PDA

View Full Version : Banning Milk and Cookies (long)



pooltchr
05-14-2006, 04:35 AM
For all the supporters of smoking bans, I suggest you read the following. I stated many times that cigarettes were just the tip of the iceberg...now french fries, milk, cookies are all targets of the fanatic left wing lunatics!
Enjoy!

Junk-Food Jihad
Should we regulate French fries like cigarettes?
By William Saletan
Posted Saturday, April 15, 2006, at 7:31 AM ET




Goodbye, war on smoking. Hello, war on fat.

In a span of two months, smoking bans have been imposed in Scotland, enacted in England, Denmark, and Uruguay, proposed by the government of Portugal, and endorsed by the French public. China has banned new cigarette factories. In Virginia, our third most prolific tobacco state, senators voted to ban smoking in nearly all public places. The Arkansas legislature, backed by a Republican governor, passed a similar ban and voted to extend this policy to cars in which a child is present. Tobacco companies have won a skirmish here or there, but always in retreat.


Continue Article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, we've found a new enemy: obesity. Two years ago, the government discovered that the targets of previous crusades—booze, sex, guns, and cigarettes—were killing a smaller percentage of Americans than they used to. The one thing you're not allowed to do in a culture war is win it, so we searched the mortality data for the next big menace. The answer was as plain as the other chin on your face. Obesity, federal officials told us, would soon surpass tobacco as the chief cause of preventable death. They compared it to the Black Death and the Asian tsunami. They sent a team of "disease detectives" to West Virginia to investigate an obesity outbreak. Last month, the surgeon general called obesity "the terror within" and said it would "dwarf 9-11."

How do we fight it? Everyone agrees on exercising and eating responsibly. The debate is over what the government should do. Health advocates want to restrict junk-food sales, regulate advertising, require more explicit labels, and ban trans fats (also known as partially hydrogenated oils), which are often put into crackers, cookies, and other products to prolong shelf life. They marshal the kind of evidence that won the war on smoking: correlations between soda, junk food, obesity, disease, and death. Lawyers who made their fortunes suing tobacco companies are preparing suits against soda companies. Two months ago, when President Bush gave a health-care speech at the headquarters of Wendy's, activists compared the hamburger chain to Philip Morris. They see themselves as waging the same brave struggle, this time against "the food industry."

But somehow, "the food industry" doesn't sound quite as evil as "the tobacco industry." Something about food—the fact that it keeps us alive, perhaps—makes its purveyors hard to hate. For that matter, the rationale for recent bans on smoking is the injustice of secondhand smoke, and there's no such thing as secondhand obesity. Last year, a Pew Research poll found that 74 percent of Americans viewed tobacco companies unfavorably, but only 39 percent viewed fast-food companies unfavorably. This week, a Pew survey found that more Americans blame obesity, especially their own, on lack of exercise and willpower than on "the kinds of foods marketed at restaurants and grocery stores."

These obstacles don't make the assault on junk food futile. But they do clarify how it will unfold. It will rely on three arguments: First, we should protect kids. Second, fat people are burdening the rest of us. Third, junk food isn't really food.

Targeting kids is a familiar way to impose morals without threatening liberties. You can have a beer or an abortion, but your daughter can't. The conservative aspect of this argument is that you're entitled, as a parent, to decide what your kids can do or buy. That's the pitch Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, made last week in a bill to crack down on junk food in schools. The liberal half of the argument is that kids are too young to make informed choices. In this case, it's true. Studies show that little kids ask for products they see on television; fail to distinguish ads from programs; and are heavily targeted by companies peddling candy, fast food, and sugared cereal.

This stage of the fat war will be a rout. In schools, the audience is young and captive, and the facts are appalling. According to a government report, 75 percent of high schools, 65 percent of middle schools, and 30 percent of elementary schools have contracts with "beverage"—i.e., soda—companies. The sodas are commonly sold through vending machines. The contracts stipulate how many thousands of cases each district has to buy, and they offer schools a bigger cut of the profits from soda than from juice or water. Soda companies, realizing they're going to lose this fight, are fleeing elementary schools and arguing that high-schoolers are old enough to choose. But health advocates refuse to draw such a line. They're not going to stop with kids.

To keep junk food away from adults, fat-fighters will have to explain why obesity is the government's business. Some say the government created the problem by subsidizing pork, sugar, cream, high-fructose corn syrup, and other crud. Harkin reasons that the government pays for school lunches and must protect this "investment." But their main argument is that obesity inflates health-care costs and hurts the economy through disability and lost productivity. Last month, former President Clinton, a confessed overeater, told the nation's governors that obesity has caused more than a quarter of the rise in health-care costs since 1987 and threatens our economic competitiveness. It's not our dependence on foreign oil that's killing us. It's our dependence on vegetable oil.

If the fat-fighters win that argument, they'll reach the final obstacle: the sanctity of food. Food is a basic need and a human right. Marlboros won't keep you alive on a desert island, but Fritos will. To lower junk food to the level of cigarettes, its opponents must persuade you that it isn't really food. They're certainly trying. Soda isn't sustenance, they argue; it's "liquid candy." Crackers aren't baked; they're "engineered," like illegal drugs, to addict people. Last year, New York City's health commissioner asked restaurants to stop using trans fats, which he likened to asbestos. But he ignored saturated fats, which are equally bad and more pervasive. Why are trans fats an easier whipping-cream boy? Because they're mostly artificial.

This, I suspect, is where the war will end. Ban all the creepy-soft processed cookies you want to, but respect nature and nutrition. New York City is purging whole milk from its schools, despite the fact that milk has steadily lost market share to soda during the obesity surge. A fact sheet from Harkin implies that schools should treat milk, French fries, and pizza like soda, jelly beans, and gum. Come on. How many people died in the Irish jelly bean famine? How many babies have nursed on 7-Up? How many food groups does gum share with pizza? If you can't tell the difference, don't tell us what to eat.

wolfdancer
05-14-2006, 09:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Two years ago, the government discovered that the targets of previous crusades—booze, sex, guns, and cigarettes—were killing a smaller percentage of Americans than they used to. The one thing you're not allowed to do in a culture war is win it, so we searched the mortality data for the next big menace. The answer was as plain as the other chin on your face. Obesity, federal officials told us, would soon surpass tobacco as the chief cause of preventable death. They compared it to the Black Death and the Asian tsunami. They sent a team of "disease detectives" to West Virginia to investigate an obesity outbreak. Last month, the surgeon general called obesity "the terror within" and said it would "dwarf 9-11." <hr /></blockquote>
Steve, how can the right-wing be in charge....but the left wing gets the blame????????????????????????????
Is not the Surgeon-General appointed by the Prez?....and the study is from two years ago...I think GW was still in office then.
I'm sorry that you can't see yet that without the ban on smoking .....non-smokers were denied "equal-access"

pooltchr
05-14-2006, 02:54 PM
Those in charge may be Republicans, but they are by no means conservative right wing.. At best, they are moderates. Just look at the budget.

I agree there are legitimate concerns about smoking in some places. My issue was that by letting the smoking bans be enacted, there would be more to follow. It's already starting. Once you let the government make laws regarding one product or business, there is no way to stop it from moving on to other products and businesses.
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-15-2006, 11:17 PM
Steve, how can the right-wing be in charge....but the left wing gets the blame????????????????????????????

Since you didn't get an answer, the answer is....


KOOL AID

Bush voters.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
05-16-2006, 04:37 AM
Wolfdancer I get your message "Let em eat Wings" be it right or left.####

cushioncrawler
05-16-2006, 04:41 AM
Hi Steve -- goodish post -- i probably disagree on a few thingz -- i had a billiardz-forum-free day a while back, and i googled diets etc, and here iz (rightly or wrongly) what i came up with.

We should be wary of (1) sugar... (2) aspartane (artificial sugar)... (3) trans-fats..... (4) polycyclic hydrocarbons (burnt fat)..... (i am going on memory here).

Dont worry about (1) cholesterol.... (2) salt.... (3) dairy products....... (4) fats in general (except for trans).

Keep an eye out for (1) lactose (dairy) intolerance..... (2) gluten intolerance..... (3) preservativz (sulfur intolerance)..... (4) other stuff.

Obesity iz linked to carbohydrates -- carbohydrates make the brain make a hormone that makes u hungry -- books regarding this sort of stuff were available in about 1963 -- Atkins (hero) invented this stuff 20 yearz later.

pooltchr
05-16-2006, 06:07 AM
The issue isn't what is healthy or not. The issue is that there are people out there who want to take away the freedom of choice! You are welcome to eat French Fries or Cookies...it's your personal choice.
Doesn't it concern anyone that this is even being thought of???????????????????????????????
Wake up! The land of the free is quickly becomming the land of the opressed!!!! And we are letting it happen!
Steve

Fran Crimi
05-16-2006, 07:33 AM
I don't think things are that drastic, Steve.

Here, this part is what it's mainly about:

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Targeting kids is a familiar way to impose morals without threatening liberties. You can have a beer or an abortion, but your daughter can't. The conservative aspect of this argument is that you're entitled, as a parent, to decide what your kids can do or buy. That's the pitch Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, made last week in a bill to crack down on junk food in schools. The liberal half of the argument is that kids are too young to make informed choices. In this case, it's true. Studies show that little kids ask for products they see on television; fail to distinguish ads from programs; and are heavily targeted by companies peddling candy, fast food, and sugared cereal. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

They're talking about things like 'cupcake day' in school where kids bring in cupcakes to celebrate someone's birthday. Everyone then gets to eat cupcakes. They do that for every kid who has a birthday.

Years ago, we'd come home from school, get changed and run outside and not be back until dinner. Today, they come home from school and stay home. It's obvious that many parents today don't have a handle on their kids weight issues. I agree that the school should control the environment in the schools, including food.

Fran

pooltchr
05-16-2006, 07:50 AM
Fran,
Things weren't that drastic when business were first required to offer a "no smoking" section. Once they got that, they kept going.
Banning whole milk from schools is kinda nuts. I drank whole milk my entire childhood and somehow managed to survive.
The way I see it, this is just the first step. First the schools, then restaurants, then grocery stores. When they do this in small steps, too many people think it's not a big deal. That is how they take away our freedom. The day will come when we look back on this, and wonder why we ever let the ball start rolling.
Steve

Fran Crimi
05-16-2006, 08:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Fran,
Things weren't that drastic when business were first required to offer a "no smoking" section. Once they got that, they kept going.
Banning whole milk from schools is kinda nuts. I drank whole milk my entire childhood and somehow managed to survive.
The way I see it, this is just the first step. First the schools, then restaurants, then grocery stores. When they do this in small steps, too many people think it's not a big deal. That is how they take away our freedom. The day will come when we look back on this, and wonder why we ever let the ball start rolling.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Believe me, I know what you mean about the potential for taking away of rights, but I think that maybe they're just starting to make up for the damage they've done to us. I call our generation the cancer generation. I've never seen so many people get it. It's everywhere, like an epidemic. I think it comes from the junk food that's processed among other things, including hormone-fed animals.

Maybe the kids have a better shot by being taught not to eat the junk. They're not learning at home, maybe they can learn it at school.

Fran

Rich R.
05-16-2006, 08:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Years ago, we'd come home from school, get changed and run outside and not be back until dinner. Today, they come home from school and stay home. It's obvious that many parents today don't have a handle on their kids weight issues. I agree that the school should control the environment in the schools, including food.
<hr /></blockquote>Also years ago, schools didn't have vending machines available to the kids, for snacks and drinks of their choosing, as I have seen on the news concerning this issue. Our cafateria was open for lunch only. Other than that, we could get water from the fountain in the hallway, not sugar laced sodas and snacks.

Rich R.
05-16-2006, 08:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> I call our generation the cancer generation. I've never seen so many people get it. It's everywhere, like an epidemic. I think it comes from the junk food that's processed among other things, including hormone-fed animals.<hr /></blockquote>
Fran, I believe you are right on target with this. All anyone has to do is pick up any package of processed food in the grocery store. They will be lucky if they can pronounce half of the ingredients and even luckier if they know what one quarter of them are. Of course, the food companies will tell us that none of those ingredients will cause cancer, and they probably won't if ingested alone. However, when people constantly mix all kinds of processed foods in their diet, who knows what complex combinations our bodies create from these chemicals?

wolfdancer
05-16-2006, 09:26 AM
Gayle, you and Dick....know how to cut throught the red tape....and put it all in perspective....and crack me up in the process.
I kind of object to banning the milk and cookies....but they should be the occasional treat, not the standard bill-of-fare. If the vending machines, are just full of sugared, and high fat junk foods and drinks....then it is setting up that kind of food habit, with it's associated health risks......As someone who could easily stand to lose 25 lbs....I wish these things didn't become habit forming in my life.
I also wish they hadn't invented berry topped cream cheese cake, or that Costco wouldn't place it near the meat counter

pooltchr
05-16-2006, 10:25 AM
Rich,
I'm not arguing the health benefits of junk food. I'm arguing the loss of freedom of choice to eat it or not. Ban cookies and milk today...ban french fries tomorrow, next week let's ban hamburger...then bacon...where does it all stop? I don't really want to live my life eating nothing but nuts and berries! I don't think anyone has the right to tell you what you can or can not eat! Or what you can or can not drive....or where you can or can not live. My concern isn't junk food...it's all about freedom to choose for ourselves...and it's going away more and more each day.
Steve

Rich R.
05-16-2006, 10:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Rich,
I'm not arguing the health benefits of junk food. I'm arguing the loss of freedom of choice to eat it or not. Ban cookies and milk today...ban french fries tomorrow, next week let's ban hamburger...then bacon...where does it all stop? I don't really want to live my life eating nothing but nuts and berries! I don't think anyone has the right to tell you what you can or can not eat! Or what you can or can not drive....or where you can or can not live. My concern isn't junk food...it's all about freedom to choose for ourselves...and it's going away more and more each day. <hr /></blockquote>
Steve, as an adult, you have the right to chose what to eat, what to drive and where to live. I don't think children should have those choices, so, IMHO, your initial example, concerning junk food in schools, is not valid.

BTW, I believe we would all be better off, living our lives, eating nothing but nuts and berries. However, don't be afraid, I'm not about to do it either. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

pooltchr
05-16-2006, 11:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> BTW, I believe we would all be better off, living our lives, eating nothing but nuts and berries. However, don't be afraid, I'm not about to do it either. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif <hr /></blockquote>

I think we would all be a little bit squirrly if we tried! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Rich...I understand your argument...children don't have the capacity to make decisions like that...I don't think vending machines belong in schools...but it should be the parents complaining about them. And if you don't want little Johnny to have french fries at lunch, pack him a healthy choice quick fix lunch to take with him. The point is that, as in so many other cases, this is not going to be the end...it is just the beginning. When the erosion of our freedom is done gradually, the outcry isn't as loud. If I told you gas would be down to $2.50 a gallon next week, you would think that was great. If I told you that 3 years ago, you would think it was terrible. We are being manipulated by people who understand that you change someone's perspective in small incriments.
Steve

Deeman3
05-16-2006, 11:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Rich,
I'm not arguing the health benefits of junk food. I'm arguing the loss of freedom of choice to eat it or not. Ban cookies and milk today...ban french fries tomorrow, next week let's ban hamburger...then bacon...where does it all stop? I don't really want to live my life eating nothing but nuts and berries! I don't think anyone has the right to tell you what you can or can not eat! Or what you can or can not drive....or where you can or can not live. My concern isn't junk food...it's all about freedom to choose for ourselves...and it's going away more and more each day.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Steve,

I think we had about enough of this right wing "choice" thing. Why should you have a right to choose when the choices you make are not good. If you see mashed potato and gravy and a kilo of tofoo, what would you select? If potatos are on your mind, you are obviouly not capable of making an informed decision and that choice should be made for you. Now, you can't just come out and say, "Bubba, don't pass that gravy!" You take away the right to have access to the product and, dada, you have conformance to the proper diet for you. Want choice still? Hey, there's tofoo #1 and tofoo #2 and even #3 crunchy (fake nuts, not real ones).

I, along with other free thinkers on thsi board are growing a little weary of you tofoo haters. Want to smoke, rent the Linclon bedroom! Hey, you guys are the ones that wanted French Fries banned, to punish the brave and food stylish French a couple of years ago. Now that we are finding that they could harm a fellow comrad, you want them protected. Soy fries are a great substitute for those old freedom fries and we ought to make them as mandatory as Indian casinos.

Protect cookies and milk, you are indeed a sicko, think of the children. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif


Deeman
Bacon, you have no right to it!


</font color>

pooltchr
05-16-2006, 11:31 AM
Dee
You can have my Oreo when you can pry it from my cold dead fingers!!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Steve
I do reserve the right to lick the middle out first!!!!!

wolfdancer
05-16-2006, 11:56 AM
Wow !! It's come to this.....dissension in the ranks. First ed8r abandons ship, and now the last two Republican stalwarts, are at each other's throats.
As the Bush admin slowly unravels, there's anarchy in the streets....

Rich R.
05-17-2006, 03:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>I don't think vending machines belong in schools...but it should be the parents complaining about them.

<font color="red">If you believe that any elected official has ever gotten off of their butt and done anything good on their own initiative, you are sadly mistaken. If elected officials are taking junk food out of schools, it is because many parents (read: voters) are complaining. They wouldn't make the move for any other reason.</font color>

If I told you gas would be down to $2.50 a gallon next week, you would think that was great. If I told you that 3 years ago, you would think it was terrible. We are being manipulated by people who understand that you change someone's perspective in small incriments.

<font color="red">I agree, we are being manipulated. We are being manipulated by the big oil companies, with the help of GWB, and if we try to stop them, you will complain that we are infringing on the rights of these companies to do business. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
05-17-2006, 03:51 AM
You are comparing apples to oranges. The oil companies are selling a product. They can price it wherever they like. We can choose to buy it at that price or not. Now if someone came along and decided that gasoline is bad and we aren't going to let you buy it any more, that would be a better comparison.
Don't worry Rich. One of these days, the whackos are going to go after some product that you enjoy, and you will understand why I'm concerned. Look at the animal rights extremists...they would like nothing better than to see all meat removed from the stores. They are fighting for their goal. If we roll over, they will win. There are groups who want to force auto makers to stop making SUVs. There goes another choice. Ban the sale of handguns? There goes another choice. Banning products isn't the solution. Consumer education is. I can imagine the future with signs saying "Welcome to McDonalds. You must be 18 or older or accompanied by an adult to enter!" Maybe candy bars should be kept behind the counter at the 7-11 with the cigarettes and adult magazines.
It all happens very slowly...but it does happen.
Steve

SnakebyteXX
05-17-2006, 06:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>
Don't worry Rich. One of these days, the whackos are going to go after some product that you enjoy, and you will understand why I'm concerned.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Good point. I know exactly (http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html) how you feel.

Snake

Gayle in MD
05-17-2006, 06:39 AM
LOL...well, I find this thread to be hilarious. In fact, the conservative opinions are always so contradictory, and usually so far off the mark priority wise, only laughter can help reasonable, moderate liberals to digest their woes and complaints about issues, while they themselves are trying to dictate to others about, personal, private, life changing issues over which every American should have free choice.

Here we have outrage over society demanding that we not pollute the air with our smoke, and children losing their choice to fill their guts with fat and chemicals, but simultaneously no awareness of the loss of rights regarding private, personal decisions such as whether or not to become a parent, and the link between what the conservative agenda expects to dictate as regards our private sex lives, access to birth control, and how removing a woman's right to choose is just the beginning of losing more of those most personal, private, and much more important human rights.

They can get all shook up about gay people who love one another, and desire the legal and emotional rights provided by marriage, from marrying each other, but don't seem to care if the spies in government are infringing on their privacy, delving into their personal finances, or intimidating our free press. They're against abortion, yet at the same time want no part of giving any money to hungry children in this country born in poverty to people who can't feed them, being forced to have them regardless. But, just let someone in government try to put some controls on a whole generation of underage fat and sugar addicts, destined to be the obese heart attack victims of tomorrow, and they're all upset!

Reading the written words of righties outraged over the loss of choice for kids to eat cookies, at a time when their base is steadily chipping away at freedom of speech, freedom of privacy, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, and human protection from torture, is just too funny for words!

Apparently George Bush's disease of priorty dysfunction, is not just an Oval Office illness, but a conservative epidemic!

LMAO /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in Md.

Rich R.
05-17-2006, 06:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Look at the animal rights extremists...they would like nothing better than to see all meat removed from the stores. They are fighting for their goal. If we roll over, they will win. There are groups who want to force auto makers to stop making SUVs. There goes another choice. Ban the sale of handguns? There goes another choice. Banning products isn't the solution. Consumer education is. I can imagine the future with signs saying "Welcome to McDonalds. You must be 18 or older or accompanied by an adult to enter!" Maybe candy bars should be kept behind the counter at the 7-11 with the cigarettes and adult magazines.<hr /></blockquote>
Steve, these are all very good suggestions. I'm glad you came up with them. There is not one I can disagree with.
I will forward this to my congressman and have him start working on them right away. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

cushioncrawler
05-17-2006, 07:59 PM
I was just chomping on some nuts and berrys (serious) for lunch when i saw the earlier posting.

I remember that in primary school, i (and everyone) had to drink a small bottle of milk on some dayz -- i hated the stuff (the mother-of-mercy nunz supervized -- and they had no mercy).

But this remindz me of a google that said that USA scientists found that a study-group of overweight children that were made to eat dairy products lost weight, whilst the other group got fatter.

A separate issue. I wonder if any of the food giants have ever owned up that trans-fats kill -- they are happy to say on the packet when there iz zero content -- and they are happy to halve the true content when it iznt zero.

Children arent the problem here -- it iz children who grow up to be scientists working for the food giants that are the problem.