15
   

Big Food vs. Big Insurance

 
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 04:04 pm
@dlowan,
Depends on how you define it, of course. If you group other foods together it won't be, if you get about as atomic as soft drinks then yes, there is no single greater calorie source according to a couple of studies I've read. The main one I'm referencing (from memory, so no link on me) is called "Liquid Candy" if you want to look it up. They state about them at about 10% of American calories.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 04:24 pm
@ossobuco,
I am moving more to pulses etc to save money, too.

I make "stoups"...too thick for soup, a bit thinner than a stew, and eat them for a few days, too.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 04:25 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I don't know why Bob isn't speaking to me but I will say I agree with that last post he wrote.

And he puts his finger on it unerringly. Boredom.

But I eat a vegan diet. More or less. And the same things day after day. I think of eating like I used to think of putting gas in the car. A Nuisance.

And I'm not poor.

Quote:
the cheapest stuff everywhere is pretty healthy.


Obvious really when you think about it. When Andy Warhol hosted a dinner party for his friends he served them Campbell's Tomato Soup.

But cheap is low status. Common.

So making A2K less boring would be healthy.

0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 04:27 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
What the larger poorer world does that americans are generally spoiled about is to eat the same food every day. Individuals vary, but that's a big general cultural difference.


Yup very true. It's what I mean in that even poor Americans have the money to choose what they want to eat. In most of Latin America it's rice, beans and egg/meat/chicken almost every single day.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 04:39 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Good post Robert; I agree.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 08:03 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
I think junk food should be taxed to pay for the societal cost.


That started in Ontario about 5 or 6 years ago. Junk food and snacks are taxed. Food is not. There are some weirdnesses (that I've posted about before) to the system - 1 muffin is in the junk/snack category, 6 muffins are food.

Overall, I think taxing junk/snacks is great.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 08:06 pm
@ehBeth,
I'd go along with that..
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 08:30 am
@ossobuco,
I think it is basically impracticable. Your own definitions are generally unsuitable for drafting tax legislation. Such a tax would essentially be a trade tariff affecting some states in one way and others in another even if "junk food" could be defined to all their separate satisfactions.

And trade discriminations of that sort might become international and thus produce retaliation. A tax on junk music and junk situation comedies for example.

And then there's scientific biology lessons in schools. That would be a bunch of fun I should imagine.



0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 10:41:43