Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Coke Didn't Make America Fat
The Wall Street Journal ^ | 10-07-09 | MUHTAR KENT

Posted on 10/08/2009 6:15:17 AM PDT by GOP_Lady

Americans need more exercise, not another tax.

Obesity is a complex issue, and addressing it is important for all Americans. We at the Coca-Cola company are committed to working with government and health organizations to implement effective solutions to address this problem.

But a number of public-health advocates have already come up with what they think is the solution: heavy taxes on some routine foods and beverages that they have decided are high in calories. The taxes, the advocates acknowledge, are intended to limit consumption of targeted foods and help you to accept the diet that they have determined is best.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cocacola; coke; nanny; nannystate; obesity; tax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-241 last
To: csmusaret

“Fat people are prodigous eaters. That is why they are fat.”

I am fat. I consume less than 1000 calories per day. I am fat because I am a lazy bass turd.


201 posted on 10/08/2009 3:24:42 PM PDT by Grunthor (Thank YOU George Bush, for giving us the GOP of today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: norraad
It was used as as foundation to pile on and refer to.

They built on the ozone issue so they could ban Freon as a greenhouse gas?

You take one paid for false premise and you build from there.

Or you confuse the issues and don't fess up?

Any luck proving your silly patent claim?

Or is it something your dad (the inventor of Freon maybe?) told you in secret?

202 posted on 10/08/2009 3:27:26 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: cweese
There are two forms of HFCS being used today. The first is HFCS 55(% fructose) which would offer a minute increase in the amount of fructose someone consumes vs. sucrose. However, there are a whole lot of products that use HFCS 42(% fructose) as a substitute for sucrose. Does that mean using this particular formulation of HFCS is better for you than sucrose?

To suggest that a meager increase in fructose consumption, that HFCS may or may not be responsible for, causes all sorts of afflictions from obesity to cancer is absurdity on parade and is nothing more than people trying to blame problems on something other than the cause.

203 posted on 10/08/2009 3:30:16 PM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady
"Coke Didn't Make America Fat"

No, but I did hear it kept Obama slim...!
204 posted on 10/08/2009 3:31:55 PM PDT by SparkyBass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

Best of luck to you and hope you find a new groove...


205 posted on 10/08/2009 3:34:04 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Welcome to bizarro world. I walked right into it. I should have warned you to bring the foil......and Thorazine.
206 posted on 10/08/2009 3:35:24 PM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
This tax is a hard one to oppose intellectually

Only if you believe that the constitution allows for selective, punitive taxation.

207 posted on 10/08/2009 3:46:33 PM PDT by Eroteme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

prodigious


208 posted on 10/08/2009 4:17:56 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers

Oh, you’re welcome, dear BunnySlippers. :-)


209 posted on 10/08/2009 4:25:28 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

You left out the closet breatharians...


210 posted on 10/08/2009 4:49:14 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: mysterio

You show me the dog that can digest that load and I’ll excuse the homework and give you an “A”


211 posted on 10/08/2009 5:01:33 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Eroteme

So lets see, we cant raise income and business taxes because they suppress activity, and we cant raise sin taxes because they are punitive (even though by rule # 1 they suppress the sin) BUT we can spend lots of money on everything, on top of social spending, war , nation rebuilding, homeland security, etc. If we can never raise taxes on anything then GWB/republicans had no business even passing a budget,.


212 posted on 10/08/2009 5:07:53 PM PDT by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the government spending you demand stupid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

You buy into the libs’ rationale that they’re entitled to spend on every freaking program that strikes em. I don’t.

Only liberals think it’s a choice between raise taxes and keep spending, or don’t raise taxes and keep spending—and yes, that includes people with putative R’s after their names who vote for that crap. They’re de facto liberals by virtue of the votes they cast.

You’re trying to justify the out of control gov’t spending with the tired whine that “George Bush did it.” Yeah, he did, and it was wrong-headed then, too. Conservatives are sick about it, and sick and tired of it, no matter who does it.

I notice you ignored the constitutional aspect in favor of the straw man argument.


213 posted on 10/08/2009 5:33:35 PM PDT by Eroteme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: norraad

That was the ozone hole


214 posted on 10/08/2009 5:47:53 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Eroteme

My point isnt that I would personally support Obama’s raising any taxes. I would not, mainly because he promised not to raise them so screw him. My point is that ‘so called’ conservatives want their cake and eat it too, OK for them to run debts, but bad for democrats, using all types of silly kids arguments. At least when they raise our taxes, it forces them to make sure we want the spending the taxes are funding or they get thrown out. If fatso is getting free health care, then you have to reduce his sugar consumption.

I dont know what you mean by constitution, seems running up huge debts for future generations should not be defended by meaningless phrases blaming the constitution. Seems like if there was any threat of being stopped by courts, you wouldnt care. And I am sure you are getting some benefit from government, someone could call unconstitutional,


215 posted on 10/08/2009 5:49:09 PM PDT by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the government spending you demand stupid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

The patents were running out and China was set to be the major producer; R-12 was the best gas for the type of refrigeration we commonly use as its safety level is unequaled.

Dupont was a happy camper but the madness reigned and now the hole comes and goes, just as it has all along.

Its chief replacement, HFC-134 was just made a GHG by Jackson, Browner et al this year and here we go again.


216 posted on 10/08/2009 5:57:04 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Aurorales

LOL yes, that’s what my kids said. I also did not feed them much sugar either. To this day they are not sweet eaters. I mean they will eat some, but they don’t consume mass quantities.


217 posted on 10/08/2009 6:09:45 PM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
The patents were running out and China was set to be the major producer

When did they get the patent? When was it set to expire?

218 posted on 10/08/2009 6:10:20 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: fooman

LOL I like that! I hope so too, I’m too young to feel so old! :)


219 posted on 10/08/2009 6:10:23 PM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

It wasn’t so much that the patent would run out or that duPont was the sole vendor, it was the fact that the die had been cast and R-12 was about to be banned and that dupont was one of the first to develop an acceptable replacement, R-134A; the history of the invention, patenting and widespread use is covered well by the historic background part of the ozone story released by NOAA:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/publictn/elkins/cfcs.html


220 posted on 10/08/2009 7:00:00 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
It wasn’t so much that the patent would run out

Yeah, that's what I thought. LOL!

Thanks.

221 posted on 10/08/2009 7:02:50 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
That's interesting, must be research newer than when I was still involved in the field. We were taught that as you age muscle mass diminished and because muscle takes more cals per pound, you could eat less without weight gain. I have not kept up with the newer research as I have been out of the field since the early 1990s and while I do read things I run across I wouldn't call that keeping up.

The loss of muscle mass has several consequences: You have less metabolically active tissue because you're less physically active. That lessens the body's ability to count calories ingested against calories expended, taking you closer to the region where it won't see the 100-150kcals/day offset but without the physical activity that could burn them up. You still have habitual eating practices of earlier, more active times, meaning it's easy to keep eating like you did when you were young because, hey, food still tastes good. And a couple pounds of body fat per year get insensibly added. So in a little while you're thinking, "When I was 28 I wore size 32 pants, now I'm 42 and wear size 38. WTH????"
222 posted on 10/09/2009 3:57:57 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: fooman

Really? Which school?


223 posted on 10/09/2009 3:58:50 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Mase

Fair enough. I can’t prove otherwise. Can you prove it doesn’t?


224 posted on 10/09/2009 4:25:49 AM PDT by cweese (Hook 'em Horns!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: cweese

Prove it doesn’t what?


225 posted on 10/09/2009 7:25:11 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Mase

Prove it doesn’t contribute to obesity.


226 posted on 10/09/2009 7:33:12 AM PDT by cweese (Hook 'em Horns!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady
Obesity is a complex issue,

No it's not.

and addressing it is important for all Americans.

Again, no it's not.

227 posted on 10/09/2009 7:37:46 AM PDT by metesky (My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cweese
Well, since it provides calories to those consuming it I suppose, like all foods containing calories, it can contribute to obesity. However, it doesn't contribute to obesity any more than sucrose does -- or any other carb for the sake of this discussion.

Now, if you can prove otherwise then have at it. No one yet has been able to prove that glucose and fructose from hydrolyzed sucrose is different than glucose and fructose from HFCS.

228 posted on 10/09/2009 7:46:01 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

I have boxes of articles, newspaper coverage, etc. from the time when this was headlines; in the beginning duPont was totally against the theory, any ban or restrictions on its use and acted as though it was speaking for the whole industry associated with R-12.

Green-shaded experts at the home office reexamined the tenor of the debate and convinced the chemists that this was one battle they dare not win.

Measurement of any damage caused by seasonal ozone loss remains virtually impossible to assess.


229 posted on 10/09/2009 8:36:10 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
I'm sure Freon was a money maker for duPont. Cheap to make, easy to handle.

I'm sure they like the higher profits they get from the Freon replacements. Even if they are less efficient.

230 posted on 10/09/2009 9:25:00 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Mase
The digestive and absorptive processes for glucose and fructose are different.

When disaccharides such as sucrose or maltose enter the intestine, they are cleaved by disaccharidases. A sodium-glucose cotransporter absorbs the glucose that is formed from cleavage of sucrose. Fructose, in contrast, is absorbed further down in the duodenum and jejunum by a non-sodium-dependent process. After absorption, glucose and fructose enter the portal circulation and either are transported to the liver, where the fructose can be taken up and converted to glucose, or pass into the general circulation. The addition of small, catalytic amounts of fructose to orally ingested glucose increases hepatic glycogen synthesis in human subjects and reduces glycemic responses in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (12), which suggests the importance of fructose in modulating metabolism in the liver. However, when large amounts of fructose are ingested, they provide a relatively unregulated source of carbon precursors for hepatic lipogenesis.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537

231 posted on 10/09/2009 9:27:22 AM PDT by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

LOL and food still tastes good, ain’t it the truth!
The bane of all mankind!


232 posted on 10/09/2009 12:56:56 PM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Mase

First, I’m against a tax on it, and if people want to drink it, they should be able to.
However, it’s easier to consume more calories in a drink than in a food, I think that is the problem (if you want to see a problem in soft drinks). But, so, people may make stupid choices, it’s up to them. I’ve made a few myself.


233 posted on 10/09/2009 12:58:55 PM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady

I did a little unscientific, yet interesting survey last week. My brother wanted to go look at RVs (Recreational Vehicle) at an RV dealer. I went along to keep him company. As he talked to the dealer, I looked at photographs on the wall. They had posted hundreds of photos of happy couples with their newly purchased motor home. I noticed that all of the men seemed to have big bellies. I decided to count the photos until I came to one where the man was not overweight. I counted around 120 photos before I came to one man without a large pot belly.

I do not doubt that metabolism plays some role, but I attribute most of this to poor eating habits. I watch people go through pot luck lines at social functions and I see how they pile their plates. The fatter the person, the more they seem to pile on their plate. Then, when its time for dessert, they don’t just grab one brownie or one piece of pie...they fill up their plate again.


234 posted on 10/09/2009 1:23:07 PM PDT by Drawsing (The fool shows his annoyance at once. The prudent man overlooks an insult. (Proverbs 12:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
LOL and food still tastes good, ain’t it the truth! The bane of all mankind!

I just figured out that a 25 pound weight gain (I'm talking about a 25lb load of fat in the adipose tissue, not 25 pounds of adipose tissue) over a period of 10 years comes out to about 200 kcals/week. An apple is about 80 kcals. Think of how tightly regulated energy input versus energy expenditure is that it is such a small percentage of total weekly input that insensibly leads to what was a typical weight creep over a period of decades. For someone with an 1800 kcal/day, 200 kcals per week is an excess of only about 1.59%! When you consider how much inexpensive, highly nutritious food is so easily available and how we nowadays expend so little energy compared to the average person 100 years ago, it's a wonder that more people aren't horribly obese and a tribute to spontaneous energy regulation by the body.
235 posted on 10/09/2009 6:33:39 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

I still wonder about some people’s tendency to stay thin. I know, in horses and dogs, some are just not thrifty (that is, it’s hard to keep weight on them). In my experience, especially with dogs (I show and breed, so I’ve had quite a few thru my front door over the years) some eat very willingly, but still don’t keep enough weight on. More often than not it’s boys, not girls, who stay thin almost regardless of what or how much I feed them. Something accounts for it, but I don’t really know what. One particular boy was not overly active (he was as much a couch potato as anyone in the house) and he LOVED to eat, and yet, he was always thinner than I would have liked. He had no illnesses, just stayed very thin (a good weight really, but not a good show weight).
So, go figure. It may have been calories in, vs calories out, but for some reason he burned them faster/easier/better. I would like to be like that! As it is, I think I’ll go back on a 1200 a day diet and see what happens.
Geeze, that’s not much food! ;)


236 posted on 10/10/2009 9:20:57 AM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Mase

OMG, Uncle Jed, turns out I was even more spot on than I thought.

Here’s a short video that ‘slains everything with charts , graphs and big people words like I know you like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=player_embedded


237 posted on 10/10/2009 10:58:35 AM PDT by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady

Coke and other soft drinks have been around from about 1900 so to blame them for America being fat is stupid. People not knowing how to control what they eat,drink, and do is what caused it. As a kid we got one small glass of pop in the evenings if we were lucky, we did not just get to go have as much as we wanted because we had parents. Junk food was limited to Saturday night and consisted of a small bowl of chips each.People just don’t know how to eat like people anymore and most eat enough to feed 3-4 people everyday.


238 posted on 10/10/2009 11:32:07 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Yeah, I can feel it.

Click the link above to view the explanation.

So, laying no particular claim to blame, yes, Coke does make you fat.

Why?

Because big corn whores stole our taxes to make HFCS affordable to them instead of good old sugar.

Then "pump up the volume" the old song and dance of the profit whores kicked in and everyone was encouraged to use more and more of this known chronic liver toxin.

So, over time most of us will puff up like a tick and die a horrible slow expensive(read more profit for Corponazimed Inc., a division of Sneakyman Inc.) death.

In the words of Marvin the Martian;

"Isn't that Lovely?"

239 posted on 10/11/2009 7:21:04 AM PDT by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: norraad
Because big corn whores stole our taxes to make HFCS affordable to them instead of good old sugar.

You're mixed up. The sugar whores made our sugar much more expensive than the world price. That's the only reason we use HFCS.

240 posted on 10/12/2009 7:18:46 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Yes, your correct in that they both down and dirty and have stolen untold taxes dollars for wasteful and harmful activity.

But have you viewed the informative video explaining the chronic liver toxin effect of HFCS?

The shame of it is , now that they are aware of it, they drool over the extra profit their medical corpnazi compatriots reap from this "benefit".

241 posted on 10/13/2009 10:11:17 AM PDT by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-241 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson