Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 332 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
darth_vedder wrote:
vegman wrote:
darth_vedder wrote:
You guys make it seem like this is solely the individuals fault for being overweight / obese. This is not the case. If nearly 70% of the nation weren't on the fat side, I'd agree, but with 70% being this way, this is more than just individual responsibility. Say only 15% of the nation was overweight or obese, then yes, I'd totally think this was on the individual to take personal responsibility for themselves. There are simply too many factors pushing us towards obesity, and it's a fucking hard fight to go against. Thinking this is just about people being lazy is incredibly narrow minded.

Like I keep saying, this is a problem on all fronts...from individual responsibility, to private corporations (Insurance / Food Producers), to Government (policy / education).

While there may be healthy options everywhere, a lot of it comes down to education, cost (price, opportunity cost), and convenience. If I'm barely making it by, have 3 kids, and work two shifts, you think I"m gonna cook when I finally get home? Fuck no. I'm going through the Bojangles drive through and getting super processed mashed potatoes, fried chicken, and a gallon of super sweet tea. So while the choice may be there, it's not very practical for many people. And yes, I know some are just lazy fucks, but that certainly isn't the case with everyone who is obese or overweight.



Sorry man, but the Government doesn't force food down peoples throats. I will agree that educating people is a huge part of the problem, particularly when corporations spend billions of dollars advertising crappy food to kids and their parents, but there are choices. Why would you go to the Bojangles drive thru and buy processed food when your local supermarket most likely has all kinds of meals to go that are much more healthy? Why get that gallon of super sweet tea when tap water is free? It's all about making smart choices. Also, maybe having three kids wasn't the greatest choice if you have to work two shifts and barely make ends meet.

To give you an idea of my background, I am a Certified Prosthetist/ Orthotist and a Licensed Diabetic Educator. I spend my days providing patients with Prosthetic limbs, Orthopaedic braces and even diabetic shoes. I also work in Hospitals and Health Care Clinics all around the Buffalo metro area and the surrounding counties educating people about preventing type 2 diabetes and improving their nutritional intake and overall health. I work day in and day out with the exact population we are speaking about. You are correct in saying that it is not always a problem of laziness but more often than not it is, at least from my experience. The interesting thing here in Buffalo is that we have a very large immigrant population from all over the world. Africa, Burma, Latin America etc.. These are some of the healthiest people I see at the clinics and for the most part, they seem to have no problem seeking out the same foods they use in their native countries. I wish the rest of our population would do the same.


I think that's really awesome regarding the work you do. You're right on the front lines, and I'm not trying to say the problem isn't people. It is, but I just think there are so many other factors involved. Smart choices comes from education, and that's where I'd like to see the government more involved. Our Public Education system is pretty shitty for the most part, and we've cut Physical Education, and introduced vending machines in them. Once we are out of school, we no longer do a lot of manual labor (most people), and we sit in a cubicle all day. The situations we are in, are not helping the problem, and this is where businesses and government can get involved.

So yeah, people have choices, but there are a lot of external forces against them. I guess this is where we don't see eye to eye...you seem to think it's all on the individual and their personal choices. I think that is certainly part of it, but there are a lot of other things going on. Such as:

Food options. These "to go" means and whatnot, well, a lot of them may be slightly better, but they are still loaded with sodium, so it's kinda better, but not extremely better. And you are in an ethnic place (as am I), go to rural South Carolina (I've lived there), and there isn't shit. Big Lots, Wal-Mart, Piggly Wiggly, Soul Food joints, fast food chains, and bingo. That's pretty much it. The ration of crap food to good food is too skewed in the crap direction. Balance this more by providing smarter and healthier options.

Policy. Outlaw vending machines in schools, or provide only healthy options. Get rid of the corn subsidies, and provide incentives for farmers to grow organic fruits and vegetables. Require public schools to have at least 45 minutes of PE three times a week. Offer more health education classes.

Private Industry. Insurance companies should provide incentives to be a normal weight in the form of credits or cheaper health insurance. Food producers need to stop with the predatory advertising and misleading labels; labels such as "hearth healthy" and such, when it isn't heart healthy at all.

Individuals. People in general need to educate themselves, exercise more, learn to cook, shop smarter, parent better, etc...

Also, this is costing US taxpayers billions in the form of health care. At this point, is it like a seat belt law? I don't hear people complain about that...you know, the nosey government sticking it's business in YOUR car. How dare they! Well, fat people are fucking with my taxes, and my cost of living (more expensive health care). Obesity can literally lead to so many diseases from respiratory to cancer to dementia, when is enough, enough? If individuals and private industry are not doing there part, should they be forced to? Like I keep saying I do not want it to come to that, but if it has to, so be it. Something has to be done. I think if we change policy, individual behavior, and private industry takes responsibility, we'll be alright.


None of this really addresses my point that places sell food that people want. So I'll just say this: It shouldn't cost US taxpayers ANYTHING. You use the Ellis Fallacy, where we use one wrong way of applying government to justify another imposition of government. Furthermore, insurance companies and businesses cannot offer credits or cheaper health insurance BY LAW! You get in a group plan, and you are stuck at the group rate. There's no such thing as predatory advertising. Just so long as the information is on the box, that's all that's needed. It's OUR job to be educated consumers. The only regs that should be at the federal level are regs ensuring all ingredients and nutritional information are on the box.

I'll complain about seat belts. It's the same argument. The argument being that if I go down the road and splatter myself from not wearing my seat belt that I will be consuming social resources to unglue my corpse from the pavement. This is another immoral imposition justified by an already immoral imposition. If you get in an accident, consume social resources, and are found guilty, then that's on you buddy...

If you are unhappy with fat people fucking with your taxes then attack the fact that THEY HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR TAXES! Don't use it as an excuse to dictate upon EVERYONE when making them responsible for their actions and choices is a more moral way to go.

When is enough, enough? I dunno. That's not for you or me to decide for everyone. It's for you and me to decide for our own lives.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:58 am 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
LittleWing wrote:
thodoks wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
thodoks wrote:
Thing is, nominal food prices aren't the only determinant of the costs associated with eating. Transportation and search costs are also influence when and where one shops, and thus, what one buys. Reducing availability costs is every bit as important as reducing nominal food prices.


Search and transportation costs are bogus. You can buy three bags of apples for the price of a large bag potatoe chips. If people in the ghetto wanted apples instead of chips, their local convenience stores would sell apples and not chips. They sell chips, ciggies, and purple drink because that is what is in demand. They'd sell fresh produce like the Kroger in the burbs, for less money than the Tony's pizza, if that is what their customers wanted.

No, they aren't. Grocery store density in low-income areas is criminally sparse. This is just one of a number of factors the confluence of which impose on urban, low-income populations significant implicit and explicit cost premia on healthy food relative to unhealthy food. Policy changes are required, though they aren't the ad-hoc policies that only address proximate causes of food desserts and obesity that most fair-trade, eat local progressive types endorse.

http://www.npc.umich.edu/news/events/fo ... _et_al.pdf
http://www.aahf.info/pdf/youth_articles ... 001394.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... aintenance
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/3 ... 970759.pdf


Sorry, but this myth has been debunked. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/healt ... odayspaper
Quote:
It has become an article of faith among some policy makers and advocates, including Michelle Obama, that poor urban neighborhoods are food deserts, bereft of fresh fruits and vegetables.

But two new studies have found something unexpected. Such neighborhoods not only have more fast food restaurants and convenience stores than more affluent ones, but more grocery stores, supermarkets and full-service restaurants, too. And there is no relationship between the type of food being sold in a neighborhood and obesity among its children and adolescents.

Within a couple of miles of almost any urban neighborhood, “you can get basically any type of food,” said Roland Sturm of the RAND Corporation, lead author of one of the studies. “Maybe we should call it a food swamp rather than a desert,” he said.

First of all, I'm skeptical that you read or even skimmed the studies to which I linked.

"Debunked" is a bit strong. I would say the studies "debunk" the food desert consensus about as much as Card and Krueger's minimum wage paper "debunks" consensus on the disemployment effects of the minimum wage. Sturm's analysis is limited to California, calling into question the study's external validity. He's capturing effects peculiar to California, not systematic effects. This is precisely the criticism of the Card/Krueger paper. There are similar locale-specific studies that draw opposite conclusions about the relative availability of quality food. To the best of my understanding, the state of the literature concludes that food deserts exist primarily in northeastern, mid-atlantic, southeastern, and certain rust-belt urban city cores, and that relative to more affluent contiguous suburban settings the availability of quality, affordable food is more difficult to come by. Nobody is claiming that the poor can't access quality food absolutely, only that that access comes at an increased relative cost.

And for the record, it doesn't surprise me there are exceptions to the consensus (nor does it surprise me that those exceptions exist largely on the west coast, in a climate conducive to year-round agriculture). But it's a stretch to call it "debunked." Also, I skimmed the Lee study, and I was less than surprised to learn that it was written by a sociologist. The methodology is, um, lacking. There's a reason I linked to more robust work by doctors and economists. If anything, it reads to me like more research is necessary.

LittleWing wrote:
Quote:
I gotta say, the claim that search and transportation costs are constant across heterogeneous socioeconomic, demographic, and physical landscapes is pretty ridiculous. - Doks


I never claimed that. I claimed that search and transportation costs in poor urban areas is a non-starter because they all know where to get their food, and they generally get it within walking distance at corner shops and convenience stores. There's no economic cost here that's prohibiting them from purchasing healthy food.

Of course consumer search and transportation costs are relevant. Just like the costs and physical constraints associated with constructing large-scale grocery stores in dense urban cores generally preclude such stores from getting built, thus preventing these communities from benefiting from the grocery industry's economies of scale and scope. Claiming that such costs are a "non-starter" doesn't mean they don't exist, and a failure to acknowledge and account for them makes it seem like you see the world how you wish it would appear rather than how it actually does appear.

LittleWing wrote:
Quote:
These aren't mutually exclusive. It can be both, and one effect can compound the other. - Doks


In the context of poor urban people, it is. If truly healthy foods, such as bananas, apples, rice, potatoes, chicken, hamburg, pasta, cucumbers, squash, tomatoes, and many other options are more economical than McDonalds, KFC, and the other shit poor people eat, then how does one NOT conclude that this is purely a matter of choice, and that businesses are catering to what the market demands? The only way your argument holds any water is if you can demonstrate that either, A: junk food and fast food is cheaper than eating healthy - which you can''t. Or B: That healthy foods extend beyond the budgets of the poor. Which is absurd, because if they can all head out to McDonalds, then they can afford to make some speghetti and meatballs.

The only reason you think that I can't demonstrate A is because you don't want to acknowledge that search and information and transportation and opportunity costs are relevant to consumption decisions. So, yeah, if one is unwilling to acknowledge that the full costs of consumption include considerations of costs aside from the nominal price of the particular item in question, I can see how one could conclude that healthy eating is cheaper. And again, my argument is a relative one; my main claim is that the costs of healthy eating impose disproportionate costs on low-income consumers in dense urban cores relative to more affluent consumers in more suburban settings.

As for B, you're again ignoring non-price and opportunity costs. I know I've been willing to pay more for some good knowing full well it was available elsewhere at a lower price in the interest of saving time, energy, and effort. Are you saying you've never done such a thing? Opportunity cost matters, bro.

LittleWing wrote:
Quote:
How you and your fiance consume in suburban Ohio just isn't terribly relevant to how low-income families at 27th and Allegheny in Philadelphia consume. - Doks


Why is that? It demonstrates that you can eat healthy for cheap. Period. It demonstrates that suburban markets cater to the healthy crowd because its what we demand. And that businesses cater their business in poor communities to what they demand: A bunch of shit fast food, and convenience and cornershops full of the crap these people want.

You couldn't give away healthy food at 27th and Allegheny and Phili.

I just can't quite wrap my head around why you're so reluctant to acknowledge that context matters. If you really can't see how environment, context, and subjective determinations of the relevant costs and benefits associated with consumption can influence one's decisions (to say nothing of how differences in the relative socioeconomic composition of urban cores and suburbs affect the decisions of suppliers), I'm not sure there's going to be much that I can say to convince you otherwise. And having taught for two years at the corner of 27th and Allegheny, I can assure you free apples and bananas would find takers.

Here's the bottom line: initial conditions matter. The right seem to be pathologically unwilling (unable?) to acknowledge that simple point, likely because it would force them to confront the unfortunate reality that not all of the world's ills can be blamed on the poor, indigent, and stupid. The world's a pretty complex place, and the environment in which one finds him- or herself is of consequence.

That said, initial conditions are not deterministic; it's very rarely the case that where one starts has to determine where one finishes. Discipline, responsibility, and being willing to work can absolutely make it such that one can overcome disadvantaged initial conditions. This is a point the left seems to be pathologically unwilling (unable?) to acknowledge, likely because empowering and encouraging low-income constituencies to behave responsibly and exercise a modicum of foresight would mean electoral irrelevancy and force them to confront the unfortunate reality that not all of the world's ill can be blamed on wealth, greed, and racism. My aim in this thread is to outline that, yes, the poor are constrained in their ability to consume healthily at a cost equivalent to more affluent constituencies, not to excuse or apologize for systematically irresponsible decision-making. I absolutely agree that very few of these challenges cannot be overcome with a bit of individual edification and fortitude and discipline.

Initial conditions matter, but they certainly don't have to dominate.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:14 am 
Offline
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:15 pm
Posts: 3875
Context only matters for measuring length of journey. For the individual, the only thing that matters is choices made. Context makes for a nice movie. Action makes for a nice life. Do some have it harder than others? Certainly. Lets remove obstacles where we can but lets not act like removing freedom is removing obstacles. Anyone can live a responsible life. It's not an act of heroism.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:23 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:52 pm
Posts: 8288
Image

_________________
Sweep the leg!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar
a joke
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am
Posts: 22978
Gender: Male
Lotta words in this thread, team.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
tyler wrote:
Context only matters for measuring length of journey. For the individual, the only thing that matters is choices made. Context makes for a nice movie. Action makes for a nice life. Do some have it harder than others? Certainly. Lets remove obstacles where we can but lets not act like removing freedom is removing obstacles. Anyone can live a responsible life. It's not an act of heroism.


I don't believe anyone here is arguing for removing the freedom of choice (and the associated responsibility), but context is very important in consumption decisions, and the ban on large sized sodas in NYC and some of the arguments posted here ignore it. Your actions are restrained by your environment and you develop self-imposed boundaries in your decision making process based on those restraints.

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
has anybody mentioned how the buying power (both in business and politics) of fast food companies and big agra has re-made all of the food we eat?

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:03 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
EllisEamos wrote:
has anybody mentioned how the buying power (both in business and politics) of fast food companies and big agra has re-made all of the food we eat?


Good point. It's almost like in N&D we have this recurring theme of government-backed corporatism infecting and corrupting our daily lives. We need to a elect a leader who will Change this and move us Forward.

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:24 am 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:22 am
Posts: 1603
Location: Buffalo
broken iris wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
has anybody mentioned how the buying power (both in business and politics) of fast food companies and big agra has re-made all of the food we eat?


Good point. It's almost like in N&D we have this recurring theme of government-backed corporatism infecting and corrupting our daily lives. We need to a elect a leader who will Change this and move us Forward.


Corporatism and it's control of our Gov't is without a doubt the largest problem facing our Democracy and I don't see anyone on the horizon willing to try and change it. Hard to do when you need corporate money to get elected.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
EllisEamos wrote:
has anybody mentioned how the buying power (both in business and politics) of fast food companies and big agra has re-made all of the food we eat?


Sorry, "buying power" of big business has simply catered to the food we WANT.

Yes, taxation is an imposition against freedom of choice, no matter how much you all want to pretend it isn't.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:52 pm
Posts: 8288
the obesity epidemic is 99% caused by individual choice and 1% every other excuse in this thread combined.

_________________
Sweep the leg!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6405
Location: DC
Gender: Male
bmacsmith wrote:
the obesity epidemic is 99% caused by individual choice and 1% every other excuse in this thread combined.


If you believe this, you're an idiot.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6405
Location: DC
Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
darth_vedder wrote:
vegman wrote:
darth_vedder wrote:
You guys make it seem like this is solely the individuals fault for being overweight / obese. This is not the case. If nearly 70% of the nation weren't on the fat side, I'd agree, but with 70% being this way, this is more than just individual responsibility. Say only 15% of the nation was overweight or obese, then yes, I'd totally think this was on the individual to take personal responsibility for themselves. There are simply too many factors pushing us towards obesity, and it's a fucking hard fight to go against. Thinking this is just about people being lazy is incredibly narrow minded.

Like I keep saying, this is a problem on all fronts...from individual responsibility, to private corporations (Insurance / Food Producers), to Government (policy / education).

While there may be healthy options everywhere, a lot of it comes down to education, cost (price, opportunity cost), and convenience. If I'm barely making it by, have 3 kids, and work two shifts, you think I"m gonna cook when I finally get home? Fuck no. I'm going through the Bojangles drive through and getting super processed mashed potatoes, fried chicken, and a gallon of super sweet tea. So while the choice may be there, it's not very practical for many people. And yes, I know some are just lazy fucks, but that certainly isn't the case with everyone who is obese or overweight.



Sorry man, but the Government doesn't force food down peoples throats. I will agree that educating people is a huge part of the problem, particularly when corporations spend billions of dollars advertising crappy food to kids and their parents, but there are choices. Why would you go to the Bojangles drive thru and buy processed food when your local supermarket most likely has all kinds of meals to go that are much more healthy? Why get that gallon of super sweet tea when tap water is free? It's all about making smart choices. Also, maybe having three kids wasn't the greatest choice if you have to work two shifts and barely make ends meet.

To give you an idea of my background, I am a Certified Prosthetist/ Orthotist and a Licensed Diabetic Educator. I spend my days providing patients with Prosthetic limbs, Orthopaedic braces and even diabetic shoes. I also work in Hospitals and Health Care Clinics all around the Buffalo metro area and the surrounding counties educating people about preventing type 2 diabetes and improving their nutritional intake and overall health. I work day in and day out with the exact population we are speaking about. You are correct in saying that it is not always a problem of laziness but more often than not it is, at least from my experience. The interesting thing here in Buffalo is that we have a very large immigrant population from all over the world. Africa, Burma, Latin America etc.. These are some of the healthiest people I see at the clinics and for the most part, they seem to have no problem seeking out the same foods they use in their native countries. I wish the rest of our population would do the same.


I think that's really awesome regarding the work you do. You're right on the front lines, and I'm not trying to say the problem isn't people. It is, but I just think there are so many other factors involved. Smart choices comes from education, and that's where I'd like to see the government more involved. Our Public Education system is pretty shitty for the most part, and we've cut Physical Education, and introduced vending machines in them. Once we are out of school, we no longer do a lot of manual labor (most people), and we sit in a cubicle all day. The situations we are in, are not helping the problem, and this is where businesses and government can get involved.

So yeah, people have choices, but there are a lot of external forces against them. I guess this is where we don't see eye to eye...you seem to think it's all on the individual and their personal choices. I think that is certainly part of it, but there are a lot of other things going on. Such as:

Food options. These "to go" means and whatnot, well, a lot of them may be slightly better, but they are still loaded with sodium, so it's kinda better, but not extremely better. And you are in an ethnic place (as am I), go to rural South Carolina (I've lived there), and there isn't shit. Big Lots, Wal-Mart, Piggly Wiggly, Soul Food joints, fast food chains, and bingo. That's pretty much it. The ration of crap food to good food is too skewed in the crap direction. Balance this more by providing smarter and healthier options.

Policy. Outlaw vending machines in schools, or provide only healthy options. Get rid of the corn subsidies, and provide incentives for farmers to grow organic fruits and vegetables. Require public schools to have at least 45 minutes of PE three times a week. Offer more health education classes.

Private Industry. Insurance companies should provide incentives to be a normal weight in the form of credits or cheaper health insurance. Food producers need to stop with the predatory advertising and misleading labels; labels such as "hearth healthy" and such, when it isn't heart healthy at all.

Individuals. People in general need to educate themselves, exercise more, learn to cook, shop smarter, parent better, etc...

Also, this is costing US taxpayers billions in the form of health care. At this point, is it like a seat belt law? I don't hear people complain about that...you know, the nosey government sticking it's business in YOUR car. How dare they! Well, fat people are fucking with my taxes, and my cost of living (more expensive health care). Obesity can literally lead to so many diseases from respiratory to cancer to dementia, when is enough, enough? If individuals and private industry are not doing there part, should they be forced to? Like I keep saying I do not want it to come to that, but if it has to, so be it. Something has to be done. I think if we change policy, individual behavior, and private industry takes responsibility, we'll be alright.


None of this really addresses my point that places sell food that people want. So I'll just say this: It shouldn't cost US taxpayers ANYTHING. You use the Ellis Fallacy, where we use one wrong way of applying government to justify another imposition of government. Furthermore, insurance companies and businesses cannot offer credits or cheaper health insurance BY LAW! You get in a group plan, and you are stuck at the group rate. There's no such thing as predatory advertising. Just so long as the information is on the box, that's all that's needed. It's OUR job to be educated consumers. The only regs that should be at the federal level are regs ensuring all ingredients and nutritional information are on the box.


The food people want? Bullshit. Tons of shit marked as "smart", "all natural", "heart healthy" is all over the place. Many people are being duped. Again, I use your example of you cooking pasta and a salad. Well, most pasta is shit, pasta sauce that is available is loaded with sodium and sugar, and salad dressing (a shit ton of it) is terrible for you. So your "healthy" alternative isn't healthy at all.

Insurance companies can't offer incentives by law? Well then, this is where law can be changed.

No such thing as predatory adverting? Are you fucking serious?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
LittleWing wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
has anybody mentioned how the buying power (both in business and politics) of fast food companies and big agra has re-made all of the food we eat?


Sorry, "buying power" of big business has simply catered to the food we WANT.
actually, my point was that our love of chicken, bacon, hamburgers, and french fries has enabled the producers of these foods to streamline the processing of each to the point that all of the various forms of chicken, pork, beef, and potatoes (& corn syrup) are essentially the same and, as a result, unhealthy.

not to mention, the largest producers get the biggest share of the agra subsidies. so its not as if they're business is all that sustains them and helps them reap enormous profits.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Last edited by EllisEamos on Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6405
Location: DC
Gender: Male
EllisEamos wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
has anybody mentioned how the buying power (both in business and politics) of fast food companies and big agra has re-made all of the food we eat?


Sorry, "buying power" of big business has simply catered to the food we WANT.
actually, my point was that our love of chicken, bacon, hamburgers, and french fries has enabled the producers of these foods to streamline the processing of each to the point that all of the various forms of chicken, pork, beef, and potatoes (& corn syrup) are essentially the same and, as a result, unhealthy.


You have a great point here. The food industry has turned the food we eat into cheap, overly processed shit that leads to disease. Then they market it as "healthy". It's all rubbish.

I don't know why so many people are opposed to this here. There is a massive problem, and with 70% being overweight or obese, I think there is a little more to it than individual choice.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Menace to Dogciety
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54 pm
Posts: 12287
Location: Manguetown
Gender: Male
Actually a healthy diet isn't expensive.

Paleo diet is a bit hardcore, but extremely healthy. Boiled potatoes and eggs with grilled chicken or beef on main meals and a bunch of fruits as snacks can provide all nutrients we need. Of course it can be boring as fuck for someone who is not on survival mode.

_________________
There's just no mercy in your eyes
There ain't no time to set things right
And I'm afraid I've lost the fight
I'm just a painful reminder
Another day you leave behind


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
just to be clear, as i'm sure my stereotype would suggest otherwise, i'm not in favor of this tax. i would only hope that the debate about such a policy would help others realize the hypocrisy of other policies (as i was posting about upthread).

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
Interesting article on food access:


Will Philadelphia’s experiment in eradicating ‘food deserts’ work?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/will-philadelphias-experiment-in-eradicating-food-deserts-work/2012/06/08/gJQAU9snNV_print.html

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:39 am 
Offline
User avatar
too drunk to moderate properly
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 39068
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gender: Male
I remember why I stopped coming into N&D.

_________________
"Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New Federal Soda/Sweets Tax potentially
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 6661
Location: Seattle
I work for licensee of Blue Cross / Blue Shield and we do pay more for our insurance for not controlling our health. We don't get "discounts" for being healthy but we pay a "surcharge" for smoking, a surcharge for an unhealthy BMI, high blood pressure, high cholesterol or high blood sugar. We are required to go through a biometric screening every year to get the numbers and we are charged based on the results. It may be all in the language, but this is happening now, and has been (for me) for years.

_________________
PJ DVDS~DVDS~POSTERS


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 332 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:44 pm