The snack food industry vs. the consumer

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Way to overstate what I said. Can we agree that daily smoking and the regular eating of fatty, salty food is not a recipe for extending your lifespan?

And show me where I said anyone should be forced to eat something or not to eat something. I merely said that these companies try to conceal just how unhealthy their food is to boost their bottom line, much like the cigarette industry did. What people eat is their own choice.

People get very defensive about their right to eat whatever they like, and they do have every right to eat whatever they want. But for a guy who is concerned about the rights and responsibilities of the individual, you seem to overlook that bad choices in what you eat affect others too. Just as people should take responsibility for working and paying their own way, they should also take responsibility for taking care of their health so others don't have to pay for their cancer treatments later in life.

I would counter that argument that fatty and salty food does not equate to being worse for you.

After my wife was diagnosed with diabetes, I did a lot of digging on the subject of food. I found several studies that showed there was not a direct link between fatty foods and heart attacks (sort of...).

The article that went into the most detail discussed how effective the AMA's message about cutting fats was. People in the study changed their diet habits. What happened was highly unexpected. The people in the study showed no decrease in heart attack risk (I believe it went up, but don't quote me on that). What did happen was that the diabetic rate in this group went through the roof.

The analysis of the study delved into what people were using to replace the fats in their diet with, and in nearly all cases is was sugar. The increased sugar intake led to the higher incidence of diabetes. That put the AMA in a helluva spot, do you go out and tell people that the fatty foods are bad for you, but don't replace it with something worse like you have been?

It was a very interesting article. I believe it was from 2008 or 9.

[Desnudo]

It's actually the artificial additives and preservatives that are unhealthy, not fat

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by panerd

I thought the responses to Jon about his son in essence watching his father die were a little low. You can dance around it all you want but that was the implication I got from you and Logan's posts of the how his poor decisions were going to affect his son. The "not a good parent" argument.

You really seem to like manufacturing what someone else said and then arguing against that. I never said he was a bad parent. From all accounts, he seems like he is very much involved with his son's life, and is a positive role model for him on many counts. Yes, I did question his "I'd rather eat what I want and die at 50" remarks and tried to make the point that it's not just Jon that would be affected if his health goes downhill due to his diet choices. Just because he is overall a good parent doesn't take away the thought that he might be increasing the odds that his family has to deal with serious health issues that could arise from his dietary choices.

Originally Posted by panerd

As to your last paragraph I never really got into the actual debate in this thread but I find it helps to be consistent. Yes I believe in the responsibility of the individual over the interdependence of everyone on the power of the state. So I don't believe individuals should be responsible for other people's cancer treatments. Hopefully people would step up and help out or doctors would help out but I have never advocated for that so it is hard to me to engage in a debate of why it is ok to make choices for other people when I don't agree with the premise of your argument.

Again, nobody is trying to make choices for others. I'm not going down to Georgia and force-feeding him salad with lite dressing. In fact, my comments were more in the vein of food companies should act more responsibly and try to produce foods that are both good tasting and good for the people who eat them. I never have asserted anything along the lines of "people shouldn't be allowed to choose what they eat."

Healthcare costs are staggering in this country. If companies would try to produce healthier foods that taste good, and if individuals would be more proactive in eating healthy foods, our healthcare costs would go way down. It's about taking personal responsibility for your own health.

Anyways couldn't the same arguments of cost to society be made for euthanasia and infanticide?

Really? This is just sad.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

It's actually the artificial additives and preservatives that are unhealthy, not fat

Its scary how hard it is to avoid such things though - even products 'thought' of as healthy (ie. yogurt, sushi etc.) have been customized to make them far more appealing (and unfortunately unhealthy) than they once were.

Heck its amazing how many ingredients can exist in something which is apparently 100% Orange Juice ...

Pure Filtered Water, Premium Concentrated Orange Juice, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C)

Far too simplistic for '100% Orange Juice" to be well Orange Juice, in reality its concentrated orange juice mixed up again with water and Ascorbic Acid (Vitimin C) ... I mean ffs can't you just get what it says on the label instead of some kind of Frankenfood ever ....

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Healthcare costs are staggering in this country. If companies would try to produce healthier foods that taste good, and if individuals would be more proactive in eating healthy foods, our healthcare costs would go way down. It's about taking personal responsibility for your own health.

.

You think health care costs are going up because of fatty foods or not because of non-diet related illnesses and because people are living longer and being kept alive longer? I don't think you really understand where the bulk of health care costs are coming from which makes it impossible to explain to you about the euthanasia comment.

[Kodos]

Fatty foods, too much sugar and salt all lead to health issues--How can what you eat NOT have a huge effect on your health?

Our massive, obese population apparently doesn't have any effect on healthcare costs. And the diseases that arise due to poor diets don't cause huge expenses at the end of people's lives I guess. You're right. You're right.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Fatty foods, too much sugar and salt all lead to health issues--How can what you eat NOT have a huge effect on your health?

If your amazing diet allows you to reach the age of 95 you're going to end up costing the health care system a lot more than the guy who drops dead of a heart attack at the age of 45. No amount of vegetables are going to fend off disease, illness, and death.

I'm still a little confused though - I get that you're not literally forcing healthy foods into anyone's mouth - but aren't you making an argument that people have a moral responsibility to eat healthy, because of their families, responsibilities, and impact on health care costs? I think that's all people are responding to. I don't think that's an outrageous argument, but I can't tell if it's the one you're making.

[Kodos]

People have no problem when it comes to personal responsibility in finances ("get a job!"). Why can't that be extended to taking care of one's own health? You are supposed to be the king of personal responsibility, I thought.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Kodos

People have no problem when it comes to personal responsibility in finances ("get a job!"). Why can't that be extended to taking care of one's own health? You are supposed to be the king of personal responsibility, I thought.

Everyone else IS extending that to taking care of one's own health. Everyone is ultimately responsible for how they treat themselves through diet and exercise. They have to live with those decisions and the consequences of them. That's what personal responsibility is. You're talking about the blame corporations have, and responsibility we have to others to have a certain lifestyle. That's the opposite of personal responsibility (Edit: though i'm not saying that argument doesn't have merit - you can make the argument that you have a responsibility to others, and to the general health care system, and thus that you have the moral responsibility to take care of yourself. Though that wouldn't be a very popular argument.)

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Kodos

People have no problem when it comes to personal responsibility in finances ("get a job!"). Why can't that be extended to taking care of one's own health? You are supposed to be the king of personal responsibility, I thought.

They may take our lives, but they will never take...OUR CORN NUTS!!!!

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by panerd

You think health care costs are going up because of fatty foods or not because of non-diet related illnesses and because people are living longer and being kept alive longer?

yeah, i'd wager the bulk of healthcare costs come from people over 60. 100 years ago those people would have been allowed to fade and it would be considered a natural death. now we spend a lot of resources keeping those people alive for a questionable quality of life

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by molson

If your amazing diet allows you to reach the age of 95 you're going to end up costing the health care system a lot more than the guy who drops dead of a heart attack at the age of 45. No amount of vegetables are going to fend off disease, illness, and death.

I'm still a little confused though - I get that you're not literally forcing healthy foods into anyone's mouth - but aren't you making an argument that people have a moral responsibility to eat healthy, because of their families, responsibilities, and impact on health care costs? I think that's all people are responding to. I don't think that's an outrageous argument, but I can't tell if it's the one you're making.

Not everyone who dies at 45 does it quickly. A lot of lingering, expensive cancer-related deaths.

Yes, that is the argument I am making. People should be expected to take reasonable steps to take care of their health, just as they should be expected to support themselves financially.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Not everyone who dies at 45 does it quickly. A lot of lingering, expensive cancer-related deaths.

Does a healthy diet ensure (or even improve the odds) that your death will be quicker and less expensive, whether it happens in your 40s or 80s?

[Kodos]

Food companies should be doing their best to produce cheap, healthy food that tastes good for people to eat. Not trying to find the perfect blend of fat/salt/sugar to get people addicted.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by molson

Does a healthy diet ensure (or even improve the odds) that your death will be quicker and less expensive, whether it happens in your 40s or 80s?

No sir.

But as for myself, I've made it clear to my family that when the quality of life is gone, let me check out. And my family would certainly benefit if I was around longer to earn more money.

[JediKooter]

You can check out any time you like, but, you can never leave...[guitar solo]

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Kodos

No sir.

But as for myself, I've made it clear to my family that when the quality of life is gone, let me check out.

And I think that bar is set at different levels for many people. Jon is saying that his is very low to the point where he'd rather be happy and go early than eat well and be his "miserable self" any longer. And that's fine. That's not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that I find it hard to believe his son would have the same mindset, despite what Jon says about how much of an SOB he is. It's a lot easier to say "yeah I'll be fine with my dad going at 50 at his peak" than it is to deal with the pain and sadness when he actually isn't around. Especially since despite him being a self-appointed massive prick, he's got a son who clearly appreciates his bond with his father. Hell by all accounts, my father was nowhere near as miserable as Jon and yet there were still times I couldn't stand him. Doesn't mean I'd be okay with him dying young.

[Radii]

Economic Costs of Diabetes in the U.S. in 2007

Just leaving this here on healthcare costs. These numbers are from a study 6 years ago, and new cases of diagnosed diabetes are skyrocketing. I don't this is something a lot of people would question or be surprised about. But it seems like something that's being ignored in some of the debate that's broken out here.

If you don't read anything else in that study:

People with diagnosed diabetes, on average, have medical expenditures that are ∼2.3 times higher than what expenditures would be in the absence of diabetes.

Yes, we're all going to die, and many of us will die in slow, extremely expensive ways. But those with diabetes are going to, on average, have staggeringly higher medical costs than others at the same age who aren't diabetic.

Now, you can take that information and decide what you want from it... should food be regulated in any way? Should unhealthy food be taxed to help cover the part of these costs incurred by Medicare? Should the corporate world be held responsible for any of this in any way? Should advertising of unhealthy food be regulated/limited in any way, or should advertising specifically aimed at children be regulated/limited? Should unhealthy food have warning labels?


None of this should abdicate any individual of personal responsibility, but looking at all the reports on childhood obesity in recent years, knowing the kinds of health problems these kids are going to have at increasingly younger ages, I'm pretty surprised at how many people are blowing off the idea that there is anything more here than "fuck it, do what you want, its your life" at play.

[Warhammer]

As someone who pays a higher amount due to diabetes (my wife), I will step up to answer.

I think public health care is wrong for this reason. We have insurance, but until my wife hits her deductable, we pay about $450 in prescriptions per month on her alone.

However, it has never been about what my wife puts in her body. Its all about how much exercise she gets which is next to none. There is a huge genetics lottery in this though, even though I eat more than my wife, my blood sugar is rarely above 110. Most of the time when my wife is checking hers, mine will come in at 95.

Still all that being said, there are so many factors that go into health costs, I think it is ludicrous to place the burden on tax payers as a whole. I am someone who should benefit from public funding of health care, but it is the last thing I want. My wife has had to fight with companies regarding payments and making sure prescriptions are covered. As bad as arguing with an insurance company is, dealing with the government is far worse.

My wife is very sensitive to the medications she is on, when she last switched meds, she has dropped about 4 sizes and 20 pounds in two months. Would she be getting the new meds under a federal program? I doubt it, because the others did keep her condition in check, but she has IMPROVED with this new line of meds.

She changed her diet quite a bit when she found out she was diabetic. There was no withdrawal, there was no addiction issues, she found out it was a matter of life or death for her so she changed. The problem with many people in the US is that no one really wants to change if someone is there to tell them they don't need to. I really blame the government for this.

The question that does need to be asked, is what can I do so that I am not a burden on my neighbors? I would love to know when we, as a nation, decided that it is better to be dependent upon others rather than being self-sufficient.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The question that does need to be asked, is what can I do so that I am not a burden on my neighbors? I would love to know when we, as a nation, decided that it is better to be dependent upon others rather than being self-sufficient.

And all I'm saying is we should be proactive about avoiding these diseases as much as possible.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I would love to know when we, as a nation, decided that it is better to be dependent upon others rather than being self-sufficient.

Since the beginning. Or do you think the revolution was fought by a bunch of "self-sufficient" soldiers bringing the fight to the British by themselves.

[Abe Sargent]

This guy is on Dr. Oz right now

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Food companies should be doing their best to produce cheap, healthy food that tastes good for people to eat. Not trying to find the perfect blend of fat/salt/sugar to get people addicted.

YES. Since the only social conscience most companies have is what is dictated by the free market, I don't think it would hurt to have a little pressure put on it by outside forces. Whatever the source of those outside forces are, I really couldn't care less.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Far too simplistic for '100% Orange Juice" to be well Orange Juice, in reality its concentrated orange juice mixed up again with water and Ascorbic Acid (Vitimin C) ... I mean ffs can't you just get what it says on the label instead of some kind of Frankenfood ever ....

On that note - it's actually worse than you think. OJ, specifically, that is.

OJ producers are enabled to add in their own privately-developed flavor additives -- which is what makes Tropicana taste distinct from Minute Maid and so forth. It's not just that they contract with specific growers or regions (which is what most of us probably think is going on), it's these additives that give them brand-identifiable tastes. But under the FDA, since the components are drawn from orange, juice, this doesn't even need to be noted on the labels in any way.

Visit here for a more through explanation and/or hippie alarmist propaganda

[QuikSand]

Oh, and if there's anything out there in the food world that deserves to be tagged as "overrated," fruit juice is right there in line with "fat free" and "all natural" among the top contenders. Skip the juice, eat the fruit, ?????, profit.

[DaddyTorgo]

Yeah - I don't think anybody's arguing for forcing people to eat healthier or forcing food companies to make things healthier - what the "healthier" brigade in this thread is arguing for is for better disclosure/more clarity.

People are going to eat what people are going to eat. But people shouldn't be "fooled" into eating unhealthy is I think the bigger issue.

If you're truly going to eat unhealthy you're not going to look at nutrition labels. But if you want to eat healthier then nutrition labels should be easier to puzzle out. Don't make a "serving size" half a candybar (that's just one overly-simplistic example).

Where's the harm in that? Are you really so afraid that if people know what's in something they won't eat it? Well then maybe it doesn't deserve to be eaten.

Look - I used to be a fucking fatass. I lost 33% of my body weight and am normal/slim now. So I feel plenty qualified to opine on this. A large part of the problem is the category of foods that are "misleadingly unhealthy."

I made the choice to lose weight and read labels and educate myself. But there's a lot of people who won't put that effort in who would like to eat healthier, or who would think they're eating healthier because they don't know better. There's no harm in putting nutrition information on menus for them or things like that. These are people who go into Starbucks and get a Blueberry muffin without realizing it has 400 calories and like 1/3 of your daily recommended value of fat (the calorie count there I think is right, I'm just guessing on the fat, I don't remember the nutrition information of it off the top of my head anymore). They think "oh it's a muffin with fruit, it's healthy" and don't realize what they're eating...there's no harm in telling them what they're putting into their bodies so that they can make an educated choice of their own free will.

[Kodos]

Blueberry muffins are a problem for me. Especially the 500-calorie version at Dunkin Donuts.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

These are people who go into Starbucks and get a Blueberry muffin without realizing it has 400 calories and like 1/3 of your daily recommended value of fat (the calorie count there I think is right, I'm just guessing on the fat, I don't remember the nutrition information of it off the top of my head anymore). They think "oh it's a muffin with fruit, it's healthy" and don't realize what they're eating...there's no harm in telling them what they're putting into their bodies so that they can make an educated choice of their own free will.

The only way that information could be more readily available is to have the calorie counts actually posted prominently in the store on big signs. It's not like they can keep it a secret anymore, the information is easily and readily available online for anybody who wants to spend 5 seconds looking for it (and I believe every fast food/coffee place has that information in every location as well). I'm not really against having all menu items' calorie counts posted, I appreciate when its there (I actually saw this the last time I went to McDonald's - I don't think it's hurt their business any), but if we're talking posting of calories and fat content, and maybe more - it's a little tougher to envision a legal requirement that all food, everywhere, has to have that level of detailed labeling on it, even at restaurant/fast food/coffee shop settings. Though, I don't think its a ridiculous idea, god knows we put warning labels on pretty much everything else in society (and we've been conditioned to ignore them). I'm content though to have the information available and accurate. When I'm counting calories, it's REALLY easy to do these days with all the available information.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

On that note - it's actually worse than you think. OJ, specifically, that is.

OJ producers are enabled to add in their own privately-developed flavor additives -- which is what makes Tropicana taste distinct from Minute Maid and so forth. It's not just that they contract with specific growers or regions (which is what most of us probably think is going on), it's these additives that give them brand-identifiable tastes. But under the FDA, since the components are drawn from orange, juice, this doesn't even need to be noted on the labels in any way.

Visit here for a more through explanation and/or hippie alarmist propaganda

Dear god. Glad I stopped drinking OJ sometime in the 90s.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Blueberry muffins are a problem for me. Especially the 500-calorie version at Dunkin Donuts.

Cuz they're delicious.

But see - you're better off than most. You know what's in them. I imagine there are probably a significant number of people out there who are trying to be healthy who don't realize what's in them.

Nobody's forcing anybody to eat anything, but the availability of healthier options, and the transparency of the nutritional value of a lot of the things out there is lacking.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Kodos

People have no problem when it comes to personal responsibility in finances ("get a job!"). Why can't that be extended to taking care of one's own health? You are supposed to be the king of personal responsibility, I thought.

That's called personal responsibility. It's a PERSONAL choice. Not the job of the manufacturer. If people choose not to eat it, they won't make it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

That's called personal responsibility. It's a PERSONAL choice. Not the job of the manufacturer. If people choose not to eat it, they won't make it.

And the reverse is true too. A more educated populace can vote very effectively with their wallets. Corporations aren't conscious beings trying to make everyone sick. They just give us what we're willing to buy.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

And the reverse is true too. A more educated populace can vote very effectively with their wallets. Corporations aren't conscious beings trying to make everyone sick. They just give us what we're willing to buy.

I don't think people realize how bad most of the shit they eat is though. If they do and they still choose to eat it, that's great, you're right it's a personal choice.

I just fiercely believe that it should be an EDUCATED personal choice rather than an IGNORANT personal choice.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I don't think people realize how bad most of the shit they eat is though. If they do and they still choose to eat it, that's great, you're right it's a personal choice.

I just fiercely believe that it should be an EDUCATED personal choice rather than an IGNORANT personal choice.

Too bad the people of California don't agree with you, since they decided it wasn't beneficial for them to require companies to include if the products were made from GMO products.

[Kodos]

Interesting thing with GMO fruits and veggies. At least in some cases, they require less pesticides, and thus end up being better for you.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Too bad the people of California don't agree with you, since they decided it wasn't beneficial for them to require companies to include if the products were made from GMO products.

mmm GMO tomatoes - NOT!!!!

You know they pick most tomatoes when they're green and ripen them to red with lasers (at least I think that's what I heard the other day on the radio)!!

I mean...I didn't think they picked them when they were red, but I didn't realize how they ripened them.

I eat healthier now than I ever have in my life I would say, and even still I bet I would shudder at the amount of GMO & processed stuff I put in my body if I really concentrated on it. I have made peace with a certain amount of it though.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

That's called personal responsibility. It's a PERSONAL choice. Not the job of the manufacturer. If people choose not to eat it, they won't make it.

I'm saying it should be attacked from both angles. People should try harder to eat healthy foods, and companies should work harder to make eating healthier foods easier and less of a "sacrifice."

[Radii]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

That's called personal responsibility. It's a PERSONAL choice. Not the job of the manufacturer. If people choose not to eat it, they won't make it.

And what about when a 6 year old is inundated with commercials for orange juice and pop tarts and cheetos and sodas and nags and nags and nags for that stuff and the parent gives in, sometimes on a little of it, sometimes on a lot of it? The kid doesn't know any better if they aren't being taught somewhere. And hell, the kid probably is being taught somewhere, but TV commercials every single day > the occasional short lesson in a classroom.

If one kid gets fat because their parent lets them drink sodas more often than they should, or down OJ like its healthy to use Quiksand's example above, or eat pop tarts for breakfast every day, its easy to point at the parent making shitty decisions and scream about responsibility.

But what do you do when almost 20% of the children in the country are obese(CDC - Obesity - Facts - Adolescent and School Health
)? You can scream about shitty parents all you want, but *something* must be done, right?

[Warhammer]

I switched to making my own sourdough breads around the time my wife was diagnosed with diabetes and it is amazing the amount of weight I have lost as well as how much healthier I have been, even though I have not cut back on the amount of bread I eat.

[nol]

I voted no on the GMO thing because 'non-GMO' would just become another umbrella label like 'all-natural' or 'organic' that carries no specific meaning, but can be used to sucker uniformed people into believing that what they're eating is healthier than it actually is.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Radii

But what do you do when almost 20% of the children in the country are obese(CDC - Obesity - Facts - Adolescent and School Health
)? You can scream about shitty parents all you want, but *something* must be done, right?

I look at the majority of these parents and wonder why they aren't sterilized.

I jest... I jest...

However, most of this IS parenting. Whether it is what you feed your kids, or giving them their DS to keep them pacified, they are not eating healthy or staying active enough.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Radii

And what about when a 6 year old is inundated with commercials for orange juice and pop tarts and cheetos and sodas and nags and nags and nags for that stuff and the parent gives in, sometimes on a little of it, sometimes on a lot of it? The kid doesn't know any better if they aren't being taught somewhere. And hell, the kid probably is being taught somewhere, but TV commercials every single day > the occasional short lesson in a classroom.

If one kid gets fat because their parent lets them drink sodas more often than they should, or down OJ like its healthy to use Quiksand's example above, or eat pop tarts for breakfast every day, its easy to point at the parent making shitty decisions and scream about responsibility.

But what do you do when almost 20% of the children in the country are obese(CDC - Obesity - Facts - Adolescent and School Health
)? You can scream about shitty parents all you want, but *something* must be done, right?

I think the same amount of shitty parents have existed throughout history. They just didn't have the disposable income to load their kids up with happy meals until recently.

If you taxed parents for having unhealthy kids, I think you might see a change in behavior.

[Buccaneer]

Less pesticides (and additives etc.) means healthier produce but also means lower yields and higher prices. Compare how many can shop at Whole Foods vs your Kroger chain. Do you want to make it even more difficult for poorer people to get access to and afford healthy products?

[JonInMiddleGA]

For whatever the hell it's worth, I wasn't particularly offended by the line of questioning this morning.

I think it kind of sold me short in terms of giving me enough credit for the conversations I've actually had with my kid, but those are probably well beyond the bounds of what would be considered normal so I can't really hold it against anyone for not assuming them.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I think the same amount of shitty parents have existed throughout history. They just didn't have the disposable income to load their kids up with happy meals until recently.

If you taxed parents for having unhealthy kids, I think you might see a change in behavior.

You know what, I would really get behind this...

[Marc Vaughan]

Out of interest how many people shouting 'personal responsibility' here supported taxation/banning of smoking? .....

(I've done both in my life and have to admit I largely see both as a personal choice HOWEVER I do dislike the fact that food companies in the US avoid any penalization for unhealthy food - I'm in favor of things which cost society money by causing health problems being taxed in order to pay for the treatment of those problems)

[Abe Sargent]

I think, like all major social phoenoniman, there are many facotrs that lead to this. Greedy corporations that put aside the health of their consumers to maximize profits? Check. Consumers who know but don't care? Check. Government that does not make obvious changes to the law to help consumers over companies? Check . Nobody here has clean hands. Or mouths. Everyone is complicit in keeping consumers addicted, not giving them information, and then buying the product whn ethey do/should know better.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Out of interest how many people shouting 'personal responsibility' here supported taxation/banning of smoking? .....

(I've done both in my life and have to admit I largely see both as a personal choice HOWEVER I do dislike the fact that food companies in the US avoid any penalization for unhealthy food - I'm in favor of things which cost society money by causing health problems being taxed in order to pay for the treatment of those problems)

I'm a big fan of taxing any unhealthy or even unnecessary activity, especially as opposed to taxing income as much or at all. So I'm very much in favor of more taxation that penalizes those activities, and less taxation that penalizes work. The personal responsibility thing to me is separate. That's more about consequences that flow from your own personal choices - as long as the information is available and accurate (and it's a important role of government to ensure that's the case, within reason), the consequences of your actions aren't someone else's fault. But I'm OK with taxing the shit out them just the same, in fact, that's one of those consequences that flows from the personal choice to engage in those activities.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by nol

I voted no on the GMO thing because 'non-GMO' would just become another umbrella label like 'all-natural' or 'organic' that carries no specific meaning, but can be used to sucker uniformed people into believing that what they're eating is healthier than it actually is.

But that goes with education. Anyone can easily understand that non-GMO doesn't equal healthy. But it does mean we at least would have had another notification of what the hell we were putting in our bodies.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Out of interest how many people shouting 'personal responsibility' here supported taxation/banning of smoking? .....

I've been stopping short of this comparison in my other posts because I thought they held up on their own without it... HOWEVER.

I feel like this discussion going on here would mirror exactly a discussion of smoking in the 1980s. I expect public opinion and perhaps regulation, most specifically on advertising, to mirror the progression that the anti-smoking movement took over the last few decades.

I hope it isn't as aggressive. I hope that there isn't the same level of demonization that occurred with smokers, especially towards individuals, but also towards corporations.