Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 03/17/2010 12:32:18 PM PDT by presidio9
Is soda the new tobacco?
In their critics’ eyes, producers of sugar-sweetened drinks are acting a lot like the tobacco industry of old: marketing heavily to children, claiming their products are healthy or at worst benign, and lobbying to prevent change. The industry says there are critical differences: in moderate quantities soda isn’t harmful, nor is it addictive.
The problem is that at roughly 50 gallons per person per year, our consumption of soda, not to mention other sugar-sweetened beverages, is far from moderate, and appears to be an important factor in the rise in childhood obesity. This increase is at least partly responsible for a rise in what can no longer be called “adult onset” diabetes — because more and more children are now developing it.
Attention is being paid: Last week, the Obama administration announced a plan to ban candy and sweetened beverages from schools. A campaign against childhood obesity will be led by the first lady, Michelle Obama. And a growing number of public health advocates are pushing for even more aggressive actions, urging that soda be treated like tobacco: with taxes, warning labels and a massive public health marketing campaign, all to discourage consumption.
A tax on soda was one option considered to help pay for health care reform (the Joint Committee on Taxation calculated that a 3-cent tax on each 12-ounce sugared soda would raise $51.6 billion over a decade), and President Obama told Men’s Health magazine last fall that such a tax is “an idea that we should be exploring. There’s no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda.”
But with all the junk food and U.F.O.’s (unidentifiable food-like objects) out there, why soda? Why a tax? And, most important, would it work?
To the beverage industry,
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
A tax on soda? Against it.
But I’d like to see the tariffs on sugar removed as well. It’s those sugar tariffs, which the corn industry likes, that cause the price of sugar to be expensive in the US, which causes food / soda manufacturers to use the artifically cheaper hfcs to real sugar.
The article seems to be ignoring hfcs.
Thanks for the ping!
When you are popping up to CT make sure you do not purchase bottled water, there's a AGW sin-tax of 5 cents per water bottle (bottle bills make states fat)
Take the side streets so you don't pay the toll.
PepsiCo just admitted that they are 'killing children' and have self-banned selling high calorie beverages in schools across the globe. This just laid the groundwork for taxation across the board on high calorie foods and drink. A company first needs to admit their problem and then the government moves in to reap the benefits - This happened with Big-Tobacco. PepsiCo, like Philip Morris, will now be a partner in government policies. They are the first to embrace the Nanny-state and will be rewarded.
Coca Cola, on the other hand, have stated that they will allow the school systems to make the choices of consumption for their 'little ones'. That is a sound corporate policy, but not one that the government will be able to manage as they see fit.
The precedence has been set by PepsiCo to work in lock-step with the government edicts - Government be Praised! It will be the policy of the land for these 'dangerous' food substances.
'It's for the Childrun''(hint) we are all childrun' in the eyes of the government (where did that 'little bugger' hide that piggy bank?)
“producers”
Evildoers that need to be demonized....
Who is John Galt?
“Well, there is no such thing as second hand soda, so I’m not sure how far the analogy will go.”
It will go as far as the communists want to take it. The “secondhand” argument was nothing more than an enabling weapon to usurp private property rights. They are more than willing to utilize the same weapons to further infringe on individual liberty.
Many FReepers celebrated the use of these weapons and now their throats will be slit with them. They can’t say they weren’t warned.
I've been drinking diet soda since 1985. Usually it is four or five a day. More in the summer.
I cannot stand sugared soda. It's thick and sticky and sickening. It's all what you get used to, I guess.
Like most all synthetics, when they get into humans bad things happen.
With this specific synthetic, it disables Leptin, the hormone that tells you to stop eating and drinking (the "I'm full" feeling), and to make matters worse it increases the function of Grelin (gerrrrr, the I'm hungry hormone).
But wait, there's more, your tax dollars help this delicious poison "compete" in the marketplace, nice , eh?
Well, perhaps there's some good news, the word is getting out big time on this corpo-villain, there may be legal action akin to the tobacco circus.
But, then again folks still smoke.
Next comes taxes on meat and bottled water.
What was once jokes and satire based on some dystopic future is now our reality.
Thanks to all the “conservatives” who supported Legal segregation of the freedom of assembly of a group of citizens who wanted to gather in a establishment you enter voluntarily.
The “conservatives” didn’t want any choice on part of the property owners, instead drooling and salivating over State enforced diktats.
Now, a pox on them all.
The Chickens have come home to Roost.
Yes it all goes back to letting black people eat at Woolworths. How enlightened!
As Cheney said.
Go worship your statist god.
Numbnut.
No, it is about banning smoking in bars where employers and customers entered voluntarily into a private establishment.
Now, do you support banning sodas or do you hate kids too.
I am not a believer in the dangers of secondhand smoke. Sorry if I gave the impression that I am.
I just think secondhand soda damage will be a harder sell, that’s all.
I apologize if my post was acusatory. I did not intend for that. That said, my point is that there is no need for a “second hand soda” argument. People already willingly gave the government dictatorial power over private property, in fact it was celebrated by many on this very discussion board. Now that we have made it over that hurdle, it is a very short jump to full dictatorial control over what we ingest.
Looks like the pending “Health” Bill is going to pass.
The caterwauling that’ll accompany its provisions will be something to behold. It will a lot of noise and fury, signifying nothing, though.
Unfortunately, the principle and precedent of Health Uber Alles is now deeply ingrained in our society and mindset.
Health has become the organizing and guiding principle of our land, archaic 18th Century notions of liberty and property be damned.
At least some of us will have a good laugh.
PS: When they banned smoking on airlines in the USA, the legistation was passed using reconciliation in Clinton’s first two years. Remember, that was when Hillary instituted a ban in the WH.
Touch my Diet Coke and DIE, lawmakers.
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.