Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Remember that Omnibus bill with the 10,000 earmarks that 0bama signed in 2009? Well buried in that bill was a process where the feds will be coming to take away your Girl Scout Cookies. Well, not exactly taking them away, but forcing the manufactures to make changes to the recipe to make them healthy cookies.
I'm sure you liberal drones on the left will claim that we should be happy that someone is looking out for our health, I mean ... who wants to eat unhealthy food? We have nutrition labels on packaged food, we can read it for ourselves and make our own choices on what we eat. These tyrants want to remove freedom of choice, and decide for us what they think we should be allowed to eat.
When the First Lady lobbied the US congress to regulate children's school lunches, the people on the left made the argument that the feds were only making sure our taxpayer dollars for school lunches were be going to quality food for our kids. I said that these busy-bodies would not be satisfied with regulating just school lunches, they craved power and control and they would expand their reach.
My point was that these people were obsessed with controlling us, and they would not stop with school lunches. So here we are, federal bureaucrats are now telling food manufactures, to include TV advertisers, how they should formulate their food products and how they should advertize these products.
Tony the Tiger, some NASCAR drivers and cookie-selling Girl Scouts will be out of a job unless grocery manufacturers agree to reinvent a vast array of their products to satisfy the Obama administration’s food police.
Either retool the recipes to contain certain levels of sugar, sodium and fats, or no more advertising and marketing to tots and teenagers, say several federal regulatory agencies.
The same goes for restaurants
The “Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulation Efforts” says it is voluntary, but industry officials say the intent is clear: Do it, or else.
The Working Group’s proposed nutrition principles are designed for the specific purpose of guiding the industry in determining which foods are appropriate to market to children. The proposed nutrition principles, therefore, include adjustments in specific recommendations to reflect the fact that the principles would apply to individual products and, specifically, to foods that are most heavily marketed to children ages 2-17 years, rather than to an overall diet.
Finally, the Working Group recognizes that full voluntary industry adoption of the principles may only be possible through phased implementation over a reasonable period of time. As part of its Report to Congress, the Working Group will discuss incremental adoption of the proposed principles and a suggested time frame for full implementation of these principles in the marketplace. The Working Group does not intend to propose a specific process for such phased implementation. Individual companies should develop an implementation process and set interim goals that are most workable for them. The Working Group, however, does seek more general comment on its proposed goal that the industry fully implement the nutrition principles for all foods within the categories most heavily marketed to children by the year 2016.
Where do these bureaucrats get off thinking we want them "determining which foods are appropriate to market"??? These damn bureaucrats already determine what cars we are allowed to drive, what light bulbs we can use and what toilets we can flush, now they want to dictate what foods we should be allowed to eat?
What ever happened to self determination, and personal freedom? why are we smart enough to vote for these politicians, but not smart enough to choose our own food? Oh sure, we are free to buy whatever food we want, except the choices available to us are dictated by bunch of unelected bureaucrats in a nanny-state government agency group.
I'm sure the same people who claimed 0bama was just regulating school lunches, was not going to expand this federal regulation of our food. They said he was just trying to make sure schools served nutritious school lunches. these same people will also make the claim that 0bama will not expand these new self-regulations into mandates on all food, to control the food for the entire nation.
These people are busy-bodies, they live to impose their own ideas of the way life should be, and then use the power of an all powerful federal government to ram it down our throats.
What's next? Will they take those 5lb bags of sugar, salt and flour off the store shelves? If we cannot be trusted to buy healthy food on our own, then why should we be trusted with possibly baking unhealthy at home, or adding too much salt or sugar to the food we buy?
If you think this is bad, how tyrannical will government get when it is paying for our health care? Wait and see how concerned about our food they become, when the federal budget is directly affected by our physical health and our life style choices?
Last edited by Wapasha; 06-22-2011 at 09:59 AM..
Reason: typos
Why am I finding it harder to find pants with 33" waist and 32" inseam lately?
When you can find me something a 27" waist with a 32" (prefer 34") inseam, let me know.
Aside from that, I don't like that companies are marketing extremely unhealthy foods to children, but I don't agree with the government getting involved. Just because they're advertising the poisons doesn't mean that the parents have to buy it. The only thing the government should be concerned with is the use of LITERAL poisons in food.
Parents need to grow a pair and say no to their kid(s)'s every wishes.
The exception would be to things like school lunches, where federal monies should only be going to foods not loaded with sodium, sugar, and empty carbs/calories. If they're providing the food, there should be healthy options other than "here's-some-half-wilted-lettuce lolSalad". The city I live in has done an excellent job providing children with actual food.
Why am I finding it harder to find pants with 33" waist and 32" inseam lately?
Because people eat too much food?
Most of the food people eat comes from the meals they make on the stove, or bake in the oven, not from snack foods or boxes of cookies, or because they eat at restaurants, and not because they are witless drones, who are slaves to only what they see on TV food advertisements.
Tell me how they will change snack foods like Lays potato chips or popcorn to make them lower in carbs, or stop a person from having two helpings of homemade lasagna.
Remember, these bureaucrats have the same mindset as those who want to take potatoes off school menus, because they think the spud is not a healthy food.
I'm sure you think government should be dictating the recipes for foods we eat.
When you can find me something a 27" waist with a 32" (prefer 34") inseam, let me know.
Aside from that, I don't like that companies are marketing extremely unhealthy foods to children, but I don't agree with the government getting involved. Just because they're advertising the poisons doesn't mean that the parents have to buy it. The only thing the government should be concerned with is the use of LITERAL poisons in food.
Parents need to grow a pair and say no to their kid(s)'s every wishes.
The exception would be to things like school lunches, where federal monies should only be going to foods not loaded with sodium, sugar, and empty carbs/calories. If they're providing the food, there should be healthy options other than "here's-some-half-wilted-lettuce lolSalad". The city I live in has done an excellent job providing children with actual food.
While i agree that the school lunches should be nutritious, since we are paying for them, aren't local schools and municiplaities capable of deciding what is nutritious food? According to the busy-bodies in the federal government, no one besides them is capable of self determination on what is healthy. Not you, not me, not the nutritionist at the school... in the minds of Washington DC bureaucrats, no one, except they is capable of determining what is healthy and nutritious for us.
If it was up to these bureaucrats, the only food choices available to us would be the foods they predetermined were legally allowed to be sold to us. The only diet we should be allowed to follow, would be the diet decided upon by government bureaucrats. Nothing could be sold in a store, served at a restaurant, school or nursing home, unless they approved of it.
Like I said, they want to take our freedom of choice, to make our choices for us. I'm sure to the drones on the left, this is their Nirvana, to me it's government tyranny.
While i agree that the school lunches should be nutritious, since we are paying for them, aren't local schools and municiplaities capable of deciding what is nutritious food?
Are local governments corruption-proof? Besides, what kind of person would oppose ANY regulatory body demanding healthier choices to the populace?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
I can't offer any other answer. I'm waiting for a Washington DC bureaucrat to determine my answer for me, since these master minds know what's best for you, me and the entire nation.
Not surprising. Perhaps I can help you look beyond what you know. Is obesity a problem in wealthier communities and less so in poorer?
Given their druthers companies would still be selling decayed meat and rat turd contaminated flour. Weaning kids from sugar and fructose laden foods is a very good idea for the kids but less so for the producers. Apparently the combination of salt, sugar and fat short circuits the appetite so people over eat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
