Tax on saturated fats in food

PBS has been airing an excellent documentary on Prohibition. It was a disaster with long lasting negative social costs. I think it would be a good idea for the food police to look at this from a historical point of view before taking any further action.

 

Ok, why do I get this image in my head of Elliot Ness (played by Gary Sinise, of course) waiting in the shadows with suited Fed types - guns drawn - as locals stagger out the back entrance of a speakeasy supermarket after a night of sugary debauchery?

 

I will tell you this, I am a big fan of freshly baked cinnamon rolls, with way too much icing. I would risk jail time to ride my motorcycle on Sunday morning to Granny's speak easy to indulge

 

i guess my stance is that if these agencies like the fda/usda/epa are going to exist why do they fail at protecting me from what i feel are no brainers when it comes to health? paying subsidies to monsanto so they can poison us with their roundup ready corn doesn't sound like a good practice to me.

if the government was concerned about our health they'd be subsidizing fruits/vegetables and banning gmo's, pesticides and all the other processed crap that's been shown to be deadly.

i went to a farmer's market the other day in a parking lot with about 10 booths set up. when i tried to purchase something, the farmer informed that the inspector hadn't been by yet so he couldn't sell anything. good thing the government is here to protect me from fresh fruit and vegetables.

can't have farmer's market in america without having nanny state watching over you, but i could walk across the street to mcdonalds and get some hormone/pesticide nutrient deficient diabetes cancer burgers with no questions asked. where's my fda/usda to protect me? this just illustrates to absurdity of the situation.

 

Hey, I'm not opposed to government regulating GMOs and food additives. I am simply questioning the hypocrisy of wanting to regulate food additives on the basis of health impacts but not environmental pollutants or hazardous workplaces.

And it would be the "nanny city" that require permits for temporary or permanent facilities to sell food. Why would you oppose that if you are concerned about hazards to health?

 

it could be seen as hypocritical i suppose. my point is that if these agencies are going to exist, then why don't they take care of the most dangerous threats to our health? i'm ok with not allowing places to dump raw sewage, heavy metals, or byproducts into the rivers and air.

i think if these agencies were any good at what they did, why would cancer, diabetes, and many other medical problems be skyrocketing? like i was saying, i can walk over to mcdonalds get a hamburger that is absolutely terrible for me that has excruciating usda inspections all the way down the production line. if the nanny state/city allows this, why would they be the ones to check the farmer market for healthiness? it doesn't make any sense. i would rather be in charge of my own health and safety for the most part.

 

The FDA are have their marching orders -put up as many roadblocks as possible when it comes to independent and local producers. They're afraid that folks might actually prefer a nice, fresh, ripe tomato over the genetically engineered, mealy and sallow tennis balls that are passed off as tomatoes in the produce sections of supermarkets.

We can't have that.

 

Part of the reason that cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc are skyrocketing is the lack of adequate health services and resources, particularly in under served communities.

I agree with you on being charge of one's own health. However, when one's resources and access to services are limited, options are limited. Where we disagree is that I think government can help fund resources and services so that one can make more informed personal choices as well as providing greater access to those primary and preventive care and wellness resources and services of one's choice.
--- merged: Oct 6, 2011 4:45 AM ---
Even beyond the issue of the many under served areas in the country, what is the downside to a program like Lets Move ( http://www.letsmove.gov/ ) to encourage voluntary local programs to address the issue of childhood obesity in communities of all demographics and coordinated by parents, local educators, health care professionals, nutritionists, local officials, etc.

Unless you buy into Sarah Palin's rhetoric that somehow that would be government taking over our lives ("Instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician's wife's priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions....") Or perhaps it represents ace's "food police".

 

it's funny you mention let's move. i recently got an award from michelle obama for going to the gym like 4 days a week over 3 months or something. i guess that key fab i swipe when i go into the gym lets the feds know how much i've been exercising. maybe i wont have to pay as much into the obamacare premiums now since i exercise.

 

Why am I not surprised with your take on it?

You got an award because you are an obese child and your gym is monitoring your attendance and sending the information to the White House ?

Oh well, sounds like you are in the Palin camp on this one.

 

obese? not even close.

 

Hmm, sounds like a good idea, but I am worried about the slippery slope that leads to multi-billion dollar verdicts awarded to states against tobacco. Hopefully, it will never come to that.

 

A thought about those who are too poor, too uneducated, too ignorant, too ill-formed, too illiterate, too addicted, too abused, too busy, too genetically programmed, too family influenced, too..... too whatever to give proper concern to their own health and well being. There seems to be a lot of them and they are proving to be a real burden on society.

1) Option 1 - Fuck 'em. Let 'em die. Don't accept them into ER's when their hearts give out or they go into a diabetic shock.
2) Option 2 - Force them to "get with the program" in any way possible (education, preventive care, regulatory measures, etc) for the benefit of the rest of us who feel the pressure as the burden gets heavier.

Please feel free to add your own options. These are the only two I can come up with.

 

3) Provide the education/encouragement and accept free choice, while also accepting that we all have self-destructive behaviours. Treat everyone when medical treatment is needed. Old people are also "a burden on society" and there are getting to be more of us. However, as the song says, "He ain't heavy, he's my brother". These are our fellow travellers.

 

Ok, the language in option 1 was intentionally strong though I do get the feeling that there are those out there who feel this way. I don't.

Option 2 should probably have read "Encourage them to get with program".

I'm not sure I'm in total agreement with your all out hippie stance though, Alistair. I believe that, if society is going to pick up the slack for the burden, society should be able to have a say in how the burden can be eased.

And I should have mentioned that I exclude the elderly, the young, the mentally ill and the disabled from my statement. I meant it only to apply to those with horrendously unhealthy dietary and lifestyle habits that impact the system we all share.

Yes, we all have self-destructive behaviors. It doesn't mean that others should have to carry the weight with silent acquiescence. I may be a liberal but I also believe that each of us should be responsible for ourselves or, at the very least, not expect others to be responsible for our irresponsible habits.

I am fully on board with the idea that there needs to be more affordable treatment facilities for those who are having difficulties giving up their habits.

 

My problem is not so much in the ambition, but in the implementation.

How do you draw the line, and how do you enforce it? Do we start with smokers? Obese people? Do we demand specific levels of exercise? Do we punish those who get sports injuries? "Are you now, are were you ever, eating pizza?" .. well.. you get my drift

What do we then do, anyway? Refuse to treat? I can't see it.

 

Start small - education, small but effective changes to food industry policy. Work up to the provision of available treatment centers for addictions. Healthy and nutritious school lunch programs. Ok, I'll say it - Tax the everlovingshit out of McDonald's.

Yeah, it may take another generation (or two) to reverse some of the habits we as a society have developed but to wait is to put off the inevitable

No, I'm not suggesting anyone throw Mama off the train because she's 400 lbs. Not yet anyway.

 

If you are talking about using regulation and financial levers to encourage healthier lifestyles, I'm with you.

If you are talking about addressing the problem at the point where the patient needs help, I'm not.

I think we may be in furious agreement

 

Yes, I'm talking about using legislation and getting the word out. A slow weaning.

Yes, I think we are basically in agreement.

 

I'm not sure a tax on unhealthy foods would be a good option. The government has already shown it has no idea what healthy food looks like. Now, removing the subsidies on corn and the artificial pricing schemes it has been running on it would help people eat a lot healthier. About 70% of the products in a supermarket have corn in them in some way. Its ridiculous and unprofitable for a farmer to grow nearly as much corn without the help from the government.