CKA Forums
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/

Government has no right to tax or ban junk food
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/editorial-discussions-f113/government-has-no-right-to-tax-or-ban-junk-food-t57382-15.html
Page 2 of 3

Author:  boflaade [ Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

Kids have to be monitered as to what they eat, but how? Schools offering junk food and parents giving them the cash to buy it. Do kids even walk anymore? It seems they need a ride to their friends place three doors away so they can sit and play video games. The parents blame everyone else when their kid becomes a fat slob. Fast food joints have been around for many generations but now, today there seems to be a problem.

Author:  Ed Deak [ Thu Sep 29, 2005 9:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

I've never smoked pot, never took drugs, don't eat junk foods and detest all and the people who push any of it.

However, if this guy claims that the eating of junk food is a personal choice for personal gratification etc, then why not permit the smoking of pot, or opium dens, the free sale of drugs like heroin, or this new meth something kids are dying for and from? After all, they're also personal choices.

I don't think junk foods will ever be banned, because they're a good part of the GDP, as is also the fixing of the damage they cause, plus the junkfood companies may be big donors to the free enterprise parties and as we've seen on a number of occasions, this makes them immune from prosecution.

By the way, when we talk about damage caused to humans by junkfoods and drugs, let us also mention that 9,000 Canadians and 100,000 Americans, about the same percentage on both sides, are killed every year by medical drugs prescribed by doctors. Almost happened to my wife once, about 40 yrars ago, after a dentist gave her something that contained codeine, which turned out to be almost deadly for her.

This is why the drug companies are so anxious to ban vitamins and other healthfoods ? I never heard of anybody having been killed by healthfoods. Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

Author:  Brother Jonathan [ Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

<p>Ed,</p> <blockquote>if this guy claims that the eating of junk food is a personal choice for personal gratification etc, then why not permit the smoking of pot, or opium dens, the free sale of drugs like heroin, or this new meth something kids are dying for and from? After all, they’re also personal choices.</blockquote> <p>if he be a dyed-in-the-wool Libertarian, then he <i>would</i> advocate legalising such personal choices. (The Libertarian reasoning behind this viewpoint, warts and all, can be found <a href="http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#warondru">here</a>.)</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

Author:  4Canada [ Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:25 am ]
Post subject: 

Banning junk food? That's hillarious. Where do you draw the lines on this? How much of what we are eating is actually "good-for-us" food? How many hormones and steroids and GMOs are in the veggies, grains and meat we are eating? What right does any government have to ban or tax anything considering how much we subsidize the companies that are putting this artificial junk in our so called nutritious food?

And I agree with Ed about the prescription drug problem we have as well. Sometimes I just wish people would be allowed to live without other people guilting them out for the small stuff. Christ, go after the companies that are REALLY doing us harm like the Monsantos and Exxons and Lockheed Martins. It's the same as going after the smokers rather than the smelters, pulp mills and oil companies.

People need to be able to be responsible for their own lives and what they are doing with them. Otherwise we just encourage a Big Brother lifestyle. I don't want that kind of life and I don't think people really understand that that is exactly what is being considered by banning what people eat. In primary schools I think there can be some caution taken in putting machines in schools, but once kids are in junior high forget it. Freedom, FREEDOM, FREEDOM, anyone going to miss that?

---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

Author:  Darna [ Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:23 am ]
Post subject: 

Brother J: in case you're not aware, try stevia rebaudiana. There are 11 species / variations of stevia and guess what... 10 of 11 are bitter in some way or not the most pleasant to most people. Rebaudiana is the mildest of them all. Unfortunately, manufacturers eager to cash in on it have used the other species.. why? It's easier to grow and the process costs less. But, I very much agree, it doesn't have that caramelly taste, which I love about brown sugar... oh well.

---
"I think we agree, the past is over." Appointed POTUS, George W. Bush

Author:  Guest [ Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:16 am ]
Post subject: 

<blockquote>Sorry - but I've seen the documentary "Big Sugar" all this week on the CBC</blockquote> Don't ban sugar per se. DO ban the process by which all the nutrients are removed, which leaves ONLY the poison behind. And do this with all foods. NO white bread, no iodized salt, no sterilized milk.............. <p>All of these processes are done just to incrase the so-called "shelf life" of products. With today's "just on time" delivery systems, we don't need to rely on 100 year old technology.</p> But if we actually BANNED certain comestibles, all we would create is a black market for them.

Author:  Guest [ Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

Any excuse for the government to pass new taxes onto the poor they will go for.

Author:  Guest [ Fri Sep 30, 2005 11:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

>>Industry DRIVES the government<<

Truer words were never spoken. Look what Canada's doing with GMO's. We're all eating 'em. Unless we buy only certifed organic foods, we're crap that Europe and Australia refuse to accept. Maybe there's nothing wrong with GMOs, or maybe some of them are going to turn out VERY unhealthy in the long run. We really don't know. Most of us don't even know we're eating them, since the government refuses to create GMO labelling laws. I wonder what Monsanto paid them to keep us in the dark?

I really resent being a guinea pig in food safety research. What happened to informed consent?

Author:  DL [ Sat Oct 01, 2005 5:41 am ]
Post subject: 

Good points, lis2005. Also saw "Big Sugar", and will never look at sugar the same way again. Too true about the elementary schools peddling junk and I've seen two years olds who sing "lovin it" everytime they see the arches from the highway. Advertising is not for children, for those who have an ounce of personal integrity. Junk food and corporate advertising have no place in hospitals or schools, and yet someone sleepwalked them through the front door. Hot lunch at my daughters school offers "canteen" where for a dollar they can choose between hotdogs, juice, licorice, ring pops, pop, chips, bars, etc.. What a choice for children as young as five.

Author:  Guest [ Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:15 am ]
Post subject: 

GMO food is very bad. Messing about with the genes created new proteins that didnt exist before. Since your body cannt process it, its poisonous, and it will mess up your liver and kidneys. Also, they don't just tweak it a bit, to make the fruit taste better, they splice in other random genes. Its insane. Organic food tastes better anyways. If EVERYONE would buy and demand organic produce, the market for that crap would fall apart. Sadly to many people are ill informed, and 'Organic" food seems like some new fad, when in reality is the way we have been growing our food for thousands of years.

Blame marketting. If Mcdonalds was banned from advertising, they would fall apart globally within 2 months.
Someone needs to do it. Without the specially tailored commericals, designed to get people (espeically children) to crave their food. Without advertising, you would only have the experience of the shitty food to rely on, so without the constant ad bombardment, you would no longer crave it.

Author:  Guest [ Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:17 am ]
Post subject: 

I totally agree with you. People need to be more informed. Rather than banning junk food, we should just ban them from advertising on mass media. I think that would allow the problem of thier existence to fix its self.

Author:  Brother Jonathan [ Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:08 pm ]
Post subject: 

<p>Anonymous,</p> <blockquote>Since your body can’t process it, it’s poisonous, and it will mess up your liver and kidneys.</blockquote> <p>are you sure about that? Our bodies can’t process insoluble fibre, but that doesn’t make it poisonous, or toxic to livers and kidneys.</p> <blockquote>If EVERYONE would buy and demand organic produce, the market for that [GMO] crap would fall apart.</blockquote> <p>As long as retail price is the primary consideration for most North American food purchasers, inexpensive GMO crap will remain in demand.</p> <blockquote>Blame marketing.</blockquote> <p>Marketing is a two-way street. Without eyeballs to absorb the message, advertisements are inert. If you don’t appreciate the particular commercial content of a given medium, let its management know and stop watching/listening/reading/subscribing until your concerns have been met.</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

Author:  mk [ Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

... it's the nouns.

When you crave something, does your inner monologue say "I sure could go for a burger and fries right now?" or "I sure could go for McDonald's right now?" The merciless, reptilian, value-neutral hypothalamus has been taught a few words, and they are often private trademarks.

Has there been such a study? Take a control group of kids screaming for McDonald's to a restaurant that does not look like McDonald's, whose packaging is dissimilar from McDonald's, but which serves the kids McDonald's food. Is the desire satiated? I would suspect, in many cases, no.

Ban junk food? "Junk" food has been around a lot longer than the obesity epidemic, as has the ability to eat oneself obese.

Advertising, especially the modern forms, seeks ways to circumvent those more advanced brain centres capable of skepticism, temperance and self interest. It can be regulated to a degree, but never to any acceptable totality (for various reasons, ingenuity being a primary one). Education has not evolved in similar fashion: the tools for adequate defense are not being provided, they are barely nurtured if at all. So much for free will and individualism: the brand culture exploits natural collectivist tendancies as much as any approach to governing the will of others.

How's that? Liberal(TM)? Conservative(TM)? Libertarian(TM)? Socialist(TM)? Hateful-Canuckistanian(TM)?

Author:  Brother Jonathan [ Sun Oct 02, 2005 3:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

<p>… Let’s Tax the Nouns!™</p> <p>My hypothalamus must be less developed, since my cravings tend to go towards basic taste directions, e.g. <i>something salty</i>, <i>something sweet</i>, <i>something umami</i>, &c.</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

Author:  Dr Caleb [ Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

+1 for using "umami" in correct context ;)


---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB ©