State health commissioner pushing for tax on sodas

Sugary drinks-does this mean ALL drinks containing sugar,or a certain percentage sugar,or soft drinks only? How will businesses that serve refills on fountain drinks apply tax? Oh well,let's continue to twist the knife in the back of NYS taxpayers.....

I think this is wrong, even though I am less a fan of pop and sugar sodas, I think it's just another win for the Gov. to get the NYC debt off his hands and make everyone pay for it.

This is the "Nanny State" gone wild. And it's not like this tax would be used for health care. It will end up in the general fund to be wasted.

Why not write Dr. Richard F. Daines, 368 Cold Spring Rd.,
Stanfordville, NY 12581-6047. Tell him what you think about protecting you from sugary beverages. Or call the state health department at (518) 474-2011.

Howard, is Daines' religious background pertinent to the story? Granted it is mentioned in his official biography (posted below).

Richard F. Daines, M.D., was confirmed as the 14th Commissioner of Health for New York State in March of 2007.

As Commissioner, Dr. Daines heads one of the nation's leading public health agencies with a budget of approximately $49 billion. Under his leadership, the Department of Health administers the state's public health insurance programs, regulates hospitals and other health care facilities, conducts research in a premier biomedical laboratory, and supports public health prevention initiatives. During the past year he helped shape significant health care reforms that were adopted in the state budget, including increased access to health insurance coverage for the uninsured, greater emphasis on primary and preventive care, quality improvement initiatives, and investment in health information technology. Dr. Daines led the implementation of health care facility restructuring measures mandated by the State Legislature in connection with the Commission on Health Care Facilities in the 21st Century. He is currently leading an effort to reform health care through more effective local health care planning.

Personal: Married to Linda Daines, manager of private client services at Goldman Sachs; children William, 27, third-year student at Cornell Medical School; Katherine, 25, financial analyst; Andrew, 21, student at the U.S. Naval Academy, currently on leave as a Mormon missionary in Malaysia.

Hobbies: Gardening on his farm and woodworking.

What he does: Oversees the state Department of Health.

How he got there: Bachelor's degree in history from Utah State University, 1974; served as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Bolivia, 1970-1972; medical degree from Cornell University Medical College in 1978, residency in internal medicine at New York Hospital and board-certified in internal medicine and critical care medicine; medical director at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx, New York, 1987-1999; medical director at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center in 2000, promoted to president and CEO in 2002. Nominated as health commissioner by Gov. Eliot Spitzer in January.

Salary: $136,000

How is this job different from being a hospital CEO? "The spectrum is just quite amazing. The public health, epidemiology and science piece that we have all the way up to hospital financing and regulatory things, its tremendous breadth of challenges."

What was it like being on the government side of the budget process? "I moved so quickly from being a hospital CEO and looking at it from that point of view to joining the administration and seeing it from a different point of view. I thought I brought some balance to it, in understanding how hospitals both look at the specific policy implications of reimbursement changes and at the same time you have to add up a bottom line. You have to make the bottom line agree with the policy buckets that the money comes in from."

Did the Berger Commission go far enough? "They went as far, in their judgment, that they could, and given the challenges that we are meeting in implementing it, I think we've got plenty to do with it. We think it will also precipitate more changes. We are hearing about additional plans from systems that are subject to Berger requirements and systems that aren't. ... Some forward-looking people are using it as a springboard to do even more."

What do you hope to accomplish during your term as commissioner? "I list a lot of things. In terms of public health goals, we have goals to improve health care indicators for large groups of people. A very discrete one is to reduce the number of smokers. We are also looking at obesity and diabetes.

"A second one is to implement an information technology structure for the whole state. We have a hospital and long-term care restructuring which begins with Berger but will continue. We are in the midst of re-evaluating health care reimbursement, and Medicaid is the piece we control most directly. We are revising both hospital and ambulatory reimbursement. We are taking a look at the indigent care system.

"... The overarching goal for all of that is to incrementally move toward universal health care so essentially every New Yorker has health insurance."

How did your experience as a Mormon missionary shape your career? "Learning Spanish and living in a different culture for two years piqued my interest. Just simply the Spanish alone made my career in New York City medicine a lot easier because I started practicing in the south Bronx. I probably spoke more Spanish than English."

Why do you work at a standing desk? "It's been shown that one of the ways people can successfully balance their intake of calories and how many calories they burn is some people naturally stand and move and agitate around their office all day and they burn a few more calories than people who just sit in a chair. The difference of a few calories a day, over a year, over a decade, is why some people get overweight and some don't."

-- Cathleen F. Crowley

Sugar, Fact: There are 13 1/2 tsp. of sugar in 1 can of pop. Its a personal choice if you want to put it in your body. There are health risks to drinking that much sugar. Your pancreas processes sugar for your body. Overdosing it with sugar, stresses this organ, not to mention what it does to the rest of your body. I also learned (at Hyland Hospital, from my Nutritionist), that its simple, dont eat alot of sugar, and your body wont crave sugar. I see young kids with Mountain Dew. In my opinion the parents are doing their kids an injustice, purchasing it for them. I dont buy pop. All you see in my frig is 1% Milk, Gallons of Water, and OJ. Do your bodies a favor, cut out the pop. Its Bad, Bad, Bad. Your health will improve, you'll drop some unwanted pounds, you will gain control of cravings, and your trips to the Dentist, and Doctor will be minimal. Too Much Sugar is one of the Downfalls of Society. Caffine, another killer. Years ago, when people had a coffee, it was in a small 6oz cup, now society is drinking a 12, and 20 ounce coffee. Caffine dehydrates the body, and is not good for the heart. That much coffee will only make your body over stimulated, and it will become tired. I have 1 small coffee from Timmy's a day, 1 small OJ, 2 8oz glasses of milk, and lots of water. I feel so much better, and I dont wake up with "Carb Face" anymore. This is the puffy face, you wake up with in the morning, from too much carb intake and sugar. Now I have "Protein Face", thinner and healthy looking. Take control of your health people, its time, and its very interesting, and enlightening.....

“He figures such a tax would reduce consumption by 15 percent. He also estimates the tax will also help raise $1 billion for the state.”

What a conundrum! Preventing the naughty consumption of sugary pop v. lots of moolah. Hmmm.

Why not have both? Consumption will be reduced, AND tax revenue will go up. So his plan is that New Yorkers will continue to buy pop, but not consume it. Brilliant!

Excellent point, Julie. What's next? A higher tax on coffee? A higher tax on caffeinated tea?, but not as high if it's green tea because that's better for you than other caffeine?

How about we educate kids and adults on the benefits of a healthy diet instead? We could start in our schools where the food is all processed and breaded.

The government is the largest health care insurer and is doing exactly what every other insurance company is doing to limit its liability. We also don’t have the personal freedom to kill ourselves. Now that the country is moving forward with socialized medicine, I don’t want to pay for anyone’s bad choices with my tax dollar either. I’m not sure if you have been looking around lately but, we all have a serious weight problem that needs to be dealt with.

Karen, it’s good to hear you are following through with the nutritionist, best of luck. You are doing the right thing.

Red meat is supposed to bad for you also, so maybe he'll want that taxed next. This is just another stupid idea. This soda tax is not about health, it's about taxes.

Like the idea of "medical marijuana". They could care less if its for medical reasons, they just want the tax money so they can continue spending.

John, the government has just about finished off the smokers, the overweight are just next on the list. I would expect taxes to rise on everything that tastes good. Costs keep rising and the tax collector is in need of a scapegoat. Who really didn’t see this coming?

Dry granola is an acquired taste. After a while you start to enjoy it. :-)

Charlie,
Better stock pile the beer before they tax that away also.

Dry granola? Oh well.

The email address for comments directed to Dr. Daines at the state health department:

dohweb@health.state.ny.us

I suppose, Howard, that pointing out Daines' Mormon background suggesting a relationship to personal health discipline is no less pertinent than noting- when applicable- that a banker is Jewish or a laundry-owner is of Chinese descent.

Granted the New York Times DID mention the Mormon connection:
"Dr. Daines fits the part of the sin-tax crusader. Standing 6-foot-1, he is as lanky and folksy-sounding as Jimmy Stewart, a Spanish-speaking former Mormon missionary in Bolivia who practiced medicine in the South Bronx for 20 years."

I see the emphasis differently. The Times juxtaposed crusader and missionary, emphasis on mission. Your version (and explanation) imply a Mormon ideological objection to consuming certain beverages. I think both takes should have dropped or further understated the Mormon reference. The Times should have completely eliminated the Jimmy Stewart reference; made no sense in that context. Stewart was generally shy, understated and prone to stuttering.

There are plenty of non-Mormons who think Americans consume too much sugar.

From May 2009, Wall Street Journal:
"...the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers."

I wonder how long before NYS will start taxing the air we breathe? If you want a real wake up call,go to a buffet(like Old Country Buffet,or any of the numerous Asian buffets around our local area) and just watch the gluttony and waste that goes on there-boggles the mind. If it tastes good,it is bad for you!

Childhood obesity will cost society (and taxpayers) billions in the next 20 years. The tax is good public policy. However, it would be a lot better if the tax was going to a dedicated fund for nutrition education, rather to the general fund for politicians to plunder.

Dennis when did government get the power to tell me or a fat kid woofin down chili dogs what they should eat. The tax is not good public policy its tyranny.

I agree with Dennis. Four words -- High Fructose Corn Syrup. Tax the soda but educate people and/or use the tax revenue to care for people with Type 2 diabetes and heart disease caused by obesity.
http://www.naturalnews.com/003002.html

I dont agree that the tax is good public policy at all. I dont agree that the tax money collected and dedicated to nutrition education is the way to go either. I am forty some odd years old and since I remember there have been overweight kids/people regardless. I didnt grow up with most of the technology we have now for games movies and the like so we were forced to be active. Candy and soda were readily available and the education on the negative effects of eating these things were around back then. I would agree that if the taxes on soda and all the other crap were specifically used to reinstate exercise and music in schools then maybe childhood obesity wouldnt cost billions but I sure can tell you that any type of sugar soda or candy was LIMITED in my childhood upbringing. Of course we had Kool-aid but not too many of us got obese. I am almost believing that technology is to blame for obesity and stupidity because now more than ever you can obtain all kinds of nutritional information off technological devices even when you are waiting to feed your kids the wrong foods at a fast food drive thru !

You can’t really believe the government would spend the revenues of a tax on the purpose intended? If you do believe the money goes where they say it will, then take a look at where our Thruway tolls go.

I also remember a few weeks ago there were some snowmobilers upset at where their fee money was being spent as well.

High Fructose corn syrup is a manufactured sweetener. Following sugar price increases in the late 1970s, U.S. food processors began a switch in 1984 from cane and beet sugar to enzyme-converted corn-based glucose. U.S. price supports make corn-based sweeteners cheaper than cane sugar. Studies indicate that fructose as opposed to sucrose (sugar type derived from cane) effect the body's digestive process. In a 2007 study, rats were fed a diet high in fat and HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) and kept relatively sedentary for 16 weeks in an attempt to emulate the diet and lifestyle of many Americans. The rats were not forced to eat, but were able to eat as much as they wanted; they consumed a large amount of food, and the researcher, Dr. Tetri, stated that there is evidence that fructose suppresses the sensation of fullness. Within four weeks, the rats showed early signs of fatty liver disease and type II diabetes.

Despite the claims: no Coke is the original- unless you shop in Mexico or countries where sugar is still "sugar."

I know my taxes would skyrocket if what Howard proposed was law. I am especially concernd with the impact of taxes imposed against the consumer of these "bad" products. I mean Even the FDA,USAD and other concerned government funded agencies are just catching up with science.
What about sodium ? Hmmm, anyone that doesnt have high blood pressure raise your hand. Dont get me started about "artificial" ingredients either. Sugar substitutes are still a big hit but anyone remember saccarin ? (not enuff rats got cancer right away).

Maybe we could levy a yearly BMI annual tax so ya just pay per pound !

If its cheap, convenient, and tasty they will come.
I always wondered why "baby food" was a big deal other than cutting a few teeth and chewing some real food. I just hope they don't tax Pizza. Now that's good for you.

Howard,
How about having people over the BMI pay the "fat" tax? That would end this fast.

The fat pop tax and the politicians promoting it are the perfect example of out of control goverment. The poor dumb fat people have a problem we need to tax them so we can create more government programs and government jobs so we can educate people so they are not so poor fat and dumb. I want to be the Chief Adminstrator of the NYS Department of STUPID Public Policies Taxes and Programs. Know why government programs never really solve any problems? Because the government would have to admit that the govermnent program they worked so hard to create is no longer needed.

"I want to be the Chief Adminstrator of the NYS Department of STUPID Public Policies Taxes and Programs"- Sorry Richard, that job's already taken by David Paterson.

How can we forget the Beatles song "The Tax Man?" Wasn't that in the 60's? Almost 40 yrs. later & here we are. As if they could forsee the future. Crazy if you think about it. Nothing, absolutely nothing surprises me anymore in this day & age. Gotta go find the lyrics to that song...

Oh Howard, thank you. How those words ring true. Heavy sigh...

Instead of taxing soda maybe the burden for the escalating health care costs from HFCS should be shifted to Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, the giant ag businesses that produce HFCS. Their profits are in the billions every year and we're paying any way through subsidies.

From ADM's wikipedia page -- ADM's receipt of federal agricultural subsidies have come under criticism. According to a 1995 report by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, "ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30.

Doesn't it make more sense to subsidize the colorful foods that are actually good for us, instead of corn for processing into HFCS that is literally making us fat and sick and killing people?

Taxing those who's business creates public expense seems just along with crediting those that decrease or require less in terms of public expense. The tax obligation of persons without offspring should be less than those who's children populate the schools. Companies that shift jobs away from U. S. soil should support the unemployed. On the same token, companies that produce products detrimental to public health should fund medical treatment for the ills caused by their products and/or the cost of educating consumers as to safe use of their product.

It comes down to Albany not being able to hold down costs and rather than make cuts, they want more and more money.

Lori is against the evil large corportions that employ hundreds of thousands of people produce products people want and make profits. The real problem is with large governments that tax corporations out of business to fund idiotic social programs.

Yes, I am Richard, when those corporations care only about making billions of dollars in profits at the health expense of all of us.

And speaking of those hundreds of thousands that these corporations employ, they don't have the best track record. They might be fair inside the US where we have the benefit of labor laws that protect workers. Outside the US -- not so much. From a human rights watchdog lawsuit -- <i>A leading human rights organization sued the Nestle, Archer Daniels Midland, and Cargill companies today in Federal District Court in Los Angeles for involvement in the trafficking, torture, and forced labor of children who cultivate and harvest cocoa beans which the companies import from Africa. The suit was brought under two federal statutes, the Torture Victims Protection Act and the Alien Tort Claims Act.</i> http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/cocoa/3332.html

Just from a little research I've found that humongous corporations like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland aren't very good stewards for healthy living even though they are in the business of processing food for human consumption.

The food businesses that I try to support, Richard, are local family farms producing whole healthy foods. Local bakery's like Scratch Baking (owned by Mary Margaret Yacuzzo, who I know uses fresh local ingredients) and fresh foods from area farms available in our grocery stores and farmer's markets.

Come on get real you don't drink Pepsi, Coke, Gatorade, or use Tide to wash your clothes, brush your teeth with Crest, take Bayer aspirin or Tylenol when you have a headache, blow your nose on a Kleenex, or wash your dishes with Cascade, have a Dell or us Microsoft Word, put Exxon Gas in your car etc. etc. We'd all be still be pilgrims if it wasn't for the innovation, products and service large corporation produce.

It starts to get real scary when Richard's rants make more sense than all the thoughtful ideas in the post. This strange dream world where we all never leave our own small town and never eat or use anything that wasn’t made by more than five people working together in some communal work camp is a nightmare.

I would rather pay my pop tax and keep my corporate job, sorry…

"social enginering"??? i guess that's what you'd call the GI bill! lately you seem to be trumpeting more & more the same old hysterical right wing republican/tea party talking points & code words. you're entitled to your opinion but to try to come accross & claim on this site that your comments are those of a non-partisan/objective web master is both hypocritical & unverifiable. what is veriable is your marked right wing drift over the past months.

Howard stop beating the small company drum. Major corporations recruit the most intelligent people from all over the world to develop new products. And I wouldn't be on here if Microsoft didn't change the way the world does business. And I'm pretty sure that just about everyone that posts on this site is using a Microsoft product. Major coporations rule the world that is not going to change ever. Without them you would still be walking behind a horse out in Elba and heating your house with cow dung.

Richard, that has to be the most incredible post I've ever seen on this site. In shock-value it may even outrank the psychotic posts on AOL. I don't know whether to laugh or cringe! I will ask one question. Did you weep when Enron fell?

Phil? Which beverage is healthier, water or soda pop? How many kids are served water at the dinner table? The incidence of type II diabetes and obesity in children is nolonger considered merely on the rise- it is called epidemic. If you had to choose- would you pay a tax on soda now or pay the combined health care costs of millions of senior babyboomers in the checkout line and the millions of diabetic young adults struggling with blindness, arterial deterioration and kidney failure? This is one of those pay me now or pay me later options!

Would the New York State be looking at taxing soda pop if they weren't broke.....Or is it really for the common good...I say its because they over spend and have no money...

Mark- the governor's suggestion to tax soda was indeed a revenue grab. This current version comes from the state health dept. Commissioner Daines is proposing the tax as a deterent. Public health is on his mind. ...Of course the revenue collected from any tax has to go somewhere! Like any other sin-tax (tax on alcohol, tobacco), it is meant to discourage or compensate for the products' negatives.

This should make things clear, liberals want more taxes. And they will use any excuse to justify you giving more of your money to them.

Phil- we all pay for health care- ours and everybody-else's. Look at your county tax bill; half of it is medicaid. One way or another- we all end up paying for ill health in general. I have no qualms about your parenting skills. Arguing about paying upfront or down the road is mere rhetoric.

Phil, I totally believe that everyone should try to be an educated consumer, but how many people even know what HFCS is and what the effects are on their health? And while you and I may consume in moderation, many people become addicted to HFCS products.

If you take the time to check ingredients you will be shocked at how much HFCS is in the food we consume. Most people are so busy trying to work and live -- checking labels is the last thing they have time for and living a more 'whole food' lifestyle takes time and is expensive.

The HFCS producers have chosen to put this ingredient in our food because it's abundant and cheap and means higher profits. Large food processors own most of the labels of our processed foods. It's almost impossible to avoid, which leaves a market with little competition and choice for consumers.

This is a personal choice, Phil and moderation is the key word. Every once in a while I enjoy an ice cold Coke, but I indulge sparingly, mostly because I'm aware of the health risks and choose something else. I do, however, believe that these giant food processing companies have a responsibility to consumers and that they should help pay for the health costs.

So my stand as a "Liberal" -- tax the HFCS producers, not NY State consumers and mandate the revenue for consumer education on the deadly consequences of their products. It may result in lower health care costs for all of us in the long run. Might even open up the market so innovators can find a niche and produce healthier products.

and to think Phil is married to a liberal?

Phil, one solution might be educating people so they can be better, healthier consumers. Maybe promoting community gardens, farmers markets and more public awareness about food choices. I would bet most people haven't got a clue about the health risks in packaged food. Just as we educate our youth in the dangers of substance abuse, we need to make consumers aware of the dangers in the foods and drinks that we consume. One place to start is to take the HFCS drinks (pop and fruit drinks with HFCS) out of our school cafeteria vending machines.

Laura, I have posters for you :)

“Just from a little research I've found that humongous corporations like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland aren't very good stewards for healthy living even though they are in the business of processing food for human consumption.”

But, Lorie… I’ve seen the commercials showing concerned mommies explaining to each other that HFCS is made with CORN!! And corn is good for us, right?

Seriously, thanks for posting that information, as sickening as it is. Too bad it’s not surprising.

Lorie,
The food police already have started taking certain foods and drinks out of schools for the past few years.

They are trying to tell us what kind of popcorn we can have at movie theaters. One guy even recommended banning salt. Remember the attacks on McDonalds? When does it stop?

Phil is right, personal responsibility has to play a part, not more and more liberal taxes.

John, it's tough to take personal responsibility when this chemical is in just about every pre-packaged food. It's in tomato paste, it's in many cereals, many crackers, it's in a lot of bread. Besides the usual products that are sweet to begin with like cookies, cakes, popsicles, pop, fruit drinks, fruit roll ups, etc., etc. Take a look at the labels in your own cupboard.

..And thank God for the food police in the schools. School's are not the place to promote and encourage poor nutrition.

This is an extremely interesting thread.

Until the "food police" were mentioned, recently, I didn't see much mention of schools. Has anyone seen what the kids are served to eat at school?

If we are going to tax sugary drinks because they aren't good for us then how about taxing non-organic, bioengineered/modified foods? Salt? Fried food? Caffiene? Doughnuts?

My kids have never had soda! My son loves water and my daughter loves chocolate soy milk. My husband and I drink soda only rarely. On second thought, go ahead, the higher tax would prevent me from drinking it ever!

Finally, I work out regularly (serious work out, you'd be surprised), rarely (when I say rarely I mean like 1 glass per month maybe) drink soda and yet I'm one of the "fat" people you are talking about.

How about we educate our kids? I learned about how awful soda is when I was in school and stopped drinking it. That influenced my parents to stop drinking it too. Let's teacher our kids how to eat/drink healthy!

Jennifer,
You did all that without having to be taxed? How dare you think for yourself.

You are what Phil supports and liberals don't like; somebody who takes personal responsibility!

I smoke cigarettes drink coke in my booze and eat large quantities of HFCSss and freakin bacon man, I just love me some greasy rubbery bacon, eggs and corned beef hash tooo on the crispy side hmmm hmmm. And I don't wear a seat belt when I drive to work at a major corporation that makes billions of dollars in profit cause the people that work here have the freedom to think for themselves and are smarter than anyone in government when in comes to properly allocating and investing those profits.

Ahhh, but I am a liberal.

Let's teach people how to take better care of themselves. If they choose not to let's teach them how to pay for it.

It seems to me that this is a matter of choice.

The problem is that the food/drink that is bad for you is also the least expensive. It's what people can afford to buy, then they come to like it, and really why would the big bad corporations and government make stuff/sell stuff that's bad for us anyway? Let's change that. Taxing it doesn't solve the health crisis, it just helps to alleviate the economic crisis.

Has anyone been watching "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution"?

I was hoping someone brought the show up : "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution". I think I watched the first episode when none of the kids knew what any fruits and veggies were not to mention how much the kids didnt eat the good food LOL. It almost seemed unreal. At least they should learn "A" is for Apple and "J" is for Jacks ;P

Phil,
Nice idea and people like Lori should support you 100%. No food stamps or other aide can be used to buy any food that is not all natural, or at least does not have the things they do not like in it.

Let's go a step further. If anyone on assistance is overweight, then they get a 1% cut in aide for every 5% percent they are overweight.

Additionally to the school food argument....often schools are PAID to have products like Coke/Pepsi or Pizza Hut in the schools. Schools often allow this because the need the money. Companies like Coke or Pizza Hut are able to build brand loyalty among young people because of the availablilty of the product...thus making a profit. These companies don't care about your healt...just profit. Personal responsibilty yes, but you can't expect kids who haven't learned good nutrition (either at home or in school) to make good choices.

John, you're so funny. I happened to point out that Cargill and ADM are producers of HFCS on the backs of you, Phil and all of us via subsidies. Subsidies, John. I didn't know that you supported sending tax dollars to offset corn production -- I guess you do since you are arguing for a product that is produced by way of your tax dollars and not market forces.

I'm not the food police nor would I ever criticize anyone suffering from obesity, as I am also overweight and as much as you would like to believe that I'm putting the blame for my weight on HFCS -- I do not -- I take full responsibility by trying to avoid the chemical and cutting down on fat and exercising more. You and anyone else -- including people on assistance -- can consume till your hearts desire.

I am criticizing the producers that have chosen a chemical over a natural sweetener. And as far as I know this is still how change comes in this country.

From Princeton researchers a month ago when this extensive study was released --
A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ I dare you to read the entire article.

It's in everything, Phil! Nearly impossible to avoid unless you can stay home and bake your own bread and make your own ketchup and mayonnaise. I consumed it last night when I made a home made BBQ sauce for pulled pork using ketchup. It's in the top five ingredients in the whole wheat bread that's in my breadbox. We all consume it just about every day -- on average 60 pounds of it a year. If this is about "personal responsibility", I hope that the market recognizes those of us that would rather have natural sweeteners and offer those products. Right now we are all stuck with HFCS. As a consumer I have the right to lobby for healthier food additives. Pointing out the dangers in HFCS is not a Utopian left wing plot. It's simply wanting safer more nutritious food choices. Producers also have a choice and many are hearing the calls by concerned consumers and are slowly going back to sugar in some products. I guess that's how it works in the free market.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hYiEFu54o1E&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hYiEFu54o1E&hl=en_US&fs=1&&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Lori,
I am against subsidies and that includes for corn (ethanol).

But if you want to tax me because I want to buy a Pepsi, then I want the people who you give my tax money to to buy all natural foods to reduce the need for you tax me even more.

It' all about protecting our health, right?

Did I say I was for taxing your Pepsi, John? After thinking about it I said upthread in the middle of this discussion that I was for taxing the producers and now I'm thinking that cutting out the corn subsidies and lifting sugar tariffs might be the simplest solution, although I would never want to see family farmer's pay the price for bad policies. I'm all for supporting farming -- just think that if the support was switched to growers of the colorful fruits and vegetables, that actually have nutritional value, maybe we could turn the tide on a 1/3 obesity rate and type 2 diabetes epidemic.

What I'm really for is what I just said -- public awareness and a change on the producer side to give me a choice to buy products free of HFCS.

Blogging often turns into an exercise in automatic writing. Let the discussion rattle along for a couple days, and bloggers slip into trance to reveal clues about their inner selves. ...As how some feel about the poor and less fortunate members of our community.

A skewed sense of entitlement, maybe… or that precious belief that misfortune happens to other people.

And labeling people sure makes it a whole heck of a lot easier to dismiss them, doesn’t it?

“Just some crazy Lib/Con/Dem/Repub/Feminist/Welfare/Union/Etc./Etc.”

I think some people would have no problem whatsoever lining up their own personal undesirables and shooting us into a deep pit.

C.M. and Julie,
great observations. I've been following this thread, albeit a little late, and came in when the labeling started.
No point in getting into it.
There are some on here who are so sure that their way is the only way to look at things that they would have no problem pushing anyone who thinks differently into that pit.

Phil,
And now we have Paul Volker, advisor to Obama, advocating a National Sales Tax.

Phil, I didn't mention any names and I'm surprised you assumed that I meant you.
You dislike that intelligent people can express an opinion that differs from your own.
I can read your opinions and digest them. I can understand what you are saying without disliking the fact that you are expressing those opinions or even disliking your take on the topic.
You should be proud of your accomplishments and the hard work that took you to where you are today. The choices you made were the right ones.
Thoses choices don't always present themselves to everyone nor are the results always successful when they do.

Phil, let me state again (I have made this point often enough) I do not agree with taxes other than income tax. I think any other basis for taxation is unfair and punitive. I am a firm believer in a flat, income based tax, universally applied that covers all levels of government, schools, fire departments, etc. Having said that, I also have to frame my opinions within the realm of reality: the way things are. I have yet to master wand-waving.

I am a Constitutional liberal. In other words I support the right of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution rather than politicians who choose to alter the Constitution for short-sighted purposes. I am not a laisse-faire economist. I believe that corporations and society need to be regulated by laws to protect against the usual slew of evils (greed, etc.). I do not think that the survival of our fellow Americans should be left to Darwinian forces. Education, defense against enemies, a pension and health care should be equally important along with other safety net provisions to offset the inequities of disease, unemployment, and other challenges both physical and intellectual.

And finally, if you took my thoughts on automatic writing as critical of you or your opinions- that is not the case.

Phil said "Would it be Lori who called herself a Liberal? or Jen?"

No, I used the word "liberal" as a snarky response to John who was the first to introduce the word on page 1.
John said "This should make things clear, liberals want more taxes. And they will use any excuse to justify you giving more of your money to them." And you responded to John with "Touche".

But I'm certainly not crying and whining about it, just setting the record straight and helping you to understand the context of my use of the word, since you brought it up.

Relax, it's just a fun little discussion. No one's keeping score.

I find it ironic that people really believe that we Liberals enjoy paying additional taxes and support any tax raise or new tax regardless of which administration (local, state or Federal) impose.

Like C.M., I'm all for a fair and equal flat tax. It has some drawbacks but I would still support it.
C.M. also said "I do not think that the survival of our fellow Americans should be left to Darwinian forces.".
Can this be what those who proclaim that those in situations less fortunate than others be left to their own devices? If they make it, fine. If not, let them go the way of other extinct creatures.
Scary thought, isn't it?

Its kind of late but I wanted to share this : Bought some Sainsbury sausages yesterday,there's a picture of Jamie Oliver on the front, on the back it says "prick with fork" ..Cant argue with that!

I don't agree with management of public health via punitive taxation. The carrot has always produced superior results to the stick. ...Not to mention that the ploy is blatant exploitation aimed at revenue. If such revenue was earmarked for health education or treatment facilities, the tactic might be redeemed. That won't be the case; note how the tobacco settlement money was used.

I agree that a food revolution is in the public's best interest. Jamie Oliver or whomever- the public needs to be aware that marketing and product ads are poor motivation for nutritional choices. One need only witness the girth around us to conclude that eating habits are leading to our demise. An asteroid may have wiped out the dinosaurs; unhealthy living will be the epitaph for humankind.

The cavalier attitude that "it's my stomach and I'll fill it as I like," has broader implications. Adults model lifestyles for children. Corporations spend billions on modifying the behavior of consumers- much more than they devote to the quality of what they sell. Statistically, the current generation of children is distinguished by early onset diabetes and other diet-related illnesses. I doubt that parents endorse such a legacy for their children.