Progs Now Turn To Ruining Our Food

[boedicca]

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.

That's a quantity issue, not a quality. Protein and natural fats are far healthier for a person than are refined carbohydrates and processed fats.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Thats why they blamed it on Al Gore to get them like Pavlovs dog ready to attack then asked Gore what it will do when it wasnt Gore's idea to begin with.

They dont know what it will do but what they do know is that its wrong....whatever it may be

 

[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!

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

It's sweet that you think that, but it's not their agenda.

 

[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.

It's sweet that you think that, but it's not their agenda.

That is their basic agenda. Subsidizing fat and corn pretty much means that it costs too much to produce healthy foods.

I had no idea that children born today will live shorter lives than their parents. Thanks for linking the article even with the hysteria.

 

[ricechickie]

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!

Ironic that you blame government for "ruining" diets, but reject that government can help anything.

Personally responsible much?

 

[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!

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

It's sweet that you think that, but it's not their agenda.

That is their basic agenda. Subsidizing fat and corn pretty much means that it costs too much to produce healthy foods.

I had no idea that children born today will live shorter lives than their parents. Thanks for linking the article even with the hysteria.

We don't need a National Food Policy to end Agribusiness Welfare. Just stop the subsidies.

Easy Peasy...or it would be if the Prog Elites weren't so dependent upon the campaign cash.

 

[Ravi]

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.

It's sweet that you think that, but it's not their agenda.

That is their basic agenda. Subsidizing fat and corn pretty much means that it costs too much to produce healthy foods.

I had no idea that children born today will live shorter lives than their parents. Thanks for linking the article even with the hysteria.

We don't need a National Food Policy to end Agribusiness Welfare. Just stop the subsidies.

Easy Peasy...or it would be if the Prog Elites weren't so dependent upon the campaign cash.

Hello? Someone would have to give reasons to end agribusiness subsidies. That in itself would be considered a national food policy.

I guess it is the word national that freaks you out.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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.

That's a quantity issue, not a quality. Protein and natural fats are far healthier for a person than are refined carbohydrates and processed fats.

Not sure thats really been well established.
Obesity is about consuming far more calories than are taken in. Lots of things account for that. Lack of activity has to rank high up there.

 

[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.

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.

That's a quantity issue, not a quality. Protein and natural fats are far healthier for a person than are refined carbohydrates and processed fats.

Not sure thats really been well established.
Obesity is about consuming far more calories than are taken in. Lots of things account for that. Lack of activity has to rank high up there.

Certainly lack of activity has an impact; but weight is largely a function of diet. Highly processed foods high in processed sugars and refined carbs are "addictive" because they don't satisfy nutritionally. The morbidly obese people I've encountered have all over consumed processed foods.

 

[boedicca]

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.

It's sweet that you think that, but it's not their agenda.

That is their basic agenda. Subsidizing fat and corn pretty much means that it costs too much to produce healthy foods.

I had no idea that children born today will live shorter lives than their parents. Thanks for linking the article even with the hysteria.

We don't need a National Food Policy to end Agribusiness Welfare. Just stop the subsidies.

Easy Peasy...or it would be if the Prog Elites weren't so dependent upon the campaign cash.

Hello? Someone would have to give reasons to end agribusiness subsidies. That in itself would be considered a national food policy.

I guess it is the word national that freaks you out.

Illogical. Getting rid of subsidies can be done without a National Food Policy. We just have to agree to stop supporting a Big Government Crony and be done with it. Let the market prices adjust and consumers make their own decisions.

I can see how such a prospect is terrifying for you, but you might actually enjoy making your own decisions for a change.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

That's a quantity issue, not a quality. Protein and natural fats are far healthier for a person than are refined carbohydrates and processed fats.

Not sure thats really been well established.
Obesity is about consuming far more calories than are taken in. Lots of things account for that. Lack of activity has to rank high up there.

Certainly lack of activity has an impact; but weight is largely a function of diet. Highly processed foods high in processed sugars and refined carbs are "addictive" because they don't satisfy nutritionally. The morbidly obese people I've encountered have all over consumed processed foods.

Most people consume processed foods. So it's a cinch overweight people would consume mroe of them.
But if people ate potatoes fried in olive or canola oil and home made cheeseburgers every day they'd probably still be obese.

 

[Ravi]

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

It's sweet that you think that, but it's not their agenda.

That is their basic agenda. Subsidizing fat and corn pretty much means that it costs too much to produce healthy foods.

I had no idea that children born today will live shorter lives than their parents. Thanks for linking the article even with the hysteria.

We don't need a National Food Policy to end Agribusiness Welfare. Just stop the subsidies.

Easy Peasy...or it would be if the Prog Elites weren't so dependent upon the campaign cash.

Hello? Someone would have to give reasons to end agribusiness subsidies. That in itself would be considered a national food policy.

I guess it is the word national that freaks you out.

Illogical. Getting rid of subsidies can be done without a National Food Policy. We just have to agree to stop supporting a Big Government Crony and be done with it. Let the market prices adjust and consumers make their own decisions.

I can see how such a prospect is terrifying for you, but you might actually enjoy making your own decisions for a change.

That's a policy no matter how much you don't want to call it that.

 

[boedicca]

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.

That's a quantity issue, not a quality. Protein and natural fats are far healthier for a person than are refined carbohydrates and processed fats.

Not sure thats really been well established.
Obesity is about consuming far more calories than are taken in. Lots of things account for that. Lack of activity has to rank high up there.

Certainly lack of activity has an impact; but weight is largely a function of diet. Highly processed foods high in processed sugars and refined carbs are "addictive" because they don't satisfy nutritionally. The morbidly obese people I've encountered have all over consumed processed foods.

Most people consume processed foods. So it's a cinch overweight people would consume mroe of them.
But if people ate potatoes fried in olive or canola oil and home made cheeseburgers every day they'd probably still be obese.

Canola oil is a very unhealthy choice. I'm coming back to Quantity. If some one has a four ounce hamburger and a few fries, that's not going to make them fat (although personally, I would skip the fries and have some green vegetables).

As an aside, I heard on the news that the average soda drinker consumes 450 calories per day in sugary drinks every day.

Yuck.

 

[boedicca]

It's sweet that you think that, but it's not their agenda.

That is their basic agenda. Subsidizing fat and corn pretty much means that it costs too much to produce healthy foods.

I had no idea that children born today will live shorter lives than their parents. Thanks for linking the article even with the hysteria.

We don't need a National Food Policy to end Agribusiness Welfare. Just stop the subsidies.

Easy Peasy...or it would be if the Prog Elites weren't so dependent upon the campaign cash.

Hello? Someone would have to give reasons to end agribusiness subsidies. That in itself would be considered a national food policy.

I guess it is the word national that freaks you out.

Illogical. Getting rid of subsidies can be done without a National Food Policy. We just have to agree to stop supporting a Big Government Crony and be done with it. Let the market prices adjust and consumers make their own decisions.

I can see how such a prospect is terrifying for you, but you might actually enjoy making your own decisions for a change.

That's a policy no matter how much you don't want to call it that.

\



A much narrower one than the Nanny State Omnibus in the OP.

 

[Ravi]

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.

That's a quantity issue, not a quality. Protein and natural fats are far healthier for a person than are refined carbohydrates and processed fats.

Not sure thats really been well established.
Obesity is about consuming far more calories than are taken in. Lots of things account for that. Lack of activity has to rank high up there.

Certainly lack of activity has an impact; but weight is largely a function of diet. Highly processed foods high in processed sugars and refined carbs are "addictive" because they don't satisfy nutritionally. The morbidly obese people I've encountered have all over consumed processed foods.

Most people consume processed foods. So it's a cinch overweight people would consume mroe of them.
But if people ate potatoes fried in olive or canola oil and home made cheeseburgers every day they'd probably still be obese.

Canola oil is a very unhealthy choice. I'm coming back to Quantity. If some one has a four ounce hamburger and a few fries, that's not going to make them fat (although personally, I would skip the fries and have some green vegetables).

As an aside, I heard on the news that the average soda drinker consumes 450 calories per day in sugary drinks every day.

Yuck.

Canola oil isn't an unhealthy choice, unless you are worried about GMOs. If so, you can buy certified organic.

 

[Katzndogz]

Overweight people eat too much because that is the way they make themselves feel better. Especially poor people. They can't afford a spa day but they can afford a bag of potato chips.

 

[Ravi]

That is their basic agenda. Subsidizing fat and corn pretty much means that it costs too much to produce healthy foods.

I had no idea that children born today will live shorter lives than their parents. Thanks for linking the article even with the hysteria.

We don't need a National Food Policy to end Agribusiness Welfare. Just stop the subsidies.

Easy Peasy...or it would be if the Prog Elites weren't so dependent upon the campaign cash.

Hello? Someone would have to give reasons to end agribusiness subsidies. That in itself would be considered a national food policy.

I guess it is the word national that freaks you out.

Illogical. Getting rid of subsidies can be done without a National Food Policy. We just have to agree to stop supporting a Big Government Crony and be done with it. Let the market prices adjust and consumers make their own decisions.

I can see how such a prospect is terrifying for you, but you might actually enjoy making your own decisions for a change.

That's a policy no matter how much you don't want to call it that.

\



A much narrower one than the Nanny State Omnibus in the OP.

Not really. Good thing we had a national policy on infectious disease.

 

[boedicca]

We don't need a National Food Policy to end Agribusiness Welfare. Just stop the subsidies.

Easy Peasy...or it would be if the Prog Elites weren't so dependent upon the campaign cash.

Hello? Someone would have to give reasons to end agribusiness subsidies. That in itself would be considered a national food policy.

I guess it is the word national that freaks you out.

Illogical. Getting rid of subsidies can be done without a National Food Policy. We just have to agree to stop supporting a Big Government Crony and be done with it. Let the market prices adjust and consumers make their own decisions.

I can see how such a prospect is terrifying for you, but you might actually enjoy making your own decisions for a change.

That's a policy no matter how much you don't want to call it that.

\



A much narrower one than the Nanny State Omnibus in the OP.

Not really. Good thing we had a national policy on infectious disease.

Yeah, that is working out really well for Enterovirus68. Just ask the parents of the dead children how much they appreciate how our National Policy on infectious diseases didn't stop Obama from opening the borders to illegal aliens infected with the virus.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

That's a quantity issue, not a quality. Protein and natural fats are far healthier for a person than are refined carbohydrates and processed fats.

Not sure thats really been well established.
Obesity is about consuming far more calories than are taken in. Lots of things account for that. Lack of activity has to rank high up there.

Certainly lack of activity has an impact; but weight is largely a function of diet. Highly processed foods high in processed sugars and refined carbs are "addictive" because they don't satisfy nutritionally. The morbidly obese people I've encountered have all over consumed processed foods.

Most people consume processed foods. So it's a cinch overweight people would consume mroe of them.
But if people ate potatoes fried in olive or canola oil and home made cheeseburgers every day they'd probably still be obese.

Canola oil is a very unhealthy choice. I'm coming back to Quantity. If some one has a four ounce hamburger and a few fries, that's not going to make them fat (although personally, I would skip the fries and have some green vegetables).

As an aside, I heard on the news that the average soda drinker consumes 450 calories per day in sugary drinks every day.

Yuck.

What makes canola oil, a mono unsaturate, unhealthy?

 

[Ravi]

Hello? Someone would have to give reasons to end agribusiness subsidies. That in itself would be considered a national food policy.

I guess it is the word national that freaks you out.

Illogical. Getting rid of subsidies can be done without a National Food Policy. We just have to agree to stop supporting a Big Government Crony and be done with it. Let the market prices adjust and consumers make their own decisions.

I can see how such a prospect is terrifying for you, but you might actually enjoy making your own decisions for a change.

That's a policy no matter how much you don't want to call it that.

\



A much narrower one than the Nanny State Omnibus in the OP.

Not really. Good thing we had a national policy on infectious disease.

Yeah, that is working out really well for Enterovirus68. Just ask the parents of the dead children how much they appreciate how our National Policy on infectious diseases didn't stop Obama from opening the borders to illegal aliens infected with the virus.

Sad that you've decided to be dishonest. enterovirus has been around for decades and has nothing to do with illegal immigration.