Don't take my venti coffee

A series of illogical, uninformed statements:

The gov't shouldn't be involved in protecting me from myself.

Go ahead and let your government overlords rule every aspect of your life.

Yet, presumably according to these two posters, they have no complaint with govt subsidies that have resulted in a surplus of calories via corn-derived products (hfcs).

So... again, let the govt cause the problem, but for heaven's sake dont' let the govt try to fix it. Becasue why? The few receive a financial benefit from the subsidies while the the many may receive a benefit from some sort of tax/change of behavior that would lead to less sugar consumption (which would cause the few to make less money).

It's like some of you are brain-dead, mind-washed simpletons who can't see what's in front of your face. Namely: govt subsides to agriculture. But you blow a gasket when the govt tries to fix this? Odd response.
 
Per WoTN, recently on HBO, a 100 calorie drop in daily intake would result in about a $36-40 billion hit to the food industry.

Those food giants have successfully framed the issue (usually amongst rabid free-marketers, or those who like to think of themselves as such) as one of government overreaching and limitations on "personal freedom".

I wonder if this crowd is against limiting food marketing to children?

The free market is a wonderful thing. In the right hands. Problem is, we've got too many who just blindly spout forth economic platitudes of which they know little.

There is no "free market" here with food, with the food industry, with the obesity epidemic. So it makes no sense to invoke that sanctity of the free market and claim that such a free market would be tainted by any type of govt intervention here, such as a soda/sugar tax.

It's ideology run amok. People make bad decisions based on their beliefs, their ideology. And, they have the food giants pumping them with bogus intel, stoking their intellectual embers.

You're being played for fools, imo. I'm not gungho for big govt, but to rest your decision here b/c you're afraid of big govt is kinda stupid, imo. If you're serious about it, then cut out the subsidies to the farmers in the first place. But nobody seems to have a problem with that, or at least they haven't said so.

So, let's keep getting fatter, let's keep crying about Big Brother limiting your freedoms, and let's do nothing to overhaul our health care (really a disease care) system. Amazingly enougy, we live in a time where a lot of people do exactly that.
 
What's to stop fatty from buying (2) 16oz sugar drinks!?

Perhaps a real price that reflects the true costs of creating the product? No govt subsides?

How about that? Or, barring that, a tax which raises the price so that it more accurately reflects the true cost of production?
 
By what logic is outlawing big sugar drinks a "fix"...

The drinks aren't being outlawed. Just buy 2 16-ozers.

And of course it's not a fix to govt subsidies. The fix is to remove the subsides. You're not following along very well.

The tax/ban is just as bad as the subsides. But to decry the tax/ban while ignoring the subsidy is either hypocritical or ignorant, perhaps both.
 
...to protect an imaginary cut.

I wonder what kind of world you live in if you think the diabesity epidemic, and its attendant health care (really disease care) costs are just an imaginary cut?

I've seen people consciously or intentionally unaware of current events, but this is an extreme view. Diabetes, kidney damage, young kids having problems heretofore only seen in old fat people? Imaginary? This board remains a good laboratory for studying the clueless.
 
Just questioning your presumption, without any evidence, that some of us are "hypocritical or ignorant, perhaps both."

The lack of anybody making the connection is the evidence that shows people are unaware of the connection.

The food industry rings its Pavlovian "free market bell", Y'all salivate. Then help yourself to another bag of frankenchips, specially calibrated to mix just the right amount of fat, sugar, and sodium to prevent your brain from recognizing satiety and to keep on eatin'.

My rather cynical view of commerce, advertising, etc. is that those entities exist to make a buck off of you and me. Do yourselves a favor and always be aware of that. They don't care about you or your health. Just your money. That goes for a lot of the so-called organic entities as well.

The food science industry has got you by your stomach, which is probably even worse than having you by your balls.

The tax/ban approach is a reasonable way to address the problem. It's certainly not unreasonable.
 
It was put on to protect the imaginary cut that "family farms" were going out of business ...

There was nothing imaginary about family farms going out of business in the 70s and 80s.

But if you do not include the diabesity epidemic as a "cut", then I agree with that.
 
What makes a slurpee worse than french fries?

The answer to that is obvious: the rapid injection of fructose into one's system via liquid.
 
By what moral right should fat people be able to, via their government, forcefully confiscate my tax dollars in order to subsidize the health consequences of their inability to quit eating?

Why are you attempting to frame this issue on morality? That's odd. This is a political issue, and economic, and public policy. Where, and why, does "morals" come into it?

But here's a moral answer: because the overall good is increased if those fatties can lose weight, become healthier and consumer fewer disease care dollars and rectify a situation caused largely by that same govt giving subsidies to for-profit entities so they can make more money, and cause you to get more fat.

Part of that "inability to quit eating"? Caused by govt subsidies going to food companies to engineer concoctions of fat/sugar/sodium to fool your stomach and brain to not feel full.

But it's so much easier to just lump all this into a "personal responsibility" context for some people. It's much simpler and easier to understand if that's the superficial level at which the topic is discussed.
 
Perham, the solution is, actually, extremely simple. If the government would stay the hell out of farm subsidies, and stay the hell out of the medical industry and for the love of God stay the hell out of soft drink cup sizes, these problems would actually find a resolution on their own. The mayor should be concerned with the streets and the sewer system, the police and the fire department. The nanny state just becomes a monster that feeds itself and leeches on freedom. As someone else mentioned, Lady Liberty needs a new address.
 
One could give up sugary drinks forever but eat french fries every day and still be overweight.

True, but that wasn't the question, was it?

I answered the question why slurpees were worse than french fries.
 
So what about fruit juices?

What about them? They are also bad, bad, bad. Too much fructose in your system too rapidly.
 
cool.gif


Plantains have a ton of carbs unfortunately, but in moderation it definitely isn't "bad" for you by any means.

I was mostly talking about fried proteins. Frying chicken strips in canola is fine as long as you don't crazy w/ the breading.
 
newdoc, google Robert Lustig at UCSF and his work/views on sugar, specifically fructose. Also, it would behoove you to review the lipid hypothesis and the current views on that.

I noticed newdoc, in your post, that you failed to distinguish fructose from glucose. There is a metabolic difference. You seem to be confusing the two, or just didn't take time to separate the glucose from the fructose.


Too much fructose, too rapidly, leads to liver problems - fatty deposits and such. Sugar, being about half fructose, is being consumed at larger and larger levels. We're up to about 120 pounds (or more) of excess sugar consumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top