http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070707/ap_on_go_co/tobacco_children_s_insurance_1<b>Tobacco taxes may go to child health</b>

WASHINGTON - The nation's 45 million smokers will probably help pay for the spending increase that Democrats want for children's health insurance, say analysts familiar with deliberations on Capitol Hill.

Democratic lawmakers will push for $50 billion in new funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program over the next five years. To pay for that increase, they must find new sources of revenue or cut existing programs.

Still, the question now is not whether the tobacco tax will go up — but how much it will go up, said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group that promotes universal health insurance.

"I've every reason to believe an increase in the tobacco tax will be part of the way expanded health insurance for children is paid for," Pollack said.

Pollack said his assessment was based on "frequent and relatively recent conversations" with the committees that have jurisdiction over SCHIP. Democrats from the House and the Senate are expected to unveil their respective SCHIP proposals soon.

The federal tax on tobacco stands at 39 cents per pack, and it generated about $7.2 billion in 2005. The money goes into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury.

States also tax cigarettes. The rates range from $2.58 cents a pack in New Jersey to 7 cents a pack in South Carolina.

Tobacco companies oppose another tax increase on their product, but it's unclear whether the industry has enough clout to fend this one off. The ban on unlimited contributions to the political parties, called soft money, has resulted in a significant drop-off in campaign contributions from the industry.

"The higher the tax, the more substantial the future public health benefit," said Dr. Ronald M. Davis, president of the American Medical Association. "Fewer smokers means fewer people with strokes, heart attacks, cancer, and other smoking-related health conditions."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that about 440,000 people in the U.S. die prematurely each year as a result of illnesses attributable to smoking.I've been advocating a tobacco addict tax on this board for years. Finally, it's going to be put into action.

The tax is not as high as it really should be: it would only work out to a 2.6¢ tax per cigarette (assuming $50 billion over 5 years and 378 billion cigarettes sold per year), whereas the real injury to society works out to an additional 37.5¢ per cigarette. But it's a good start.

Next on the agenda is a fat tax. With Americans getting older and fatter each year, we're going to reach a point of crisis and fat people are going to be forced to pay for the enormous financial burden they place on society.

You'll see.

With Americans getting older and fatter each year, we're going to reach a point of crisis and fat people are going to be forced to pay for the enormous financial burden they place on society.

It's those healthy people who live to 100 that cost the most.

It's those healthy people who live to 100 that cost the most.The cost of maintaining an old healthy person is trivial when compared to the cost of years of treatment of slightly younger unhealthy people. Even one surgery can easily cost a decade's worth of social security.

Old healthy people can even continue to work and make money, and thus positively influence the economy.

The cost of maintaining an old healthy person is trivial when compared to the cost of years of treatment of slightly younger unhealthy people. Even one surgery can easily cost a decade's worth of social security.

Old healthy people can even continue to work and make money, and thus positively influence the economy.

Yeah tell that to my 100 year old grandmother who has been in a nursing home for 8 years begging to die. She has watched her husband of 50 years, all of her dear friends, and one child die. She has had 4 major surgeries in the past 4 years - because they deemed her healthy enough to survive them, and she did.

I would much rather die at 70, eating the foods that I enjoy, doing the things that bring me pleasure - than to rot in a nursing home dying of lonliness and begging God each day to take me home.

Obesity and dietary related diseases are what primarily what most of my customers have. Much less are smokers.

If their rationale were logical, they would tax FAT instead.

A FAT tax, a 'sales' tax on everything, equal to your BMI would be fair, just, and equitable. And could easily pay for Universal Healthcare for everyone.

Kids don't smoke, but they certainly DO eat. If parents want to raise 'clean your plate' fat kids, they should pay for it.

Yeah tell that to my 100 year old grandmother who has been in a nursing home for 8 years begging to die. She has watched her husband of 50 years, all of her dear friends, and one child die. She has had 4 major surgeries in the past 4 years - because they deemed her healthy enough to survive them, and she did.

I would much rather die at 70, eating the foods that I enjoy, doing the things that bring me pleasure - than to rot in a nursing home dying of lonliness and begging God each day to take me home.


Buy her skydiving lessons.

That's probably what I will do. Have a huge ass party the night before. Then go skydiving the next day.

Yeah tell that to my 100 year old grandmother who has been in a nursing home for 8 years begging to die.She should have been allowed to die eight years ago if she really wanted to. That is another flaw in our system: thanks to the religious zealots we don't allow people to kill themselves, even if it's beneficial to them and to society.

A FAT tax, a 'sales' tax on everything, equal to your BMI would be fair, just, and equitable. And could easily pay for Universal Healthcare for everyone.BMI sucks on an individual basis; it's only good as a rough statistical measure for large sedentary populations.

We should base it on body fat, and maybe blood lipid profile.

And yes we need a fat tax badly, but you know how the system works, and that it will take time and a series of adjustments.

The correlation between a fatty body lifestyle and health costs are greater than it is with smoking(but of course, they are usually combined). And there are way MORE fat people than there are smokers. Smoking is declining, so a bad thing to tie funds or revenue to. <one less smoker here, in fact>.

If you want a 'well you wanted it, you deserve it, you pay for it model', you definitely need to attack fat first, tax wise.

You got a LOT more people to tax.

The problem with a lipid panel profile, is that you can have skinny people, that are low risk, with high lipids.

8 and 8 rule. If you have had an MI, you have 8 times the chance of having another. And high cholesterol is 8% of the chance(risk) of having an MI. Genetics and having had an MI are the other 92% of risk(high risk).

Next on the agenda is a fat tax. With Americans getting older and fatter each year, we're going to reach a point of crisis and fat people are going to be forced to pay for the enormous financial burden they place on society.
Why not tax old age? And people who drive motorcycles? And people who get a lot of tickets? And people who don't wash their hands in the bathroom? And people who have multiple sex partners? And people who let their dogs lick their faces? And people who have children? .... etc, etc.

Oh gosh, I nearly forgot! We have to tax the poor because being poor is a terrible health risk.

Why not tax old age?We do, through expensive health insurance.And people who drive motorcycles?We do, through expense vehicle insurance.And people who get a lot of tickets?We do, through fines and higher insurance rates.And people who don't wash their hands in the bathroom?It should be an infraction if you ask me. Especially in a high-risk setting, such as a hospital or nursing home.And people who have multiple sex partners?Having multiple sex partners is not, in and of itself, a risk, if you test for STDs and/or use condoms.And people who let their dogs lick their faces?Is this some great threat to society?And people who have children?They're taxed to hell and back, as they should be. You know how expensive a kid is these days?We have to tax the poor because being poor is a terrible health risk.Only because they can't afford health care and tend to eat a crappy diet. If we tax all the bad things we'll have plenty of money to take care of that.

&lt;one less smoker here, in fact&gt;.What? (By the way, if you type in &lt; and &gt; directly it will be interpreted as an HTML tag and the text won't show.)8 and 8 rule. If you have had an MI, you have 8 times the chance of having another. And high cholesterol is 8% of the chance(risk) of having an MI. Genetics and having had an MI are the other 92% of risk(high risk).What about diabetes, stroke, cancer, and so on?

Lets tax non vegetarians.

Tax alchol drinkers.

Tax those who drive (its inherently dangerous).

Actually, how about a life tax. Life is dangerous. Its what makes it life.

Actually, the best thing would be to just give the government all of our paycheck so they can distribute the funds the best.

Oh wait, when new research determines that earlier research was wrong, we need all those tax dollars returned.

Yea, all of that was sarcasm.

Lets tax non vegetarians.We do. It's more expensive to eat animal products.Tax alchol drinkers.That's next on the list after the fat tax. Alcohol is a very destructive drug and its users should be responsible for the damage it causes society.Tax those who drive (its inherently dangerous).We do, heavily.Actually, the best thing would be to just give the government all of our paycheck so they can distribute the funds the best.Perhaps you misunderstand me. I am referring to "tax" in the general societal sense, not the specific governmental sense.

The idea is that people who choose to do risky things that harm society should be forced to repay society for the injury. That payment need not be distributed through the government; for example, auto insurance.

Just an aside, ground beef is like one of the cheapest "per lb" item in the store. Right up there with tuna in a can, pre-packaged lunch meats, and whole fowl (turkey, chicken, etc). Nutrition-wise, about as good for you as eating things that are around the same price. Mmmm... 24hr ramen... and mac & cheese.

Just an aside, ground beef is like one of the cheapest "per lb" item in the store.Because they don't have to show you what's ground into it.

But even the cheapest ground beef is a lot more expensive than tofu containing an equivalent amount of protein.

http://meat.tamu.edu/grbeef.html
The definition of ground beef is chopped fresh and/or frozen beef from primal cuts and trimmings. The maximum fat content in any ground beef is 30% (70% lean) by law. No water, phosphates, binders, or other meat sources may be added and still be labeled as ground beef. If a ground beef label has an added label identifier such as ground round, sirloin or chuck, the lean and fat used in the product can come from only the primal included in the name. So ground round can only contain lean and fat from the round, sirloin from the sirloin, etc. If a package is labeled simply as hamburger, it has to meet all of the already mentioned requirements with the exception that it may contain fat trimmings from other than the primal sources.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/ground_beef_and_food_safety/index.asp
What's the difference between "hamburger" and "ground beef"?
Beef fat may be added to "hamburger," but not "ground beef," if the meat is ground and packaged at a USDA-inspected plant. A maximum of 30% fat by weight is allowed in either hamburger or ground beef. Both hamburger and ground beef can have seasonings, but no water, phosphates, extenders, or binders added. They must be labeled in accordance with Federal Standards and Labeling Policy and marked with a USDA-inspected label.

Most ground beef is ground and packaged in local stores rather than in food processing plants under USDA inspection. Even so, the Federal labeling laws on fat content apply. Most states and cities set standards for store-packaged ground beef which, by law, cannot be less than Federal standards. If products in retail stores were found to contain more than 30% fat by weight, they would be considered "adulterated" under Federal law.

Is ground beef inspected and graded?
All meat transported and sold in interstate commerce must be federally inspected. The larger cuts are usually shipped to local stores where they are ground. The Food Safety and Inspection Service carries out USDA's responsibilities under the Federal Meat Inspection Act. These laws protect consumers by ensuring that meat products are wholesome, unadulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.

For meat being transported and sold within a state, state inspection would apply. State inspection programs must enforce requirements at least equal to those of Federal inspection laws.

Grades are assigned as a standard of quality only. It is voluntary for a company to hire a Federal inspector to certify the quality of its product. Beef grades are USDA Prime, Choice, Select, Standard, Commercial, Utility, Cutter, and Canner. They are set by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. Most ground beef is not graded.

From what cuts of beef are ground beef and hamburger made?
Generally, ground beef is made from the less tender and less popular cuts of beef. Trimmings from more tender cuts may also be used. Grinding tenderizes the meat and the fat reduces its dryness and improves flavor.

Think about it, Stormhaven. If it were such good quality meat, why wouldn't they sell it whole, for 5x the price?

<img src="http://web2.airmail.net/naomi/temp/heli.gif">

The Brits are already way ahead of us. They are already seriously considering a fat tax, while we're still subsidizing junk food and wondering why health insurance premiums are going up 20% per year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6291072.stm<b>Fat taxes 'could save thousands'

More than 3,000 fatal heart attacks and strokes could be prevented in the UK each year if VAT was slapped on a vast range of foods, say Oxford researchers.</b>

A 17.5% rise on fatty, sugary or salty food would cut heart and stroke deaths by 1.7%, the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health said.

One of the researchers declared the time was right to debate a "fat tax". But the idea was dismissed in 2004 by former prime minister Tony Blair as too suggestive of a "nanny state".

The researchers from the Department of Public Health at Oxford University are among the first to try to work out how targeted taxes might have an effect on levels of illness. They used economic data first to work out how demand would fall as the price of unhealthy foods increased, and which foods people might turn to instead - then used these results to predict the benefit on the health of the population. Initially at least, average weekly food bills would increase by 4.6% per household.

<b>Change for the worse</b>

They first applied the tax only to dairy products containing high levels of saturated fats - such as butter and cheese, as well as baked goods and puddings. However, their analysis found that people would simply switch over to other unhealthy foods such as those containing high levels of salt, perhaps even increasing the risk of stroke and heart disease. They then turned to a different measure of food "healthiness" called the SSCg3d score, where points are awarded for the content of eight nutrients in 100g of the food. Taxing all products which scored poorly on this scale saved lives, they said, with approximately 2,300 fewer deaths a year from heart disease and stroke.

Finally, they tweaked the range of taxed products to include those foods which might not score so poorly on the scale, but may be used as alternatives if unhealthier foods were taxed. This resulted in small additions to the list of taxed and untaxed foods to encourage healthier eating. This approach yielded the most apparently striking results, with as many as 3,200 deaths prevented.

Dr Mike Rayner, who worked on the study, said that the third, seemingly most effective, option was "more theoretical", and less practical to implement, but called on government to consider taxing high scoring foods. He said: "This is still at a fairly early stage, but the time is right for more debate on the issue of 'fat taxes'. "The other thing which would have to be done is to look at the possibility of subsidies for healthier foods, rather than simply looking at increases in tax."

<b>'Nanny state'</b>

However, Maura Gillespie, from the British Heart Foundation, said that it did not yet support "fat taxes". "The debate on unhealthy diets is important as it is estimated that 30% of deaths from coronary heart disease are caused by unhealthy diets. "Further evidence is needed on the effect of targeted food taxes before we can support a 'fat tax'."

When Downing Street's strategy unit was reported to be proposing fat taxation in 2004, Tony Blair said that such a move could actually turn people off the idea of healthy eating. He told a Labour Party Big Conversation event: "People don't want to live in a nanny state."I do like their marketing angle. Instead of saving money, they talk about lives saved.

Do it for the (fat) children!

I would like to address the morons in our society that think a fat tax is a proper tax to endorse. Let me assure you all that whenever we feel we are doing the RIGHT thing we Usually are NOT!! Is there some fundamental problem here in allowing people to choose there own path thru life??? If so perhaps Red China or North Korea could be your Val Halla....certainly such oppressive commie crap should not be in America. You better give your heads a shake ....your trying your best too give away freedom....How Sad.

Is there some fundamental problem here in allowing people to choose there own path thru life???Yes, because I have to pay for your path.your trying your best too give away freedom....How Sad.On the contrary, I want you to retain your freedom to eat garbage, blow up like a balloon, have a heart attack, and sit in a hospital for weeks hooked up to a bunch of tubes.

I just want you to pay for it.

Is that asking too much? Do whatever you like to yourself, but if you force society to spend resources fixing you up, you must compensate society.

Rather than having all the subsidies on corn and wheat, which get made into crappy cereals and snack foods. Lets subsidize foods that people should eat more of, like the vegetables and fruits we buy in the markets. Only whole, unprocessed ones though. The processed stuff invariably ends up unhealthy.

On the contrary, I want you to retain your freedom to eat garbage, blow up like a balloon, have a heart attack, and sit in a hospital for weeks hooked up to a bunch of tubes.

I just want you to pay for it.

Freedoms are nice if they're free.

Lets subsidize foods that people should eat more of, like the vegetables and fruits we buy in the markets.I doubt cost is a significant issue. People eat junk because that's what they're addicted to, and they wouldn't eat good food even if it were free.

Yes, poor people are fatter, but that's because they don't have the time and money to waste on dieting. Rich people eat nutritionless farmed meat, refined starches, and sugar all day long.

Freedoms are nice if they're free.Excuse me? Under what concept of freedom should you have a right to force me to pay for your recklessness?

You're free to kill yourself, but your freedom ends the moment you expect me to pay for you to do it.

Excuse me? Under what concept of freedom should you have a right to force me to pay for your recklessness?

The same concept of freedom that forces people like me to pay for the recklessness of foreign invasions, perhaps.

If you want a more philosophical answer then consider a free society. Personal freedom entitles invididuals. A free society empowers everyone. Everyone has to share the burden of providing the universal freedoms of a free society, even if every particular individual doesn't exercise every particular freedom.

I doubt cost is a significant issue. People eat junk because that's what they're addicted to, and they wouldn't eat good food even if it were free.

Cost is significant.

If you buy 10 bucks worth of processed stuff, it usually can sit on the shelf for weeks after you only consume 2 dollars worth of it.

Where as fresh products, you can count on that 8 bucks worth of stuff to spoil in the bottom of your fridge.

For Fourth of July, I bought a watermelon, a bag of grapes, 4 kiwis, 4 fuji apples. And a bag of Sunchips. When I got home, I had to throw away half the watermelon, the entire bag of grapes, all 4 kiwis. They had spoiled or gone soft and inedible. The fujis were still great, as well as the Sunchips(was able to finish off the bag a week later).

One thing great, is that I accidentally bought a seeded watermelon. I forgot exactly how much better they taste over seedless. But I am sure that it was all mostly fructose(which it was), and all you naysayers would say that it was less healthy for me.

Where as fresh products, you can count on that 8 bucks worth of stuff to spoil in the bottom of your fridgeOnly if you buy 5 times as much as you can eat in a week.

And there are many foods that are nutritious and can keep for long periods, e.g., whole grains, beans, and frozen vegetables.

Somehow I doubt "inability to plan ahead for simple tasks" is a large factor in the obesity epidemic.One thing great, is that I accidentally bought a seeded watermelon. I forgot exactly how much better they taste over seedless. But I am sure that it was all mostly fructose(which it was), and all you naysayers would say that it was less healthy for me.Watermelon is a very nutritious fruit, and low in calories. It's the sort of thing people should be buying instead of Krispy Kreme.

Only if you buy 5 times as much as you can eat in a week.
Well, last time I checked, that is how thing are sold at the store.

I want to eat a salad, I don't need a whole head of lettuce or cucumber. I just need half. The other half rots in the drawer in the bottom of the fridge.

And there are many foods that are nutritious and can keep for long periods, e.g., whole grains, beans, and frozen vegetables.
Those are not fresh foods, are they?

Somehow I doubt "inability to plan ahead for simple tasks" is a large factor in the obesity epidemic.
It is THE factor. After the need to have fats on your tastebuds.

Watermelon is a very nutritious fruit, and low in calories.
High in fructose. We have all agreed that was bad.


It's the sort of thing people should be buying instead of Krispy Kreme.
Well, ya, no one should be buying up fried sugared dough, covered with sugar sauce, in the first place.

Well, last time I checked, that is how thing are sold at the store.

I want to eat a salad, I don't need a whole head of lettuce or cucumber. I just need half. The other half rots in the drawer in the bottom of the fridge.Maybe it's a distribution issue, because your market should have salad mixes and the like. Or are you saying you can't finish a kiwi, or an apple, in a week's time?Those are not fresh foods, are they?Do they need to be, to be nutritious? Fresher is better, but not essential to most of the nutritive value.High in fructose. We have all agreed that was bad.One cup of chopped watermelon has 5g of fructose (out of 12g sugar), and lots of nutrients. That is not bad, in any sane quantity. You will be full long before you ingest enough to be excessive.

I think I said "whole foods" not fresh foods. So frozen veggies would be subsidized too.

You can't finish a whole head of lettuce in a week? I always buy those bags of pre-washed, organic baby lettuces. Nothing could be faster than making a big salad, putting some pre-cooked chicken on it.

I don't think fructose in fruit is the problem, its when it is concentrated and used in fruit juices, soda, baked goods, etc. And that "sweet" flavor isn't all fructose, there's probably glucose and other sweeteners in fruit too (sugar alcohols, maybe things like inulin).

Maybe it's a distribution issue, because your market should have salad mixes and the like. Or are you saying you can't finish a kiwi, or an apple, in a week's time?
It went bad in a day. They were inedible on the Fifth of July.

It went bad in a day. They were inedible on the Fifth of July.Then you should shop at a grocer that doesn't sell spoiled produce (e.g., Safeway and chain supermarkets). That fruit should've been fine for a week at room temperature (uncut).

Yeah, if it went bad in a day there's something wrong with the grocery store or your refrigerator... or you can't tell when produce is going bad yourself.

It was the Fourth of July.

I went out to the lake for picnic and fireworks.

All of the processed products did fine. It was the fresh products which deteriorated.



Which is one of the reasons poor people buy processed products, that is to say the increased cost associated with spoiled fresh foods.

Which is one of the reasons poor people buy processed products, that is to say the increased cost associated with spoiled fresh foods.So you're saying people are fat because they shop in ****ty markets like Safeway?

You're assuming that there's always a better alternative.

It costs time and money to go to stores further away.

So you're saying people are fat because they shop in ****ty markets like Safeway?

Safeway stores around here are high end stores for poor people.

They shop at Safeway's food outlet stores usually. Food 4 Less, and El Rancheria. We even have two independant food outlets(in town), which are even lower end than those.

Safeway stores around here are high end stores for poor people.Don't you have farmer's markets? Or even Hispanic/Asian markets?

If you want cheap, you can go to the Mexican markets here in the Mission district and buy produce that's like 1/3 the price of Safeway while still being higher quality.

You do live in central California, after all, how hard can it be to find good produce?

So you're saying people are fat because they shop in ****ty markets like Safeway?

Poor(er) people are heavier (fatter) because the food they can afford to eat is not as healthy as the fresh more expensive stuff. Example: 1 10 pound bag of potatoes is $4.00, 2 boxes of maccaroni and cheese are less than a dollar, 1 loaf of bread and a container of cheap bolonga less than $2.00... you could eat for a week on that!! Compared to the $3.00 for a bag of lettuce, $2.50 for the dressing that would maybe last 2 days of meals.

Not all fat people are lazy, some are just poor and cant' afford the niceties of eating healthy.

Poor(er) people are heavier (fatter) because the food they can afford to eat is not as healthy as the fresh more expensive stuff.I've heard that excuse before, but then I see rich people buying and eating all the same garbage that the poor people buy and eat. And I see poor people spending tons of money on overpriced junk and take-out foods.

Eating a healthy diet on a budget is not difficult at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6897221.stm<b>Poor 'do not have a worse diet'

We should all try to avoid unhealthy foods, say the FSA
People on low incomes have similar diets to the rest of the population, a government report has said.</b>

The Food Standards Agency found that contrary to popular belief, nutrition, access to food and cooking skills are not much different in poorer families. However, the agency pointed out that the whole population was not eating as healthily as it should be.

Public health experts said the results were surprising but showed everyone needed to eat a better diet.

There had been concern that diets among those on the lowest incomes were extremely poor and they faced more barriers to healthy eating. Poor diets can lead to chronic disease, such as heart disease and cancer, and contribute to obesity.

But a survey of 3,500 people on low incomes found that the food they were eating, although not particularly healthy, was similar to the general population.

You do live in central California, after all, how hard can it be to find good produce?

"That boy might be legally retarded."

Produce, good or bad, does not last as long as processed foods. And is more expensive than basic processed foods.

A pound of Velveeta for 4 bucks is less expensive that a pound of store brand Cheddar for 4 bucks a pound. Because it lasts longer. Lasts longer than TWO, in a row. In the cupboard.



You know if you wanna argue with me, when I say, "Cars drive on asphalt". And you spend all your energy arguing, "Nuh uh, Nuh uh."..//"They drive on roads". "And, And, they drive on gas"... Go for it. It is just a waste of your time as much as it is mine.

Produce, good or bad, does not last as long as processed foods.It lasts long enough to not be a significant factor, unless you go shopping once a month or something.And is more expensive than basic processed foods.It isn't. Unless of course it's not the same food, such as your example (Cheez Wiz is not cheese, and it can only be loosely described as "food").

Now, take your average cereal box, and compare it to your average bulk bin of oats, and tell me which is cheaper.

BMI sucks on an individual basis; it's only good as a rough statistical measure for large sedentary populations.

We should base it on body fat, and maybe blood lipid profile.

And yes we need a fat tax badly, but you know how the system works, and that it will take time and a series of adjustments.

Tudamorf, seriously, I hope someone shoots you sometime soon. You need to be removed from society before your brand of callous hate spreads further.

The Brits are already way ahead of us. They are already seriously considering a fat tax, while we're still subsidizing junk food and wondering why health insurance premiums are going up 20% per year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6291072.stmI do like their marketing angle. Instead of saving money, they talk about lives saved.

Do it for the (fat) children!

Ze Fuehrer vill tell you vhat es gud to eat and you vill eat it!

If you do not meet ze fuehrer's standards for how you should live your life...ve vill make you pay for it...but only if you are ze poor. Ze wealthy donate much and vill be able to get waivers!

Rather than having all the subsidies on corn and wheat, which get made into crappy cereals and snack foods. Lets subsidize foods that people should eat more of, like the vegetables and fruits we buy in the markets. Only whole, unprocessed ones though. The processed stuff invariably ends up unhealthy.

Corn and wheat are the base level produce for human consumption.

We must, for our security and the well being of the nation, always be able to produce corn and wheat (and other cereal grains) inexpensively.

Besides, for every moron who says wheat and corn is bad, there's a more intelligent person who realizes its not.

Get it through your heads, people, carbohydrates are not bad.

What's bad is American's working more hours weekly and yearly, on average, than the workers of any other wealthy industrial nation. Americans got into fast processed food for a reason.

What's bad is American's working more hours weekly and yearly, on average, than the workers of any other wealthy industrial nation. Americans got into fast processed food for a reason.Funny how those rich Americans with so little time always spring for a burger, fries, shake, and dozen Krispy Kreme, instead of healthier options.

I guess working longer hours automatically addicts you to sugar, refined starches, bad fats, and junk food in general.

Tudamorf, seriously, I hope someone shoots you sometime soon. You need to be removed from society before your brand of callous hate spreads further.Yep, when you can't intelligently debate the merits of an idea, it's time to pull out your guns and force your opinions on others. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>