Just a note to the above story:
This resolution has not yet been passed by the American Medical Association House of Delegates. The annual meeting is going on this week in Chicago, but no resolutions have been passed yet. From the sounds of it this is just a proposal put forth by a single physician or a small group of physicians. Very few resolutions get passed without amending the language, and I seriously doubt this one will be passed even with amendments. Most likely the proposal to tax soft drink companies (it will just be a recommendation to COngress) will be shot down, and I think softer language urging soft drink manufacturers and food companies to lower sugar content will be adopted instead.
posted by HeyHey at 01:47 P.M. EST on Mon Jun 12, 2006 #
Someone help me - there was a Stallone/Snipes movie a number of years ago where all food that was bad for you was banned...
posted by billy at 03:00 P.M. EST on Mon Jun 12, 2006 #
"Demolition Man". Great Flick. It makes number 7 of my top ten, sandwiched between "Vertago" and "the Bridge on the River Kwai".
posted by thetoledowire_com at 03:06 P.M. EST on Mon Jun 12, 2006 #
Why not just skip the taxing and go right to diet enforcement! Demand all stores install some type of scale/body mass indicator and then depending on your individual scores you could very well be told "Sorry no twinkie for you" and only allowed to purchase Atkin's Diet foods or other diet foods.
Of course a blackmarket junk food supply situation would probably result, along with people lined up outside of a store..
"psttt...can you please buy me a box of ho ho's?".
Then severe rationing would have to be put in place to stop that...but it would be for all of our good...
(yes this is sarcasm)
:-)
Billy, could it be Demolition Man?
posted by psyche777 at 03:15 P.M. EST on Mon Jun 12, 2006 #
thanks psyche and wire...
So how DID they use those three shells?
posted by billy at 03:34 P.M. EST on Mon Jun 12, 2006 #
Hmmmmmmm- thinking I will go buy another chest freezer and stock up on Church's fried chicken, ice cream sandwiches, and lots of Olive Garden Fettucine Alfredo. (not kidding!)
Can someone tell me just how did we ever manage to survive as a species without the government telling us what to say, eat, think? How did we ever survive with the concept of personal accountability? Taking responsibility for our choices and actions? Eeeeeeeeegad!
"Pardon me, Mr. Governor/President/Senator/nutcase, may I please go peepee now?" "Yes?" "Thank you - and when I'm done, may I wipe, please sir?" "Thank you, sir"
I fear it's going to come to this if WE don't put on the brakes and say NO.
posted by DoknowDocare at 03:40 P.M. EST on Mon Jun 12, 2006 #
I told everyone years ago this was the next big thing. It just took them slightly longer to get around to it than I initially thought. You can't turn on the news now without an obesity segment to heighten/fan the new media hysteria.
posted by Darkseid at 06:27 P.M. EST on Mon Jun 12, 2006 #
I honestly don't mind being taxed for things I enjoy, really.
I'm sure a tax like this will raise a bountiful abundance of revenue to bring Toledo out of it's hole.
But if you even think for minute that denying me my right to enjoy my taxed item by not allowing me to enjoy the item which I was taxed for for the benefit of the community in a privately-owned facility which also contributes to the community's coffers which entertains the enjoyment of my taxed item by forbidding my enjoyment of my taxed item with my enjoyment of another legal and taxed item because a group of self-righteous miscreants will not even be tolerated.
You're better off forbidding it's sale and use and not crippling a segment of society and forcing a bunch of people out of work.
And if I have to "request" permission to use any facility, you better break out that fire hose.
posted by BrianInFlorida at 07:34 P.M. EST on Mon Jun 12, 2006 #
HeyHey said: "I seriously doubt this one will be passed even with amendments."
Maybe not this year, but someday. Afterall, from the news story:
"Some U.S. cities and states already levy taxes on soft drinks or junk foods."
Which ones?
I know you don't want to, but look at France. Posting from August 2004:
"Starting in September 2005, vending machines will not be allowed in French schools. The French parliament took action on July 30 after reviewing the alarming statistics on youth obesity. Not only have they banned vending machines, but the new law also adds a tax on sugary alcoholic drinks and requires soft drink and junk food producers to choose between including a health warning on their televised advertisements and paying a tax equal to 1.5% of their advertising budget."
Remember the lawsuits against McDondald's? Those lawyers are just getting warmed up.
February 2004 posting about the 'twinkie tax.'
"Apparently unsatiated by their huge claims on booze and cigarettes, the tax police are planning a major snack attack. Potato chips, cookies, sodas, candy--a $30 billion-a-year business--are being targeted by more than a dozen revenue-starved states under the misguided impression that by charging a few extra cents per can or bag they can trim their budget deficits and encourage the rest of us to slim down."
posted by jr at 07:38 P.M. EST on Mon Jun 12, 2006 #
Olive Garden Fettucine Alfredo
DoKnow, take a jar of classico alfredo sauce, add garlic powder, parmesean cheese, italian cheese, and mozerella and simmer slowly until all the cheese is melted and let me tell you its WONDERFUL, it tastes just like the Olive Garden, except the next day, you know how Olive gardens sauce gets oily? this one wont. mmmm im hungry already.
posted by tm at 07:11 A.M. EST on Tue Jun 13, 2006 #
Yet another step of putting more government in our daily lives. When will enough be enough?
posted by MikeyA at 07:55 A.M. EST on Tue Jun 13, 2006 #
You know, in America you are supposed to be able to do whatever you wish, barring harming others or taking the property of others.
That was the point of the exercise. So if you want to drink pop and be fat - should be your own choice.
If a community wants to allow soda to be marketed to their kids, this also should be a local choice. Educators who make marketing agreements with companies who supply unhealthy foods to the students can be replaced.
There's no need for restriction through taxation. And that's what this is - a state level control through taxation where outright legislation would cause a backlash.
posted by katie82640 at 09:51 A.M. EST on Tue Jun 13, 2006 #
Yet another step of putting more government in our daily lives. When will enough be enough?
The AMA isn't part of the government, is it?
posted by pink_slip at 09:56 A.M. EST on Tue Jun 13, 2006 #
"Id rather be fat and happy than skinny and starving"
posted by tm at 09:57 A.M. EST on Tue Jun 13, 2006 #
I was wondering lately from prior investigations. What would the average cola taste like if the sugars were not added? I could brew up such a concoction myself and avoid such a tax. People brew their own beer and wine. My landlord used to brew wines; his equipment is still stockpiled in the basement.
I mean, I drink things like Malta Goya and ginger beer, so my palate is highly tolerant.
P.S. Murder Death Kill! "Demolition Man" was great. I especially liked the part where Stallone's character tried to go to the bathroom but "didn't know how to use the shells", so he just muttered things like "duck fucker" at the anti-swearing enforcement box, which issued him enough printed citations so that he finally had some toilet paper. I don't know why Ford didn't have some of those boxes installed; after all, any "Elegant City" would do so.
posted by GuestZero at 12:13 P.M. EST on Tue Jun 13, 2006 #
http://www.sodaclubusa.com/
I looked at making pop at one time. Demolitian Man is one of the all time greats.
posted by katie82640 at 12:45 P.M. EST on Tue Jun 13, 2006 #
The AMA isn't part of the government, is it?
The AMA can't issue taxes, can it?
posted by thenick at 03:55 P.M. EST on Tue Jun 13, 2006 #
no the AMA isn't a Federal agency. They are however a power lobby in DC. If they ask for a tax it would probably be entertained. Passed is another matter but it would surely be heard.
posted by katie82640 at 04:13 P.M. EST on Tue Jun 13, 2006 #
The ACS, AHA, and ALA aren't federal agencies, either, but they've gottten outrageous tobacco taxes and smoker bans/persecution passed, haven't they? If you have money and power, you therefore have influence, as the politicos will listen.
posted by Darkseid at 04:29 P.M. EST on Tue Jun 13, 2006 #
(ahem..cough...campaign contribution...)
posted by katie82640 at 06:56 P.M. EST on Tue Jun 13, 2006 #
It would appear the pop tax push may have failed...for now....however...
And, I see, it's my old friends, The Center For Science In The Public Interest (created by some friends of the Klintoons while they were in power)who are at the forefront. You know them-they're the ones resposible for destroying the taste of theatre popcorn (i will elaborate later on that if no one knows what I'm talking about).
-----------------------------------------
News provided by ClariNet
AMA Wants Warning Labels on High-Salt Food
Tuesday, 13-Jun-2006 9:50PM EDT Story from AP / LINDSEY TANNER
Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press (via ClariNet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press/AP Online
CHICAGO - The nation's largest doctors group is pushing for new warning labels. Only these labels aren't for drugs - they're for food.
The American Medical Association voted Tuesday to urge the government to require high-salt foods to be labeled and also vowed to push the food industry to drastically cut the amount of salt in restaurant and processed foods. The goal would be 50 percent less salt within a decade.
Americans eat almost twice the amount of salt they should, and that contributes to high blood pressure and heart problems, the AMA says.
Labels with pictures of salt shakers bearing the word "high" and red exclamation marks might help consumers think twice about eating high-sodium foods, suggested an AMA council report that led to the new policy.
Foods considered high in salt are those with more than 480 milligrams of sodium per serving, according to the AMA report. That includes hot dogs, some canned soups, a slice of packaged pepperoni pizza, an order of chicken chow mein and a cheeseburger, according to a food chart accompanying the council report.
On a voice vote, AMA delegates adopted the policy at their five-day annual meeting, which ends Wednesday.
The measure also calls for the AMA to ask the Food and Drug Administration to revoke salt's status as a food that is "generally recognized as safe," known as "GRAS" in the industry. GRAS food includes such staples as sugar and pepper.
The American Heart Association recommends limiting sodium intake to less than 2,300 milligrams daily, or less than about one teaspoon, but the average daily consumption among American adults is nearly double that amount, the report said.
The AMA report said there is overwhelming evidence that eating an excessive amount of salt is a risk factor for high blood pressure and may be an independent risk factor for other cardiovascular problems.
More than 30 percent of U.S. adults have high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease is the nation's leading cause of death.
"Ultimately, substantial cooperation among the government, the food industry, physicians and the nutrition community will be required to accomplish meaningful change," the report said.
The Food Products Association, a trade group for the food and beverage manufacturing industry, said the new policy is misguided.
"Why single out salt?" asked Robert Earl, the group's nutrition policy director. "A direct link between salt and negative cardiovascular outcomes is not as clear as some portray it to be."
He said existing food labels listing sodium content are sufficient for consumers to make healthy choices. Salt occurs naturally in some foods and is added to others to enhance taste and preserve freshness.
The AMA has considerable clout in Washington and an FDA spokesman said the group's stance on salt could lead the agency to consider holding hearings on the issue.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group, last year asked the FDA to revoke salt's status as a safe food. The group's executive director, Michael Jacobson, said the AMA action "adds very productively to the debate."
Makers of processed foods, restaurants and fast-food chains are all targets of the AMA's new policy. One of those, McDonald's Corp., did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the policy.
In other policies adopted Tuesday, the AMA:
-Vowed to push to end alcohol ads during college sports broadcasts as part of its campaign against underage drinking.
-Pledged to encourage federal action to ban people younger than age 18 from using tanning parlors, to help reduce teens' risks for skin cancer as they age.
-Rejected a measure asking it to lobby for a tax on sugar-sweetened sodas.
posted by Darkseid at 09:24 P.M. EST on Tue Jun 13, 2006 #
Just wait until the government finally gives us state healthcare/state health insurance.
Aside from having visits to the doctor be just as enjoyable as a trip to the BMV, I'm sure they'll either tax or ban bad foods along with alcohol and tobacco.
How is it the government's business what we eat?
posted by taliesin52 at 12:29 P.M. EST on Thu Jun 15, 2006 #
You people drinking coffee?
You're next. Trust me.
posted by BrianInFlorida at 03:25 P.M. EST on Thu Jun 15, 2006 #
In a great article, Walter Williams takes a look at the "slippery slope," using smoking as an example.
He says: "The point of this column is not to rekindle the smoking debate. That train has left the station. Instead, let's examine the template."
He postulates that the process which started with "no smoking in airplanes" incrementally led to such laws as the no smoking, even outside, in Calabassas, CA.
He takes a look at the "reasonable" restrictions that we started with in the '70s when it came to smoking and predicts that this incrementalism will be applied to other practices which are not good for you.
He concludes the article with this:
Diet decisions that people make are none of anybody else's business. Yes, there are untoward health outcomes from unwise dietary habits, and because of socialism, taxpayers have to pick up the bill. But if we allow untoward health outcomes from choices to be our guide for government intervention, then we're calling for government to intervene in virtually every aspect of our lives. Eight hours' sleep, regular exercise and moderate alcohol consumption are important for good health. Should government regulate those decisions?
He makes a valid point.
posted by MaggieThurber at 03:36 P.M. EST on Thu Jun 15, 2006 #
Gosh,
This cannot pass as is, the lawyers are not involved yet. When they do get involved, it will be a settlement instead of a tax and the law firms will get about 25 percent of the money and the world will be fine again.
Here in Hot Springs AR, our state rep wants to ban smoking by pregnant women. That is not unusual at all until you hear his reasons.
One, smokers have more health problems with their babies and two he questions if it is constitutional for pregnant women to smoke!
He might be better of wondering if it is constitutional for lawmakers to get so involved in people's private lives.
Everyone should be against this just because we are giving our rights away, one by one. Soon you will not have to worry about anything. A list of what you can do will be provided at birth.
posted by Purrfect at 11:25 P.M. EST on Fri Jun 16, 2006 #
This whole thing goes back to some point in time where we decided that we don't want to offend anyone. That there is a panacea where there are never any hurt feelings, misunderstandings, or teachings of personal responsibility.
In the 'olden' days you were taught by parents/grandparents/aunts/uncles about things that were polite and impolite. And if you delved into the impolite and got caught you got your butt warmed. It had nothing to do with Big Brother. My folks were enough to deal with - and if it got as far as my Grandpa I was a done deal!
But alas - now we are incapable of deciding our social behaviors because someone somewhere will get upset that we aren't living in their prescribed world. We can't decide whether or not to smoke, drink, eat fatty foods, etc.
Perhaps that AR rep would like to ban pregnant women from living in 2 story houses - after all they could fall down the stairs. Or perhaps they should have a tattoo on their foreheads that will fade in 9 months that would alert the folks at fast food places not to serve them, or keep them away from car races since the fumes could upset the apple cart, or.....
It's assinine. Pure and simple.
posted by DoknowDocare at 07:15 A.M. EST on Sat Jun 17, 2006 #
This is the result of the insurance market, and increasingly the socialism of medicine (through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs). With this type of healthcare we all pay for increased health utilization, so the people who don't drink, don't smoke, aren't obese, and don't race motorcycles are paying into the system at roughly the same rate as those that do. How fair is that? Why should I have to pay for the healthcare of some guy across the road who can't get over his addiction to tobacco or can't stop eating five hotdogs a day? There's no doubt anymore that those individuals use many more healthcare resources.
posted by HeyHey at 08:18 A.M. EST on Sat Jun 17, 2006 #
No doubt? Show us the sources. IF you can find an impartial source (doubtful). Ever see what smokers pay in taxes? It was supposed to pay for smoking-related health problems. I'll post some figures in a bit.
posted by Darkseid at 01:33 P.M. EST on Sat Jun 17, 2006 #
Are you seriously questioning that smokers and obese people don't run up higher healthcare costs over their lifetime than non-smokers and proper weight individuals? Do you also contend that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, heart disease, and strokes? Are you saying that obesity isn't a precursor to Type II diabetes and heart disease among others? Here are some actual PRIMARY sources for you. There's countless more out there:
The effects of obesity, smoking, and drinking on medical problems and costs:
"Obesity is associated with a 36 percent increase in inpatient and outpatient
spending and a 77 percent increase in medications, compared with a 21
percent increase in inpatient and outpatient spending and a 28 percent increase
in medications for current smokers and smaller effects for problem
drinkers."
Health Affairs 21(2) 245-253 2002
Neonatal health care costs related to smoking during pregnancy
"These results further confirm the adverse effects of smoking. Among mothers who smoke, smoking adds over $700 in neonatal costs. The smoking attributable neonatal costs in the US represent almost $367 million in 1996 dollars"
Health Economics 11(3) 193-206 January 2006
Hospitalisation and costs attributable to tobacco smoking in Australia: 2001–2002
(In Australia) in 2001–2002, almost 300 000 hospitalisations, costing $682 million, were attributable to cigarette smoking.
The Medical Journal of Australia 184(1) January 2006
posted by HeyHey at 03:40 P.M. EST on Sat Jun 17, 2006 #
Are you seriously questioning that smokers and obese people don't run up higher healthcare costs over their lifetime than non-smokers and proper weight individuals?
---------------------------------------------
Yes. My sisters are both obese, neither have ever had any problems. Age: one is forties, one in her sixties. It's only recently that being fat became an 'epidemic'. Because health organizations and the media said it was. My father smoked, and was 87 when he died. No more problems than the average elderly person. It's a bitch getting old, as you'll find out one day.
Do you also contend that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, heart disease, and strokes?
----------------------------------------------
It contributes, certainly, as does alcohol, work station, radiation, radon,genes, or anything else, but doesn't 'cause' it. Which is why many smokers live to be in their eighties or better without those problems. Also why many who don't smoke have, or die from, those same problems.
Are you saying that obesity isn't a precursor to Type II diabetes and heart disease among others?
--------------------------------------------
Same answer. It may contribute, but doesn't 'cause' it , nor is it a precursor ,in everyone.
Socialism is where you pay for everyone elses costs. We don't have that -yet, but it's coming. Go jog or ride your bike now. I'll look for those tax figures as I promised.
posted by Darkseid at 09:54 P.M. EST on Sat Jun 17, 2006 #
My sisters are both obese, neither have ever had any problems. Age: one is forties, one in her sixties.
They're extremely lucky.
[Smoking] contributes, certainly, as does alcohol, work station, radiation, radon,genes, or anything else, but doesn't 'cause' it. Which is why many smokers live to be in their eighties or better without those problems. Also why many who don't smoke have, or die from, those same problems.
Now you're splitting hairs. Antectotal evidence set aside, even a conservative estimate would place blame for 75% of all lung cancer cases on cigarettes. Wikipedia says 89% are caused by smoking.
Same answer. It may contribute, but doesn't 'cause' it , nor is it a precursor ,in everyone.
But that's exactly what a precursor is. And to claim obesity has little to do with Type II Diabetes, AKA Obesity-Related Diabetes, is just plain incorrect.
As any student of Quantum Mechanics will tell you, God rolls dice. Your family has not rolled snake eyes so far. Count yourselves lucky.
posted by thenick at 10:52 P.M. EST on Sat Jun 17, 2006 #
I'm going to be honest, what disturbs me most about this thread is the fact that so many TT members actually liked the cinematic abortion known as Demolition Man. Look at the "all star" cast: Sylvester Stallone, Wesley Snipes, and Sandra Bullock. That's a trifecta of suck.
Personally, I'd rather listen to the death rattle of my future first born child than sit through that movie again.
posted by thenick at 11:53 P.M. EST on Sat Jun 17, 2006 #
Darkseid,
As someone who has worked in cancer research labs and is now studying medicine....you have a fundamental misunderstanding of cancer. The cigs actually do cause cancer as does asbestos, ionizing radiation, UV radiation, and certain viruses. That does not mean that everyone who smokes will get lung cancer, just as everyone who is shot doesn't die. However, you wouldn't tell me that just because someone doesn't die from a gunshot wound that bullets aren't the cause of death in other people. And while we don't yet understand diabetes fully, it is clear that obesity actually causes type II diabetes in a certain percentage of people. Did you know that diabetics who undergo bariatric surgery for weight loss (hence a sudden loss of weight) are more likely than not to be "cured" of their diabetes? Nothing changed at all except their weight.
Anecdotal evidence proves nothing. I could tell you a stories about smokers that have died of lung cancer or heart disease. Those stories in and of themselves do not prove a link between smoking at all, just as an example of a smoker surviving without getting cancer doesn't prove there is no link. However, when you take an appropriately sized data set and look at rates of cancer it becomes very clear that smoking actually causes cancer.
posted by HeyHey at 12:13 A.M. EST on Sun Jun 18, 2006 #
Yeah, yeah, blah blah blah blah blah I should have guessedyou were in something related to the medical/health industry.
Go jog. Watch your weight. watch your cholesterol. Avoid salt (although I have myself for five years). Ride your bike. Lecture to others. Nothing's going to save you and you're still going to die. Redd Foxx used to say, "All these health freaks are going to feel funny someday, lying in the hospital dying of nothing".
posted by Darkseid at 01:25 A.M. EST on Sun Jun 18, 2006 #
Spongebob Squarepants indicted for Thoughtcrimes!
Off to room 1 with Spongebob, who will face days of torture at the hands of the health nazis for poisoning the Hitler Youth with unhealthy foods.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2005/nf20050217_6978_db042.htm
The Center for Science in the Public Interest says SpongeBob contributes to childhood obesity by hawking Kellogg's (K ) Pop Tarts, Kraft (KFT ) Macaroni & Cheese, Oscar Meyer Lunchables, in addition to cookies and fast food.
Lets take an inventory of the problems that face our young people today:
Anorexia, Bulemia, teen suicide, Crystal Meth, X, gang violence, guns and knives in schools, teen pregnancy, VD, unprotected sex, Columbine, drunk driving, binge drinking, and _______ (feel free to fill in the blank).
And what are the health nannies worried about? Ice Cream and Candy?
The meteor is getting close! I hear REM in the background singing "It's the End of the World (as We Know It).
posted by Darkseid at 02:08 A.M. EST on Sun Jun 18, 2006 #
thenick - you don't have to like a movie to appreciate a few good comments pertinent to the thread. But you're right - it wasn't very good.
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:34 A.M. EST on Sun Jun 18, 2006 #
I personally hated that movie. Even JUDGE DREDD was better. (phew) That's saying something. DEMO was a total waste of talent on both sides of the camera, IMO.
posted by Darkseid at 02:43 P.M. EST on Sun Jun 18, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
