Stimulus for Food Cops' Appetites

[Communist]

Bourgeois press article, interesting for a look at another relatively unknown part of the so-called Recovery Act.

______________________________

A Stimulus for Food Cops' Appetites (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/4108)
the Center for Consumer Freedom

(http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/4108) In case you missed it, we noted last week that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx) (an economic “stimulus” bill passed by Congress last year) includes hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to decrease the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/stateinitiatives.html).

New York (home of the self-anointed Big Apple food police (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4054-one-big-apple-with-extra-guilt-trip)) will receive $259,931 to “reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.” And $1,198,785 is earmarked for Colorado to, among other things, reduce soft drink consumption.

In other words, the federal government is using taxpayer dollars to tell taxpayers what not to buy. (Clearly, this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.)

It’s hard to see how this part of the “recovery” plan helps regular Americans get healthier.

For one, sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is not associated with youth weight gain, according to a growing body of academic research (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4028-soda-scam-goes-hollywood).

There are also serious doubts about the reliability (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4045-obesity-research-not-so-reliable) of contradictory research supposedly proving a “link” between soft drink consumption and obesity. So reducing consumption isn’t likely to have positive health effects.

These “recovery” grants may simply be a new food-police approach to the familiar goals of unpopular (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/r/296-consumer-group-to-governor-paterson-new-yorkers-dont-want-a-new-soda-tax) soft drink taxes— the supposed “solution” to the soda “crisis.” Both Colorado and New York are considering similar taxes. (One plan just squeaked through (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14414540) the Centennial State’s legislature.)

Both have drawn severe criticism—including a protest at an Empire State bottling plant (http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/Local-Coke-bottling-plant-to-protest-Sugar-Tax/KVk1cr8ysEWOorer8b37_g.cspx)—on the basis that the taxes will cost jobs by shrinking businesses. One estimate puts the job loss at up to 800 (http://www.statebillnews.com/2010/02/hb10-1191-senate-gop-ups-opposition-to-%E2%80%98twinkie-tax%E2%80%99/) in Colorado alone.

Federal government grants could have the same effect on employment if they were to actually succeed in their goal to reduce soft drink consumption. It’s hard to see how job loss fits into the feds’ plan for economic “stimulus.” Maybe the grants are just a way to help diet dictators “recover” from bingeing on heavy-handed naysaying—and stay gainfully employed.
________

[jake williams]

Are you fucking serious?

"The Centre for Consumer Freedom"

[FreeFocus]

While the particular measure is questionable (I don't think taxing soda is the answer), soda is garbage, I don't think that's up for debate. I used to be addicted to Mountain Dew for example, but it has no nutritional value and contains ingredients that contribute to bone deterioration and, yes, diabetes and related conditions.

[Axle]

Ah, mindless pro-business rhetoric: "Consume and be free".


So reducing consumption isn’t likely to have positive health effects.

Really? Reducing empty calories and lots of sugar isn't going to have health benefits?

[Sendo]

We can take an idealist stance and say it's our choice to harm ourselves with soda or a materialist and non-dogmatist outlook and realize that soda is harmful, the industry is morally bankrupt, we don't have perfect abundance and the industry is notoriously wasteful, and it's a health hazard--if America got healthier it would help the pleas for universal healthcare. One of the attacks on Sicko was the obvious liability factor of Michael Moore under such a system. While incredibly disproportionate and unfair, Michael Moore still worked to lose weight and I applaud him for that.

If freedom is being able to buy Coca-Cola or Pepsi and get diabetes, I'll take the commie olive jumpsuit and enjoy parties, sunlight and all those privileges that life gives.

[Revy]

The extra calories in regular soda can contribute to weight gain. Unless you're prepared to cut down on your food intake just to make room for empty sugar calories that you drink.

Also, it will contribute to tooth decay.

So yeah, it's bad.

[Sendo]

The extra calories in regular soda can contribute to weight gain. Unless you're prepared to cut down on your food intake just to make room for empty sugar calories that you drink.

Also, it will contribute to tooth decay.

So yeah, it's bad.

I think the USDA could cite this thread for its PSAs.
Inversely, so could the soft drink companies. "Look at these commie bastards saying you can't drink soda."

I wonder if this will have the effect of making people think critically about soda, react with anti-government pro-market feelings, both, or maybe just shrug their shoulders and deal with it just like people do for smokes, booze, and drugs.