Posted on 06/17/2002 11:35:21 AM PDT by Jean S
Look out, stomach, here it comes!
A tax on harmful foods is on its way. Packaged food manufacturers are running scared. Lawmakers are threatening action. Lawyers are poised to compel another giant transfer of wealth from your pockets to theirs.
We've teased about a fast-food tax for years and wondered when the nation's attorneys general would take on McDonald's and Pillsbury. The joke is becoming reality.
Writing last week in the Wall Street Journal, Shelly Branch and Jill Carroll attempt to answer the question posed in this headline: "Is Food the Next Tobacco?"
The signs are there. Obesity may soon pass tobacco as the leading cause of preventable deaths. The surgeon general warned last year that obesity is epidemic. Food manufacturers are becoming proactive in the fight against fat -- even as they sell more fattening foods.
Obesity is blamed for 300,000 American deaths and $117 billion in health care costs in 2000. Fat citizens have pushed up average spending for hospital and outpatient care by $395 per obese patient. The portion of Americans considered "overweight" has crossed the 50 percent mark, while the number considered to be "obese" has topped 20 percent.
In 1999, 14 percent of teen- agers were overweight, compared to 5 percent in the late 1970s. For children ages 6 to 11, the numbers are 13 percent and 7 percent, respectively.
America has indeed put on pounds. Since the government plays a major role in feeding the country (school lunches, commodities, food stamps) and paying for health care (Medicare, Medicaid), government involvement in weight reduction is inevitable.
A tax on the food most vulnerable to a crackdown is now being seriously discussed. This would be the edibles in what humorist Dave Barry calls "the patty group" of foods -- burgers, fries, tacos, fried chicken, etc. Taxing these items will strain the family food budget and raise money for government programs. Relax, though, it's "for the children." Sound familiar?
Lawyers will enter the picture as soon as the government paves the way. Litigation to recover money spent by Medicaid programs to treat obesity- related illness will go forth. Attorneys will get their share, some of which will go back into the campaigns of politicians (mostly Democrats) who orchestrate the crackdown. Sound familiar?
Food manufacturers are fighting the trend, but all it will take is several years of demonizing the corporate citizens who feed this country. The way will be cleared for Americans to accept and even demand that Big Food be made to pay for its sins.
But who really pays? In the case of the crackdown on Big Tobacco, smokers are paying, putting money into government coffers and law firm bank accounts. In the case of food, everybody who eats will pay more for everything they eat as the cost of litigation, jury verdicts and settlements are spread throughout the food chain.
The litigation stream is already flowing. McDonald's has settled a suit claiming it misrepresented its french fries as having no association with animal fat. Packaged food companies are nervous enough that they're promoting a more healthful diet -- just as cigarette makers pay for anti-smoking ads.
Some might disagree, but no food is as addictive as is tobacco. It will thus be more difficult to make the case that food manufacturers are deliberately killing people. But that doesn't mean the case won't be made.
As long as there's a buck in it for the lawyers, the crusade against Happy Meals will go forth.
There, now you see this person won't be smoking, drinking, doing drugs, or overeating. Also, this model has the additional capability of being used as a seatbelt, without the trouble of asking telling people to "click it or ticket"
This model citizen won't be doing anything to harm himself or others, and he won't be driving up the cost of socialist state sponsored health care.
This public service announcement brought to you by the Republicrats of the US, a subdivision of Mommy, Inc.
That should get the public's attention despite a media that desperately wants to avoid reporting on the protest.
Parasitical Elite vs. Prosperity Creators
If civilization had to chose between business/science and government/bureaucracy, eliminating the other, which is the better choice?
The first thing civilization must have is business/science. It's what the family needs so that its members can live creative, productive, happy lives. Business/science can survive, even thrive without government/bureaucracy.
Government/bureaucracy cannot survive without business/science. In general, business/science and family is the host and government/bureaucracy is a parasite.
Aside from that, keep valid government services that protect individual rights and property. Military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today.
Underwriters Laboratory is a private sector business that has to compete in a capitalist market. Underwriters laboratory is a good example of success where government fails.
Any government agency that is a value to the people and society could better serve the people by being in the private sector where competition demands maximum performance.
Wake up! They are the parasites. We are the host. We don't need them. They need us.
It doesn't.
DO NOT $UPPORT THE MORALLY UN$UPPORTABLE!
FMCDH
Excuse me while I light up a twinkie...
It probably won't, it will settle out of court like the tobacco companies did.
FMCDH...do not $upport the morally un$upportable...& keep yer powder dry!
FMCDH
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.