Full Story @Yahoo!
The U.S. is challenging a draft plan by the World Health Organization (news - web sites) to combat the growing worldwide epidemic of obesity, provoking strong international criticism and charges that the food industry is influencing the policy.
The Bush administration alleges that the WHO plan, under development for three years, relies too heavily on questionable science to recommend that people limit their intake of sugar and other refined foods, among other measures.
The administration's position has caught international public health officials by surprise and sent shock waves through the WHO governing board, which is meeting in Geneva. The board is set to decide Tuesday whether to endorse the new obesity plan.
"People are appalled and, frankly, extremely dismayed," Neville Rigby, director of policy for the London-based International Obesity Task Force, said Monday in Geneva.
The WHO plan would lay out policy recommendations that nations could adopt to stem a rising tide of obesity. Some 300 million people are thought to be obese worldwide.
The WHO seeks to create an international blueprint for promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing the costs of chronic diseases related to obesity, such as heart disease and diabetes.
The draft plan suggests nations consider advising people to limit sugar and refined foods, restricting junk food marketing, improving food labeling and raising prices on unhealthy foods.
Rigby and others suggest that U.S. criticism of the plan is being driven by the sugar industry, grocers and other U.S. multinational food companies that want to forestall emerging international efforts to regulate food marketing, pricing, production and trade.
The U.S. position came to light in a Jan. 5 letter by William Steiger, special assistant for international affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, to Dr. J.W. Lee, director general of the WHO.
*Muddy's Note*
Thanks to Bennyhill for pointing this article out to me, how stupid can the Bush administration be?? If you don't realize the U.S. Government is looking only out for it's self and their friends (Oil Industry and similar scum) and could not care less about us wake up. When they yearly give themselves big fat raises and perks but give us the middle finger it's plain to see who is #1 in their eyes.
The full text of the WHO's document is here.
Posted by Muddy at January 21, 2004 09:39 PM | TrackBackhmm, i wonder why the 'left wing' press has buried this... could it be that THERE IS NO LEFT-WING PRESS. They suckle on the tit of the sugar industry and food advertisers too, maybe even more than Bush. Now that virtually all TV media is controlled by FOX, Vivendi, GE, or AOL TimeWarner, the argument of a dominant liberal media is ridiculous. Of course they still market their product as liberal, or at least 'fair and balanced'. With the exception of Colin Quinn's tough crowd where all the pundits are idots, most mainstream (non PBS or CSPAN) TV gets well spoken and informed pundits on the right and some whack job on the left. There are plenty of good voices from the left. Why did Brokaw choose to have Jon Stewart represent the left in the post SOTU coverage and even then he only gave Jon about 30 seconds to speak? Corporate media has reduced the left to being represented by the likes of Jon Stewart and Al Franken(I'm good enough, I'm smart enough and gosh darn it, people like me!). There are plenty of well informed and well meaning liberals out there, Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky and many others recognized worldwide as scholars, these people are not allowed on TV because the 4 Corporations that run most American media do not want you to hear them when they speak the truth.
Fat and Stupid.
Posted by: bennyhill1978 at January 22, 2004 12:20 PMI don’t think it is possible for any one person to be more wrong.
The reason that Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky and many others left wing wack jobs cant get on TV is because nobody wants to hear what they have to say. It’s all about ratings. Nobody cares about them so nobody puts them on. No, we would rather see Britney’s next 5 min marriage or just exactly how Scott Peterson diced his wife up. You couldn’t be more wrong Bennyhill. The owner’s of these stations don’t give a crap who’s on as long as people are watching and they make money.
The media is biased towards the left. Not the right and I honestly don’t believe that this is not intentional. The reason is simply that people, for the most part, only participate in the news media when something bad has happened. People only watch when something is going wrong or someone is failing. People love to see failure. It helps them live their own lives. This fits perfectly into the left agenda. They want everything to go wrong. They want failure. They want to see gloom and doom. This is because they want power back. They want power back so bad that they are want America to fail (This includes your scholars). So basically right now the media is biased towards failure, violence and sex. Anyone who watches the news for more that 5 min can see this.
Entertainment is a whole other story. The entertainment industry is the downfall of our country. It has made us mindless idiots looking to live in our perfect fantasy 5 min world where everything we ever desired is hand delivered. It has taken our kids and showed them that shooting someone is way to solve a problem. It has taught them that sex is not only OK but EXPECTED if you want to be popular. Just shake that A** and everything you want will be handed to you.
Have you ever noticed that you can’t watch more the 15 min of television without having homosexuality driven down your throat? Well here is a flash for the world. I dont want to see homosexuality and I don’t give a flying * about Britney and you wont find that sh** on any TV at my house.
Do yourself a favor and turn the TV/Radio off. Pick up a good book and be positive about your life. Don’t be so bitter about everything, bennyhill. You are healthy and free. Rather you choose to believe it or not you can do anything you want with your life. You decide your own destiny. There are many people who don’t have that luxury.
Cwilli,
In your above post there are many contradictions, some homophobia, at least one double-negative and an outrageous general claim taken as fact ("People love to see failure.")
I entirely agree that ratings drive programming in a way, but do not forget that advertisers decide what is on TV, not ratings. Often there are good shows with good ratings that get scrapped because their demographic is not believed by advertisers to be 'good consumers' of the products sold by the show (see john doe post on muddysmind).
Ratings are not like votes, some demographics get more say than others when it comes to the kind of Ad space that generates big revenue.
"A fool and his money are easily parted."-PT Barnum
Therefore most shows will try to cater to the 'fool' demographic. Especially on networks owned by Rupert Murdoch who gladly admits that profit/greet is the primary goal of FOX's worldwide multimedia cartel (think: Tomorrow Never Dies).
Money drives programming, not ratings. The Reagan documentary is an example of something with enough hype surrounding it to guarantee good ratings, however it was not broadcast to the masses due to pressure from big money.
It is not the left that is behind the 'gloom and doom' it is the unprecidented actions and tone of those in power that sets the agenda.
"Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11, 2001 - over two years without an attack on American soil - and it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us.
That hope is understandable, comforting - and false. " -GWB, 2004 State of the Union.
There is the gloom and doom.
When you say liberals want America to fail, what issue are you reffering to? I agree, those in opposition to Bush do want America to fail... to fail to get any more US troops killed, to fail to take even more freedoms away from law abiding Americans through the 2 patriot acts, to fail at the current objective of neglecting and marginalizing its own citizens while conquering strategically signifgant nations in the name of 'Democracy'.
It is apparent that the current administration wants America to fail to balance the budget(only a few years ago this was the cornerstone value of the Republican party). To fail to fulfill its promise to all Social Security investors. To fail to provide a real prescription drug benefit for seniors who need it as promised. To fail to find the WMD. To fail to reduce terrorism (according to Rumsfeld there are far more terrorists today than there were pre Iraq). To fail to create jobs -he promised 200,000 jobs per month in last years speech, this year he claimed 'victory' by taking credit for the creation of 1,000 jobs in one month (December). Well MCI alone is laying off 1,700 in Jan. so that is a deficit of 700.
I'm not trying to say that a Democrat would neccesarily be better, but it would be hard to do much worse. Too bad McCain will not be running...
Freedom is not a luxury, freedom is a responsibility to continue to fight for the advancement of the staus quo, it is not an excuse to give up and 'get with the program'.
I live a positive life, I have a very happy home and we are blessed. I express concern in issues because I realize that many people are not so lucky and there is a better course than the one we are on.
-Bennyhill1978
PS: Care to meet Bamboozled, Spaceman, Buzz Lightyear and I for coffee Saturady 10am at Panera, Mill Run?
Posted by: bennyhill1978 at January 22, 2004 10:02 PMbennyhill, I stongly disagree with most of what you have said. I doubt very seriously that if that john doe show was making money that it would be cancelled. Beside honestly, I have never even heard of it. I also disagree that advertising controls whats on TV. Its the other way around. You do know that they charge money for commercials, right?
"When you say liberals want America to fail, what issue are you reffering to? I agree, those in opposition to Bush do want America to fail... to fail to get any more US troops killed, to fail to take even more freedoms away from law abiding Americans through the 2 patriot acts, to fail at the current objective of neglecting and marginalizing its own citizens while conquering strategically signifgant nations in the name of 'Democracy'. "
that is funny. They are power hungry and care nothing about you or I. Its even more funny that you dont see this. You honestly think they give a damn about the common person. Not that I believe that the right does either but at least they are for smaller government and are not afraid to use force when needed. All the left wants to do is try to make people like us. That does not work.
"Freedom is not a luxury, freedom is a responsibility to continue to fight for the advancement of the staus quo, it is not an excuse to give up and 'get with the program'."
I am sure that those who found their fate in any number of Saddam's mass graves would beg to differ. And they probably did beg to. Right before the mother and her children were shot in the head. Is that the status quo you are refering to? I am not sure if you noticed. Thats not happening too often here in the states and that is what I am refering to.
"I live a positive life, I have a very happy home and we are blessed. I express concern in issues because I realize that many people are not so lucky and there is a better course than the one we are on."
I am happy that you are so blessed and I do respect your opinion even though we disagree. I am also happy that you express you concerns in the manner that you do. I just hope you realize that is what makes this country great. That you can. Other's dont have this and would be killed for being against the government in any way. Dont you think that everyone deserves to be free in this way?
I wish I could meet you guys but I have to work that weekend. Let me know if you meet next weekend as I am off....
Posted by: cwilli at January 22, 2004 10:26 PMHey guys ...
I love you.
First really fine post on social issues in Here. And critical against bush by the way (seen the line against the oil industry !!!)
Well !!!
Of course cwilli remains the same. But you'll notice that he 's acknocledged this :
" The owner’s of these stations don’t give a crap who’s on as long as people are watching and they make money."
Here is another example of political and monetary pressure used to censor the media:
>
>During this year's Super Bowl, you'll see ads sponsored by beer
>companies,
>tobacco companies, and the Bush White House.(1) But you won't see the
>winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter Fund's Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. CBS
>refuses to air it.(2)
>
>Meanwhile, the White House is on the verge of signing into law a deal
>which
>Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says is custom-tailored for CBS and Fox,(3)
>allowing the two networks to grow much bigger. CBS lobbied hard for this
>rule change; MoveOn.org members across the country lobbied against it; and
>now our ad has been rejected while the White House ad will be played. It
>looks an awful lot like CBS is playing politics with the right to free
>speech.
>
>Over the last year, you've been a part of our incredible campaign
>against
>media consolidation. CBS's censorship demonstrates why this issue is so
>important: a few big media companies can effectively stop political speech.
> If we can successfully highlight CBS's unfairness in the media, we'll be
>able to push forward our FCC campaign as well.
>
>To watch the ad that CBS won't air and sign our petition to CBS, go to:
>http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/
>
>If you want to skip the ad and just sign the petition, go to:
>http://www.moveon.org/cbs/?id=2282-2939214-a5s.WSWn7S5ilFbK8Bc3kg
>
>We'll deliver the petition by email directly to CBS headquarters.
>
>You also may want to let your local CBS affiliate know you're unhappy
>about
>this decision.We've attached a list of the CBS affiliates in your state at
>the bottom of this email.
>Remember, a polite, friendly call will be most effective -- just explain to
>them why you believe CBS' decision hurts our democracy.
>
>Of course, this is bigger than just the MoveOn.org Voter Fund. People
>for
>the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) submitted an ad that was also
>rejected.(4) But this isn't even a progressive-vs.-conservative issue.
>The airwaves are publicly owned, so we have a fundamental right to hear
>viewpoints from across the ideological spectrum. That's why we need to let
>CBS know that this practice of arbitrarily turning down ads that may be
>"controversial" -- especially if they're controversial simply because they
>take on the President -- just isn't right.
>
>CBS will claim that the ad is too controversial to air. But the
>message of
>the ad is a simple statement of fact, supported by the President's own
>figures. Compared with 2002's White House ad which claimed that drug users
>are supporting terrorism,(5) it hardly even registers.
>
>CBS will also claim that this decision isn't an indication of political
>bias. But given the facts, that's hard to believe. CBS overwhelmingly
>favored Republicans in its political giving, and the company spent millions
>courting the White House to stop FCC reform.(6) According to a
>well-respected study, CBS News was second only to Fox in failing to correct
>common misconceptions about the Iraq war which benefited the Bush
>Administration -- for example, the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved
>with 9/11.(7)
>
>This is not a partisan issue. It's critical that our media
>institutions be
>fair and open to all speakers. CBS is setting a dangerous precedent, and
>unless we speak up, the pattern may continue. Please call on CBS to air
>ads which address issues of public importance today.
>
>Sincerely,
>--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
> The MoveOn.org Team
> January 23rd, 2003
>
>P.S. Our friends at Free Press have put together a page which explains
>simply how CBS and the FCC rule change are integrally linked. Check it out
>at:
>http://www.mediareform.net/media/
>
>P.P.S Here are the CBS affiliates in your state:
>
>WBNS-TV, Columbus: (614) 460-3700
>WTOL-TV, Toledo: (419) 248-1111
>WOIO-TV, Cleveland: (216) 771-1943
>WKBN-TV, Youngstown: (330) 782-1144
>WKRC-TV, Cincinnati: (513) 763-5500
>WHIO-TV, Dayton: (937) 259-2111
>
>Footnotes:
>
>1. "Who's Buying What At the Super Bowl," Ad Age, 1/20/04
>http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=39561
>
>2. CBS fax to MoveOn.org Voter Fund, 1/14/04
>
>3. "Democrats Fold on 39% TV Cap Fight", Broadcasting and Cable,
>1/21/04
>http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA376078?display=Breaking+News
>
>4. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
>http://www.peta.org/feat/superbowl/
>
>5. "New Media Campaign Stresses Link between Drugs and Terrorism," U.S.
>Dept. of State
>http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02020501.htm
>
>6. OpenSecrets.org: "CBS Television Network Soft Money Donations"
>http://www.moveon.org/r?482
>
>7. "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War," PIPA/Knowledge
>Networks
>Poll
>http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf
>
That censored Bush ad is kinda bland, but that Peta ad is funny as hell and pro vegetarian!
Posted by: bennyhill1978 at January 23, 2004 02:38 PMGot sound, but no picture.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at January 23, 2004 11:00 PMYes it may be off topic.
Yes it may be just a URL.
Yes I am lazy.
Yes I don't do my homework.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Here from this guy. He knows what he's talking about.
Watch some of the speeches from 2000. It's interesting to here his comments on spreading the military thin and having a clear mission. It's also intersting that all his budget concerns have been addressed.
I only searched under his name. I imagine many more interesting past speeches can be found.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at January 25, 2004 12:23 AMI realize it's spelled hear.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at January 25, 2004 12:24 AM"Radio and press are at our disposal. Even money is not lacking this time." - Joseph Goebbels shortly after the 1933 election of Adolf Hitler.
Think about it.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at January 28, 2004 09:45 PMAny comment on Kay admitting there were probably no WMD in Irak ?