugar all are nutritious and healthy.

    Foods such as potatoes – and even tomatoes and peppers – contain a natural poison called solanine just underneath their skin. In some people this chemical causes a natural high – and can therefore be addictive.”

    “Althea has devised a three-week diet called the Four Zero Experience to help food addicts cut out these elements.”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-23629/Could-hidden-addiction.html

    The very same David Kessler who had nicotine declared an addictive substance in 1994 turned his attention to food in 2009.

    “Dr. Kessler isn’t convinced that food makers fully understand the neuroscience of the forces they have unleashed, but food companies certainly understand human behavior, taste preferences and desire.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/health/23well.html?_r=0

    But Professor Randall Thompson, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, on discovering that ancient mummies thousands of years old, with exactly the lifestyle they were intending to push on us, suffered from what they thought of as a modern lifestyle disease, recently let the cat out of the bag.

    ““He said it is commonly thought that if modern humans could emulate pre-industrial or even pre-agricultural lifestyles, that atherosclerosis would be avoided”
    http: //www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21739193

    I wonder if we will be permitted to forage for food in hedgerows and spear the occasional rabbit?

    It’s quite reassuring to discover that at least one of the lifestyler’s beliefs is based on a time of myth and legend and has all the veracity of Piltdown Man.

    Like

  3. Enzymicals:

    Dried and test smoke some of the leaf and it’s EXACTLY same as if I had steamed it ..ie less taste but just as much throat burn/harshness so I think I can say that the enzymes either didn’t work or never got a chance to work due to the heat. I’ve dried off the batch and have filed it away under ‘Crap That May Magically Become Smokeable In About A Decade Or When I’m Next Broke’.

    Pictures? But of course: http://blockeddwarf.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/turnin-bacca-brown-enzyme-digestion.html

    Like

  4. You say don’t warn the food industry of what is to come. I say don’t bother because it won’t do any good.

    They have their own template to follow – Give a little, get involved in a responsibility deal, reduce a little sugar here, a little salt there – generally hope that appeasement will work. It won’t. But it seems history is no longer for learning from.

    Like

    • The shit already hit the fan – the foodies agreed to a voluntary code and at once, the Puritns cried ‘Not everyone agrees! There must be laws’.

      It’s all going to crash at once. It’ll be so much fun to watch.

      Like

  5. I’m not sure we were the first they “came for”.
    The Hunting Ban?
    It didn’t affect me. I find hunting a bit distasteful.
    I did express opposition to the ban though, on principle. Did anyone else?

    Like

    • Actually I think Gun Owners were the ‘first’ THEY came for quickly followed by The Peers Of The Realm …cos without emasculating the Upper House Blair would have never have gotten through all the other bans.

      And yes I protested the Hunting Ban on principle ( I think fox hunting had had it’s time and should have been allowed to die a natural death at the hands of Tesco and Council House Estates).

      Like

      • Yes they were.

        1996: Handguns to be banned in the UK

        “The Conservative Government’s proposals became law in February 1997.

        When Labour came to power three months later they brought in an amendment banning all handguns. This became law in November 1997.”
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm

        2005: Ban on hunting comes into force
        “Fox hunting with dogs is now illegal in England and Wales after a ban on the activity came into force overnight.”
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/18/newsid_4930000/4930896.stm

        And in between they abolished the death penalty for treason in 1998 and signed us up to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2004.

        DECEMBER 16, 2004
        Britain ratifies anti-tobacco treaty

        “The announcement was hidden away in a statement about a reduction in the number of smokers in the UK.”
        http: //www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14008.html

        And so it was.

        16th December, 2004
        MORE THAN A MILLION FEWER SMOKERS SINCE 1998

        “On the same day as these statistics were published, the UK ratified the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control”
        http: //www.gov-news.org/gov/uk/news/more_than_a_million_fewer_smokers_since_1998/77507.html

        Like

    • XX I did express opposition to the ban though, on principle. Did anyone else?XX

      After a few years as a “Hunt sabateure”, when it came to the crunch, yes, I DID oppose the ban.

      Whether that was principal, or sheer bloodymindieness, I still do not know.

      But oppose it, I did.

      Like

    • I’m not sure we were the first they “came for”.
      The Hunting Ban?
      It didn’t affect me. I find hunting a bit distasteful.
      I did express opposition to the ban though, on principle. Did anyone else?

      Good question!
      There was no option for voting against “hunting for fun” (everything is being shot, regardless of breeding season etc) or hunting in general.
      It was all just HUNTING.
      I object to “hunting for fun”.
      A real hunter knows his patch and takes great care in what he/she shoots to en sure there are enough animals left for next year’s hunt.

      No-one bothered to produce facts. I wasted my “vote”.

      Like

    • There were things before the antismoking offensive.

      However, form my perspective, the motorcycle helmet law didn’t affect me as I can’t even ride a bike, the seat belt law didn’t affect me – in both cases I was too young to drive anyway. I do remember my father getting front seat belts fitted to his Hillman Imp and my mother telling him off for not using them. His reply was ‘I have to have them, I don’t have to bloody use them’. By the time I learned to drive, wearing them was compulsory and in my tatty Cortina, it was advisable anyway.

      The hunting ban had no effect at all on me, I am not interested in the ‘tally-ho’ rubbish because I can’t ride a horse and have a chin. I was never interested in stopping them either. Hunting, to me, was a good way to keep two opposing bands of cretins from bothering me.

      Someone once commented ‘Well why did you not oppose the seat belt laws and the motorbike helmet laws then?’ I didn’t because I was too young to be driving either vehicle and too young to asee what was going on.

      The first thing to afect me directly was the smoking ban. That was when I became aware of the creeping control and yes, I do realise the smoking ban wasn’t the first but it was the first thing to hit me directly.

      The smoking ban is really why this blog exists. Seat belts in cars, side impact bars, ABS, all these things do not make roads safer. They make drivers think it’s safe to drive like dicks. They won’t get hurt. The people they hit will.

      I’ll get to those controls but my first priority is the destruction of antismoking.

      To paraphrase the Dreadful Arnott – ‘I hate antismoking, not antismokers’.

      Like her version, the antismokers are not the focus of my hate. If they suffer, that’s just collateral damage. I don’t care about them at all.

      To me, they are denormalised and dehumanised. No more a focus of hate than an ant’s nest and dealt with in much the same way..

      Like

  6. Off and on topic…

    The ‘Template’ is being applied in many areas. In addition to Big Food, Big Alcohol, Big X, some recognized it was being applied to climate change, Big Climate!?.

    Over at WUWT, a paper is discussed called ‘The Subterranean War on Science’
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/01/mann-and-lewandowsky-go-psychotic-on-skeptics/ I was surprised to see the name Linda Bauld as an author.

    Indeed it is Prof Linda Bauld of Tobacco Control (UK)

    Like

  7. where does this urge to control other peoples lives come from ? Are some people genetically hard-wired to want to control ? These are the same people that thirsted to burn witches in the sixteenth century, the gin banners of the seventeenth century, the teetotal movement of the eighteenth, and so on. (I have to stop for a moment and open another bottle of wine) what is not good about these modern killjoys is they seem to be able to get governments to listen to them, and are indeed given money (ours) by governments to peddle their people-controlling ideas, ah, i see now, these people want to control people, just like governments !

    Like

    • You need to think about the word “Government”. Do you think that the Cabinet is ‘the government’? I would urge you to think again. Everyone of the politicians in the Cabinet has little knowledge of their briefs. How can they have? Subry was a junior health minister and now she is a junior defence minister? What does she know about either?
      No …. The DEPARTMENTS are the government. And who is/are in control of, say, the health department? Is it not ‘the experts’?

      Like

    • It’s an addiction. They ought to be referred to some specialist or other for treatment. Meantime, they should be kept away from the public; all this second hand ‘controllery’ is bad for public health! Don’t want the kids catching it do we.

      Like

  8. Food….. Quite frankly, I don’t understand the hype.
    Salt…. Quite frankly, I don’t understand the hype.
    Sugar….Quite frankly, I don’t understand the hype.
    Alcohol….Quite frankly, I don’t understand the hype.
    Tobacco…..Quite frankly, I don’t understand the hype.
    Caffeine….Quite frankly, I don’t understand the hype.

    However, I understand that the HYPE costs a lot of money.

    TRANSPARENCY, please!

    Like

    • Brigitte, I found these two studies very helpful when I first trying to find out what had been going on. The “substance condemners” in context.

      If You Ask the Question, ‘what Is the Risk,’ You Are Asking the Wrong Question – 1992
      http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zzi61c00/pdf

      UNIVERSITY OF PIttSBURGH DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY – 1993

      THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF A HEALTH MENACE
      A CAUTIONARY TALE
      http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/myh09e00/pdf

      Like

      • The shamen and witchdoctors of old needed no magical powers. They used psychosomiasis to convince their victims to die. It really does work. You really cam kill someone with nothing more than an idea.

        Antismokers are bringing back those shamanistic powers. Not for them. For us.

        I haven’t yet managed it but I will. One day I will convince a drone to death. Once the correct method is established, we’ll wipe them out with conversation.

        What the hell – my taxes are paying for all this, why should I not make full use of it?

        Like

        • XX They used psychosomiasis to convince their victims to die.XX

          O.K. As I have already sais, my Mothers side, were all shamans.

          I once had a downer on a house plant….DON’T LAUGH! It was serious at the time! (I was 13 or 14 and I have ONE phobia. Some people it is spiders, or flying. Me It is this type of plant)

          Every time I saw this house plant, I told it to die. And really WISHED it, as I said it.

          Depite my “Mothers” best attempts to keep it going, after four weeks, it WAS dead.

          Do NOT knock shamanism.

          It works!

          Like

  9. Pingback: Why 'Big Food' will lose. | VapeHalla! | Scoop.it

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s