KFC: We do Chickens Wrong!

[RGA]

Audio is a wonderful hobby, listening to tunes, listening to music or ruffling a few feathers on audio forums.

The summer time is a wonderful season to have some buddies over to and during our listening sessions we may get a little hungry and decide to order in for some lunch or dinner. I would like to make the case that you make your choice of NOT choosing KFC.

I am not an activist -- no not even for Audio Note ) -- but it bothers me to see companies, or individuals, engage in unnecessary cruelty.

This article is probably nothing new to many of you but sometimes we need a kick in our complacency. I always try and place my old Cats in the scenario. It's easier to feel compassion for that whom we know than those with whom we do not.

There are many responsible corporations out there and so many choices. Choose the ethical companies - they deserve our business in audio, to cola producers, to fast food chains. http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/index.asp

[Resident Loser]

...long enough, we really shouldn't be eating animals at all...not that I'm a Veggie, but...there ARE other ways to get the required nutrients in your diet.

When I look into my dog's eyes and realize in some quarters he'd be the blue-plate special, it kind'a makes ya' wonder...

jimHJJ(...I have tried to minimize my intake to one or two meat meals a week, but the blood-lusting carnivore is still lurking...)

[kexodusc]

C'mon guys, we don't know what those chickens said to those slaughterhouse employees...maybe they had it comin'?

On a serious note, the more I read into the practice of eating meat, the more I realize how much our diets are "industry driven". I've since lost the link, but maybe someone here has seen it too? Basially, some reputable scientist in the US have finalized years of research proving that even good ol' Milk isn't actually "good" at all for us. The harms far outweigh the benefits, and the benefits have been grossly exaggerated by the lobbyists and industry people with large vested interests...makes sense too...name 2 other animals on earth that drink milk in their natural diets beyond infancy?

I have a real weakness for bacon and steak (or baken wrapped steak...droooooollll). But I'm starting to believe that maybe we don't need to be killing everything to sustain ourselves. There's something not right about these massive meat farms - Chickens, pigs, cows - they're not animals anymore, they're made, cultivated, grown, harvested - sounds more like a vegetable to me.

I worked at a hog processing plat as a teenager (basically shoveling pig shi----nevermind)...it was years before I could eat any pork again, and if everyone saw how it was really done, not the typical PG rated tour-guide demonstration of operations, you'd never eat pork again...

[ericl]

Funny, I'm in the same position as you guys. In theory I think we shouldn't be eating animals, but I can't bring myself to stop!

I did try it for a short while when I first moved into the hippie co-op i lived in while attending US Santa Cruz. I ate huge amounts of rice and beans, plenty of tofu, nuts, corn, vegetables etc. and I was still always hungry. I had ok energy, but never felt sated (is that word ? or is it satiated?). One day I just started fantasizing about burgers. "I want a burger... with bacon... and bbq sauce... and onion rings... and fries.. and a milkshake!!!" I couldn't get stop thinking about it and I finally went down to fosters freeze and got exactly that. God, I was never so sick!!

[BillB]

I'll stick with Chick-Fil-A.

Bill

[MomurdA]

Chik fila might be worse than kfc, imo. Personally, I dont eat red meat much anymore, not since first us case of mad cow. I will occasionally eat a huge new york strip, but burgers no way. I try not to eat pork, but damn does bacon taste good with eggs, waffles, and lots of butter and syrup and a huge glass of milk.. Pork chops taste good, but a pig's a filthy animal.... haha just kidding. chicken and seafood is what i mostly eat(well chicken mostly, i dont want to start smelling like fish) and i only buy 'organic' chicken. Dont know if this is better for me or not but i buy it. I also tried the veggie only thing, and I was always hungry. I mean always. I can eat salad all day long, and still have to eat more. Plus hummus doesnt taste very good, neither do hearts of palm. I also only eat fast food once a month, when im too hungover or tired to cook.

[RGA]

I was not saying we should all become vegitarians. Though that is a valid choice for people. I follow the Atkins program and theoretically you could be a vegitarian on that diet (though you'd NEVER know it from the incredibly biased media reports. Though Atkins was big on organic foods and free range precisely because of the chemicals and the growth hormones injected into chickens etc.

Meat, red meat, is an appetite suppressant. And I too find it difficult to feel full on salads.

I think we as people are designed to eat meat, I just don't think it is necessary to treat animals that poorly.

I notice the Peta is on side with McDonalds who is doing something...KFC is pretty sorry excuse for a corporate citizen

[MomurdA]

Well, The Colonel doesnt run the show. I believe kfc is owned by pepsico, which owns other places such as taco hell.

[RGA]

Well I've already boycotted coca-Cola for their evil practices over seas and dumping practices -- so if pepsi owns KFC then that's the other major cola company I'll have to boycott.

Luckily I like A&W RootBeer. --- Please say they are OK!!

[Woochifer]

Well, The Colonel doesnt run the show. I believe kfc is owned by pepsico, which owns other places such as taco hell.

Old information. KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut got spun off into an independent company at least four or five years ago (the A&W drive-thrus and Long John Silver's are now part of that company's holdings). Pepsico was losing market share with fountain drink sales because other fast food franchisees did not want to go with Pepsi so long as Pepsico owned competing chains. So, Pepsico spun off its restaurant holdings so that they could compete on a more equal footing in the fountain drink business.

http://www.yum.com/

[Woochifer]

I've read PETA's allegations as well. As much as I support the goal of ethically treating animals, even those that we will eventually meet for the first time at the receiving end of a carving knife or frying pan, I think that PETA as an organization tends to engage in a lot of sensationalism and take aim at high profile targets in order to promote itself. (At one point, they were telling people to boycott Wheaties because a bass fisherman was featured on the box cover, and in their view that meant that Wheaties was glorifying cruelty to animals.)

KFC's got a huge bullseye by virtue of their ubiquity, but they're not the ones who are farming the chickens and raising them in deplorable conditions. PETA happened to get a hidden camera into one of the supplier company's facilities. But, how do you know that this is something that's isolated to KFC's suppliers? What I know of chicken processing, there are all kinds of common practices that would make most of us puke if we saw it first hand.

So, if you boycotted KFC, what does that amount to in the end? Are you then going to go to the grocery store and buy chickens that might have been raised under identical conditions? The only way that you can know for sure that you're eating "ethically" treated chickens is to buy organic and "range fed" chickens from a grocery store. For all of the different processed food offerings, a lot of them tend to share suppliers. If these objectionable practices are happening with chickens supplied to KFC, I would guess that these abused chickens are getting supplied to other vendors as well. So, even if you boycott KFC, how do you know that whatever other chicken products you divert your spending towards don't have similar practices?

If PETA really wants to do something, why not take aim at the chicken processing industry in general, or the supplier companies in particular? By targeting KFC specifically, they are really after publicity for themselves since they know that they can raise their own profile by going after the biggest target.

If PETA was really about ethical treatment of bass, why did they start a Wheaties boycott? Why not take aim at the sportsman's associations that support and sponsor the activity? Because they know that Wheaties is the more well known target, and taking aim at it guarantees publicity.

[dean_martin]

If PETA was really about ethical treatment of bass, why did they start a Wheaties boycott? Why not take aim at the sportsman's associations that support and sponsor the activity? Because they know that Wheaties is the more well known target, and taking aim at it guarantees publicity.

Hey Wooch!

I agree with you in general regarding high-profile targets for publicity, but at the same time I'm trying to imagine the effectiveness of a PETA-led boycott of Bass Pro Shops or BassMasters and I just don't think the people associated with those entities would give a damn. I don't think a PETA protester would last 2 seconds at a bass tournament or in a Bass Pro Shop! I know a little about these folks because where I live, if you don't have a bass boat, you ain't sh*t.

[BillB]

Anyone ever seen the pictures of the little Chinese kids in sweatshops making NAD electronics??

Just kidding but really, where does it end. If we all were to boycott things not made "the right way" we'd be paying out the arse or simply wouldn't have them to buy at all.

That's not to say KFC's wrong but unfortunately I think 99% of the general public could give a crap.

Bill

[FLZapped]

I've read PETA's allegations as well. As much as I support the goal of ethically treating animals, even those that we will eventually meet for the first time at the receiving end of a carving knife or frying pan, I think that PETA as an organization tends to engage in a lot of sensationalism and take aim at high profile targets in order to promote itself. (At one point, they were telling people to boycott Wheaties because a bass fisherman was featured on the box cover, and in their view that meant that Wheaties was glorifying cruelty to animals.)

If PETA was really about ethical treatment of bass, why did they start a Wheaties boycott? Why not take aim at the sportsman's associations that support and sponsor the activity? Because they know that Wheaties is the more well known target, and taking aim at it guarantees publicity.

I find it rather ironic that an organization that supposedly seeks the protection of animals against unecessary violence will resort to acts of violence against people and privately held property. Especially when those prople are not breaking any law in the first place.

They get a zero in credibility for being hippocrits in my book.

-Bruce

[Woochifer]

Anyone ever seen the pictures of the little Chinese kids in sweatshops making NAD electronics??

Just kidding but really, where does it end. If we all were to boycott things not made "the right way" we'd be paying out the arse or simply wouldn't have them to buy at all.

That's not to say KFC's wrong but unfortunately I think 99% of the general public could give a crap.

Bill

Well, that's part of the difficulty of these consumer boycotts. There are plenty of companies out there that directly or indirectly support an activity that we are individually not cool with. If you got a bank account, do you really know where your bank's investment portfolio goes? If you buy food from a neighborhood grocery store, how do you know whether or not their office supplies come from a third world sweatshop?

What it boils down to for me is focusing on the things that mean the most to me in choosing which companies I give my money to. My problems with PETA are that they've cried wolf so many times already, targeted companies that are sometimes only tangentally involved in the cruelty that they allege, and their history of sensationalism and camera-ready publicity stunts detracts from their credibility in my view.

I've got my own list of companies that I don't do business with, and those are for my own reasons. I don't go trumpeting all of the companies that I avoid giving money to because different people might have different priorities than the ones that I focus on. One person might focus solely on labor practices, while others might not be down with companies with holdings in gaming or alcohol or tobacco, or ties to the nuclear industry, or product testing involving animals, or unsound environmental practices, or just annoying advertisements, etc.

Generally, I focus on what the companies' actual practices are, rather than anything that their suppliers might be doing. One boycott I've supported for the last 23 years has been the Nestle boycott. I support it because the focus has been on the company's third world infant formula marketing practices, which were directly sanctioned by the corporate hierarchy, and verified and condemned by UNESCO. The boycott has been effective because it targets the entire company's family of products, and holds the entire company responsible for the unethical practices of one subsidiary. (not only Nestle labeled products, but their other subsidiaries as well including Stouffer's, Carnation, Arrowhead/Black Mountain, Purina, etc.)

If PETA is really about changing industry practices rather than chasing publicity, they need to target everything down the chain. Start with the suppliers and all of the brands that use their products, and then target the entire family of restaurants that Yum Brands owns -- KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Long John Silver's, A&W drive-ins, etc. Are they trying to effectively bring change to an industry, or are they more after the headlines?

[BillB]

I boycott Hewlett Packard because the relocated my family (due to my dad working there) knowing they were going to lay him off in the next three months and outsource his entire department. What a crap move. Now they're expected to lay off another 5,000-25,000 people...

Bill

[MomurdA]

I also boycott hewlett packard. Not for personal reasons but because they build the worst personal computers i have ever seen. Everytime a customer calls me saying there comp is messed up, i ask what kind it is. Id say at least half the time they say 'hp' and then i just sigh. sorry thats kind of off topic Their printers have many issues as well, and im sure they contribute to the cruelty to farm animals indirectly, somehow.

[RGA]

Actually i think Peta is going after the place people know. people don't know XYZ chicken farm but they DO KNOW KFC!. The only people able to put any REAL pressure on chicken farms is the company who is the number one buyer ion the US of chickens. You put the pressure on the retailer who then puts the pressure on the chicken farm. It's easier for average Joe to get on side when average Joe has a TARGET.

Seems to have worked for George W. Bush -- give them a target even if it's the wrong one.

I think any kind of outfit like Peta is going to have to "market" and go for the emotion ploy. They can't go to the intelligent viewer because to put it bluntly they are in the vast minority of North Americans and even some of the smarties are apathetic unless you club them over the head in shmaltzy guilt trips.

My friend worked as a clean-up person at a chicken plant -- they called it a plant - and after 6 months they offerred him a management position which he declined. He gags just looking at chicken.

No question there are others buying chickens from the same plants. Peta is simply going after the buiggest two buyers KFC and McDonalds. No point in going after some small time outfit because the chicken farm could easily ignore them...But I don;t know if they could ignore KFC and McDonalds.

McDonalds has been pressured into change in the past by their customers...I don;t see why KFC as a customer to their supplier can't put the pressure on. These places actually hold more power because they can't replace KFC. If everyone in the world completely did not go to a single KFC on the planet for an entire month -- either KFC goes under or by second day the chicken plant is completely changed.

It's bad enough the hormones are disasterous on human health and the heart clogging quality of their food but on top of that they knowingly support companies who are cruel to animals. It's just so evil -- and people are worried about some terrorists -- man who sticks up for the chickens. Hmm maybe it's because I saw Chicken Run not long ago.

Free Range purchasing is what I try to do on any meat purchase. yes it's more expensive which means I get an OTO instead of a Soro -- but I can live with that better than the lame excuse that my grocery buill is an extra 10% I'm healthier for it too.

[Woochifer]

Actually i think Peta is going after the place people know. people don't know XYZ chicken farm but they DO KNOW KFC!. The only people able to put any REAL pressure on chicken farms is the company who is the number one buyer ion the US of chickens. You put the pressure on the retailer who then puts the pressure on the chicken farm. It's easier for average Joe to get on side when average Joe has a TARGET.

With all of the corrupt corporate practices out there where you CAN make a one to one correlation between a company's direct actions and harm that they cause, I think that PETA's approach of targeting companies for practices that do not occur directly under their watch speaks volumes for the self-serving aspect of their actions. PETA has time and time again gone for the sensationalist stunts that make the evening news, rather than try to focus their campaigns on the actual parties that need to be held responsible and directing their responses in ways that make the best difference. Right, vandalizing department stores and antagonizing shoppers who aren't even shopping for mink coats is the best way of stopping animal cruelty by mink trappers and producers.

If anything, the "average joe" looks at PETA as a joke, and if anything, their antics have done more damage to their cause than any good. A talk show (and it's not a right wing show if you need to know) that I listen to makes a mockery out of just about everything that PETA does, and when PETA put out the call for a KFC boycott, the response by most of the callers was to say that they would buy an extra bucket of chicken at KFC to let PETA know what they think. If PETA thinks they're "educating" the average Joe, then their "educating" has only turned the public against the cause of humane treatment of animals.

Seems to have worked for George W. Bush -- give them a target even if it's the wrong one.

So by supporting PETA's stance, are you then saying that Bush's approach is the correct one?

I think any kind of outfit like Peta is going to have to "market" and go for the emotion ploy. They can't go to the intelligent viewer because to put it bluntly they are in the vast minority of North Americans and even some of the smarties are apathetic unless you club them over the head in shmaltzy guilt trips.

It seems that you respond to the sensationalist, rather than the rational. You still don't get that organizations like PETA who try this approach aren't trying to change things, so much as they are calling attention to themselves. I can't think of too many campaigns that they've started that have actually been successful.

The tone of this paragraph is the type of arrogant "I know better than you do" attitude that frankly turns off most people. If people want to be apathetic, or if they have other priorities in deciding on which companies they support, then that's their choice. The problem with clubbing people over the head with "shmaltzy guilt trips" is that they will not necessarily react the same way that you do, and just because you're a "smarty" does not change the fact that people will make their own choices based on what they focus on.

How different is this than the shock tactics that anti-abortion activists use in harassing doctors and patients? They feel that clubbing people over the head with gruesome images and calling doctors "baby killers" will spur the average Joe into supporting their cause as well.

No question there are others buying chickens from the same plants. Peta is simply going after the buiggest two buyers KFC and McDonalds. No point in going after some small time outfit because the chicken farm could easily ignore them...But I don;t know if they could ignore KFC and McDonalds.

If the goal of PETA's campaign is public education about corporate practices, then the informaton needs to be put out there about the facilities engaging in the abuse, and letting the public know where those chickens go. At that point, if the abuse is so agregious in the view of customers that they feel the need to take action, then they will on their own accord. For PETA to take this information to launch into an attack on KFC guarantees publicity, but does nothing to change the practices that so purportedly revolts them.

McDonalds has been pressured into change in the past by their customers...I don;t see why KFC as a customer to their supplier can't put the pressure on. These places actually hold more power because they can't replace KFC. If everyone in the world completely did not go to a single KFC on the planet for an entire month -- either KFC goes under or by second day the chicken plant is completely changed.

Right, and those were letter writing campaigns that were supported by their customers. When a group of environmentalists made note of McDonalds using nonbiodegradable styrene packaging, they encouraged customers to write to McDonald's and put pressure on them to change. That approach worked -- they now use recycled paperboard. Oh, and that campaign worked without the threat of a boycott.

Seems like PETA found abuse at a chicken processing facility, and responded not by encouraging customers to let KFC know that the company should do something about it. Their response was to start making inflamatory proclamations and start a boycott of one company, even though these practices affect a much broader cross-section of the industry. Doesn't do any good if people stop going to KFC and go to Church's or Popeye's instead, when those companies might use the same chicken suppliers.

Wheaties put a bass fisherman on their box cover, and PETA's response was to start a boycott. Does going to the boycott card and sensationalizing the issue do anything in the end? I suggest you look to results rather than presumptions about how people will react once they are "educated" about a subject.

It's bad enough the hormones are disasterous on human health and the heart clogging quality of their food but on top of that they knowingly support companies who are cruel to animals. It's just so evil -- and people are worried about some terrorists -- man who sticks up for the chickens. Hmm maybe it's because I saw Chicken Run not long ago.

And there's the rub. Some people just don't give a crap about animal cruelty or where their food comes from. You might view it as evil and make posts about it, but if people don't care, then in the end, all the criers calls don't amount to much. I might care that Wal-Mart engages in unionbusting tactics and predatory pricing, but for someone else, they might just see the low prices and not give a crap about the other external costs.

Free Range purchasing is what I try to do on any meat purchase. yes it's more expensive which means I get an OTO instead of a Soro -- but I can live with that better than the lame excuse that my grocery buill is an extra 10% I'm healthier for it too.

And that's your choice, just as others make their choices.

[RGA]

actually I was not supporting Peta but playing devil's advocate as to why they would go about the tactics they go about. Fahrenheit 9/11 IMO was the best film last year and it presented largely fully known information geared to people not up to what was going on. And even then it ultimately proved to be a film that merely preached to the choir. There is a way to be heavy handed that Michael Moore makes work and where Peta has been unsuccessful.

Peta and Green Peace and msot of these big outfits I'm not a "supporter" of because they become or can become corrupt self-serving entities. As you note with their sensational 6 o'clock news casts trying to spread the Peta organization name rather than focussing on the cause you're fighting.

Peta or a group like then has done some disengenuous things. When Robert Atkins died there were several downright LIES about his death thrown out there in order to get people to stop eating meat. This is why such organizations lose credibility and it's hard to regain it later. Michael Moore was hindered by his previous films and his grandstanding is hilarious but not if you're a stodgey stick up the ass right winger when it comes across as anti-American.

Peta I think somewhere down the line had a good idea. But it's commercialized. There is one other animal rights group which is more credible anyway I believe called WSPA

[FLZapped]

Peta or a group like then has done some disengenuous things. When Robert Atkins died there were several downright LIES about his death thrown out there in order to get people to stop eating meat. This is why such organizations lose credibility and it's hard to regain it later. Michael Moore was hindered by his previous films and his grandstanding is hilarious but not if you're a stodgey stick up the ass right winger when it comes across as anti-American.

HAHHAHAHHAHHAA....Michael Moore was hindered by his propensity to lie. No different than what happeneed with Atkins.

[RGA]

Atkins was lied about not the other way around. Michael Moore's latest film has a few errors which is not the same as a lie. It's funny how there was a holocaust survivor who said he was in the Bergen Belson camp and recounted that they were afraid of being gassed ... there was no gas chamber that facility and so some people use that to claim that the Holocaust was a lie. Moore may have one or two facts wrong but what about the 87 he gets right? Chucking out all the facts or the forrest for one dead tree is idiotic.

For instance Atkins has been blasted by many pundits -- few of whom have actually bothered to read what he has to say -- for instance I doubt too many people know that you can be a vegitarian and be on the Atkins plan...no what you see on CNN is a big greasy burger fried up in a pan with the title this could be dangerous. What is media presented and what is the truth is not the same thing. And the medical practitioners who got on his case interestingly enough have no REAL evidence of their own. The biggest scam in the United States today is all and any drug and the media fear tactics on cholesterol and to a further extent fat content of foods.

Atkins believed in and was a big supporter of buying Organic foods, meats without nitrates, free range, vitamin suppliments (because the foods were overprocessed and lossed much of the nutrients) avoidance of high sugar foods and white flour carbohydrates and white rice. Gee not a whole lot different than most nutritionists.

The food pyramid has been advertised on tv recently saying to have more grain foods and there is a kid holding a box of Lucky Charms because this is the new healthy government approved diet that kids should be eating -- Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms? Sorry but there are BILLIONS of dollars at stake and your health is the LAST thing on the minds of the drug and nutrition industry.

[Woochifer]

Atkins was lied about not the other way around. Michael Moore's latest film has a few errors which is not the same as a lie. It's funny how there was a holocaust survivor who said he was in the Bergen Belson camp and recounted that they were afraid of being gassed ... there was no gas chamber that facility and so some people use that to claim that the Holocaust was a lie. Moore may have one or two facts wrong but what about the 87 he gets right? Chucking out all the facts or the forrest for one dead tree is idiotic.

Leave it up to you to turn a topic that started with you urging people to boycott KFC, and spin it into the ground with Michael Moore, the holocaust, and your worship of Dr. Atkins.

For instance Atkins has been blasted by many pundits -- few of whom have actually bothered to read what he has to say -- for instance I doubt too many people know that you can be a vegitarian and be on the Atkins plan...no what you see on CNN is a big greasy burger fried up in a pan with the title this could be dangerous. What is media presented and what is the truth is not the same thing. And the medical practitioners who got on his case interestingly enough have no REAL evidence of their own. The biggest scam in the United States today is all and any drug and the media fear tactics on cholesterol and to a further extent fat content of foods.

Atkins believed in and was a big supporter of buying Organic foods, meats without nitrates, free range, vitamin suppliments (because the foods were overprocessed and lossed much of the nutrients) avoidance of high sugar foods and white flour carbohydrates and white rice. Gee not a whole lot different than most nutritionists.

Sure, it's possible to be a vegetarian and on the Atkins plan. That doesn't make it a healthy or balanced diet. My wife is a research biologist and the people that she works with (including university medical researchers) to a person think that the long-term health risks resulting from the Atkins regimen of carb deprivation and protein loading will become evident in the years to come, irregardless of whether people have been interpreting Atkins to mean indulging in high protein foods loaded with saturated fat and cholesterol. Problem with Atkins is that it eliminates the carbs that nutritionists consider a part of a balanced and healthy diet (complex carbs, dietary fiber, etc.). Atkins is an effective way to lose weight, but the nutritionists I know certainly don't view the imbalances inherent in that diet as a healthy lifestyle. Ever hear of eating a balanced diversity of foods in moderation, and exercising? That seems to be the only "diet" that has outlived all the various fads that have come and gone over the past 30 years.

If you think that the "biggest scam" is "all and any drug" then are you telling me then that next time you get a staph infection, you're going to instruct your doctors not to give you any antibiotics? Or if you get an organ transplant, you're going to do without the anti-rejection drugs? Of if you're diagnosed with HIV, you'll "cure" yourself without any medications, because "all and any drug" is just a scam? Blanket statements like the one that you made are the stuff of infomercial and Scientology conspiracies, not science and not reality.

If you think that cholesterol is just a "media scare tactic" then I'm sure you'll have to now educate all the actuarials who have been using cholesterol counts in their risk factor assessments for issuing life insurance policies. They'll be glad to know that a person with high cholesterol is no likelier to die from a heart attack than someone with a low cholesterol count, and their stockholders will be glad too because there will be no bottomline impact on their claims by eliminating the cholesterol count as a criteria.

For all the talk that you make about what you intrepret as media scare tactics, your statements certainly don't come across to me as rational or well informed either. Right, all of the medical research out there is nothing more than a scare tactic. Pharmaceutical companies are out to make a buck, but at the same time, I doubt that even you would do without their products in their entirety.

The food pyramid has been advertised on tv recently saying to have more grain foods and there is a kid holding a box of Lucky Charms because this is the new healthy government approved diet that kids should be eating -- Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms? Sorry but there are BILLIONS of dollars at stake and your health is the LAST thing on the minds of the drug and nutrition industry.

Oh brother, here you go again with the food pyramid. In the past, you've made quite a few erroneous references to what it actually means. Here's the rub -- the original four food groups approach was written in 1916 when the one of biggest health issues in the U.S. was malnutrition. As food technology evolved and increased yields and food production efficiencies, malnutrition has waned as a public health issue. The evolution into the new food pyramid occurred because obesity has supplanted malnutrition as the bigger health risk.

Those commercials you mentioned are pretty laughable when the high sugar cereals are included. Indeed they have whole grains, which is good and healthy, but they are loaded with plenty of processed sugar and simple carbs as well, which are linked to obesity.

But, what does the "drug and nutrition industry" have to do with the new food pyramid? It's pretty much self explanatory -- differentiating between different kinds of fats, more emphasis on high fiber foods, more vegetables, more whole grains, etc. I don't see where these BILLIONS of dollars fit into the picture (well, maybe there is that much to be made, just look at all of the Atkins licensed food products that have flooded the market in the past couple of years). Or do you see conspiracies here too?

[Resident Loser]

...how many out there remember the Stillman Water Diet(70s?)...

Eat all the protein you can(and little else) and consume copious amounts of water. If you weren't consuming animal flesh you were p!$$!ng your brains out. As I recall, it was for short-term use only as it disrupted too many digestive/chemical balances.

jimHJJ(...or something like that...)

[FLZapped]

Atkins was lied about not the other way around.

You are correct, I worded that improperly.

Michael Moore's latest film has a few errors which is not the same as a lie.

No, he lied.

-Bruce