Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Popcorn Study

This is topic Popcorn Study in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005967

Posted by Robert Crabtree (Member # 4795) on 11-18-2009, 02:48 PM:

Has anyone seen any of the coverage about the rehashing of Center for Science and Public Interest's 1994 study of movie theatre popcorn? Anyone experiencing an increase in health-related questions at the concession stand? A discernible impact on Per Caps?

Since I found this on a fairly political blog, I'll just borrow an excerpt from the post about the video:

"CBS reports on a study by the Center for Science and Public Interest that analyzed nutritional makeup of movie popcorn; the results are eye-opening. Consuming a medium size popcorn and soda is the equivalent of eating three Quarter Pounders from McDonald's, along with 12 pats of butter."

CBS Video

End quote from the blog I frequent? "They'll get my buttered popcorn when they pry it from my cold dead artery-clogged hands."

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-18-2009, 03:17 PM:

Medium Size is not a very accurate unit of measure. Does the study have any more reliable numbers? What if you don't get it buttered and don't drink the calorie laden soft drink? Popcorn by itself is pretty harmless.

I recall the last time their study on popcorn came out it started the canola v coconut oil trend. Let's see what gets picked up this time.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-18-2009, 06:59 PM:

We'll do the same thing we did last time: Nothing.

The last time all this stupidity happened, we had one patron ask "do you use that really unhealthy stuff to make popcorn with?" I reluctantly said "yes." He said, "Good! Don't change a thing."

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-18-2009, 07:30 PM:

If you go to a movie theatre for health-food...you need a "reality check" since what is on screen isn't REALLY happening either nor should be tried once one leaves the theatre.

The change in popcorn has definitely caused me to cut down on buying it...also the lack of real butter. So far, the only butter-sub I can stand is Supur-Kist Two. It even smells close to right. If you don't have either the real thing (much preferred) or SKT...no popcorn for me....and probably no other items.

Steve

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-18-2009, 09:56 PM:

How often does the average person eat movie popcorn? If one goes to the movies once per month and buys popcorn half of the time, that's six buckets per year. That estimate is probably high.

I am not a doctor, but I can't imagine that six buckets of popcorn per year would make much of a difference in one's health. No one is suggesting that movie popcorn should consumed regularly and in large quantities, but most people don't do this anyway.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-18-2009, 11:28 PM:

It's neurosis. They've even got a name for it: Orthorexia Nervosa. AKA: The neurosis of "correct eating."

Too many people have a neurotic fixation with eating the "correct" foods for the sake of fighting off some imaginary health problem that they MIGHT get some time in the future.

It's the same as the bullshit we went through with saccharin in the 1970's. Yes, if you eat saccharin you might have a 200% higher chance of getting bladder cancer but that's only if you drink the equivalent of a can of saccharin sweetened soda every 30 seconds, 24 hours per day, seven days per week, for an entire year. So, if you have a 1% chance of getting bladder cancer before eating saccharin, you now have a 2% chance of getting it. This totally ignores the fact that rats, which were used in the study, don't metabolize saccharine the same way humans do. Therefore the study has very limited validity in humans.

But, NO! Saccharin is "bad" for you so you can't eat it! The government had to try to ban it.

That ban never made it through congress but the "fear" of eating "incorrect" foods lives on!

My point is not about saccharine. It's about the fears people have about the foods they eat and the organizations that prey on those fears for the purpose of making profit.

The CSPI is nothing more than a money making scheme under the guise of a non-profit organization.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm?oid=13

quote: "www.activistcash.com"
CSPI wants to make money.

CSPI gets over 70 percent of its income from subscriptions to its monthly Nutrition Action Healthletter. Accordingly, much of what it promotes as “science” is often geared more toward selling subscriptions than providing wise counsel. And CSPI has learned that you don’t sell subscriptions with a calm, reasoned approach to nutrition.

The CSPI is nothing more than a bunch of fucked-in-the-head idiots, much the same as, PeTA and the Church of Scientology... Nothing more than schemes cooked up by kooks!

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-19-2009, 12:15 AM:

You also gotta consider that what is considered bad fluctuates greatly. For instance, everyone would hear that you use coconut oil and tell you that's bad because it's been shown in studies to increase cholesterol... ignoring that the studies didn't use a natural coconut oil but used hydrogenated coconut oil.

quote: Randy Stankey
This totally ignores the fact that rats, which were used in the study, don't metabolize saccharine the same way humans do. Therefore the study has very limited validity in humans.

I doubt that they metabolize it all that different from us. The reason rats/mice are used for research is, in addition to being cheap and not something people see as "cute", they have quite similar physiology to us.

IMO, the reason the study doesn't apply is that no one will ever ingest the same amount as they ingested and often they don't even test using actual ingestion, rather using injected doses to mimic a more long-term dose.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-19-2009, 12:30 AM:

*** Mistake *** Delete ***

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-19-2009, 12:33 AM:

quote: Chris Slycord
I doubt that they metabolize it all that different from us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Cancer

quote: "Wikipedia.org"
The mechanism appears to be due the way that rats metabolize sodium, and bladder cancer which cannot be replicated in other mammals has also been observed with rat consumption of other sodium salts such as sodium citrate and bicarbonate.

The point of discussion, here, isn't about rats and saccharine as much as it is about the way people and groups of people manipulate information like the way CSPI and the other groups I mentioned do.

The saccharin scare of the 1970's is just an example of that.
The study in question was invalid on several grounds yet people used it as an example of how "bad" saccharin is supposed to be so they could make political hay.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 11-19-2009, 05:48 AM:

The reason this topic has come up again is that the
CSPI released another study today whic concluded that
Movie Theater Popocorn is still a "nutritional horror".

FYI: The next assault on concession sales will be
coming from a group who is lobbying the government
to impose a hefty CO2 tax on carbonated beverages
dispensed by the cup in theaters, sports stadiums,
etc, according to a story I read a few weeks ago.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-19-2009, 08:52 AM:

quote: Randy Stankey
My point is not about saccharine. It's about the fears people have about the foods they eat and the organizations that prey on those fears for the purpose of making profit.

Randy is right of course....that's the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega, the ying and the yang of EVERTHING -- follow the money trail and it will tell you who's making the profits and how that skews the objective truth. Some times that truth is mildy skewed and spun and hyped, many times it is has no resemblence to the truth (that's called a lie). It's The Agenda, stupid. Always. And the agenda is always how do we get money from the public's pockets and get it into OUR pockets.

Joe said it in another post -- everything is always about money.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-19-2009, 09:07 AM:

quote:
Movie Theater Popcorn is still a "nutritional horror".

Nobody ever said it was health food!

You've got starch, salt, butter, fat and oil. If you have kettle corn, you can add sugar too.

Toss in a box of Milk Duds and wash it down with a Coca Cola while you're at it!

It's JUNK FOOD! Nobody ever said it was anything different! What's the big fuckin' deal? What the fuck else are we supposed to sell? Twigs and berries? Fuck no! Going to the movies is supposed to be a special occasion. When you go out to the movies you want to have a treat.

Do you remember the song, "Lets all go to the lobby and get ourselves a treat!"

Movie theater concessions are TREATS! They have been advertised as such for fifty years or more. Nobody ever said it was good for you. Nobody ever wanted it to be good for you.

It's all about good movies, fun snacks and entertainment. Nothing more. Nothing less. Anybody who tries to make it out to be anything different is fucked in the head!

What the fuck are people who go to movies supposed to eat?
Organic salads, granola bars and distilled water?

I said it before: Orthorexia Nervosa.
It's mass neurosis and the CSPI just preys on people's neuroses to make money.

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-19-2009, 09:40 AM:

Granola is pretty shitty for you too, Randy :-p

I have always heard that popcorn itself isn't bad for you, that it is the butter. How can the popped corn kernels themselves be bad? If you eat an XL tub yourself, yeah, major starch overdose, but I doubt that unbuttered, unsalted popcorn is any worse than say eating two baked poatoes devoid of similarly-bad topings.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-19-2009, 10:00 AM:

You're right. It's mostly starch. The problem is that it's empty calories. Salt, butter and fat just adds insult to injury.

I am watching what I eat. I don't want to eat a lot of junk food.
Personally, I'd pass on the popcorn and other snacks. However, I have a personal deal with myself. If I can stick to my diet for a whole month I can go out one night and eat whatever I want.

So, if I can stick to my diet plan for the rest of the month I might just go to the movies and have a big bag of popcorn and wash it down with a large Coca Cola just so I can tell the CSPI to stick it where the sun doesn't shine!
[fu]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-19-2009, 10:04 AM:

quote: Randy Stankey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Cancer

Touché

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 11-19-2009, 10:46 AM:

I can remember my grandmother using 2 or 3 packets of Sweet-n-Low in her glass of tea when we'd get together for family outings and she never got any cancer and she's now in her late 70's. One time as a kid I used a packet to sweeten a bowl of cereal when we ran out of sugar. Yeah, that was a bad idea. [puke]

On the topic of this study, I haven't heard anything about this recent revisiting of the 90's study til this thread. The only concerns that I have had from a few customers were related to allergies and those that are on strict dietary requirements due to heart conditions (we have a significant senior customer base).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-19-2009, 10:51 AM:

Randy, your post beginning "Nobody ever said it was health food" from the last page is my nomination for the best post of 2009 on Film-Tech. You should make it into a poster and market it.

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 11-19-2009, 11:53 AM:

I agree Mike...Randy's statement was great. It reminded me of the time on "The View" that one of the host was bitching to Paula Deen about all the sugar and butter in one of her recipes to which she replied....."Heck honey, I'm not your doctor....I'm your cook".... [Smile]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-19-2009, 01:33 PM:

I thought it was bloody obvious. Didn't you? [Big Grin]

http://filmack.com/qttrailers/hi-classiclobbyA.htm

http://filmack.com/qttrailers/hi-classiclobby.htm

http://www.archive.org/details/Drive-inIntermission23

Please show me anywhere in these classic theater ads where there is any mention of popcorn being anything other than a snack or a "tasty treat."

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-19-2009, 05:02 PM:

And not to mention the obvious, but there is nothing in our DNA that make compells anyone force feed themselves "snacks" in order to watch a movie. We ARE capable of seeing without chewing. No one holds a gun to anyone's head to stuff food into their mouths just because they are sitting in front of a movie screen. And if you DO have to strap on a effing feed bag in order to watch a movie, then try not ordering the feed bag that holds 10 pounds of popcord and don't empty a salt shaker into it or pump a half a gallon of "butter-ish" stuff on it!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-19-2009, 05:23 PM:

True! Our theatre was built without a snack bar, if you can believe that. It operated for 10 years before a popcorn machine (but no soft drinks -- there was a water fountain however) was installed in the outer lobby, and the concession with soft-drink fountain was finally built 13 years later, in 1953.