Fat studies?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Why should products in supermarkets be taxed differently?

I wasn't clear.

The reason I'm inclined to put a "stamp" on processed foods is:
A. Because non-industrial food products sold at supermarkets, so that they get cooked and arranged by individuals, can't have their nutritional usefulness evaluated. You don't know how the individual will use his ground beef.

B. Because they are produced in a standardized, industrial fashion. As a result, if you test some samples, you have an idea of the qualities of all the products the company sells under the same name. If you test 50 Heinz classic tomato ketchup bottles, you'll have a good idea of the nutritive qualities of any Heinz classic tomato ketchup bottle.

Evaluating the nutritive qualities of handmade (non-standardized) food products isn't as convenient as standardized products. It's not that industrial products are inherently better or worse than homemade ones: their standardiness made them more convenient to certify, and then stamped.

I'd "stamp" mom-and-pop bakers in the same way as restaurants and fast-food joints (at least the non-standardized ones). Since the industry works differently, the rules to get a stamp can't really be the same, though the spirit is the same.

I don't know whether chains that sell standardized products made and packaged on site (such as McDonald's or Au Bon Pain) should be stamped like industrial or handmade food products, but I think it's a fairly marginal question.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Arrian
Wheat from the shaft

"Men's studies - clearly shaft, that!"



-Arrian

Oh ****, that'll teach me to try fancy proverbs

[aneeshm]

This is bull****. From a fat bull.

[Dis]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Have any of you read the OP?

"Fat Studies" does not refer to doing studies of fat people. Fat Studies refers to having a field in sociology called "Fat Studies" - ie a major for a college student, classes, etc.

The social implications of a lot of things are important to study, but I don't see how obesity deserves classification on the level of gender studies, which to my opinion as a group (womens, mens, GLBT) is the only 'studies' really big enough to deserve its own seperate branch of the field.

I read the OP. Though I thought the same as everyone else based on the thread title.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

We'd have already figured out how to solve it.

We do know how to solve it. Diet + exercise...

and it's proven to work. It has worked for me. Most people just lack the will to accomplish this. It isn't easy. It requires continuous work. In fact, I think I have gained a few pounds lately. I need to start working out again.

People act like it's some big mystery why there is an explosion of fat people (disgusting thought ) lately. It's just we have an overabundance of resources. Our wealth is astonishing. combine that with a sedentary lifestyle and you have the reason why there are so many fat people. It doesn't take a semester of college to learn this.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Aeson
Your delusions about a "war against fat people" aside...

That could very well happen if that area of study is deemed insignificant and left to extremists. As for these courses specifically, I haven't taken a stand. I've been arguing against the notion that the cultural factors influencing our nation's waistline is an insignificant area of study.

The war against fat people line was sarcastic. Whilst you are right that the cultural factors need studying, that doesn't mean nodding sagely to the unhinged pronouncements of the fat rights brigade. If the title of one of their papers is anything to go by, they view overweight female celebrities who slim down as traitors. For losing weight.

[Aeson]

I'm sure there are many ways to interpret those titles. The betrayal may be what you say, or it could be about how overweight female celebrities depict themselves on-screen, or something else entirely. Without actually reading the paper, I'll reserve judgement. (Something about a book and a cover comes to mind...)

[Barnabas]

Re: Fat studies?

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Even as science, medicine and government have defined obesity as a threat to the nation’s health and treasury, fat studies is emerging as a new interdisciplinary area of study on campuses across the country and is gaining interest in Australia and Britain. Nestled within the humanities and social sciences fields, fat studies explores the social and political consequences of being fat.

For most scholars of fat, though, it is not an objective pursuit. Proponents of fat studies see it as the sister subject — and it is most often women promoting the study, many of whom are lesbian activists — to women’s studies, queer studies, disability studies and ethnic studies. In many of its permutations, then, it is the study of a people its supporters believe are victims of prejudice, stereotypes and oppression by mainstream society.

“It’s about a dominant culture’s ideals of what a real person should be,” said Stefanie Snider, 29, a graduate student at the University of Southern California, whose dissertation will be on the intersection of queer and fat identities in the United States in the 20th century. “And whether that has to do with skin color or heritage or sexual orientation or ability, it ends up being similar in a lot of ways.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/fashion/26fat.html?ex=1322197200&en=3f0b85a6db5b71a8&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Seriously, WTF is this? Women's studies, queer studies, disability studies, etc. are already ridiculous enough, but this is just unbelievable. I mean, seriously, fat studies? Christ, this makes me ashamed to have gone to college...

Democracy is bad because you have to tolerate mucho nonsense in democracy, but there are no better options..

[Drake Tungsten]

Oink oink.

QFT

[Odin]

Originally posted by Caligastia

Sandman hit the nail on the head. This is just a new exalted victim category being marketed to politically correct hand-wringers. How wonderful for them that they have a new reason to flaunt their compassion and moral superiority.

OMG, I agree with Cali!

[Odin]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Stuff with loads of weird chemicals I consider processed.

And a lot of stuff in america has far too much:
Corn Syrup
Partially Hydrogenated Oils

These things are absolute crap for you.

JM

QFT

[Dis]

Originally posted by Odin


OMG, I agree with Cali!

I'm too embarrassed to admit to this.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Odin

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Stuff with loads of weird chemicals I consider processed.

And a lot of stuff in america has far too much:
Corn Syrup
Partially Hydrogenated Oils

These things are absolute crap for you.

JM

QFT

How is corn syrup more unhealthy than any other highly concentrated sources of fructose?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Darius871


QFT

How is corn syrup more unhealthy than any other highly concentrated sources of fructose? [/QUOTE]

it's not that I know of. It's just a high source of calories.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Darius871


QFT

How is corn syrup more unhealthy than any other highly concentrated sources of fructose? [/QUOTE]


I rember reading somewhere that HFCS is absorbed in a way that makes it less healthy then other form of sugar or something to that effect.