Here come the Food Police!

[kevin1]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...new-restraint/

Government Tackles Obesity Anew -- But Can It Show Restraint?

The CDC is holding a three-day conference in Washington, D.C., called "Weight of the Nation." The agency has issued a slew of reports on obesity in recent weeks and just released a set of two-dozen recommendations for how communities can implement better programs and policies to slim people down.

By Judson Berger
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Obesity is a big problem.

It's considered a major risk factor for conditions like heart disease and diabetes. It causes us to spend tens of billions of dollars every year on health care. And it's not getting better: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found in a recent study that the proportion of obese U.S. adults rose again last year, to 26.1 percent. So what to do about it? The CDC is attempting to answer that question this week, with a three-day conference in Washington, D.C., called "Weight of the Nation." The agency has issued a slew of reports on obesity in recent weeks and just released a set of two-dozen recommendations for how communities can implement better programs and policies to slim people down. But with local trans fat bans all the rage these days, as well as surcharges on the obese, the new federal attention on obesity raises questions about whether government can tackle weight gain without intruding into Americans' kitchens, restaurants and grocery stores. Will diners be permitted two dashes of salt, and not three? Will they be required to sop up pizza grease with paper towels before eating? Will boardwalk food be eliminated outright?

"It's a question of limiting personal choice," said Texas state Sen. Kel Seliger, who recently opposed a trans fat ban that would have applied to the entire Lone Star State. The measure, following on the heels of a similar one in California, was passed by the Texas Senate, but died in the House. Seliger, a Republican, said he's all for providing healthier foods in public schools and better dietary education, but the government generally should stay out of the business of restricting food content. "I like to inform the public rather than coerce the public," he said. Inevitably, the debate over obesity in America folds into the debate over health care reform. After the CDC reported this week that the health cost of obesity is up to $147 billion annually, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the CDC conference Tuesday that reducing obesity is at the heart of President Obama's health care plan.

She and former President Clinton, who spoke Monday at the conference, argued that reducing obesity, in turn, would lower health care costs dramatically. Clinton cited a study that showed the country could save billions if it invested a fraction of that in prevention. The CDC's new recommendations for reducing obesity deal in large part with making healthy foods more available and promoting physical activity in communities across America.
But they also venture into suggestions for new restrictions. The recommendations call for communities to restrict the availability of unhealthy foods and beverages, institute smaller portion sizes, limit advertisements of unhealthy products and discourage consumption of sugary drinks. The recommendations generally apply to public venues, with the possible goal of prompting more widespread restrictions elsewhere.

[Alsatian]

There is much noise surrounding this issue. For example, putting a "sin tax" on soda pop under the guise of concern for the bad effects of obesity on the people and/or on the medical costs of the state -- probably just a pretext to levvy an additional tax. I don't like bans, because bans take away responsibility from individuals, enlarges the role of government, and usually have some unforseen consequences. I admit that it would not be good to subsist on Big Macs to exclusion of all else, but shouldn't I have the freedom to have a Big Mac once a year? I don't happen to like Big Macs, but I do like fat, juicy rib eye steaks, and my guess is that eating one of these every day, 365 days per year for about 20 years would put me in an early grave. But I don't eat them that often. And I eat right most of the time. I would rather my diet NOT be defined by the government.

I think the answer is to educate people -- get the news out there. When you travel around the country you observe that some people have learned that a moderate diet and exercise are good and other places (SE Oklahoma, rural Mississippi, rural Alabama) haven't heard the news yet. You don't HAVE to cook everything in a bath of animal fat. So teach people but don't compel everyone to eat the same or to eat healthy every meal. I'm quite svelt and exercise a lot. Because of this I permit myself the occasional -- usually once per week on Saturday night -- self-indulgence in foods which I wouldn't want to eat 3 times per day 7 days per week. Food with heavy cream sauces. Food with butter. No, I don't think it is a good idea to eat that at every meal, but as a relief from the otherwise rigorously healthy and controlled diet, I don't see the harm.

[LBR]

What does bho plan to do about people who participate in homosexual activities? AIDS is very much a disease contracted by lifestyle choices, and much more deadly (once contracted) than heart disease.

[kevin1]

Now Chad, you thilly thavage, you know Barry loves *****s and would never do anything to curtail their rights...

[ipscshooter]

I trust that they'll put an exception in the sin tax for my Diet Rite Colas, since they have no calories, no caffiene, no carbs, and no sodium.

[James B]

I doubt it, they will just say that the other stuff in the cola is just as bad or worse. Then their will be the green effect of all the bottles, They will find whatever it takes to justify a tax of some kind.

[falcon]

Yep, the feds have wanted to get their stinky grubby hands on the fast food industry for years. Those Big Macs contain something that is addictive that makes folks eat more of them and get fatter and fatter. Surely is it not the fault of all those fat butts.

[StruttinGobbler3]

This is ridiculous. The government wants to control my diet because of those people with no self control? It's no fault of mine if someone eats until they outweigh a horse, so I don't see it as fair to restrict my rights because of the bad decisions of others.

[kevin1]

Originally Posted by StruttinGobbler3

This is ridiculous. The government wants to control my diet because of those people with no self control? It's no fault of mine if someone eats until they outweigh a horse, so I don't see it as fair to restrict my rights because of the bad decisions of others.

Amen brother. I'm fat for a reason, I know what that reason is and it has nothing to do with ignorance of my diet or a lack of willpower. Now if they just made smaller spoons...

[C. Davis]

Man, they can't even wait for government Obama care to go into affect. This is just child's play compared to what they are planning to do if the "control every aspect of your life and tax it" health care plan goes through.

C. Davis