Peds want soda ban

(Tulip Tracy) wrote in message . com...
I think that comparing junk food to cigarettes is extreme and
melodramatic.

Health outcomes from obesity are somehow different than outcomes from
smoking?

I think reduced life expectancy is reduced life expectancy.

I'm not suggesting that we hand children drugs so they
can learn what an OD feels like.

That was exactly what you suggested. You just seem to think the line
is in a different place.

But we need to think about the long
term affects of banning simple, every day products from their lives.

Cigarettes are simple every day products Tulip.

Children -- and many American adults -- need to learn about
moderation. And it is very difficult to learn about moderating things
if you are not taught how to say "no" in the first place.

And the mentality of children is that things that are not allowed =
cool. So maybe a vending machine isn't available in school. But the
second those kids get to a birthday party in a bowling alley or go to
the mall, guess where all their quarters go.

The pre-teens I know don't go to the mall without adult supervision.
Yours?

js

Yes, this is getting too close to how the tabaccoo industry was
destroyed. I am a big fan of personal choice, and I understand the
tobacco problems, but soda is crazy... I heard an article quoted
someone saying "other people eating junk food is making me want to eat
it too, it isn't fair" C'mon, people need to have some self control
here!

Parents have to learn to not be afraid to tell their kids "No". That is one of
the many reasons why society is in the horrible shape it's in right now.

Now if a school were to ban all sodas from campuses (including sodas brought
from home), where would that leave diet sodas like Caffeine-Free Diet Coke,
Caffeine-Free Diet Pepsi, and Caffeine-Free Diet Dr. Pepper? Would they have to
be banned as well? Check out this vision of a future where Big Brother dictates
health policy to all Americans :

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/oped_...fm?OPED_ID=158

Last Call

Slim Pickings

Published: The American Spectator
By: David Martosko
Posted On October 1, 2003



Is it really ten years since the Total Overhaul Of Flab And Taxation (TOOFAT)
Act of 2004 became law? I didn't realize so much time had passed until my
nine-year-old asked for help with an essay about the years before Calorie Czar
Kelly Brownell saved us from ourselves.

Brownell first popularized the idea of a "Twinkie Tax"--back when you could
still buy Twinkies. He was a scientific advisor to a group set up by President
Nader, called the Center for Science in the Public Interest. People used to
call them the "food police"--back before there actually were Food Police.

In those early years, Brownell lacked the vision to see past creme-filled
sponge cakes to the fat-tax promised land of buttered popcorn, guacamole, and
pizza. That, history shows, is where the real money was. He co-wrote a paper in
2000 with CSPI co-founder Michael Jacobson, suggesting "small taxes on soft
drinks and snack foods." How far we've come.

Three years later, in his 2003 book Food Fight, Brownell advocated "large snack
taxes (in the range of 5 to 10 percent)" in order to "decrease consumption of
unhealthy foods." He even hinted that support would be highest "for taxes with
funds earmarked for children." Kelly Brownell knew us well.

I hardly noticed anything during the first two years after TOOFAT became law.
An extra nickel for a can of soda, a twenty-cent tax on a pound of butter, a
dime more for a cheese Danish. Big deal. My wife and I were perfectly healthy
anyway, and we figured the money was going to teach fat slobs how to exercise.
Maybe, we thought, they'd also learn how to visit a buffet without packing an
overnight bag. We didn't notice anyone slimming down, but Kelly Brownell meant
well.

Two thousand six and 2007 were tougher to handle, as our grocery bills became
less predictable. Congress learned to use TOOFAT taxes to raise money for
anything and everything. Need a new stealth bomber? Raise the potato-chip tax.
Potholes need repairing? We'd all just have to pay more for milk.

By 2008, every delicious food had been so demonized that no career-minded
politician would dare oppose a new TOOFAT target.

Then Kelly Brownell added restaurants, stadium concessions, and ice-cream shops
to the revenue stream. This was about the time New York lawmaker Felix Ortiz
and California state Senator Deborah Ortiz began showing up on movie screens
between the Coming Attractions. "Team Ortiz" had pioneered fat-taxes and soft
drink bans in their home states back in 2003. "We Want You," they would say,
"to eat rice cakes and drink organic bottled water." Felix would warn that the
price of movie nachos was about to go up (again), and Deborah would remind kids
attending Harry Potter and the Order of Celery Sticks that Milk Duds were now
rated "R."

The kids weren't getting any slimmer, but Team Ortiz did its best.

Eventually, we stopped paying attention to the weekly Food Price Index. We knew
that tofu and broccoli were cheaper than everything we liked to eat. Sure, we
had trouble adjusting. Up was down. Good was bad. The cost of Halloween candy
nearly bankrupted us.

"Dad," my three munchkins would ask, "why do we have to share one order of
French fries?"

"Because it costs ten dollars," I'd whisper. "Now sit still while I pour you
each a thimble of Diet Sprite."

I never understood why a fat-free, calorie-free drink needed extra taxes, but I
suppose we can't make exceptions for innocent-looking sodas. Carbonation equals
obesity. That's what Kelly Brownell always said.

We still weren't slimming down, but over time I got used to these changes. We
all did.

Looking back, it's amazing how Americans changed their eating behaviors in just
ten years. It helped when Congress expanded TOOFAT to cover all high-calorie
foods and beverages. I never liked the taste of beer anyway.




_____
"how wuz hat putato plaed? did bil kulin tos a putato at thu kuntestintz? tat
wuld ba funi." - Grant "Tardtram" Bartram

"God bless thongs." - Jim Ross

Health outcomes from obesity are somehow different than outcomes from
smoking?

I think reduced life expectancy is reduced life expectancy.

There is a difference. Smoking is not necessary to live. Eating is necessary to
live.

There are no good/bad foods. True, some foods are not as nutritious as other
foods, but all foods can be okay as long as you eat a well-balanced diet. The
big problem is that people eat too much these days.

The right to eat or drink whatever foods or drinks you want is one of the basic
human rights which people who stand for freedom wouldn't dare to trample on.
Unfortunately, there are people who want Big Brother to tell you what you can
and cannot eat/drink. Did you know that the PCRM has said that any parent who
feed their kids red meat is "guilty of child abuse"? As I've stated many times
before...if you want to be a vegetarian, that is your right, but once you try
to force food/drink choices on society, you become no better than a Nazi.

Freedom is a double-edged sword. You have freedoms, but you must respect the
freedoms of others (of course you don't have to LIKE freedoms that others have,
but that's another issue).



_____
"how wuz hat putato plaed? did bil kulin tos a putato at thu kuntestintz? tat
wuld ba funi." - Grant "Tardtram" Bartram

"God bless thongs." - Jim Ross

Tulip Tracy wrote:
I think that comparing junk food to cigarettes is extreme
and
melodramatic. I'm not suggesting that we hand children
drugs so they
can learn what an OD feels like. But we need to think
about the long
term affects of banning simple, every day products from
their lives.
Children -- and many American adults -- need to learn
about
moderation. And it is very difficult to learn about
moderating things
if you are not taught how to say "no" in the first place.

And the mentality of children is that things that are not
allowed =
cool. So maybe a vending machine isn't available in
school. But the
second those kids get to a birthday party in a bowling
alley or go to
the mall, guess where all their quarters go.

By your logic the way to teach a child moderation is to hand
them the cookie jar and hope thay get tired of eating the
cookies.

Besides, you miss the bogger point. The teaching of this
type of things is the responsibility of the parent. if the
parent wants to leave it up to the kid then they can give
the kids soda or not as they see fit. The schools are
undermining the parents.

--
CBI, MD

Darth Chaos wrote:
Yes, this is getting too close to how the tabaccoo
industry was
destroyed. I am a big fan of personal choice, and I
understand the
tobacco problems, but soda is crazy... I heard an
article quoted
someone saying "other people eating junk food is making
me want to
eat it too, it isn't fair" C'mon, people need to have
some self
control here!

Parents have to learn to not be afraid to tell their kids
"No". That
is one of the many reasons why society is in the horrible
shape it's
in right now.

That's right. And if the parent has said "no" the school
should not be saying "yes".

--
CBI, MD

Darth Chaos wrote:
Health outcomes from obesity are somehow different than
outcomes from
smoking?

I think reduced life expectancy is reduced life
expectancy.

There is a difference. Smoking is not necessary to live.
Eating is
necessary to live.

Neither is Coke.