Ask Me Help Desk - The Coming Food Wars

The Coming Food Wars

Hello:

ALL of us can feel the rumblings of this coming war. This one is shaping up to be like the war on cigarettes. Or, at least I hope so. We WON that war.

This one is going to be tougher. The direct link between tobacco use and death is clear. It's NOT so clear that empty calories contribute, or are DIRECTLY responsible, for our epidemic of obesity..

Yes, it's VERY nanny state to prevent people from buying HUGE, LARGE cups of sugary empty calories, but we ALL pay the cost when obese people get sick, so why ISN'T it our business?

Here's the problem. Healthy foods are MUCH more expensive than empty calorie food. Secondly there are what's called "food deserts" in the poor neighborhoods... That means, even IF a poor family wanted to feed their kids healthy foods, there are NO STORES in their neighborhoods to shop at. Whole Foods does NOT have stores in the hood, and even if they did, nobody would shop there because it's TOO expensive.

So, the problem is NOT about lousy poor people who don't love their kids, but it's a STRUCTURAL problem that is easily fixed.

Finally, if fruits and vegetables were subsidized like sugar, corn, soybeans and wheat, they WOULDN'T be so much more expensive... That's another easy fix.

What are we waiting for?

excon

Time to take off the Tin foil hat.

http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/ima...hat_shazam.png

Hello smoothy:

I should have said SOME of us can feel the rumblings. It's true, smootho, I AM a few years ahead of you..

excon

These same people that "don't have money for good food" somehow seem to have money for expensive shoes and jackets they create a sport in killing each other to steal from one another... and it happens every day.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? THEY buy the food.. THEY cook the food... THEY have control over what they buy and cook...

Frozen vegis beat cheese puffs and gummi bears... and they are cheaper... but like crap for brains Bloomberg learned... its not his job to play food cop.

All of that sounds nice but what you're really trying to do is regulate behavior. You don't want anyone telling you not to smoke a doobie, but you're fine with saying I can't have a Big Gulp.

Hello again, smoothy:

Let's, for a minute, pretend you're right.. Since WE pay for their medical costs, would it be cheaper for us to intervene IN FRONT, or just continue paying the bills?

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Let's, for a minute, pretend you're right.. Since WE pay for their medical costs, would it be cheaper for us to intervene IN FRONT, or just continue paying the bills?

excon

They shouldn't get a welafre check... or anything else until they have been sterilized... so they don't continue to breed. If they can't properly feed themselves... they shouldn't be having any more kids.

We do it to pets because it's the humane way to control strays... time to apply it the non-productive part of the population.

Hello Steve:

Quote:

but you're fine with saying I can't have a Big Gulp.

I'm for choice. If we LEVELED the playing field, the free market MIGHT have a chance to work.

You SAY I want to stop you from drinking a Big Gulp, but since we SUBSIDIZE corn, the main sweetener in your Big Gulp, it looks like the government is ENCOURAGING you to drink one. I'd be happy with the government being OUT of the equation, ENTIRELY.

I'm just looking for the free market to work... What's wrong that?

excon

For what it's worth ;I oppose subsidizing... period . But what do you have against soy beans ? Soy is healthy . Judge Tingling called nanny-bloomy's dictates arbitrary and capricious . You do realize of course that straight up fruit juice is also loaded with sugary calories ? It just isn't cain sugar or corn sugar. So what you are really for is for the government to enforce portion control in everyone's diet.

I will also like to mention that Bloomy's conclusions weren't scientificly based . For the last 10 year period ,purchase and consumption of sugary soft drinks declined 12.5% while obesity rates went up. People more often have been consuming water and sugar substitutes (much worse than sugar in my humble opinion) . What they didn't do was stop eating carbs and other high calorie foods. Sugar beverages like sodas, juice drinks, sports drinks, and teas account for only 7% of calories in the average American diet. 93% of calories come from other foods and beverages.
During a more sober moment ,Nanny Bloomy once told David Letterman "I think that it is incumbent on government to tell people what they're doing to themselves and let people make their own decisions" . He was right then.He was wrong to try to impose it on his city .

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

I'm for choice. If we LEVELED the playing field, the free market MIGHT have a chance to work.

You SAY I want to stop you from drinking a Big Gulp, but since we SUBSIDIZE corn, the main sweetener in your Big Gulp, it looks like the government is ENCOURAGING you to drink one. I'd be happy with the government being OUT of the equation, ENTIRELY.

I'm just looking for the free market to work... What's wrong that?

excon

Since you're a businessman you open a store in a food desert. Set the example.

Or go to San Fran and open a Micky D's... for an extra 10 cent charge ,parents can buy a toy with the happy meal!

1. I continue to gain weight without consuming a single sugary soft drink or patronizing fast food places or any eateries. I just eat too much in my sedentary 60s, a lot of it ice cream - want to limit checkout to one half gallon? What if I went shopping again the next day?

2. It's a fallacy to say that it costs extra to eat a healthy diet. I agree about the grocers in poor neighborhoods, but I don't shop at Whole Foods, just a regular Stop and Shop, and it's full of healthy food. I can challenge anyone to a month of my healthy picks vs theirs and still be cheaper. My meals won't include prime rib and asparagus, but I will leave out the hot dogs and air bread.

3. There's only so much regulation of healthy habits for the good of the taxpayer. Definitely stop those damn corn subsidies and let the consumer buy all the crap he wants. Handle nutrition in the school cafeterias - those are paid for by us.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

Since you're a businessman you open a store in a food desert. Set the example.

I don't know what you missed or don't understand about the government subsidizing empty calorie food.

Ok, here's what it means... From a business standpoint, trying to sell NON subsidized foods in competition with GOVERNMENT subsidized foods is a loser. That's WHY nobody is doing that. IF the playing field were LEVELED, then I MIGHT just do that.

Excon

If its subsidized... why do Cheetos and Doritos cost so damn much?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno what you missed or don't understand about the government subsidizing empty calorie food.

Ok, here's what it means... From a business standpoint, trying to sell NON subsidized foods in competition with GOVERNMENT subsidized foods is a loser. That's WHY nobody is doing that. IF the playing field were LEVELED, then I MIGHT just do that.

excon

Is that why milk is $6.00 a gallon, the government is leveling the playing field?

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

Is that why milk is $6.00 a gallon, the government is leveling the playing field?

If and when the government STOPS subsidizing dairy products, your gallon of milk will cost $12.00.

For a right winger, you really don't understand how markets work. Uhhh, by subsidizing milk, the government ISN'T leveling the playing field.. It's TILTING the market in favor of dairy farmers.

Excon

I think we need to make a distinction between "subsidized " and "price supports" . Price supports if I understand them makes the foods from the commodity more expensive for the consumer . That is why milk would cost so much.

But then Speech makes an interesting point . As I understand it ,cane and corn are price support commodities . That means consumers are paying more than what they would if the free market price prevailed . Corn as an example has had it's price rise considerably since the government discovered they could corrode the internal combustion engine with a corn derivitave . I guess the justification is that without the price support then farmers couldn't make a profit and we'd have to import sugar instead of growing it domestically.. To that I say "so what ? "

I pay just over $3.00 a gallon for milk where I buy it..

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

If and when the government STOPS subsidizing dairy products, your gallon of milk will cost $12.00.

For a right winger, you really don't understand how markets work. Uhhh, by subsidizing milk, the government ISN'T leveling the playing field.. It's TILTING the market in favor of dairy farmers.

excon

The problem with the dairy cliff was that price supports would go to 1949 levels and that is why the price was going to go up . The price of milk is in fact artificially high .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

Hello again,

Call 'em price supports, or subsidies.. It doesn't matter. The bottom line is, the GOVERNMENT is manipulating the market, and the FOOD industry is the beneficiary. I simply suggest that if they DIDN'T do that, healthy food MIGHT be made more available. In fact, I PROMISE you that it will. That IS how markets work, after all.

excon

Ohhhh.. the evil Government is actually prohibiting healthy food from being sold in entire regions...

Yet these are the very same people you want to have complete control over your health care?

And those subsidies are tilting the market in favor of large corporate farms, not the family farmer it was intended to help. More of those unintended consequences libs can't seem to get enough of.

You'd think that all that corporate farm welfare would have your panties in a wad, why should we be giving some multi-billion dollar corporation taxpayer dollars to keep their profits up - or not to farm at all?

Hello again, smoothy:

Quote:

Ohhhh.. the evil Government is actually prohibiting healthy food from being sold in entire regions...

**GREENIE**

Excon

Helllo again, righty's:

When the government tilts the market, it's creating winners and losers... I thought right wingers HATED when the government did that. Guess not, huh?

excon

Joy was quite correct in saying that health food is no more costly than any other food . Carrots, onions, pinto beans, lettuce, mashed potatoes, bananas and orange juice are all less expensive per portion than soft drinks, ice cream, chocolate candy, French fries, sweet rolls and deep-fat fried chicken patties and other processed foods .
Low-Cost Healthy Foods: USDA Report Finds Healthy Food Is Cheaper Than Junk Food | TIME.com

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

And those subsidies are tilting the market in favor of large corporate farms, not the family farmer it was intended to help. More of those unintended consequences libs can't seem to get enough of.

I've had enough. You seem to be having trouble with me AGREEING with you.

Excon

We can start by eliminating the Ethanol subsidy... that makes food available for humans again. And your car, motorcycle and lawn tools will ALL appreciate the change. Ethanol is NOT kind on internal combustion anything.

So are you arguing for or against subsidies, it's hard to tell?

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

So are you arguing for or against subsidies, it's hard to tell?

I'm AGAINST subsidies that favor big business at the EXPENSE of the consumer. And, I'm FOR subsidies that favor the people OVER big business.

Tom asked earlier, what exactly is included in the word "subsidy"? It's a good question... I've told the story about how, in the beginning, the markets were fair. Then a failing businessman called up his congressman and suggested that the congressman pass a law to make it easier for the failed businessman to make money.. And, the congressman DID...

Once those floodgates were open, COMPETITION was OUT, and BRIBING your congressman was IN.

Frankly, I liked it BETTER when the government didn't involve itself in those matters. So, I don't like ANY subsidy that distorts markets. That would INCLUDE, of course, the handout the government gives to YOU to convince you to buy your home.

Excon

He's for handing money to Liberals and minorities and businesses that should be allowed to fail... but not conservatives or successful businesses.

I think a lot of people on welfare are conservatives, and not just lazy minorities. I think a lot of rich people are on welfare, and not just liberals. Would farms and oil survive in a free market without subsidies? Lets find out. Can people buy a house without subidies? Lets find that out too!

You can't have a free market with just supply side, and no demand, no circulation, and NO RULES that apply to everybody. You want a free market solution to affordable anything? Read that last sentence again.

Bloomy had good intentions but his implementation sucked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I think a lot of people on welfare are conservatives, and not just lazy minorities. I think a lot of rich people are on welfare, and not just liberals. Would farms and oil survive in a free market without subsidies? Lets find out. Can people buy a house without subidies? Lets find that out too!

You can't have a free market with just supply side, and no demand, no circulation, and NO RULES that apply to everybody. You want a free market solution to affordable anything? Read that last sentence again.

Bloomy had good intentions but his implementation sucked.

Lets end the housing subsidies, baby subsidies (welfare based on head count) and food stamps that Obama has made a hallmark of his presidency. See who's paty suffers worse... I'm willing to take that chance. Are the Democrats?

I am, you go first. Then we let the voters decide. Those are the rules under the Constitution. You got a problem with voting? Of course you probably do. You still think 5 million people cheated your guy in the last election.

But none of that talk about government support really addresses the issue. I've already shown that health food is no more expensive than junk food. The issue is much more complex. I think the real issue is the culture of convenience. It's just easier to run into a fast food place or a grocery store ,and grab packages of prepared meals ;wrapped to go ,or microwave ready .

A recent study by the' Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine,University of Minnesota Medical School' found that frequency of fast-food intake was found to be significantly associated with age , gender ,and marital status of the participants .Additionally, frequency of fast-food intake was also found to be significantly associated with perceived convenience of fast food, and dislike toward cooking ,but not with perceived unhealthfulness of fast food.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

but none of that talk about government support really addresses the issue. I've already shown that health food is no more expensive than junk food. The issue is much more complex. I think the real issue is the culture of convenience. It's just easier to run into a fast food place or a grocery store ,and grab packages of prepared meals ;wrapped to go ,or microwave ready .

A recent study by the' Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine,University of Minnesota Medical School' found that frequency of fast-food intake was found to be significantly associated with age , gender ,and marital status of the participants .Additionally, frequency of fast-food intake was also found to be significantly associated with perceived convenience of fast food, and dislike toward cooking ,but not with perceived unhealthfulness of fast food.

Yeah in talking to real people I have found that single females with kids and a low wage job don't have time to cook a proper meal, especially add to that weird hours, and high gas and babysitters, they are priced out of the markets anyway.

I guess Mickey D's looks good after a hard day and 2 hungry kids. I totally agree with the complexity of the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I am, you go first. Then we let the voters decide. Those are the rules under the Constitution. You got a problem with voting? Of course you probably do. You still think 5 million people cheated your guy in the last election.

Really? Where in the constitution is there a right to foodstamps, subsidized housing and welfare? I had that in Civics and I was really good in that class...

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Yeah in talking to real people I have found that single females with kids and a low wage job don't have time to cook a proper meal, especially add to that weird hours, and high gas and babysitters, they are priced out of the markets anyway.

I guess Mickey D's looks good after a hard day and 2 hungry kids. I totally agree with the complexity of the issue.

Then you will find it further complicated to know that it has nothing to do with income.

Hello again, tom:

It's true.. My focus on subsidies is but one small part. I didn't think we'd solve it here... There are MANY components, and there's plenty of fault to go around.. I'm not looking to place blame. I want to FIX it. The first thing we need to do, is AGREE that we have a problem.. I don't see much agreement...

excon

Maybe if we spent more time teaching kids to cook and less time teaching comprehensive sex ed they might eat healthier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Maybe if we spent more time teaching kids to cook and less time teaching comprehensive sex ed they might eat healthier.

They really aren't doing a very good job on the sex ed part either based on a lot of the posts on this site.