Obama administration: We need to control marketing of children's food

Grim,

The lib's can change their name from Americans to Lemmings. They can follow their leader when he finally runs of the cliff.

When our children were growing up, we as parents made sure that they ate correctly. I can count on both hands the times we went to Micky D's or any other fast food place. We ate our meals at home as a family at the table, not in front of the TV. We made sure they ate a good breakfast before going to school. We didn't need the government to tell us what was good to eat. I guess that came from being raised that way when we were growing up.

To this day our children are very active with their husbands, but they still eat their meals with their spouses at the table. We are very proud of our children that they are continuing this type of family bonding.

smart people eat right. Idiots over-eat and get fat and die of obesity-related illnesses. They do this by choice. Nobody makes them eat.

Oh no! Alarm! Some people cannot help it and they eat too much of the wrong foods! They fall 'prey' to these monstrous companies! What an outrage! Destroy the evil villains! Take all the tasty food that people like to eat away unless it is good for them! Like a fat-person who eats too, much won't find a way? Are you nuts?

Classic: take no responsibility for your choices. Let the feds decide what you need.

It isn't happening and now the cost of that excess it is coming out of my pocket.

Uhhmmmm yes I have noticed! This Pres and admin are all about control. I personally think his wish to control everyone and everything is out of control!!! What's next, a quest for world domination? I think he should try to get a little control over our national debt first. Just saying.....

Very astute. I think come 2012 we should control him.

I'm going to do my best to make that one vote count!!!!

Those laws are made locally...

Those laws are made locally...

There are several federal laws regulating tobacco, including advertising and labeling dating back to at least the 1960's. Most recently, the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 2009. Furthermore, the FDA has the broad authority to regulate tobacco under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Of course, states are free to make additional laws with more stringent regulations, but they are by no means the lone authority.

I make my choices on food for many reasons, marketing isn't one of them.

Are you a child?

Santino, when did children get jobs and choose what they eat? Oh wait, they DON'T. Their PARENTS do. The PARENTS are the ones who are CHOOSING to make their kids obese and unhealthy. It's as simple as walking past the Oreos and driving past McDonald's. It takes no effort at all! It actually takes effort to engage in those unhealthy behaviors.

But I guess it doesn't matter, as long as parents don't have to raise their kids anymore. The government takes care of that now.

Are you a child?

1. Megidoloan put it wonderfully above.

2. I was a child once as well. I don't recall basing my decisions on a commercial. There were a lot of commercials for things I HATED when I was younger and no amount of cartoon characters could EVER make me love Apple Jacks. You know what I am saying? Kids like food that tastes good.

3. 90% of children who are obese have parents too lazy/neglectful to properly manage their children's eating habits and exercise.

But I guess it doesn't matter, as long as parents don't have to raise their kids anymore. The government takes care of that now.

McDonald's, like most fast food companies, have been marketing themselves since the 50s. So grandparents of today on down have been inundated with this crap.

when did children get jobs and choose what they eat?

When they are at school away from you.

Santino - and since the 50's, Mcdonalds has started selling salads, and chicken, milk, etc.

Regarding when the kids are at schools - all that really takes is the parents marching into the schools and saying "You will get rid of the soda machines, the donuts, the candy machines, etc." But will they do that? NO.

Here's a thought - instead of trying to change the entire country because of some overweight kids, why don't they REINSTATE gym? Make the kids run around on the playground for 1/2 hour every day.

and since the 50's, Mcdonalds has started selling salads,

Bull@!$%#....McDonald's first introduced salads to its menu in 1985.

Regarding when the kids are at schools - all that really takes is the parents marching into the schools and saying "You will get rid of the soda machines, the donuts, the candy machines, etc." But will they do that? NO.

Yes because parents won't stand united on the matter.

instead of trying to change the entire country because of some overweight kids,

An obesity epidemic is hardly "some" overweight kids.

why don't they REINSTATE gym?

Lack of resources. This is why I'm a huge supporter of education funding reform.

Make the kids run around on the playground for 1/2 hour every day.

Then they can eat whatever they want right? You can't be serious...

Santino42 - Bull@!$%#? You proved my entire point with your link!!! LOL

If you truly think that it takes "resources" to reinstate gym or playing kickball on a playground then I really don't want you in charge of any education funding reform.

If you think that 1/2 hour of vigorous exercise doesn't help to burn calories then you're just simply uninformed.

If you want to control what kids eat, then I suggest putting guidelines on food stamps because unless the government is paying for the food, they have NO RIGHTS to tell me what my children can and cannot eat.

Bull@!$%#? You proved my entire point with your link!!

WOW...are you a troll? You claimed that they have been offering salads since the 50s and you were wrong? WTF are you talking about?

If you truly think that it takes "resources" to reinstate gym

Yes, any and every setting/function during school hours requires funding.

If you think that 1/2 hour of vigorous exercise doesn't help to burn calories then you're just simply uninformed.

Burning calories does not make you a healthy person.

they have NO RIGHTS to tell me what my children can and cannot eat.

Try feeding your child arsenic and see if the government steps in.

Santino -

since

 /sɪns/ Show Spelled[sins] Show IPA
–adverb 1.
from then till now (often prec. by ever): He was elected in 1978 and has been president ever since.

2. between a particular past time and the present; subsequently: She at first refused, but has since consented.
3.ago; before now: long since
WOW - am I a troll? Are you a moron?

Are you a moron?

COH check it out sometime sweetheart ;).

and troll isn't?

Why not? Don't you think smokers should have to pay for the public health consequences of their actions? Peopl who eat terrible food should similarly have to help pay for the public health consequences of their actions.

jawill - what right does anybody have to tell me what I can smoke, what I can drink or what I can eat? Those are the absolute most basic freedoms I can even THINK of! Public health consequences be damned - that's a red herring for government wanting in my most extremely personal business.

They're not telling you what to do. They are making you pay for your actions. What's wrong with personal responsibility? They are also educating people about making better decisions. What's wrong with helping people make more informed decisions?

Public health consequences be damned

Public health is one of the most important things in an advanced society. Luckily, most people realize its benefits. It in no way prevents you from doing anything to yourself. It prevents others from poisoning you without your knowledge and helps you make healthy decisions. I struggle to understand how anybody would not be in favor of that.

personal responsibility, jawill, is just that - PERSONAL. Telling McDonalds they have to use non-saturated fat to fry my poatoes is not making me pay for my actions, it's dictating what I may do. Helping people make decisions, and MANDATING things are two totally separate things.

If you really think that the majority of peole in this country realize the "benefits" of government mandating your "health" you're sadly mistaken. If I choose to poison myself with daily doses of chocolate, and I have my own health insurance, whose business is it? If I choose to smoke cigarettes non-stop in the privacy of my home with no second hand smoke going anywhere, whose business is it?

This is NOT your decision. Personal responsibility says that I do what I want for ME and live with the results. I am vehemently opposed to this. As a libertarian I am not only opposed, I am appalled and extremely frightened by the mentality I'm seeing here "for the good of all".

This is still America. We don't live in communes - YET

Telling McDonalds they have to use non-saturated fat to fry my poatoes is not making me pay for my actions, it's dictating what I may do.

Who is telling them to do that? Not the federal government.

If you really think that the majority of peole in this country realize the "benefits" of government mandating your "health" you're sadly mistaken.

You're wrong there. The vast majority of people like the fact that the government regulates food production, restaurants, water supplies, wastewater treatment, etc. Do some research into the diseases prevelent in our society before we instituted those regulations.

If I choose to smoke cigarettes non-stop in the privacy of my home with no second hand smoke going anywhere, whose business is it?

Where do you see the government prohibiting you from smoking in your home?

Personal responsibility says that I do what I want for ME and live with the results.

Yes, and if you smoke, you should have to pay a tax that goes towards the medical treatment for smokers. That is personal responsibility. Why should I have to pay for that when I choose not to smoke?

You seem to be under a false impression of the government forcing decisions on you. Please provide specific examples of this.

You seem to be under a false impression of the government forcing decisions on you. Please provide specific examples of this.

Hello....have you heard of health care reform????

health care reform????

We are talking about public health here, not health care.

Furthermore, you are not required to do anything under health care reform. If you choose not to purchase health insurance, you will pay a fee to cover your responsibility if you get sick and the rest of us have to pay for your care. Back to personal responsibility, just like the cigarette tax.

jawill - first of all, in Pennsylvania there certainly IS A LAW that tells restaurants what kind of oil they may use to fry foods. Secondly, I pay nearly $1.75 PER PACK taxes on cigarettes which IS USED to help fund health care - which is probably FAR MORE than YOU will ever pay to fund it. Third, the government is looking at laws that will prohibit me from smoking in my home if I have children or other non-smokers in my home.

Furthermore, I should have NO responsibility to pay for health care treatment for others. You call that personal responsibility - what a contradiction in terms. If I'm paying for someone else's lifestyle it isn't personal responsbility at all - it's LACK THEREOF

Finally, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, you are completely wrong about the people of this country wanting government to regulate every damned thing. They do so for self-serving reasons. I'm not suggesting that prescription drugs should be put on the market without being tested, but I'm DAMNED sure that if I own a restaurant the only reason the government is getting involved at all is to collect some kind of tax.

Perhaps you want to live in a nanny state, but as a Libertarian, I'm sick and tired of it, and hopefullly, WE will outnumber you guys very soon and put an end to this crap

in Pennsylvania there certainly IS A LAW that tells restaurants what kind of oil they may use to fry foods.

Please link me to that law. I couldn't find it in a google search.

Secondly, I pay nearly $1.75 PER PACK taxes on cigarettes which IS USED to help fund health care - which is probably FAR MORE than YOU will ever pay to fund it.

And, if you keep smoking, you will likely require a lot more care than I will. Remember the personal responsibility we keep talking about?

Furthermore, I should have NO responsibility to pay for health care treatment for others. You call that personal responsibility - what a contradiction in terms. If I'm paying for someone else's lifestyle it isn't personal responsbility at all - it's LACK THEREOF

We're talking about a tax on cigarettes. You are being taxed for consuming a product that harms your health and that money is going to pay for the treatment of those diseases. That is the definition of personal responsibility.

you are completely wrong about the people of this country wanting government to regulate every damned thing. They do so for self-serving reasons. I'm not suggesting that prescription drugs should be put on the market without being tested, but I'm DAMNED sure that if I own a restaurant the only reason the government is getting involved at all is to collect some kind of tax.

I spent years inspecting restaurants. You'd be surprised at what they do with the food on a regular basis, and that's with us in there inspecting. You may want to just trust people to wash their hands properly and not work with diarrhea and cook the food to the right temps and wash the cutting boards and rinse the produce, but you would be in the minority and you would be getting sick from the food on a regular basis.

Again, I urge you to research what conditions were like before regulations. They are there to protect you and everyone else and most people recognize that.

Do you know anybody who has gotten cholera or tuberculosis or plague or rabies or giardia or salmonella or listeria recently? Thank a public health regulator for protecting you from those diseases and hundreds others using taxpayer money. Nobody is going to do it on their own. That is what the government is for. You can look at the sanitation and disease rates in other countries that do not have robust public health and see what conditions are like. I can guarantee you that none of them are first world countries.

jawill - I have NEVER said that I think safety regulations were unnecessary.

Regarding trans-fat see this:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/111761/Philadelphia_law_would_ban_trans_fats

You might not like smoking and I really dont' care if you do or not. It is a personal choice. I pay for the cigarettes, I pay the taxes and I pay for my own health care. IF I need to use it, then so be it. But no way in HELL should I have to pay for the health care of anyone other than myself.

Paying a TAX to the government on my cigarettes is certainly NOT a "personal responsibility" issue. It is exclusively a monetary one. The government wants more money and the best way to get it is to tax something which is unpopular. Add that same tax to fresh vegetables and see how many people are outraged.

I have NEVER said that I think safety regulations were unnecessary.

You just said that the only reason the government goes into restaurants is to collect taxes.

Thanks for the link. The city banned trans fat. Not the same as saturated fat as you claimed, but a minor point.

You might not like smoking and I really dont' care if you do or not. It is a personal choice. I pay for the cigarettes, I pay the taxes and I pay for my own health care. IF I need to use it, then so be it. But no way in HELL should I have to pay for the health care of anyone other than myself.

I don't care if you smoke and I agree that it is a personal choice. It happens to be a personal choice that costs society a lot of money. They taxes imposed on cigarettes doesn't even begin to cover society's cost for the personal choice of smoking. Those types of taxes are a great way for people to at least pay a bit towards their personal choices that affect everybody else.

my personal choice doesn't affect anybody but me, and I'm sick and tired of government trying to say differently. You can justify it all you want. I am paying for my own insurance and it's nobody else's business what I do. What next? Ban high heels? They aren't good for you. How about banning air travel - you could DIE if the plane went down.No, I've got it - how about if we ban houses made of wood because they can burn!

You see how ridiculous this has become? Also, I was under the impression that safety regulations in restaurants were LOCAL in nature, NOT Federal

my personal choice doesn't affect anybody but me, and I'm sick and tired of government trying to say differently. You can justify it all you want.

If you personally choose to drink and drive you can affect others.

I have mentioned I'm a Libertarian. You should know their stand on such issues. My rights STOP where they infringe on yours. If I want to drink it's my business. If I want to get stoned, pig drunk, it's my business. If I get behind a wheel I should be arrested. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

my personal choice doesn't affect anybody but me, and I'm sick and tired of government trying to say differently

Well, you're wrong. You can be mad at people for pointing out that you are wrong all you want, but you will still be wrong. When you get lung cancer, those premiums you are paying will not pay for all of your treatment. The rest of us have to pay for your treatment whether you have insurance or not. Even so, I want you to have the freedom to smoke if you want, I just think it would be nuice if you kick in a little extra for the cause through a cigarette tax.

You see how ridiculous this has become?

Only because you are throwing out strawmen. Nobody is banning those things and nobody is banning cigarettes.

Also, I was under the impression that safety regulations in restaurants were LOCAL in nature, NOT Federal

Like several other things, you are under the wrong impression. Local and state food regulations are based on the FDA model food code, and the FDA has direct authority over several areas of food production and sales.

You miss the entire point. I"M not wrong. I am absolutely positively RIGHT for me. Because this is about me, you cannot tell me I'm wrong and if you do, then YOU're the one who is wrong. ONLY I can decide what is right for me. If you and the entire frigging government could wrap your heads around that American would be a much better place. I'm not mad at your for pointing out that I'm wrong. I'm sad and very very disturbed that you actually believe it so firmly.

You keep claiming that you are right, but you are not saying anything that is factually correct.

You say that the government is prohibiting you from smoking, that is factually incorrect. You are engaging in a habit that is very costly to society and you are mad that the government is asking you to pay a small portion of that bill yourself, and then you claim that it is not about personal responsibility.

Do you think that those health insurance premiums you pay would cover cancer treatment if you get it? Who do you think is going to have to pick up the rest of the tab? What if you lose your job and no longer have insurance? What if your insurance company drops you because of a made-up pre-existing condition or you filled out a form wrong 20 years ago?

The difference between us is that I don't want you to have to die on the street if you can't pay your bill in full. I want to try and save your life even though your bad habits caused your illness. The only thing I ask is that you pay a little bit extra for those habits and I want the government to try and educate people against picking up that bad habit, help people quit if they want to, and regulate the industry pushing those drugs. And you don't even want to do that because you are too selfish to even pitch in towards the extra cost of your personal choice. That is selfish and irresponsible.

jawill - you don't get it. I don't have to PROVE that it's right for me to be free. YOU, on the other hand, and this stupid corrupt power-hungry government, need to prove an overwhelming reason to put any kind of restraints on my freedom. If you think that I should have to PITCH IN TOWARD THE EXTRA COST for my freedom you're downright brainwashed by Big Brother - which is absolutely scary

If you don't think government is stopping me from smoking, I suggest you look at laws in all 50 states Take a look at no smoking signs on every building in America that isn't a private home. Stop trying to JUSTIFY the law and admit it exists, damn it!

Don't you DARE talk to me about cancer treatments. My sister -in-law died last year of cancer. Never smoked a day in her life. Never drank. Exercised every day. AND DIED OF CANCER. Don't you dare to even suggest that it's MY FAULT that insurance costs for cancer are so high.

And please do not try to tell me that you're "thinking of my best interests". That's bull@!$%#. You want everybody to have to live by YOUR personal standards and I am sick and tired of everybody trying to tell me what is right for me.

Did you ever jump off a rope-swing into a creek when you were young? I didn't - I thought it was too dangerous. Sky-dive? Pilot a plane? Ski down a mountain? I didnt because I could get hurt if something goes wrong- I think anybody who does should be taxed to the high heavens and made to PAY PAY PAY because I think it's wrong. You want to go along with that one, too?

By the way, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that if Government really wanted to make smoking less dangerous they would simply pass a law that says tobacco companies have to make cigarettes with TOBACCO ONLY. It's that simple. So please spare me your misplaced concern. Government just wants my money and if you're so set against people smoking and costing the insurance companies money, just call your Senator and have the law changed to keep all the chemicals out of cigarettes. THAT is what causes cancer - NOT the tobacco

If you don't think government is stopping me from smoking, I suggest you look at laws in all 50 states Take a look at no smoking signs on every building in America that isn't a private home. Stop trying to JUSTIFY the law and admit it exists, damn it!

I thought you admitted that your rights stop when they infringe on others. Those laws keep your smoke out of other people's faces. You are still free to smoke in private.

Never smoked a day in her life. Never drank. Exercised every day. AND DIED OF CANCER. Don't you dare to even suggest that it's MY FAULT that insurance costs for cancer are so high.

Yes, people get cancer from things other than smoking. Do you deny that smoking greatly increases that risk? Do you deny that your insurance premiums will not cover the entire cost of your cancer treatment if you get it? It's not your fault, but it is a real consequence of your personal choice. Again, I am not blaming you, but I am asking you to pitch in for your personal decision as it impacts society.

Did you ever jump off a rope-swing into a creek when you were young? I didn't - I thought it was too dangerous. Sky-dive? Pilot a plane? Ski down a mountain? I didnt because I could get hurt if something goes wrong- I think anybody who does should be taxed to the high heavens and made to PAY PAY PAY because I think it's wrong. You want to go along with that one, too?

To the extent that those activities impact society, they should be taxed and regulated. Those activities do not pose a significant impact to society, other than airplane safety and the government regulates that.

By the way, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that if Government really wanted to make smoking less dangerous they would simply pass a law that says tobacco companies have to make cigarettes with TOBACCO ONLY. It's that simple

I thought you were against government regulation. Even so, the government does regulate that somewhat. I agree that they should have stricter regulations in that area.

keep all the chemicals out of cigarettes. THAT is what causes cancer - NOT the tobacco

If you think that tobacco alone does not cause cancer, you are misinformed.

We will never agree because you only believe that you and the government have the RIGHT to allow others their rights. I am disgusted with people who believe that. You may think you're well-meaning, but you're really showing nothing more than ignorance of the meaning behind the words "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves". I am truly sorry that you do not have the ability to understand that PEOPLE have rights, not governments.

Yeah, sure. And you want to act selfishly and do whatever you want without having to take any social responsibility for your actions. That is fine if you live on an island, but we live in a society and we all have a social contract to uphold.

That's bull and you know it. What I WANT is to be responsible FOR MYSELF, not for all of society. You want that - go live in a communist country. I prefer freedom and I hope to keep it.