<strong>The more we get out of mass produced food, the better off we'll ultimately be, especially farmers. Disincentives to technologize food production -- GMO, pesticides, hormones -- while simultaneously producing smaller but higher quality yields, (not higher aesthetic quality) would be a great benefit to consumers and producers (unless you're a huge factory farm operation)
One example we know well in Ontario revolves around milk and milk marketing. Every year, super-cows produce hundreds of thousands of liters of milk that has to be dumped to keep up prices. In the meantime we're getting some pretty strong milk for our money. Limiting the tolerances for hormones in our milk might make it more expensive in the short term, but the price of milk (and other agricultural products) is already artificially maintained. And as a real plus boys might not grow tits when they hit puberty and girls might not hit puberty at 8 instead of 13.
Wouldn't it be better to have a lower, more "natural," yield and let prices maintain themselves? Speaking of "Natural" and "Organic," you are aware that the majority of you who pay extra for products with these labels are probably NOT getting a pesticide/hormone/GMO free product? At least not in Canada, where these terms can be used to describe only a part of your food preparation.
I think our respective legislators have more to answer for than McDonald's when we speak of the quality of food.</strong><hr></blockquote>I agree absolutely . . . organic farming can reduce many maladies that are just starting to show themselves now. . . . Round-Up-Ready, the GMO Monsanto crop is starting to show that it has effectively grown resistent strains . . .(evolution) as many knew would happen . . .
while selectivie diversity in crop planting can be as effective as pesticides and genetic modification . . . not to mention nitrate poisoning of auquafirs and creeks and rivers
and then there are growth hormones and all those chemicals in milk . . .
Did you know that autism starts to show itself at two years old, when part of the brain developes TOO big . . . is there a connection with growth hormones?!?! I have no idea . . but its all organic for me, even if it is a little more money.
anyway, there is no overstating how pernicious and insidious the long term social and envoronmental imapcts are of agri-business and processed foods
<strong>The more we get out of mass produced food, the better off we'll ultimately be, especially farmers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's basically the thinking behind my "federally tax the fat" idea. I like plans that help small business and farmers. I don't like plans that help large multi-national corporations (aka the new government.)
We have global medicare here. If I break a leg the state picks up the bill. If I eat and eat and eat to my blood veins burst the state will give me a heart transplatation. If I smoke untill I can´t breath anymore the state will give me a machine that do it for me.
We don´t have as many fat people as you have. hmmm?
A lot of other factors play a role. One being that a McFeast costs $3.50.
More people smoke here than in US despite one 20 pack of cigarettes costs $5.
Its not just about costs. And cost is probably not the #1 reason.
Actually if you check into it a corporation is nothing but a legal "person." If what you were saying was true we could abolish things like Playboy and Penthouse because they wouldn't be subject to free speech.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
No-one picked up on this but corporations are only granted partial person-hood under US law, and only due to some legal chicanery.
This chicanery occured after the drafting of the constitution so the constitution did not include corporations.
It is claimed that an 11th amendment restraining measures against corporations only narrowly missed inclusion and then only because most states already had laws preventing corporations from doing many things (such as buying each other, forming monopolies etc.).
Nike is currently trying to win the right to lie about sweat-shop workers as part of a supreme court battle over the question of freedom of speech. This is an example of a right humans have that corporations don't (and shouldn't in my view).
This article covers the case and the interesting (and shady) history of corporations' personhood in the US.
I agree, but it's not something that can replace what Bunge, Groverat, BRussell, Stupider, and I have been saying. Just making that much clear </strong><hr></blockquote>
I was refering to the sign but he snuck a post in pretty darn quick.
Yeah, kids and people who grew up decades before the "health crazed 80's" are idiots. That's the exact basis of my argument. How could you figure that one out?
The people against the lawsuit are saying "No one has a right to sue." I'm saying you're full of crap if you believe that because, well, there are a lot of people that could have a case, even if it's only 1% of the population. Should the courts decide that since a majority of the population isn't in a position to sue no one can sue? Obviously not. It only takes one example to prove your (plural) position in the argument as completely off base.
The anti-lawsuit crowd here is creating a straw man argument. Trying to shift the meaning of the lawsuit/argument to say that anyone that got fat on McDonald's can sue. That's not the argument anyone here is making but you all will continue to pursue that line of thinking because it's a winnable argument, not because it's valid.
It's the Rush Limbaugh school of discussion. Keep repeating something that's not relevant and eventually people will start to believe it's relevant.
"You guys want everyone to be able to sue because they're fat."
"No, we don't."
"Yeah, but you're wrong because you want everyone to be able to sue because they're fat."
It's just like the "hot" cup of coffee. No one has ever argued that everyone that burns themselves at a restaurant should be able to sue. It's the anti-lawsuit crowd that's refusing to look at the merits of a case, any case. Forget law, if it sounds sketchy throw it out of court! And when anyone questions your position you go back to the strawman argument of claiming that liberals want everyone to be able to sue because they spilled their coffee.
Apparently law means nothing to conservatives.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually based off of what we know today they were idiots health-wise. I'm sure the same will be true 50 more years from now.
However the march of progress and the ignorance that occured before it isn't the fault of McDonalds. Even now there is still much debate on what constitutes a healthy diet.
I never said they didn't have a right to sue. I just know the lawsuit is frivolous and it was dismissed as such. I didn't even bring up the hot coffee incident.
As for the percentages, I don't believe that even 1% would have a case here. What they are likely hoping for is getting the right jury in the right state that will give them a win not because of the money, but because of the control they wish to have over the this.
While I disagree with their positions, I at least appreciate the honestly of others that simply say, look I want fat food taxes, fat food nutritional labels, and ultimately an entire change in eating lifestyle for the populace. I severely disagree with attempting to do this with lawsuits however in their reasoning a win is a win no matter where it occurs. By my own morals I would rather be right and lose than wrong in a win.
In that regard I would say the law means more to conservatives because courts aren't supposed to create law, they are supposed to interpret law. Not wanting a court to create laws out of the air shows respect for the law. Asking a activist court to create laws and rights out of the air is disrespecting the law in my opinion.
"These restaurants were around years and years and years ago and there didn't seem to be this huge "fat epidemic" or "crisis" (I really hate when that word is flung around so casually)."
This is an important fact. Let's find out what's changed between then and now. Some is our eating habits, and some is the "food" itself. There's the crux of the issue. No one here can say how much weight (no pun intended) can be given to either side without getting the facts that show up in court.
So, the lawsuits will iron out the details. Like with the hot coffee suit. Those that still think it was crap probably never got past the initial shock of "What? Someone's suing because they spilled their coffee?" and those people just don't seem to have an interest in learning and/or understanding. Set in their ways....</strong><hr></blockquote>
A lawsuit to iron out the details? Do you use a sledgehammer to hang a nail for a picture frame? It is about the same.
It isn't the food that has changed but rather the portions. However even in this instance the consumer knew what they were getting and chose to pay more to get the larger portions.
Even a simpleton should understand that if you continually supersize your food, you are going to supersize your waist.
A second factor again isn't the food but societal factors. More households than ever are headed by a single parent or two working parents. As a result more people eat out more than ever.
My solution wouldn't be to sue McDonalds, it would be dramatic tax relief. When up to 45% of everything you earn goes to the government (sales tax, utility taxes, income taxes, etc) it is easy to see why you need a second income. The liberal solution to there problems? Sue McDonalds (to iron out the details) and tax everyone more for universal day care.
I'm sorry to sound like a broken record on this but I would make a large bet that the sectors of our economy where costs continually rise above the rate of inflation are sectors where the government is involved. Higher education and medicine are two areas I can think of right off where the costs have been rising at double to triple the rate of inflation and the market can never truly respond because the government is alway in the middle of it.
McDonalds didn't change how they cook a hamburger or fries. What has changed is breakdown of the family and ever increasing taxation.
No-one picked up on this but corporations are only granted partial person-hood under US law, and only due to some legal chicanery.
This chicanery occured after the drafting of the constitution so the constitution did not include corporations.
It is claimed that an 11th amendment restraining measures against corporations only narrowly missed inclusion and then only because most states already had laws preventing corporations from doing many things (such as buying each other, forming monopolies etc.).
Nike is currently trying to win the right to lie about sweat-shop workers as part of a supreme court battle over the question of freedom of speech. This is an example of a right humans have that corporations don't (and shouldn't in my view).
This article covers the case and the interesting (and shady) history of corporations' personhood in the US.
Lincoln celebrated wealth and the right to be rich. This is what he really said on the subject: "I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good."
And again you set up a straw man... Nike wants to lie so....corporations aren't legal entities that have the same rights as people.
People aren't given the legal right to lie to others, so why would a corporation? They are treated the same under the law.
Wheat is tax free, 75% 'Lean' ground beef is now $5 a pound instead of $.50. A 95% lean half pound burger becomes cheaper and better for you than a quarter pounder at McDonald's.
This also protects small business owners because they don't have nationwide chains that would be federally taxed. It promotes local farmers rather than industrial farms.
Lots of positives.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure except that there is still lots of debate as to how much fat you need and what type to insure good health.
There have been plenty of arguments that people misunderstand fat and think that by eating less fat (not accounting for calories) that somehow they will become less fat.
There isn't a magic bullet for this. Unless you eat less and do more, you gain weight.
Taxing fat is silly and doesn't solve the problem. In fact it shows a massive misunderstanding of the problem.
Most fat is in protein products like meat. If you don't have protein you don't build muscle. When you don't have enough muscle, your resting rate of burning calories is lower (1 lb of muscle at rest burns 60 calories an hour)
So the point is you would likely cause a loss of muscle and healthy eating, especially in the lower classes. They would be eating potatoes and suddenly think they were all irish.
Comments
<strong>The more we get out of mass produced food, the better off we'll ultimately be, especially farmers. Disincentives to technologize food production -- GMO, pesticides, hormones -- while simultaneously producing smaller but higher quality yields, (not higher aesthetic quality) would be a great benefit to consumers and producers (unless you're a huge factory farm operation)
One example we know well in Ontario revolves around milk and milk marketing. Every year, super-cows produce hundreds of thousands of liters of milk that has to be dumped to keep up prices. In the meantime we're getting some pretty strong milk for our money. Limiting the tolerances for hormones in our milk might make it more expensive in the short term, but the price of milk (and other agricultural products) is already artificially maintained. And as a real plus boys might not grow tits when they hit puberty and girls might not hit puberty at 8 instead of 13.
Wouldn't it be better to have a lower, more "natural," yield and let prices maintain themselves? Speaking of "Natural" and "Organic," you are aware that the majority of you who pay extra for products with these labels are probably NOT getting a pesticide/hormone/GMO free product? At least not in Canada, where these terms can be used to describe only a part of your food preparation.
I think our respective legislators have more to answer for than McDonald's when we speak of the quality of food.</strong><hr></blockquote>I agree absolutely . . . organic farming can reduce many maladies that are just starting to show themselves now. . . . Round-Up-Ready, the GMO Monsanto crop is starting to show that it has effectively grown resistent strains . . .(evolution) as many knew would happen . . .
while selectivie diversity in crop planting can be as effective as pesticides and genetic modification . . . not to mention nitrate poisoning of auquafirs and creeks and rivers
and then there are growth hormones and all those chemicals in milk . . .
Did you know that autism starts to show itself at two years old, when part of the brain developes TOO big . . . is there a connection with growth hormones?!?! I have no idea . . but its all organic for me, even if it is a little more money.
anyway, there is no overstating how pernicious and insidious the long term social and envoronmental imapcts are of agri-business and processed foods
but....laws are to be avoided when possible . . .
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<strong>The more we get out of mass produced food, the better off we'll ultimately be, especially farmers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's basically the thinking behind my "federally tax the fat" idea. I like plans that help small business and farmers. I don't like plans that help large multi-national corporations (aka the new government.)
We don´t have as many fat people as you have. hmmm?
A lot of other factors play a role. One being that a McFeast costs $3.50.
More people smoke here than in US despite one 20 pack of cigarettes costs $5.
Its not just about costs. And cost is probably not the #1 reason.
And yes I know what you were referring to.
<strong>THat's brilliant!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, but it's not something that can replace what Bunge, Groverat, BRussell, Stupider, and I have been saying. Just making that much clear
<strong>
Actually if you check into it a corporation is nothing but a legal "person." If what you were saying was true we could abolish things like Playboy and Penthouse because they wouldn't be subject to free speech.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
No-one picked up on this but corporations are only granted partial person-hood under US law, and only due to some legal chicanery.
This chicanery occured after the drafting of the constitution so the constitution did not include corporations.
It is claimed that an 11th amendment restraining measures against corporations only narrowly missed inclusion and then only because most states already had laws preventing corporations from doing many things (such as buying each other, forming monopolies etc.).
Nike is currently trying to win the right to lie about sweat-shop workers as part of a supreme court battle over the question of freedom of speech. This is an example of a right humans have that corporations don't (and shouldn't in my view).
This article covers the case and the interesting (and shady) history of corporations' personhood in the US.
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm</a>;
<strong>
I agree, but it's not something that can replace what Bunge, Groverat, BRussell, Stupider, and I have been saying. Just making that much clear
I was refering to the sign but he snuck a post in pretty darn quick.
<strong>I think we should take children away from obese parents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we should take children away from parents that think that either of the parties actually care one bit about them.
<strong>McDonalds would be the anti-Christ if I weren't an atheist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Damn. We finally agree.
<strong>
I was refering to the sign but he snuck a post in pretty darn quick.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understood that. That's what I was refering to as well.
<strong>
Damn. We finally agree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We've agreed before.
<strong>
Yeah, kids and people who grew up decades before the "health crazed 80's" are idiots. That's the exact basis of my argument. How could you figure that one out?
The people against the lawsuit are saying "No one has a right to sue." I'm saying you're full of crap if you believe that because, well, there are a lot of people that could have a case, even if it's only 1% of the population. Should the courts decide that since a majority of the population isn't in a position to sue no one can sue? Obviously not. It only takes one example to prove your (plural) position in the argument as completely off base.
The anti-lawsuit crowd here is creating a straw man argument. Trying to shift the meaning of the lawsuit/argument to say that anyone that got fat on McDonald's can sue. That's not the argument anyone here is making but you all will continue to pursue that line of thinking because it's a winnable argument, not because it's valid.
It's the Rush Limbaugh school of discussion. Keep repeating something that's not relevant and eventually people will start to believe it's relevant.
"You guys want everyone to be able to sue because they're fat."
"No, we don't."
"Yeah, but you're wrong because you want everyone to be able to sue because they're fat."
It's just like the "hot" cup of coffee. No one has ever argued that everyone that burns themselves at a restaurant should be able to sue. It's the anti-lawsuit crowd that's refusing to look at the merits of a case, any case. Forget law, if it sounds sketchy throw it out of court! And when anyone questions your position you go back to the strawman argument of claiming that liberals want everyone to be able to sue because they spilled their coffee.
Apparently law means nothing to conservatives.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually based off of what we know today they were idiots health-wise. I'm sure the same will be true 50 more years from now.
However the march of progress and the ignorance that occured before it isn't the fault of McDonalds. Even now there is still much debate on what constitutes a healthy diet.
I never said they didn't have a right to sue. I just know the lawsuit is frivolous and it was dismissed as such. I didn't even bring up the hot coffee incident.
As for the percentages, I don't believe that even 1% would have a case here. What they are likely hoping for is getting the right jury in the right state that will give them a win not because of the money, but because of the control they wish to have over the this.
While I disagree with their positions, I at least appreciate the honestly of others that simply say, look I want fat food taxes, fat food nutritional labels, and ultimately an entire change in eating lifestyle for the populace. I severely disagree with attempting to do this with lawsuits however in their reasoning a win is a win no matter where it occurs. By my own morals I would rather be right and lose than wrong in a win.
In that regard I would say the law means more to conservatives because courts aren't supposed to create law, they are supposed to interpret law. Not wanting a court to create laws out of the air shows respect for the law. Asking a activist court to create laws and rights out of the air is disrespecting the law in my opinion.
Nick
<strong>
WE WIN!! WE WIN!!!
"These restaurants were around years and years and years ago and there didn't seem to be this huge "fat epidemic" or "crisis" (I really hate when that word is flung around so casually)."
This is an important fact. Let's find out what's changed between then and now. Some is our eating habits, and some is the "food" itself. There's the crux of the issue. No one here can say how much weight (no pun intended) can be given to either side without getting the facts that show up in court.
So, the lawsuits will iron out the details. Like with the hot coffee suit. Those that still think it was crap probably never got past the initial shock of "What? Someone's suing because they spilled their coffee?" and those people just don't seem to have an interest in learning and/or understanding. Set in their ways....</strong><hr></blockquote>
A lawsuit to iron out the details? Do you use a sledgehammer to hang a nail for a picture frame? It is about the same.
It isn't the food that has changed but rather the portions. However even in this instance the consumer knew what they were getting and chose to pay more to get the larger portions.
Even a simpleton should understand that if you continually supersize your food, you are going to supersize your waist.
A second factor again isn't the food but societal factors. More households than ever are headed by a single parent or two working parents. As a result more people eat out more than ever.
My solution wouldn't be to sue McDonalds, it would be dramatic tax relief. When up to 45% of everything you earn goes to the government (sales tax, utility taxes, income taxes, etc) it is easy to see why you need a second income. The liberal solution to there problems? Sue McDonalds (to iron out the details) and tax everyone more for universal day care.
I'm sorry to sound like a broken record on this but I would make a large bet that the sectors of our economy where costs continually rise above the rate of inflation are sectors where the government is involved. Higher education and medicine are two areas I can think of right off where the costs have been rising at double to triple the rate of inflation and the market can never truly respond because the government is alway in the middle of it.
McDonalds didn't change how they cook a hamburger or fries. What has changed is breakdown of the family and ever increasing taxation.
Nick
<strong>
No-one picked up on this but corporations are only granted partial person-hood under US law, and only due to some legal chicanery.
This chicanery occured after the drafting of the constitution so the constitution did not include corporations.
It is claimed that an 11th amendment restraining measures against corporations only narrowly missed inclusion and then only because most states already had laws preventing corporations from doing many things (such as buying each other, forming monopolies etc.).
Nike is currently trying to win the right to lie about sweat-shop workers as part of a supreme court battle over the question of freedom of speech. This is an example of a right humans have that corporations don't (and shouldn't in my view).
This article covers the case and the interesting (and shady) history of corporations' personhood in the US.
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
Perhaps you need to check your sources a little better.
<a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20020710.shtml"; target="_blank">Lincoln Quote</a>
I think this sums it up best.
Lincoln celebrated wealth and the right to be rich. This is what he really said on the subject: "I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good."
And again you set up a straw man... Nike wants to lie so....corporations aren't legal entities that have the same rights as people.
People aren't given the legal right to lie to others, so why would a corporation? They are treated the same under the law.
Nick
<strong>Federally tax fat to cover health costs.
Wheat is tax free, 75% 'Lean' ground beef is now $5 a pound instead of $.50. A 95% lean half pound burger becomes cheaper and better for you than a quarter pounder at McDonald's.
This also protects small business owners because they don't have nationwide chains that would be federally taxed. It promotes local farmers rather than industrial farms.
Lots of positives.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure except that there is still lots of debate as to how much fat you need and what type to insure good health.
There have been plenty of arguments that people misunderstand fat and think that by eating less fat (not accounting for calories) that somehow they will become less fat.
There isn't a magic bullet for this. Unless you eat less and do more, you gain weight.
Taxing fat is silly and doesn't solve the problem. In fact it shows a massive misunderstanding of the problem.
Most fat is in protein products like meat. If you don't have protein you don't build muscle. When you don't have enough muscle, your resting rate of burning calories is lower (1 lb of muscle at rest burns 60 calories an hour)
So the point is you would likely cause a loss of muscle and healthy eating, especially in the lower classes. They would be eating potatoes and suddenly think they were all irish.
Nick