The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Well, not food asuch, but I heard a 'shocking revelation' on the radio this morning that our diets are in fact killing us quicker, possibly reducing our average lifespan for the first time in however many centuries. Is this really news, or in fact the same old health drive crap churned out to the public from time to time, either to scare us into doing something about our lives or just to inform us that we live in a society that breeds quicker death?
Well ok, lets actually compare our diets nowadays to our diets in the last century. It is true that our supermarkets have been more 'Americanised' in that we can see more food in colourful packages with adorable little cartoons to try to make the products sell, even though they dont actually contain a single vitamin or mineral or, well, anything even slightly healthy. Obviously these things are aimed at kids, because they are generally the ones that make the final decisions on what parents buy. Not actually being a parent myself, I can imagine that it's a lot easier to make a deal with a child to, say, have an extra apple if I get these sugar-coated chocolate chewy bars for after tea, than to give the kid a smack round the ear when they start whining and drag them all the way back to the car holding them by the arm, passing by all the mothers gasping in horror at how a parent could be so cruel to such a little darling. Admittedly, this may be quite extreme, but I can remember when I wanted something from a shop really, really badly, and the situation usually ended up in one of these 2 outcomes. And you know what, it'll only be the parents, of all people, that complain when their kids are out of control. It doesn't have anything to do with the parents, even though they've just bought the kids some 'treats' pumped full of 100's of different E-numbers. Course not.
So now, once kids get it in their minds that it's ok to have something bad with something good, a whole generation grows up with a distorted view of diet. "Ah yes, I think I'll have this yard of Cadbury's after this satsuma, that'll compensate. Actually, I don't really fancy that satsuma, I'll have the chocolate now then I'll have the satsuma later. You know what, I'll leave the satsuma for today, but I won't have any chocolate tomorrow. Ah, screw it." To be fair, parents probably aren't bothering to teach their children the values of a decent diet because they themselves have been brought up on sweets and chocolate. So where did all this start?
It's probably not actually the parents' fault at all. It probably actually started when the big food companies sat down, had a meeting and decided that parents can't resist the wide-eyed stare of their kids by nature, so to get the billions and billions of pounds and dollars needed to keep their personal butlers in gold-studded houses next to their newly-build, period-style castle mansions, they need to appeal to kids, rather than keeping to their traditional, nutritional roots. So let's put an animal on the box, make him talk in a sickly cutsie voice in all adverts and make the product as sweet as possible. No worries.
But where do all these major decisions come from? Well, mainly America. In terms of food, we are just following whatever trends come out of that uberpower across the sea. It worked there, why won't it work here? And, lo and behold, it did.
Now all this concerns the general food you find in the local supermarket. But that's not what the actual radio broadcast was about. Oh no. Get this, apparently our diets are worse now because of.....fast food chains!!! Fast food chains that have been around for probably about 50 years, that everyone already knew contained a large amount of fat and salt, and that we've had the hysteria about a myriad of times before! And the so-called 'experts' have only now realised that they're bad for us! My oh my, they are cunning and perceptive people, these experts. You know what, if I was as clever as these experts, I think I'd do some major research into these mysterious 'fast food chains' and choose to ignore more trivial matters like GM foods. Jeez.
Ok, so now that we *finally* know that fast food is bad for us, what are we gonna do about it? Are we going to phase out these restaurants, stop all advertising for them and just completely snub them? No, we are not. In fact, we're going to carry on as normal until the scientists re-analise all their data and come up with their NEW theory: that it's bad for us. Either that, or we wait until they allege something else that's bad for us. Like binge drinking being bad for your liver. Yeah, right. Even if we wanted to get rid of all fast food, the rest of the world wouldn't, and I'm sure that with worldwide sales a certain Mr R McDonald will still be 'lovin it'.
We weren't in this situation at the start of the twentieth century, so what happened? Who is REALLY to blame? The suspects:
- Parents
- Food companies
- America
- or mystery option number 4: the MEDIA COMPANIES that get paid to sell us what we don't really want in the first place, we don't need but we should have anyway! You be the judge.
Well, I'm glad I got that rant off my chest. I think I'll get a packet of crisps...
Well ok, lets actually compare our diets nowadays to our diets in the last century. It is true that our supermarkets have been more 'Americanised' in that we can see more food in colourful packages with adorable little cartoons to try to make the products sell, even though they dont actually contain a single vitamin or mineral or, well, anything even slightly healthy. Obviously these things are aimed at kids, because they are generally the ones that make the final decisions on what parents buy. Not actually being a parent myself, I can imagine that it's a lot easier to make a deal with a child to, say, have an extra apple if I get these sugar-coated chocolate chewy bars for after tea, than to give the kid a smack round the ear when they start whining and drag them all the way back to the car holding them by the arm, passing by all the mothers gasping in horror at how a parent could be so cruel to such a little darling. Admittedly, this may be quite extreme, but I can remember when I wanted something from a shop really, really badly, and the situation usually ended up in one of these 2 outcomes. And you know what, it'll only be the parents, of all people, that complain when their kids are out of control. It doesn't have anything to do with the parents, even though they've just bought the kids some 'treats' pumped full of 100's of different E-numbers. Course not.
So now, once kids get it in their minds that it's ok to have something bad with something good, a whole generation grows up with a distorted view of diet. "Ah yes, I think I'll have this yard of Cadbury's after this satsuma, that'll compensate. Actually, I don't really fancy that satsuma, I'll have the chocolate now then I'll have the satsuma later. You know what, I'll leave the satsuma for today, but I won't have any chocolate tomorrow. Ah, screw it." To be fair, parents probably aren't bothering to teach their children the values of a decent diet because they themselves have been brought up on sweets and chocolate. So where did all this start?
It's probably not actually the parents' fault at all. It probably actually started when the big food companies sat down, had a meeting and decided that parents can't resist the wide-eyed stare of their kids by nature, so to get the billions and billions of pounds and dollars needed to keep their personal butlers in gold-studded houses next to their newly-build, period-style castle mansions, they need to appeal to kids, rather than keeping to their traditional, nutritional roots. So let's put an animal on the box, make him talk in a sickly cutsie voice in all adverts and make the product as sweet as possible. No worries.
But where do all these major decisions come from? Well, mainly America. In terms of food, we are just following whatever trends come out of that uberpower across the sea. It worked there, why won't it work here? And, lo and behold, it did.
Now all this concerns the general food you find in the local supermarket. But that's not what the actual radio broadcast was about. Oh no. Get this, apparently our diets are worse now because of.....fast food chains!!! Fast food chains that have been around for probably about 50 years, that everyone already knew contained a large amount of fat and salt, and that we've had the hysteria about a myriad of times before! And the so-called 'experts' have only now realised that they're bad for us! My oh my, they are cunning and perceptive people, these experts. You know what, if I was as clever as these experts, I think I'd do some major research into these mysterious 'fast food chains' and choose to ignore more trivial matters like GM foods. Jeez.
Ok, so now that we *finally* know that fast food is bad for us, what are we gonna do about it? Are we going to phase out these restaurants, stop all advertising for them and just completely snub them? No, we are not. In fact, we're going to carry on as normal until the scientists re-analise all their data and come up with their NEW theory: that it's bad for us. Either that, or we wait until they allege something else that's bad for us. Like binge drinking being bad for your liver. Yeah, right. Even if we wanted to get rid of all fast food, the rest of the world wouldn't, and I'm sure that with worldwide sales a certain Mr R McDonald will still be 'lovin it'.
We weren't in this situation at the start of the twentieth century, so what happened? Who is REALLY to blame? The suspects:
- Parents
- Food companies
- America
- or mystery option number 4: the MEDIA COMPANIES that get paid to sell us what we don't really want in the first place, we don't need but we should have anyway! You be the judge.
Well, I'm glad I got that rant off my chest. I think I'll get a packet of crisps...
Page:
Kyz21 wrote:
> Who's atop your "to kill" list, besides me?
http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk /display_messages.php?threadid=88234&forumid=4006
> Who's atop your "to kill" list, besides me?
http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk /display_messages.php?threadid=88234&forumid=4006
Oh that santa!
Kyz21 wrote:
> Who's atop your "to kill" list, besides me?
Loads of people. I posted a thread with it last week. Santa is near the top if I recall.
> Who's atop your "to kill" list, besides me?
Loads of people. I posted a thread with it last week. Santa is near the top if I recall.
Who's atop your "to kill" list, besides me?
Emperor Bob wrote:
> Two in 17 days!? At this rate I shall have to stike him off my 'To
> Kill' list.
Or is that bump his name closer to the top?
*evil music*
> Two in 17 days!? At this rate I shall have to stike him off my 'To
> Kill' list.
Or is that bump his name closer to the top?
*evil music*
I won 3 in my first 30 days when I was a twee newbie.
Two in 17 days!? At this rate I shall have to stike him off my 'To Kill' list.
He has two.
I have 1.
Give me praise, mister.
I have 1.
Give me praise, mister.
A GAD already!? Mighty Bob has recognised the achievements of dt_brookman, you have my approval. For now.
Congratulations mate, you're post has gone yellow - that can only mean one of two things.
..Snuggly has had kittens and one of them has urinated on the website.
..You've won GAD
I read the post when you first wrote it but I didnt comment, I think there was a fire or something so I got distracted. Anyway, um. Yep!
..Snuggly has had kittens and one of them has urinated on the website.
..You've won GAD
I read the post when you first wrote it but I didnt comment, I think there was a fire or something so I got distracted. Anyway, um. Yep!
Page: