Progs Now Turn To Ruining Our Food

[ClosedCaption]

no...a reflection of reality.

Why do you INSIST on continuously derailing the thread so you can talk about me, assess my mental state, or worry about what I'm doing?

OK, back to the topic.

What do you have to back up your assertion that this proposed discussion of a future food policy is a scam?

because we have ample federal bureaus in place that already set standards and monitor and regulate how our food is handled.

Why do you think duplicating processes that are already in place is "necessary"?

So, what about it makes it a "scam"?

Your argument supports that it's redundant, but that doesn't make it a dishonest and illegal activity meant to dupe someone out of something.

ok chickie...we're done here...go play evasive word games with someone else now. I made solid points.

Just leave him be...he called it a scam and cant explain why. Its ok

 

[ClosedCaption]

Let recap:

The OP thought Al Gore was the Author and for that they automatically were against it for unknown reasons but mostly blaming the messenger

Then the RW'er had to ask: What does this do? Showing they had no idea why they were opposed to it in the first place

Then the RW'er advocated FOR less labeling

Then when shown what the policy will do they were still against it for the same reasons they were before they knew more about it.

All this helps Americans who have the worst obesity problem in the world none. Not to mention diabetes and other diseases.

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension. I quoted an article in which Algore recommends a piece written by four other men. I hope that clears it up for you.

Thats what I said...Your comprehension is catching up

As to why Algore would advocate a National Food Policy, I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to grok his agenda.

The reason is in the article you neglected to post

Here:

Only those with a vested interest in the status quo would argue against creating public policies with these goals. Now weigh them against the reality that our current policies and public investments have given us:

Because of unhealthy diets, 100 years of progress in improving public health and extending lifespan has been reversed. Today’s children are expected to live shorter lives than their parents. In large part, this is because a third of these children will develop Type 2 diabetes, formerly rare in children and a preventable disease that reduces life expectancy by several years. At the same time, our fossil-fuel-dependent food and agriculture system is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other sector of the economy but energy. And the exploitative labor practices of the farming and fast-food industries are responsible for much of the rise in income inequality in America.

We find ourselves in this situation because government policy in these areas is made piecemeal. Diet-related chronic disease, food safety, marketing to children, labor conditions, wages for farm and food-chain workers, immigration, water and air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and support for farmers: These issues are all connected to the food system. Yet they are overseen by eight federal agencies. Amid this incoherence, special interests thrive and the public good suffers.

In the early days of the Obama administration, there were encouraging signs that the new president recognized the problems of our food system and wanted to do something about them. He spoke about the importance of safety, transparency and competition in the food industry.

now costs $245 billion, or 23 percent of the national deficit in 2012, to treat each year. The government subsidizes soda with one hand, while the other writes checks to pay for insulin pumps. This is not policy; this is insanity.


Of course, reforming the food system will ultimately depend on a Congress that has for decades been beholden to agribusiness, one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill. As long as food-related issues are treated as discrete rather than systemic problems, congressional committees in thrall to special interests will be able to block change.

But there is something the president can do now, on his own, to break that deadlock, much as he has done with climate change. In the next State of the Union address, he should announce an executive order establishing a national policy for food, health and well-being. By officially acknowledging the problem and by setting forth a few simple principles on which most Americans agree, the introduction of such a policy would create momentum for reform. By elevating food and farming to a matter of public concern rather than a parochial interest, the president can make it much more difficult for the interests of agribusiness to prevail over those of public and environmental health.

The national food policy could be developed and implemented by a new White House council, which would coordinate among, say, the Department of Health and Human Services and the USDA to align agricultural policies with public health objectives, and the EPA and the USDA to make sure food production doesn’t undermine environmental goals. A national food policy would lay the foundation for a food system in which healthful choices are accessible to all and in which it becomes possible to nourish ourselves without exploiting other people or nature.

As Obama begins the last two years of his administration facing an obstructionist Republican Congress, this is an area where he can act on his own — and his legacy may depend on him doing so. For the president won’t be able to achieve his goals for health care, climate change, immigration and economic inequality — the four pillars of his second term — if he doesn’t address the food system and its negative impact on those issues.

There are precedents for such a policy. Already a handful of states are developing food charters, and scores of U.S. cities have established food policy councils to expand access to healthful food. Brazil and Mexico are far ahead of the United States in developing national food policies. Mexico’s recognition of food as a key driver of public health led to the passage last year of a national tax on junk food and soda, which in the first year has reduced consumption of sugary beverages by 10 percent and increased consumption of water.

Brazil has had a national food policy since 2004. In the city of Belo Horizonte that policy — coupled with an investment of 2 percent of the local budget in food-access and farmer-support programs — has reduced poverty by 25 percent and child mortality by 60 percent, and provided access to credit for 2 million farmers, all within a decade.

A well-articulated national food policy in the United States would make it much more difficult for Congress to pass bills that fly in its face. The very act of elevating food among the issues the White House addresses would build public support for reforms. And once the government embraces a goal such as “We guarantee the right of every American to eat food that is healthy, green, fair and affordable” — it becomes far more difficult to pass or sign a farm bill that erodes those guarantees.

Think of the food system as something that works for us rather than exploits us, something that encourages health rather than undermines it. That is the food system the people of the United States deserve, and Obama, in his remaining time in office, can begin to build it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Now the next time you quote an article and object to it, its helpful if you know what the article is talking about BEFORE being against it

 

[ricechickie]

no...a reflection of reality.

Why do you INSIST on continuously derailing the thread so you can talk about me, assess my mental state, or worry about what I'm doing?

OK, back to the topic.

What do you have to back up your assertion that this proposed discussion of a future food policy is a scam?

because we have ample federal bureaus in place that already set standards and monitor and regulate how our food is handled.

Why do you think duplicating processes that are already in place is "necessary"?

So, what about it makes it a "scam"?

Your argument supports that it's redundant, but that doesn't make it a dishonest and illegal activity meant to dupe someone out of something.

ok chickie...we're done here...go play evasive word games with someone else now. I made solid points.

Just leave him be...he called it a scam and cant explain why. Its ok

I just have an insatiable case of curiosity. He has all the answers, and I want them!!!!!!!

 

[paulitician]

scam (noun) a dishonest scheme; a fraud

It's not a word game, Rotagilla; I'm asking you to support your "scam" argument.

How on earth do you deal with the real world if the government isn't there to tell you what is a scam and what isn't?

Do you hide in your bedroom with your cats all day?

I'm not asking the government, I'm asking Rotagilla.

I don't think it's a scam, but he does. I'm asking him to explain why. But he's more concerned with my nails, apparently.

You still here?..I dismissed you..now go chase your tail with someone else...It was amusing for a while..now you're just shrill and tedious.

So, you're still here.

Slip out the back, Jack. Make a new plan, Stan. No need to be coy, Roy.

You are boring, dull, and likely plagued with a severe case of halitosis.

Go away.

Wanna get rid of Obamabot douches? Allow me to assist...

Hey Obamabots, Walmart's handing out free Obama-Phones right now. Limited supply though. So ya better hurry. Off ya go now. See ya.

 

[ClosedCaption]

How on earth do you deal with the real world if the government isn't there to tell you what is a scam and what isn't?

Do you hide in your bedroom with your cats all day?

I'm not asking the government, I'm asking Rotagilla.

I don't think it's a scam, but he does. I'm asking him to explain why. But he's more concerned with my nails, apparently.

You still here?..I dismissed you..now go chase your tail with someone else...It was amusing for a while..now you're just shrill and tedious.

So, you're still here.

Slip out the back, Jack. Make a new plan, Stan. No need to be coy, Roy.

You are boring, dull, and likely plagued with a severe case of halitosis.

Go away.

Wanna get rid of the Obamabot douches? Allow me to help...

Hey Obamabots, Walmart's handing out free Obama-Phones right now. Limited supply though. So ya better hurry. Off ya go now. See ya.

Apparently the GOP have bumper sticker jokes also

 

[MaxGrit]

Progs are afraid of their own shadows.

 

[boedicca]

Let recap:

The OP thought Al Gore was the Author and for that they automatically were against it for unknown reasons but mostly blaming the messenger

Then the RW'er had to ask: What does this do? Showing they had no idea why they were opposed to it in the first place

Then the RW'er advocated FOR less labeling

Then when shown what the policy will do they were still against it for the same reasons they were before they knew more about it.

All this helps Americans who have the worst obesity problem in the world none. Not to mention diabetes and other diseases.

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension. I quoted an article in which Algore recommends a piece written by four other men. I hope that clears it up for you.

Thats what I said...Your comprehension is catching up

As to why Algore would advocate a National Food Policy, I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to grok his agenda.

The reason is in the article you neglected to post

Here:

Only those with a vested interest in the status quo would argue against creating public policies with these goals. Now weigh them against the reality that our current policies and public investments have given us:

Because of unhealthy diets, 100 years of progress in improving public health and extending lifespan has been reversed. Today’s children are expected to live shorter lives than their parents. In large part, this is because a third of these children will develop Type 2 diabetes, formerly rare in children and a preventable disease that reduces life expectancy by several years. At the same time, our fossil-fuel-dependent food and agriculture system is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other sector of the economy but energy. And the exploitative labor practices of the farming and fast-food industries are responsible for much of the rise in income inequality in America.

We find ourselves in this situation because government policy in these areas is made piecemeal. Diet-related chronic disease, food safety, marketing to children, labor conditions, wages for farm and food-chain workers, immigration, water and air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and support for farmers: These issues are all connected to the food system. Yet they are overseen by eight federal agencies. Amid this incoherence, special interests thrive and the public good suffers.

In the early days of the Obama administration, there were encouraging signs that the new president recognized the problems of our food system and wanted to do something about them. He spoke about the importance of safety, transparency and competition in the food industry.

now costs $245 billion, or 23 percent of the national deficit in 2012, to treat each year. The government subsidizes soda with one hand, while the other writes checks to pay for insulin pumps. This is not policy; this is insanity.


Of course, reforming the food system will ultimately depend on a Congress that has for decades been beholden to agribusiness, one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill. As long as food-related issues are treated as discrete rather than systemic problems, congressional committees in thrall to special interests will be able to block change.

But there is something the president can do now, on his own, to break that deadlock, much as he has done with climate change. In the next State of the Union address, he should announce an executive order establishing a national policy for food, health and well-being. By officially acknowledging the problem and by setting forth a few simple principles on which most Americans agree, the introduction of such a policy would create momentum for reform. By elevating food and farming to a matter of public concern rather than a parochial interest, the president can make it much more difficult for the interests of agribusiness to prevail over those of public and environmental health.

The national food policy could be developed and implemented by a new White House council, which would coordinate among, say, the Department of Health and Human Services and the USDA to align agricultural policies with public health objectives, and the EPA and the USDA to make sure food production doesn’t undermine environmental goals. A national food policy would lay the foundation for a food system in which healthful choices are accessible to all and in which it becomes possible to nourish ourselves without exploiting other people or nature.

As Obama begins the last two years of his administration facing an obstructionist Republican Congress, this is an area where he can act on his own — and his legacy may depend on him doing so. For the president won’t be able to achieve his goals for health care, climate change, immigration and economic inequality — the four pillars of his second term — if he doesn’t address the food system and its negative impact on those issues.

There are precedents for such a policy. Already a handful of states are developing food charters, and scores of U.S. cities have established food policy councils to expand access to healthful food. Brazil and Mexico are far ahead of the United States in developing national food policies. Mexico’s recognition of food as a key driver of public health led to the passage last year of a national tax on junk food and soda, which in the first year has reduced consumption of sugary beverages by 10 percent and increased consumption of water.

Brazil has had a national food policy since 2004. In the city of Belo Horizonte that policy — coupled with an investment of 2 percent of the local budget in food-access and farmer-support programs — has reduced poverty by 25 percent and child mortality by 60 percent, and provided access to credit for 2 million farmers, all within a decade.

A well-articulated national food policy in the United States would make it much more difficult for Congress to pass bills that fly in its face. The very act of elevating food among the issues the White House addresses would build public support for reforms. And once the government embraces a goal such as “We guarantee the right of every American to eat food that is healthy, green, fair and affordable” — it becomes far more difficult to pass or sign a farm bill that erodes those guarantees.

Think of the food system as something that works for us rather than exploits us, something that encourages health rather than undermines it. That is the food system the people of the United States deserve, and Obama, in his remaining time in office, can begin to build it.

I didn't "neglect" to post this propaganda. The reason American are obese is largely due to the GOVERNMENT's promotion of an incredibly unhealthy carb-loaded food pyramid and the heavy subsidies to Cronyiest Agribusiness which produce corn and wheat. All of that excessive corn and wheat is then packaged up as predisgested processed food, courtesy of the U.S. Taxpayer.

The Federal Government enabled this mess - and you just want to double down on it.

 

[boedicca]

I'm not asking the government, I'm asking Rotagilla.

I don't think it's a scam, but he does. I'm asking him to explain why. But he's more concerned with my nails, apparently.

You still here?..I dismissed you..now go chase your tail with someone else...It was amusing for a while..now you're just shrill and tedious.

So, you're still here.

Slip out the back, Jack. Make a new plan, Stan. No need to be coy, Roy.

You are boring, dull, and likely plagued with a severe case of halitosis.

Go away.

Wanna get rid of the Obamabot douches? Allow me to help...

Hey Obamabots, Walmart's handing out free Obama-Phones right now. Limited supply though. So ya better hurry. Off ya go now. See ya.

Apparently the GOP have bumper sticker jokes also

Your stupid comment wasn't funny the first time. Repeatedly spamming the thread with it doesn't make it clever.

 

[Ravi]

The article in WAPO made a lot of sense that was pretty much ignored by the hysteria in the Daily Caller article.

 

[The Rabbi]

Let recap:

The OP thought Al Gore was the Author and for that they automatically were against it for unknown reasons but mostly blaming the messenger

Then the RW'er had to ask: What does this do? Showing they had no idea why they were opposed to it in the first place

Then the RW'er advocated FOR less labeling

Then when shown what the policy will do they were still against it for the same reasons they were before they knew more about it.

All this helps Americans who have the worst obesity problem in the world none. Not to mention diabetes and other diseases.

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension. I quoted an article in which Algore recommends a piece written by four other men. I hope that clears it up for you.

Thats what I said...Your comprehension is catching up

As to why Algore would advocate a National Food Policy, I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to grok his agenda.

The reason is in the article you neglected to post

Here:

Only those with a vested interest in the status quo would argue against creating public policies with these goals. Now weigh them against the reality that our current policies and public investments have given us:

Because of unhealthy diets, 100 years of progress in improving public health and extending lifespan has been reversed. Today’s children are expected to live shorter lives than their parents. In large part, this is because a third of these children will develop Type 2 diabetes, formerly rare in children and a preventable disease that reduces life expectancy by several years. At the same time, our fossil-fuel-dependent food and agriculture system is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other sector of the economy but energy. And the exploitative labor practices of the farming and fast-food industries are responsible for much of the rise in income inequality in America.

We find ourselves in this situation because government policy in these areas is made piecemeal. Diet-related chronic disease, food safety, marketing to children, labor conditions, wages for farm and food-chain workers, immigration, water and air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and support for farmers: These issues are all connected to the food system. Yet they are overseen by eight federal agencies. Amid this incoherence, special interests thrive and the public good suffers.

In the early days of the Obama administration, there were encouraging signs that the new president recognized the problems of our food system and wanted to do something about them. He spoke about the importance of safety, transparency and competition in the food industry.

now costs $245 billion, or 23 percent of the national deficit in 2012, to treat each year. The government subsidizes soda with one hand, while the other writes checks to pay for insulin pumps. This is not policy; this is insanity.


Of course, reforming the food system will ultimately depend on a Congress that has for decades been beholden to agribusiness, one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill. As long as food-related issues are treated as discrete rather than systemic problems, congressional committees in thrall to special interests will be able to block change.

But there is something the president can do now, on his own, to break that deadlock, much as he has done with climate change. In the next State of the Union address, he should announce an executive order establishing a national policy for food, health and well-being. By officially acknowledging the problem and by setting forth a few simple principles on which most Americans agree, the introduction of such a policy would create momentum for reform. By elevating food and farming to a matter of public concern rather than a parochial interest, the president can make it much more difficult for the interests of agribusiness to prevail over those of public and environmental health.

The national food policy could be developed and implemented by a new White House council, which would coordinate among, say, the Department of Health and Human Services and the USDA to align agricultural policies with public health objectives, and the EPA and the USDA to make sure food production doesn’t undermine environmental goals. A national food policy would lay the foundation for a food system in which healthful choices are accessible to all and in which it becomes possible to nourish ourselves without exploiting other people or nature.

As Obama begins the last two years of his administration facing an obstructionist Republican Congress, this is an area where he can act on his own — and his legacy may depend on him doing so. For the president won’t be able to achieve his goals for health care, climate change, immigration and economic inequality — the four pillars of his second term — if he doesn’t address the food system and its negative impact on those issues.

There are precedents for such a policy. Already a handful of states are developing food charters, and scores of U.S. cities have established food policy councils to expand access to healthful food. Brazil and Mexico are far ahead of the United States in developing national food policies. Mexico’s recognition of food as a key driver of public health led to the passage last year of a national tax on junk food and soda, which in the first year has reduced consumption of sugary beverages by 10 percent and increased consumption of water.

Brazil has had a national food policy since 2004. In the city of Belo Horizonte that policy — coupled with an investment of 2 percent of the local budget in food-access and farmer-support programs — has reduced poverty by 25 percent and child mortality by 60 percent, and provided access to credit for 2 million farmers, all within a decade.

A well-articulated national food policy in the United States would make it much more difficult for Congress to pass bills that fly in its face. The very act of elevating food among the issues the White House addresses would build public support for reforms. And once the government embraces a goal such as “We guarantee the right of every American to eat food that is healthy, green, fair and affordable” — it becomes far more difficult to pass or sign a farm bill that erodes those guarantees.

Think of the food system as something that works for us rather than exploits us, something that encourages health rather than undermines it. That is the food system the people of the United States deserve, and Obama, in his remaining time in office, can begin to build it.

I didn't "neglect" to post this propaganda. The reason American are obese is largely due to the GOVERNMENT's promotion of an incredibly unhealthy carb-loaded food pyramid and the heavy subsidies to Cronyiest Agribusiness which produce corn and wheat. All of that excessive corn and wheat is then packaged up as predisgested processed food, courtesy of the U.S. Taxpayer.

The Federal Government enabled this mess - and you just want to double down on it.

I would tend to disagree. Yes, gov't has pushed misguided diets for years, true. BUt more of it has to do with an American lifestyle that retains a farm type diet from 2 generations ago but combines it with an urban lifestyle that discourages walking and other kinds of exercise.

 

[boedicca]

Just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean we need to have the Government seize control of it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

They're already trying to take over our healthcare.
Food and the internet are the next logical steps in totally controlling the populace.
What kind of idiot thinks this is a good idea? ....thats right,liberals.

What kind of idiot thinks that standing against bacteria and chemical food is a good thing?

I dont get the problem except the knee jerk reaction to be against anything because of the messenger.

Does Uncle Sam wipe your ass & tuck you in at night?

Christ you dumbfucks just can't do ANYTHING without first asking your masters position.

Such helpless sorry ass excuses for Americans

 

[Ravi]

I didn't "neglect" to post this propaganda. The reason American are obese is largely due to the GOVERNMENT's promotion of an incredibly unhealthy carb-loaded food pyramid and the heavy subsidies to Cronyiest Agribusiness which produce corn and wheat. All of that excessive corn and wheat is then packaged up as predisgested processed food, courtesy of the U.S. Taxpayer.

The Federal Government enabled this mess - and you just want to double down on it.

Wow, that was pretty much the point of the article you got hysterical over. Have you been hitting the cornshine?

 

[boedicca]

Let recap:

The OP thought Al Gore was the Author and for that they automatically were against it for unknown reasons but mostly blaming the messenger

Then the RW'er had to ask: What does this do? Showing they had no idea why they were opposed to it in the first place

Then the RW'er advocated FOR less labeling

Then when shown what the policy will do they were still against it for the same reasons they were before they knew more about it.

All this helps Americans who have the worst obesity problem in the world none. Not to mention diabetes and other diseases.

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension. I quoted an article in which Algore recommends a piece written by four other men. I hope that clears it up for you.

Thats what I said...Your comprehension is catching up

As to why Algore would advocate a National Food Policy, I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to grok his agenda.

The reason is in the article you neglected to post

Here:

Only those with a vested interest in the status quo would argue against creating public policies with these goals. Now weigh them against the reality that our current policies and public investments have given us:

Because of unhealthy diets, 100 years of progress in improving public health and extending lifespan has been reversed. Today’s children are expected to live shorter lives than their parents. In large part, this is because a third of these children will develop Type 2 diabetes, formerly rare in children and a preventable disease that reduces life expectancy by several years. At the same time, our fossil-fuel-dependent food and agriculture system is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other sector of the economy but energy. And the exploitative labor practices of the farming and fast-food industries are responsible for much of the rise in income inequality in America.

We find ourselves in this situation because government policy in these areas is made piecemeal. Diet-related chronic disease, food safety, marketing to children, labor conditions, wages for farm and food-chain workers, immigration, water and air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and support for farmers: These issues are all connected to the food system. Yet they are overseen by eight federal agencies. Amid this incoherence, special interests thrive and the public good suffers.

In the early days of the Obama administration, there were encouraging signs that the new president recognized the problems of our food system and wanted to do something about them. He spoke about the importance of safety, transparency and competition in the food industry.

now costs $245 billion, or 23 percent of the national deficit in 2012, to treat each year. The government subsidizes soda with one hand, while the other writes checks to pay for insulin pumps. This is not policy; this is insanity.


Of course, reforming the food system will ultimately depend on a Congress that has for decades been beholden to agribusiness, one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill. As long as food-related issues are treated as discrete rather than systemic problems, congressional committees in thrall to special interests will be able to block change.

But there is something the president can do now, on his own, to break that deadlock, much as he has done with climate change. In the next State of the Union address, he should announce an executive order establishing a national policy for food, health and well-being. By officially acknowledging the problem and by setting forth a few simple principles on which most Americans agree, the introduction of such a policy would create momentum for reform. By elevating food and farming to a matter of public concern rather than a parochial interest, the president can make it much more difficult for the interests of agribusiness to prevail over those of public and environmental health.

The national food policy could be developed and implemented by a new White House council, which would coordinate among, say, the Department of Health and Human Services and the USDA to align agricultural policies with public health objectives, and the EPA and the USDA to make sure food production doesn’t undermine environmental goals. A national food policy would lay the foundation for a food system in which healthful choices are accessible to all and in which it becomes possible to nourish ourselves without exploiting other people or nature.

As Obama begins the last two years of his administration facing an obstructionist Republican Congress, this is an area where he can act on his own — and his legacy may depend on him doing so. For the president won’t be able to achieve his goals for health care, climate change, immigration and economic inequality — the four pillars of his second term — if he doesn’t address the food system and its negative impact on those issues.

There are precedents for such a policy. Already a handful of states are developing food charters, and scores of U.S. cities have established food policy councils to expand access to healthful food. Brazil and Mexico are far ahead of the United States in developing national food policies. Mexico’s recognition of food as a key driver of public health led to the passage last year of a national tax on junk food and soda, which in the first year has reduced consumption of sugary beverages by 10 percent and increased consumption of water.

Brazil has had a national food policy since 2004. In the city of Belo Horizonte that policy — coupled with an investment of 2 percent of the local budget in food-access and farmer-support programs — has reduced poverty by 25 percent and child mortality by 60 percent, and provided access to credit for 2 million farmers, all within a decade.

A well-articulated national food policy in the United States would make it much more difficult for Congress to pass bills that fly in its face. The very act of elevating food among the issues the White House addresses would build public support for reforms. And once the government embraces a goal such as “We guarantee the right of every American to eat food that is healthy, green, fair and affordable” — it becomes far more difficult to pass or sign a farm bill that erodes those guarantees.

Think of the food system as something that works for us rather than exploits us, something that encourages health rather than undermines it. That is the food system the people of the United States deserve, and Obama, in his remaining time in office, can begin to build it.

I didn't "neglect" to post this propaganda. The reason American are obese is largely due to the GOVERNMENT's promotion of an incredibly unhealthy carb-loaded food pyramid and the heavy subsidies to Cronyiest Agribusiness which produce corn and wheat. All of that excessive corn and wheat is then packaged up as predisgested processed food, courtesy of the U.S. Taxpayer.

The Federal Government enabled this mess - and you just want to double down on it.

I would tend to disagree. Yes, gov't has pushed misguided diets for years, true. BUt more of it has to do with an American lifestyle that retains a farm type diet from 2 generations ago but combines it with an urban lifestyle that discourages walking and other kinds of exercise.

I disagree. A farm type diet with plenty of fresh vegetables, meat, poultry, dairy (butter not margarine!) is a healthy diet even if it contains potatoes and bread. I read a book awhile ago called "Real Food". The author was raised by her crunchy parents on an organic farm. They ate Real Food, and were all healthy. When she went off to college and was conscripted into vegetarianism (lot of carbs!), she became unhealthy. Years later, she returned to the farm way of eating and dropped the excess weight.

Real food satisfies. People tend not to overeat when they find their hunger addressed with satisfying food. Processed food, on the other hand, doesn't satisfy By Design. It is intended to keep one feeling hungry so that one keeps consuming.

 

[boedicca]

I didn't "neglect" to post this propaganda. The reason American are obese is largely due to the GOVERNMENT's promotion of an incredibly unhealthy carb-loaded food pyramid and the heavy subsidies to Cronyiest Agribusiness which produce corn and wheat. All of that excessive corn and wheat is then packaged up as predisgested processed food, courtesy of the U.S. Taxpayer.

The Federal Government enabled this mess - and you just want to double down on it.

Wow, that was pretty much the point of the article you got hysterical over. Have you been hitting the cornshine?

The Point is that it is used to justify a drive to have a National Food Policy.

IOW, National interference has ruined many people's diets, so let's have even more!

 

[The Rabbi]

Let recap:

The OP thought Al Gore was the Author and for that they automatically were against it for unknown reasons but mostly blaming the messenger

Then the RW'er had to ask: What does this do? Showing they had no idea why they were opposed to it in the first place

Then the RW'er advocated FOR less labeling

Then when shown what the policy will do they were still against it for the same reasons they were before they knew more about it.

All this helps Americans who have the worst obesity problem in the world none. Not to mention diabetes and other diseases.

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension. I quoted an article in which Algore recommends a piece written by four other men. I hope that clears it up for you.

Thats what I said...Your comprehension is catching up

As to why Algore would advocate a National Food Policy, I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to grok his agenda.

The reason is in the article you neglected to post

Here:

Only those with a vested interest in the status quo would argue against creating public policies with these goals. Now weigh them against the reality that our current policies and public investments have given us:

Because of unhealthy diets, 100 years of progress in improving public health and extending lifespan has been reversed. Today’s children are expected to live shorter lives than their parents. In large part, this is because a third of these children will develop Type 2 diabetes, formerly rare in children and a preventable disease that reduces life expectancy by several years. At the same time, our fossil-fuel-dependent food and agriculture system is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other sector of the economy but energy. And the exploitative labor practices of the farming and fast-food industries are responsible for much of the rise in income inequality in America.

We find ourselves in this situation because government policy in these areas is made piecemeal. Diet-related chronic disease, food safety, marketing to children, labor conditions, wages for farm and food-chain workers, immigration, water and air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and support for farmers: These issues are all connected to the food system. Yet they are overseen by eight federal agencies. Amid this incoherence, special interests thrive and the public good suffers.

In the early days of the Obama administration, there were encouraging signs that the new president recognized the problems of our food system and wanted to do something about them. He spoke about the importance of safety, transparency and competition in the food industry.

now costs $245 billion, or 23 percent of the national deficit in 2012, to treat each year. The government subsidizes soda with one hand, while the other writes checks to pay for insulin pumps. This is not policy; this is insanity.


Of course, reforming the food system will ultimately depend on a Congress that has for decades been beholden to agribusiness, one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill. As long as food-related issues are treated as discrete rather than systemic problems, congressional committees in thrall to special interests will be able to block change.

But there is something the president can do now, on his own, to break that deadlock, much as he has done with climate change. In the next State of the Union address, he should announce an executive order establishing a national policy for food, health and well-being. By officially acknowledging the problem and by setting forth a few simple principles on which most Americans agree, the introduction of such a policy would create momentum for reform. By elevating food and farming to a matter of public concern rather than a parochial interest, the president can make it much more difficult for the interests of agribusiness to prevail over those of public and environmental health.

The national food policy could be developed and implemented by a new White House council, which would coordinate among, say, the Department of Health and Human Services and the USDA to align agricultural policies with public health objectives, and the EPA and the USDA to make sure food production doesn’t undermine environmental goals. A national food policy would lay the foundation for a food system in which healthful choices are accessible to all and in which it becomes possible to nourish ourselves without exploiting other people or nature.

As Obama begins the last two years of his administration facing an obstructionist Republican Congress, this is an area where he can act on his own — and his legacy may depend on him doing so. For the president won’t be able to achieve his goals for health care, climate change, immigration and economic inequality — the four pillars of his second term — if he doesn’t address the food system and its negative impact on those issues.

There are precedents for such a policy. Already a handful of states are developing food charters, and scores of U.S. cities have established food policy councils to expand access to healthful food. Brazil and Mexico are far ahead of the United States in developing national food policies. Mexico’s recognition of food as a key driver of public health led to the passage last year of a national tax on junk food and soda, which in the first year has reduced consumption of sugary beverages by 10 percent and increased consumption of water.

Brazil has had a national food policy since 2004. In the city of Belo Horizonte that policy — coupled with an investment of 2 percent of the local budget in food-access and farmer-support programs — has reduced poverty by 25 percent and child mortality by 60 percent, and provided access to credit for 2 million farmers, all within a decade.

A well-articulated national food policy in the United States would make it much more difficult for Congress to pass bills that fly in its face. The very act of elevating food among the issues the White House addresses would build public support for reforms. And once the government embraces a goal such as “We guarantee the right of every American to eat food that is healthy, green, fair and affordable” — it becomes far more difficult to pass or sign a farm bill that erodes those guarantees.

Think of the food system as something that works for us rather than exploits us, something that encourages health rather than undermines it. That is the food system the people of the United States deserve, and Obama, in his remaining time in office, can begin to build it.

I didn't "neglect" to post this propaganda. The reason American are obese is largely due to the GOVERNMENT's promotion of an incredibly unhealthy carb-loaded food pyramid and the heavy subsidies to Cronyiest Agribusiness which produce corn and wheat. All of that excessive corn and wheat is then packaged up as predisgested processed food, courtesy of the U.S. Taxpayer.

The Federal Government enabled this mess - and you just want to double down on it.

I would tend to disagree. Yes, gov't has pushed misguided diets for years, true. BUt more of it has to do with an American lifestyle that retains a farm type diet from 2 generations ago but combines it with an urban lifestyle that discourages walking and other kinds of exercise.

I disagree. A farm type diet with plenty of fresh vegetables, meat, poultry, dairy (butter not margarine!) is a healthy diet even if it contains potatoes and bread. I read a book awhile ago called "Real Food". The author was raised by her crunchy parents on an organic farm. They ate Real Food, and were all healthy. When she went off to college and was conscripted into vegetarianism (lot of carbs!), she became unhealthy. Years later, she returned to the farm way of eating and dropped the excess weight.

Real food satisfies. People tend not to overeat when they find their hunger addressed with satisfying food. Processed food, on the other hand, doesn't satisfy By Design. It is intended to keep one feeling hungry so that one keeps consuming.

Farm diets tend to be heavy on meat and carbs and fats. Which is fine if you're doing field work 12 hours a day. If you're sitting in an office it doesnt work too well.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didn't "neglect" to post this propaganda. The reason American are obese is largely due to the GOVERNMENT's promotion of an incredibly unhealthy carb-loaded food pyramid and the heavy subsidies to Cronyiest Agribusiness which produce corn and wheat. All of that excessive corn and wheat is then packaged up as predisgested processed food, courtesy of the U.S. Taxpayer.

The Federal Government enabled this mess - and you just want to double down on it.

Wow, that was pretty much the point of the article you got hysterical over. Have you been hitting the cornshine?

The Point is that it is used to justify a drive to have a National Food Policy.

IOW, National interference has ruined many people's diets, so let's have even more!

The response of libs to any failed government program is more government programs.

 

[Ravi]

I didn't "neglect" to post this propaganda. The reason American are obese is largely due to the GOVERNMENT's promotion of an incredibly unhealthy carb-loaded food pyramid and the heavy subsidies to Cronyiest Agribusiness which produce corn and wheat. All of that excessive corn and wheat is then packaged up as predisgested processed food, courtesy of the U.S. Taxpayer.

The Federal Government enabled this mess - and you just want to double down on it.

Wow, that was pretty much the point of the article you got hysterical over. Have you been hitting the cornshine?

The Point is that it is used to justify a drive to have a National Food Policy.

IOW, National interference has ruined many people's diets, so let's have even more!

Maybe that's what they mean by a national food policy. End corn and dairy subsidies.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Let recap:

The OP thought Al Gore was the Author and for that they automatically were against it for unknown reasons but mostly blaming the messenger

Then the RW'er had to ask: What does this do? Showing they had no idea why they were opposed to it in the first place

Then the RW'er advocated FOR less labeling

Then when shown what the policy will do they were still against it for the same reasons they were before they knew more about it.

All this helps Americans who have the worst obesity problem in the world none. Not to mention diabetes and other diseases.

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension. I quoted an article in which Algore recommends a piece written by four other men. I hope that clears it up for you.

Thats what I said...Your comprehension is catching up

As to why Algore would advocate a National Food Policy, I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to grok his agenda.

The reason is in the article you neglected to post

Here:

Only those with a vested interest in the status quo would argue against creating public policies with these goals. Now weigh them against the reality that our current policies and public investments have given us:

Because of unhealthy diets, 100 years of progress in improving public health and extending lifespan has been reversed. Today’s children are expected to live shorter lives than their parents. In large part, this is because a third of these children will develop Type 2 diabetes, formerly rare in children and a preventable disease that reduces life expectancy by several years. At the same time, our fossil-fuel-dependent food and agriculture system is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other sector of the economy but energy. And the exploitative labor practices of the farming and fast-food industries are responsible for much of the rise in income inequality in America.

We find ourselves in this situation because government policy in these areas is made piecemeal. Diet-related chronic disease, food safety, marketing to children, labor conditions, wages for farm and food-chain workers, immigration, water and air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and support for farmers: These issues are all connected to the food system. Yet they are overseen by eight federal agencies. Amid this incoherence, special interests thrive and the public good suffers.

In the early days of the Obama administration, there were encouraging signs that the new president recognized the problems of our food system and wanted to do something about them. He spoke about the importance of safety, transparency and competition in the food industry.

now costs $245 billion, or 23 percent of the national deficit in 2012, to treat each year. The government subsidizes soda with one hand, while the other writes checks to pay for insulin pumps. This is not policy; this is insanity.


Of course, reforming the food system will ultimately depend on a Congress that has for decades been beholden to agribusiness, one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill. As long as food-related issues are treated as discrete rather than systemic problems, congressional committees in thrall to special interests will be able to block change.

But there is something the president can do now, on his own, to break that deadlock, much as he has done with climate change. In the next State of the Union address, he should announce an executive order establishing a national policy for food, health and well-being. By officially acknowledging the problem and by setting forth a few simple principles on which most Americans agree, the introduction of such a policy would create momentum for reform. By elevating food and farming to a matter of public concern rather than a parochial interest, the president can make it much more difficult for the interests of agribusiness to prevail over those of public and environmental health.

The national food policy could be developed and implemented by a new White House council, which would coordinate among, say, the Department of Health and Human Services and the USDA to align agricultural policies with public health objectives, and the EPA and the USDA to make sure food production doesn’t undermine environmental goals. A national food policy would lay the foundation for a food system in which healthful choices are accessible to all and in which it becomes possible to nourish ourselves without exploiting other people or nature.

As Obama begins the last two years of his administration facing an obstructionist Republican Congress, this is an area where he can act on his own — and his legacy may depend on him doing so. For the president won’t be able to achieve his goals for health care, climate change, immigration and economic inequality — the four pillars of his second term — if he doesn’t address the food system and its negative impact on those issues.

There are precedents for such a policy. Already a handful of states are developing food charters, and scores of U.S. cities have established food policy councils to expand access to healthful food. Brazil and Mexico are far ahead of the United States in developing national food policies. Mexico’s recognition of food as a key driver of public health led to the passage last year of a national tax on junk food and soda, which in the first year has reduced consumption of sugary beverages by 10 percent and increased consumption of water.

Brazil has had a national food policy since 2004. In the city of Belo Horizonte that policy — coupled with an investment of 2 percent of the local budget in food-access and farmer-support programs — has reduced poverty by 25 percent and child mortality by 60 percent, and provided access to credit for 2 million farmers, all within a decade.

A well-articulated national food policy in the United States would make it much more difficult for Congress to pass bills that fly in its face. The very act of elevating food among the issues the White House addresses would build public support for reforms. And once the government embraces a goal such as “We guarantee the right of every American to eat food that is healthy, green, fair and affordable” — it becomes far more difficult to pass or sign a farm bill that erodes those guarantees.

Think of the food system as something that works for us rather than exploits us, something that encourages health rather than undermines it. That is the food system the people of the United States deserve, and Obama, in his remaining time in office, can begin to build it.

I didn't "neglect" to post this propaganda.

Whatever you call it, you didnt include it and ran around asking what will it do when it was in the article. Neglect, forgot, omitted etc doesnt matter what word you use...you didnt post it.