|
Proof that junk food is the next government target
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
The government is indeed ready to treat junk food the same as tobacco and has even admitted it:
This quote is very telling | quote: | Ontario toyed with, but ultimately rejected, the idea of a fat tax but has banned junk food vending machines from elementary schools.
In July, the province's health promotion minister vowed to target obesity as aggressively as tobacco through a number of yet-to-be revealed initiatives.
|
here is the full story
| quote: | The amount of junk food Canadians eat, and the pounds they pack on as a result, are personal choices the government has no right to discourage -- even if it means some lives will be shortened, a Toronto audience heard Wednesday.
"People may very well choose to trade off years of their life, or the possibility of disease or injury, in exchange for the current pleasure, excitement, or stress relief they get (from food)," said Jacob Sullum, a syndicated columnist and senior editor at Reason, a U.S.-based libertarian magazine.
'PROTECTING PEOPLE'
"It's not for the government to say that's not a legitimate trade-off to make. Canadians need to question the idea that just because something implicates health that government intervention is justified."
The same rationale that informed public health policy against smoking -- leading to higher tobacco taxes -- has set its sights on junk food, Sullum argued during a luncheon sponsored by the Montreal Economic Institute.
"You're talking about protecting people from their own decisions," Sullum said in an interview before the speech.
"What you put in your mouth and how much exercise you get, that's pretty personal. It doesn't get much more personal than that."
Faced with a so-called obesity epidemic -- 8% of children and 23% of adults were obese in 2004, according to Statistics Canada -- provincial governments are pursuing policies to separate people from their junk food.
Ontario toyed with, but ultimately rejected, the idea of a fat tax but has banned junk food vending machines from elementary schools.
In July, the province's health promotion minister vowed to target obesity as aggressively as tobacco through a number of yet-to-be revealed initiatives.
In Quebec, politicians are considering a junk food tax that would send a "healthy message" to citizens while helping fund athletic programs. British Columbia has shown interest in banning junk food vending machines from schools.
In Britain, a sweeping ban on junk food in the nation's schools-- including chocolate bars -- was announced Wednesday.
Sullum believes that while governments have every right to protect the public against health risks posed by communicable diseases and pollution, they have no authority to tell people what to eat.
"It's a question of what people want," Sullum said.
"What the anti-fat activists are saying is, people don't want what they ought to want, and therefore the government has to coercively change what they want."
But for Toronto-area dietitian Lynn Roblin, government-directed eating guidelines are key to a healthy society.
"Whatever government you're talking about, whether it's provincial or federal, they do have a role in promoting healthy lifestyles, definitely," Roblin said.
Skyrocketing health-care costs are among the possible repercussions of government inaction on healthy eating, she added.
"It would not be a responsible action for them to ignore this."
Sullum maintains that government policy aimed at restricting eating habits is not the answer.
"For some people the solution is, they prefer to be fat," he said. "That's their choice and they should be permitted to make it." |
|
|
|
| Blue. |
| I don't gain weight, that's just not fair : / |
|
|
| richard raiban |
| quote: | Originally posted by Blue.
I don't gain wait, that's just not fair : / |
wait or weight? |
|
|
| MarkT |
I don't support this.
fast food consumption (harms only the eater) is not the same as tobacco smoke (which also harms others).
the gov't "targeting obesity" is fine...but a "fat tax" is kind of naive unless they're going to take that tax and subsidize the cost of healthy alternatives.
people think of fast food as a luxery, but in comparison to healthy alternatives, it can be cheap, fast alternative for parents who don't have time to cook for their families. So who does a "fat tax" hurt? The obese? not really...they will still eat junk. It taxes lower to middle income families more than anyone else. "rich people" are not McDonalds target market...ditto for potato chip and chocolate bar companies. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
this just shows what this legislation against tobacco has opened up. Not to mention yesterday's court decision. A nasty pandora's box.
As for second hand smoke.... its already banned in public so any further laws is just social engineering. |
|
|
| MarkT |
I think I addressed that "pandora's box" in my initial reply. Two different issues that will be seen as such by the courts.
I think the gov't would find FAR less support in going after Hostess for their fatty potato chips than they will for going after the tobacco companies ;) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I think I addressed that "pandora's box" in my initial reply. Two different issues that will be seen as such by the courts.
I think the gov't would find FAR less support in going after Hostess for their fatty potato chips than they will for going after the tobacco companies ;) |
its not about support. Since when has the government really cared about public opinion? I dont think public voters are going to care if mcdonalds gets sued just as they dont care if tobacco gets sued. After all, this is canada.... we cant even get people to care about the government stealing our money much less a corperation getting sued |
|
|
|
|
