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

Skip to comments.

Advocates target food chains, seek 'fat tax' - Tactics resemble antismoking effort
Boston Globe ^ | July 21, 2002 | Bret Ladine

Posted on 07/21/2002 2:22:03 AM PDT by sarcasm

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:08:00 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

ASHINGTON - While millions of consumers see a super-sized Extra Value Meal as a real bargain, John Banzhaf sees advertising gone wrong and is trying to hold companies accountable for rising obesity in America.

He is not alone.

Health and consumer advocates, using tactics reminiscent of those successfully employed against the tobacco industry, are targeting the nation's food industry by pushing for a ''fat tax,'' stepping up legislative efforts, and suing major restaurant chains in a campaign to reduce obesity.


(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: pufflist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

1 posted on 07/21/2002 2:22:03 AM PDT by sarcasm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
KEEP YOUR JACKBOOTS OFFA MY BIG MACS
2 posted on 07/21/2002 2:36:19 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm

3 posted on 07/21/2002 2:37:14 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
I don't think it's any of the governments business what consumers eat, be it good or bad for us. Same with tobacco.

However, just as there are negative health consequences of smoking, there are negative health consequences with eating unhealthy foods. The only action I would find reasonable by the government is health warnings, like was done for tobacco.

"You can't demonize foods: Virtually any food can have a role in a balanced diet"

If this is the line of reasoning the food and beverage industry is going to take, they are doomed. It will play out just like when the tobacco execs stood before congress and denied any addictive quality in nicotine. There are some foods that even the most wacked out nutritionist would tell you are not and never will be a part of a balanced diet.

Regarding low-fat/no-fat diets. The body requires fat in your diet. If you deny your body fats, your body will break down and eventually you would die from fatty degeneration.

Most people believe that fat in our diet is a bad thing. The problem is that there are good fats but no one is told that they need them. Not just should have them, but need them. Those fats are the Essential Fatty Acids, Omega 3 and Omega 6.

If you want to learn about how important these EFA's are I recommend reading the book Fats That Heal Fats That Kill by the foremost authority on the subject, Udo Erasmus. If nothing else, read the summarization of his research in his lecture, Fats That Heal Fats That Kill: The Complete Lecture.

4 posted on 07/21/2002 2:58:36 AM PDT by JameRetief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JameRetief
"The body requires fat in your diet. If you deny your body fats, your body will break down and eventually you would die from fatty degeneration. "

I have no doubt that low fat diets are extremely unhealthy and accelerate the aging process. I followed them for many years, occasionally losing weight, but eventually reaching my heaviest ever (which admittedly was not that terrifically heavy). Putting fat back into my diet made me feel years younger and restored energy. My cholesterol and triglycerides are perfect.

Fast food gets a lot of blame for increasing obesity in America. But coincidental with the rise in American obesity is a dramatic increase in sugar and starch intake, simultaneous with a decrease in fat intake. I don't think that there's much doubt that this change in diet results from information publicized by the medical and health industries and by government publicity for such things as the "food pyramid." Food manufacturers have toed the line as well, taking advantage by marketing low fat products heavy in sugar and starch.

Is the fat tax going to be levied on sweet and starchy foods or just those high in fat? If so, a fat tax could actually be responsible for even more obesity. And will the fat tax be on all marketers or just a selected few, such as fast food franchisors? If a selected few, it qualifies as discrimination. Of course our government now consciouly uses discrimination as a policy tool, so what else is new.

Or will government tax us individually if our eating habits are not "politically correct?" Of course that constitutes a contradiction in bureaucratic thinking, as it presupposes that we are responsible for our own actions.

And are these folks also going to sue the Pritikin foundation, Dean Ornish, the USDA and the American Heart association, since their (and others') advocacy of the low fat regimen may be the primary culprit causing the rise in obesity?

The more government becomes involved in our everyday lives, the more it seems to cause harm, confusion and destruction. Sadly, we have come a long way from our founding fathers' concept of limited government.

5 posted on 07/21/2002 3:59:07 AM PDT by Sam Cree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
We all know that the cigarette suit was nothing more than legalized prohibition and continues to be through "over tax" aimed at a "specific" group of our society where there is suppose to be "equality". The fat issue is simply jumping on the bandwagon.

So what's next...Milk??

These suits only drive up prices and taxes....."legalized prohibition".

Sac

P.S. The attorneys love you "suit mongers".

6 posted on 07/21/2002 4:26:58 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Keep your jack boots off my Bryer's strawberry ice cream!
7 posted on 07/21/2002 5:20:54 AM PDT by GailA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Jabba the Hut lives!
8 posted on 07/21/2002 5:24:12 AM PDT by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
''If we can't legislate, we'll litigate,'' Banzhaf said.

KA-CHING!!

The Banzhaf anthem.

Can we litigate against him for assaulting the Constitution?

9 posted on 07/21/2002 5:32:23 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
I'm with you on this. This is ridiculous. There are plenty of skinny people with perfect cholesterol who can eat Big Macs and have no consequences, ever. These people are nuts, and if they didn't make enough enemies to stop them during the War on Cigarettes, they will in the War on Food.

My husband and I are slim, never did have weight problems. He loves to indulge in chocolate cake with homemade ice cream, my favorite high fat food is bacon. Both of us have perfect cholesterol and EKG's, and both of us are smokers. We're already looking at these food litigators with a very jaundiced eye.

But even if we weren't healthy, I would deeply resent ANY additional nanny-state tax, no matter HOW much they said it was "for the children."
10 posted on 07/21/2002 5:47:41 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
The next consumer protection plan should involve lawyers. Lawyers have been shown to be hazardous to your health. Medical malpractice has resulted in higher premiums and restrained a lot of doctors from perfoming in the maternity wards which is causing unneeded risk to unborn children. Lawyers should have to display warnings in their offices that this individual may be hazardous to your financial wealth and health.
11 posted on 07/21/2002 5:50:28 AM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Complicating matters is the increasingly muddled debate over what is a healthy diet. Some recent research suggests that the long ingrained advice that fat in diets should be reduced has resulted in Americans consuming more carbohydrates, which may be the real culprit behind obesity.

Amen to that. I stuggled with my weight for decades. I finally stopped listening to the experts and started chowing down the fat. I've lost 85 lbs in six months. Those marxist, vegan imposters can kiss my carnivorous a#$.

12 posted on 07/21/2002 5:50:50 AM PDT by lafroste
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
This is part and parcel of the United Nations "sustainable development" agenda. The totalitarians have decided that potato chips and frozen foods are not something you should have.
13 posted on 07/21/2002 5:58:40 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
no matter HOW much they said it was "for the children."

I've noticed the drumbeat lately about "mold."

I predict that sometime in the dark future, we'll all be forced to submit to "Housekeeping Inspectors" to ensure that we aren't endangering "the children."

Big Tobacco, Big Food, Big Mold - what's the difference, as long as there's a big payoff for the usual suspects?

14 posted on 07/21/2002 6:19:43 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: meenie
Lawyers should have to display warnings in their offices that this individual may be hazardous to your financial wealth and health.

What a great idea! Then we'd see the emergence of a whole new class of lawyers specializing in suing other lawyers who haven't properly displayed the warning. This could be fun.

15 posted on 07/21/2002 6:21:54 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
"But even if we weren't healthy, I would deeply resent ANY additional nanny-state tax, no matter HOW much they said it was "for the children."

Yeah, wasn't their a time when parents were responsible for the children?

16 posted on 07/21/2002 7:47:49 AM PDT by Sam Cree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: *puff_list; Just another Joe; Gabz; Great Dane; Max McGarrity; Tumbleweed_Connection; red-dawg; ...
They got their teeth into tobacco and smokers, so look out everyone. They will be in YOUR back yard next!
17 posted on 07/21/2002 7:57:57 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
The governments broke and trial lawyers need another fix. No end in sight, they're coming after every dime they can get their grubby little paws on.
18 posted on 07/21/2002 8:04:13 AM PDT by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: steve50
The governments broke and trial lawyers need another fix. No end in sight, they're coming after every dime they can get their grubby little paws on.

They sure can figure out how to get their hands into our pockets. Nickle and dime us to death!

19 posted on 07/21/2002 8:18:45 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
For those of you who say smoking is yucky and I have to pay for smokers illnesses, listen up. It was just an easy target. This is about running your lives.
20 posted on 07/21/2002 8:43:22 AM PDT by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next 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