how far is too far?

[Im1chunkymunky]

a man by the name of Kelly Brownell is a doctor and professor of psychology at Yale. he is leading a movement to further regulate food producers and vendors deemed "unhealthy". he has used lines such as "There is no difference between Ronald McDonald and Joe Camel… we have to start thinking about this in a more militant way." and "Congress and state legislatures could shift the focus to the environment by taxing foods with little nutritional value. Fatty foods would be judged on their nutritive value per calorie or gram of fat. The least healthy would be given the highest tax rate… Consumption of high-fat food would drop."

one site has said: "Brownell is perfectly willing to trample individual rights when it serves his ends. Writing in CSPI’s Nutrition Action Healthletter, Brownell wrote: “I recommend we develop a militant attitude about the toxic food environment, like we have about tobacco … [smoking] became so serious that society overlooked the intrusion on individual rights for the greater social good.”



Kelly Brownell links (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=kelly+brownell&spell=1) here are many links from an array of sources regarding his cause.



his cause is definitely noble, but are his tactics too extreme as to invade the corporate rights of food production companies, and place additiotonal taxes on foods based on fat or calorie content?? would this be considered "unconstitutional" ???

[Bill McIntyre]

I don't know about unconstitutional, but I think its unrealistic and goes a bit too far in protecting people from themselves.

I'm for government spending on education about nutritional issues. But after we give people the facts about the way they are setting their kids up for heart disease and diabetes by giving them "its just a donut" then its up to them to act on the information. You could even look at it as natural selection in action.

BTW, that "its just a donut" quote was not original from me. I've been seeing a very impressive TV add showing parents saying "its just a donut" and "its just another cookie" and its "just a soda" and then going on to say that it may be just your kid's life.

[Im1chunkymunky]

"it's just a donut"- i kinda guessed thats what it meant but i havent seen that commercial, is it only in california?

i agree, i believe everyone should have the choice, and it does seem to be natural selection in action.

about unconstitutional -i was refering to the additional taxes, and the restriction on corporations to not make fatty foods. unconstitutional might be a little far fetched, but probably will conflict with people's rights or something like that as far as the taxation goes...

[mnguy]

"it's just a donut"- i kinda guessed thats what it meant but i havent seen that commercial, is it only in california?

Yeah, I think its a California department of health and safety ad campaign. The parents keep saying the "its just a ..." and then they age progress the kid with different actors starting from like 2 or 3 probably, and each progression gets fatter, unhealthier and lazier. I think its an effective ad campaign.

I think that the idea of a fatty food tax is whacked in the head. It seems like a frivolous waste of legislative time on trying to make a new sin tax, and congressional time is already well allocated for other frivolous activities. It feels like people are looking for someone else to blame for their problems again, and they want the government to come in and tell them what to do instead of self-regulating. It would be like taxing soybeans consumed as edamame or used raw because they naturally contain an enzyme that blocks certain minerals from being absorbed when eaten raw or just boiled. Making them into tofu, miso or soy sauce (basically fermenting or processing) deactivates and removes said enzyme, which is why ancient peoples came up with those recipes and techniques(food anthropology was an interesting class in college).

I will admit, though, that I wouldn't mind pushing the people who sued the fast food corporations for making their kids fat, said kids and the kids' lawyers down a hill infested with porcupines and wolverines. I'm sure the kids and the parents will roll pretty well too, considering the girth involved. The only problem will be getting them up the hill :rolleyes:

I guess if you just took the anti-smoking arguments and just replaced tobacco with fatty food then the argument for a sin tax on it can be made. An argument like who should tell you what you can and cannot eat, such a tax would discriminate against fat people, etc. can be easily applied to cigarettes and smoking too.

[bikewrench]

You could even look at it as natural selection in action.

Bill Mac is confused about Natural Selection? Say it ain't so. I don't think this is an example of natural selection. (Warning: Boring science lesson ahead!)
Natural Selection comes into play only when it affects your ability to breed, not your ability to survive. Common misconception. So while it is true that being obese and unhealthy will ultimately affect your ability to survive, these effects do not inhibit ones ability to reproduce, because significant health effects do not show up until later in life. (Science lesson over (sorry))

It would be nice to allow anything to be available to anyone and then simply expect everyone to make good, healthy choices; but we all know it does not work that way. Therefore we do need a government to infringe somewhat on our personal liberties. The problem we have as a society is limiting that infringement. And deciding where it is really necessary. There are many reasons we need some level of government 'control'. First and foremost many people will not make good choices, period. Should it be the government's responsibility to protect them from themselves? That question becomes more difficult when other's poor choices affect 'innocent' bystanders. That is why the government does not allow drunk driving, for example.

Tobacco is the most often used comparison to unhealthy foods in the discussion. But there is one problem with that. Tobacco is clearly unnecessary to the function of a human body. There is no reason to use it. Food on the other hand is, well, food. We need it. The problem is a lifetime of poor food choices. But when it comes down to it we are talking about food. Hard to justify regulating that. Except transfats. These, you notice, are what people (New York City) are trying to regulate. Why? because technically transfats are not food. They do not occur in nature. They do not grow in any plant, they are not a part of any animal. They are man-made chemicals that are foreign to our bodies. There is zero positive health value to them and plenty of evidence that they are dangerous to our health in the long term. The reason transfats are used at all, it may not surprise you to know, is that it is financially profitable to the companies using them. Specifically, when you put transfats into a product it lasts longer on the shelf. I'll bet you can guess why. It is because the bacteria that would normally 'eat' the food (spoiling it) don't eat it. Becaause it is not food. So, of course we feed it to our kids.

[Wayward Son]

I don't expect people to make good, healthy choices. i expect them to make their own choices, good and bad. And for the most part I want the government & nosy, intrusive people to stay the hell out of the way & let them.

You think the choices your neighbor makes are bad? Fine, don't make the same choices for yourself. leave the sumbitch alone so he can enjoy his life as he sees fit, not as you choose for him.

[Marcus]

:stupid:

[Bill McIntyre]

I like bikewrench's take on trans fats. They do not occur in nature and are manufactured to put in food. There are many man-made substances that we do not allow to be put in food.

I'm properly chastised regarding my careless use of natural selection. :)

[bikewrench]

I don't expect people to make good, healthy choices. i expect them to make their own choices, good and bad. And for the most part I want the government & nosy, intrusive people to stay the hell out of the way & let them.

You think the choices your neighbor makes are bad? Fine, don't make the same choices for yourself. leave the sumbitch alone so he can enjoy his life as he sees fit, not as you choose for him.

I am looking at my paycheck stub. Weekly deduction for healthcare $121.50. Weekly! That is only my contribution! My employer matches that. And that is before the $10 co-pay, $50 ER visits, $10 perscriptions (generic, mind you) etc, etc. Where does that money go? For the most part it goes to pay for the health care of people who are sick because they have lived an unhealthy lifestyle. Now they have high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, lung cancer, etc, etc. I admit the "keep the government out of our business" line sounds good, but that is not the way real life works. When other people make bad choices it does affect you.

[Wayward Son]

You'd prolly be surprised at how much of that cost is to pay for people who don't have insurance and can't/won't pay their medical bills. Especially illegals. Consider this article:

The realities of our Government dictates!! And we just elected the socialist democratic party to control both the House and Senate?? What a country! If I were a citizen of Mexico I would want to come to the States also illegally as there are no ramifications and all the free social services at the expense of the legal U.S. citizens who get the short end of the stick.

by Bryanna Bevens

Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:

1. John F.Kennedy died there in 1963
2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after
3. Jack Ruby-who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, died there a few years later by coincidence.

On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day---every day)

A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants!

Crikey, that's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas. According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million.

The average patient in Parkland's maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant.

By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay. OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital, they do.

Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE. The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child---her previous two were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries were free and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.)

How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects?

Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the U.S. illegally---now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right, she's technically a U.S. citizen.) These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula. Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable.

Because these women are illegal immigrants they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate identification---no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income---an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word.

My husband is a pilot for the United States Navy (yes, he fought in Iraq) and while the health care is good, we Navy wives don't get any of these perks! Car seats? Diapers? Not so much. So my question is this: Does our public medical care system treat illegal immigrants better than American citizens? Yes it does! - As I mentioned, the care I have received is perfectly adequate but it's bare bones, meat and potato medical care, not top of the line.

Their (the illegals) medical care is free---simply because they are illegal immigrants? Once again, there is no way to verify their income. Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.)

There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County. So the hospital is going to sue them! - Illegals get it all FREE! - But U.S. citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! - How stupid is this?

As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish - This was apparently a great injustice to her.

"In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement.

In the meantime, I have to end my column here. I have to go buy a car seat.

POST SCRIPT FROM A U.S. CITIZEN.--- Many of us are now in the so called, "Donut hole" with our prescriptions. We paid our money to protect us in our later years, but our people in Washington have elected to give it to the illegal immigrants - How fair can that be.

[Wayward Son]

Then there is my std rebuttal to the whole "what other people do cost me" argument:

That's what socialism does. It intrudes into your life to the degree that what other people do has a financial burden on you, eventually to the point where you feel justified in using the force of law to interfere with their private business.

get the damned govt out of all this stuff, stop forcing us to pay for people who won't pay their bills & all of a sudden, what they do doesn't reach into your paycheck & you're more willing to mind your own business.

Sadly, we're likely too far past the tipping point for that short of a total collapse & uprising.

However, keep in mind that when you accept using the govt to dictate what others do or don't do through taxation or other means, it doesn't leave you any room to bitch about it when someone else does the same thing to you in return.

[jackpine savage]

Wayward. what about the rise in my insurance premiums. Tis doesn't go to pay for illegals or people without insurance because it is a private insurer. It does go to pay for other people who have the same insurer but who use the insurance more frequently than I, in the 5 years with this insurer I have never had to make a single claim. Sure some of the claims are legitimate medical claims but how many are because of people with unhealthy habits. My premiums have risen on average 30% annually and I have never used it, I exercise, eat healthy and don't smoke.

[Wayward Son]

Sure it does. ALL charges go up to cover those who don't pay. The hospitals & dr's offices don't simply absorb the losses, the paying customers -which now is primarily the insurance carriers- cover it in the form of higher charges on every bill they pay.

[jackpine savage]

The insurers raise the rates to cover the unhealthy people whose expenses they are paying. Insurers negotiate with the health care providers on rates, if you are not in the insurers system they don't pay for it. My taxes, however, go to pay for the people you have mentioned since they receive care at not for profit hspitals who get reimbursed by the state. I just wish my insurabnce company would charge the people who have unhealthy lifestyles more than someone like myself who only has insurance to avoid any potential financial nightmare.

[bug_power]

Ok I used to sell insurance and used to see this all the time. Healthy people who have never had a claim can't afford insurance because of all the unhealthy people. We tax cig's and alcohol because they are bad for you and to pay for programs fix the problems associated with them. HOWEVER poor food choices cause more problems then both of them combined.

The problem isn't that there is not better choices the problem is that eating "fast food" for a week every meal will run you about $10-15 a day maybe. Try finding a healthy meal...it most likely will cost you that much EACH meal. If McDonalds and other chains put as much money into research for HEALTHY food as they do their frenchfries they could come up with some tastey HEALTHY foods that don't break the bank.

[peterv]

bikewrench & bill,

Natural selection encompasses

1. surviving to reproductive age - disadvantage if you are fat , you are slower, more likely to be prey. (Except in times of famine.)

2. competing for mates - disadvantage if obese

3. reproduction - obese mothers have more complications in pregnancy

4. in the case of humans & primates, survival of infants correlated to presence of grandparents. If grandparents are present, parents able to hunt/gather/work more, and infant gets good care. If obese, cardiovascular implications mean fewer grandparents. (Grandparents help their genes carry on via grandchildren.)

Success, according to Darwin & Wallace, means surviving to reproduce, reproducing AND some of your progeny surviving to reproduce.

E.O Wilson explains it better than I do. Read some of his stuff.

The stuff about Texas hospitals & illegal immigrants - what a mess.

[bikewrench]

Wayward, I understand your point but I disagree that illegals are the problem here. Illegal immigration is a problem, no question, but it is not the 'bogeyman' behind every issue and I don't think it is a problem here. As Jackpine said we are talking about private insurance. My health insurance plan costs over $12,000 per year and I typically use less than $1000 of that. The rest is going to pay for others who also pay similar rates but take out tens of thousands in benefits each year. That is how insurance works. Most pay more than they ever use and that covers those who take out more than they put in. (And that does not take into account the profit that the insurer takes off the top. Which is fine, I have no problem with insurers making a profit.) If you have ever spent any time is a hospital, you would notice something, most of the people in there have problems that could easily been avoided by living a healthy lifestyle. Maybe I'm wrong here but I think that health insurance is the only type of insurance where the individual's rate is not based on risk. Why? A big, fat 42 year old doughnut eating, cigarette smoking pig pays the same as a 42 year old non-smoker who runs twenty miles/ week, has low bodyfat, low resting heart rate and has a three minute static breathhold? Bullshit!

But even that is not really the point of this discussion which (I think) was about regulating(eliminating) transfats from the food supply. Hard core conservatives hear that and they immediately yell and scream about government intrusion into individual rights and they really do not understand the issue at all. Transfats are unnatural and poisonous, they are placed almost everywhere into the prepared food supply. This is done only to benefit the food manufacturers. Science has started to figure out lately that they cause major health problems. Informed people want to get them out of the food supply. What is wrong with that? Big corporations rarely change their ways unless forced (regulated). Let me ask you this: Were you against the government mandating the removal of asbestos from building supplies when we discoverd its health dangers? Were you against the government outlawing lead additives in gasoline and housepaint when we discovered their health dangers? Or should we have just let people "choose" whether to use asbestos or leaded house paint? Come on man, stop blindly resorting to mindless ideology and try thinking about things for a change.

[Wayward Son]

I don't have a problem with discussing eliminating transfats from our food supply (while we're at it, kill the sugar lobby, drop the import restrictions on sugar & get us back to paying market prices for it & eliminate HFCS from our foods), but that is not what started this thread. What started this thread was some guy with a PHD demanding that we tax the hell out of foods that he didn't want people to eat in order to become militant about saving them from themselves.

Hell, the FDA already regulates the shit out of everything. I don't think we'd even need a new law, just have some bearucrat issue a rule saying that transfats beyond a certain amount are no longer allowed in food for human consumption, period. No taxes need to manipulate peoples behavior & punish them for doing what you don't want if they decide to any way.

[Wayward Son]

Illegals used to be a problem largely limited to border states. That's no longer true, they've spread out through the entire country & if you don't think the costs for their medical care are not a major part of the problem with the rise in charges here, I think you're missing a lot of what's happening with it. No, they are not the sole issue. The damn problem is too big for there to only be one or 2 problems in it. But they are a main factor in the overall problem.

[bug_power]

Illegal aliens have closed many hospitals in South Texas due to this problem.

[Im1chunkymunky]

I like bikewrench's take on trans fats. They do not occur in nature and are manufactured to put in food. There are many man-made substances that we do not allow to be put in food.


i agree, but the problem is that they use "partially hydrogenated oils" and "hydrogenated oils" which once in your body essentially become trans fats, so even though the box says "no trans fat" which is true that there are no trans fats in the ingrdients, once it enters your body it has some sort of chemical reaction or something and becomes a trans fat...i dont fell like explaining but here's a site: http://www.dldewey.com/hydroil.htm
google either term and find more than substantial info.

they are also the cause of many diseases and diabetes type II was discovered during studies involving hydrogenated oils.

[bikewrench]

bikewrench & bill,

Natural selection encompasses

1. surviving to reproductive age - disadvantage if you are fat , you are slower, more likely to be prey. (Except in times of famine.)

2. competing for mates - disadvantage if obese

3. reproduction - obese mothers have more complications in pregnancy

4. in the case of humans & primates, survival of infants correlated to presence of grandparents. If grandparents are present, parents able to hunt/gather/work more, and infant gets good care. If obese, cardiovascular implications mean fewer grandparents. (Grandparents help their genes carry on via grandchildren.)

Success, according to Darwin & Wallace, means surviving to reproduce, reproducing AND some of your progeny surviving to reproduce.

E.O Wilson explains it better than I do. Read some of his stuff.

The stuff about Texas hospitals & illegal immigrants - what a mess.

1. I missed all the news reports of fat, slow children being eaten because they could not run as quickly as their skinny, fast friends.
2. Fat people don't mate?
3. I admit I do not have any info on this but I doubt that it is significant
4. This is true- for all of the stone age hunter gatherer societies in our country. (maybe down south :D)

None of these points has any relevancy in the environment of 21st century America.

Thanks for the tip about Wilson. You're right he is great, I've read much of his stuff, as well as Darwin's stuff too.