Taxes proposed for soft drinks

[Mandark]

itt we see a terrific example of people not giving a shit about things which don't affect them

when they slap down a game tax (for "education funding") or an extra coffee tax (because, you know, caffeine is pretty horrible for you when you think about it, and why should the rest of america pay for your jitters?), then you fucks will splutter with outrage, guaranteed

First they came for Mr. Pibb, and I did not speak out--because I was not Mr. Pibb
Then they came for Dr. Pepper, and I did not speak out—because I was not Dr. Pepper


Honkey please.

[The Fake Shemp]

This is the real problem IMO. You've got companies that are making products that are really terrible for you to eat.

Personally, I think we should have a new label-a huge fat person on a rascal scooter-that gets put on the box or bag of the shit food out there. Let people KNOW that what they are buying is crap and they'll pick something that's less crappy-there's a huge education issue made worse by decades of bad-and now ingrained-food policy. Also, programs to provide local fresh food co-ops and markets to inner cities and other under served areas so they can actually buy fresh produce at reasonable prices.

I agree with that. It angers me when people say incredibly ignorant stuff like, "WHY DON'T THEY JUST BUY FROM WHOLE FOODS OR TRADER JOES?!"

As if all the food from there is healthy (it's not), or that those type of markets are very accessible to impoverished, urban areas.

[cool breeze]

We should find a new transportation system and nuke all the roads, replace them with farms and stuff.  We're gonna make America healthy again.

[The Fake Shemp]

I like the cut of your jib.

Unfortunately, in case you haven't noticed, we live in America. That means we debate solving problems to items that are obviously broken beyond repair, until we pass something that is ultimately pointless or makes things significantly worse.

Then we continue to grumble as corporations slowly kill us, financially and physically, and begin to languish a stagnant power.  As our global influence declines, the country becomes irrelevant and everyone will move to China.

The end.

[cool breeze]

I just think we should have a replacement for cars by now.  We've been using these things for 100+ years now, right? whenever I see other people driving, it's always a single person driving something meant for five (or more) and most only care about going from Point A to B.  And public transportation isn't a good answer because most of it sucks (in America...Germany's U-Bahn  ). The future is such a letdown.

[cool breeze]

and most only care about going from Point A to B.

 

As opposed to?

(over)drifting

[Raban]

I haven't really read into this, but I'm not against taxing unhealthy food. Not like it's going to stop the fatties, though. Taxing a liter of cola at 98 cents is still only going to be like a $1.25. Fat people aren't going to be climbing the walls of the capitol building over that one.

[brawndolicious]

It's not the only cause of health problems, no. Smaller food portions are absolutely necessary for most folks these days. But if they're still eating junk instead of nutritious perishable real food, they will still be diseased even if not obese.

There are artificial sources for vitamins and minerals so I would say that at the moment, lowering caloric intake is a bigger priority.  Even if you go to a supermarket in an urban area, you can find affordable and healthy food.  It might not be the best tasting food in the store and eating a reasonable amount of it probably won't make the average person full, but those are the things that make diets work.

Saying we need more farmer's markets is way too narrow of a solution.  If people don't know or care about healthy foods, then what's the point of giving them cheaper produce?

[The Fake Shemp]

People don't necessarily buy unhealthy food because it tastes good (of course we all do time to time), but because they can make a lot of it quickly and for very cheap. And for most folks, am nintenho, they simply do not have the time or budget to eat healthy.

It doesn't even have to do with caloric intake, because eating right will always make you feel better. That doesn't even make any sense. Junk food is designed to make you feel not full.

To buy healthy produce and keep costs in line, that requires the person to do most of the prep work. That requires time.

Prepared meals of the healthy variety are significantly more expensive then unhealthy, processed foods.

If you're a single parent or someone with little money, who works an unreasonable amount of hours per week, are you going to spend a certain budgeted amount on skinless chicken breasts, spice/marinate them and grill them or buy a box of fried chicken you can microwave?

Your ability to not comprehend that is mind boggling.

[brawndolicious]

Prep time doesn't depend on change based on whether you buy your food from safeway or a fruit stand.  You realistically need like 40 minutes to make anything.

My point was that the basic ingredients for a healthy meal can still be bought at any supermarket.  People may not have the time/energy to make those foods or maybe they just don't care, but that's just a different issue that hopefully can be fixed by people caring more about their diet in the future.

[GilloD]

Prep time doesn't depend on change based on whether you buy your food from safeway or a fruit stand.  You realistically need like 40 minutes to make anything.

My point was that the basic ingredients for a healthy meal can still be bought at any supermarket.  People may not have the time/energy to make those foods or maybe they just don't care, but that's just a different issue that hopefully can be fixed by people caring more about their diet in the future.

If you're a family of 4 living below the poverty line, you can't AFFORD healthy food. From a purely caloric standpoint, a dollar worth of junky shitty food will feed your family far more effectively than a dollar worth of apples. In some places an apple is MORE than a dollar. Have a peek here: http://www.mymoneyblog.com/archives/2007/01/what-does-200-calories-cost-the-economics-of-obesity.html

This is, in part, because of a broken subsidy system that makes it economically viable to make shitty bad for you food while making good for you stuff more expensive.

[The Fake Shemp]

You realistically need like 40 minutes to make anything.

Are you an only child?

Also, what GilloD said.

[Dickie Dee]

I remember a while ago looking at the back of a Craisins bag and seeing the list of ingredients (in order of volume as always): Sucrose, Cranberries...

I was all , though it seems they've lowered it in recent years so the main ingredient in Craisins are actually Craisins.

[brawndolicious]

Prep time doesn't depend on change based on whether you buy your food from safeway or a fruit stand.  You realistically need like 40 minutes to make anything.
My point was that the basic ingredients for a healthy meal can still be bought at any supermarket.  People may not have the time/energy to make those foods or maybe they just don't care, but that's just a different issue that hopefully can be fixed by people caring more about their diet in the future.

If you're a family of 4 living below the poverty line, you can't AFFORD healthy food. From a purely caloric standpoint, a dollar worth of junky shitty food will feed your family far more effectively than a dollar worth of apples. In some places an apple is MORE than a dollar. Have a peek here: http://www.mymoneyblog.com/archives/2007/01/what-does-200-calories-cost-the-economics-of-obesity.html
This is, in part, because of a broken subsidy system that makes it economically viable to make shitty bad for you food while making good for you stuff more expensive.

I should make it clear that I don't know much about the lifestyle of people who live below the poverty line and of single-parent households where these problems are most extreme.  What I'm just saying is that the average person should be able to get the amount of calories and nutrients that they need using an equal or lower food budget.  This will of course mean that they're eating less though.

As far as corn subsidies, wouldn't taking them away just raise the price foods considering the unequal tax burden?

[The Fake Shemp]

am nintenho, the United States has one of the highest (if not the highest) poverty rates out of industrialized nations.

Not to mention that 10% of households are run by a single parent, and your "average" American is either a lower or working middle class citizen, meaning that your funds are rather tight.

Again, are you an only child or something?

[brawndolicious]

No middle child.  Like I said I don't have any real knowledge about the costs and lifestyle of poor people in America.  If you're barely able to get the minimum amount of calories to survive even though you mainly are eating frozen pizzas and top ramen or something, then I don't even know where to start looking for a solution to that diet problem.  It just seems logical that corn subsidies, since corn is in so many foods, lowers the costs of food.

[huckleberry]

Corn subsidies do lower the costs of food....shitty foods.

[brawndolicious]

But is there any effect on the cost of other produce?

[Tauntaun]

We should find a new transportation system and nuke all the roads, replace them with farms and stuff.  We're gonna make America healthy again.

I hear radiation is good for the soil. 

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[brawndolicious]

[Cormacaroni]

Well, using corn lowers the cost of food, or rather raises the caloric value for money of crappy processed food, but of course the subsidies aren't actually FREE so ultimately it ends up costing you all anyway. Not to mention the lunatic healthcare costs that it contributes hugely to.

Why not subsidize something unequivocally good for you, like broccoli? God knows if we put our mind to it we could find ways to turn broccoli into as versatile a food as corn. Seriously. I mean, if you told your great grandfather that we'd be turning that shitty corn into syrup and pumping it into bacon and sausage, they'd never have believed you. Humans have a great track record of taking what's in surplus in the natural world and finding ways to consume it. If we had mountains of surplus cheap broccoli, you can bet your ass we'd all be eating it and not even knowing we were doing so.

[Cormacaroni]

Thank god my own bratty wouldn't-eat-my-greens backtalk wasn't recorded on the internet for all time...

[FlameOfCallandor]

This thread is full of awesome.

[Cormacaroni]

you're not leaving this forum until you've cleared the plate young man

[brawndolicious]

Well, using corn lowers the cost of food, or rather raises the caloric value for money of crappy processed food, but of course the subsidies aren't actually FREE so ultimately it ends up costing you all anyway. Not to mention the lunatic healthcare costs that it contributes hugely to.

Why not subsidize something unequivocally good for you, like broccoli? God knows if we put our mind to it we could find ways to turn broccoli into as versatile a food as corn. Seriously. I mean, if you told your great grandfather that we'd be turning that shitty corn into syrup and pumping it into bacon and sausage, they'd never have believed you. Humans have a great track record of taking what's in surplus in the natural world and finding ways to consume it. If we had mountains of surplus cheap broccoli, you can bet your ass we'd all be eating it and not even knowing we were doing so.

Fun fact, corn and broccoli have actually both been cultivated extensively by farmers to fit our food needs.  Broccoli is actually from the species Brassica oleracea or Wild Mustard, but it just was cultivated to have a very high amount of flower heads.  cauliflower, cabbage, brussel sprouts and some other stuff all come from Wild Mustard but they are just different lineages with designed to have some parts larger or smaller.  Same thing with corn where now it's actually unable to grow in the wild.

I know you were probably just joking but the whole idea of changing our food sources in such a radical way just sounds to me like it's too big of a project for any politician, political group, or hippies to try and tackle.  Even if it is better for virtually everyone's health.

[Cormacaroni]

Why is it so big a project? The whole corn thing was pretty much the work of the Dept. of Agriculture in the 1970's. Sure, lots of folks depend on those subsidies for their livelihoods and lots of businesses thrive on cheap sweeteners but far more people suffer from eating this crap.

Market forces will decide. Either people become sufficiently aware of the health issues from what they're eating, and change their habits, or they won't. If they do, it'll become more economically attractive to be a small, organic farmer than a huge govt. subsidized corn-growing machine. Actually, I hear that it's already a very attractive proposition in many markets. People are willing to pay a premium for grass-fed meat and organic veggies already...the trend just needs to continue to grow.

Not sure what the relevance of your food facts are to any of this. Perhaps none was intended. Obviously almost everything we farm is significantly different from the original wild forms. I'm certainly not opposed to smart farming, i.e. producing more of a good thing, ideally with minimal impact on the rest of the environment.

[brawndolicious]

I was just pointing out something funny with broccoli.

And are you serious about organic?  You get about half the yield per acre and chemically, it is the same food.  Obviously, there is some taste difference if you don't naturally ripen the inorganic food but the organic market is a goddamn scam these days.  Like you said, it is profitable for some farmer's but that's because of the huge mark-up on the food (organic dairy farming causes a 15% drop in yield but the milk somehow costs twice as much).

I mean, you probably know about that Norman Borloug guy who said that in organic nitrates, we only produce enough to feed 4 billion people so that just makes it a more backwards idea when we're probably going to top out around 10-15 billion people on the planet.  I can understand if somebody is a little bit suspicious of GMO's but I've never seen any scientific evidence that synthetic fertilizers or pesticides are any worse for ourselves or our environment than the organic alternatives.