Impeach the FDA

Well if the Fed. Govt. is going to take on the responsibility for paying health care and its in the good of the public welfare they should.

I don't know why they don't pass laws that every restaurant should  have calories and nutritional info on the menu as well as have a registered dietician on staff to approve of someone's order based on their weight and lifestyle.

If it would save just one life wouldn't it be worth it.

I just don't understand why people should have to think for themselves or take responsibility for their actions, seem so un-american.

 ETA, why not charge parents with overweight children with child endangerment?

I love where the spokesman for the Salt Institute (didn't know that existed) said that regulation would be "a disaster for the public". Really, a disaster?

Reinforces what I already knew and do--eat less processed food.

Wonder what will happen to the economy in Salt Lake City if this happens? 

One of the things they could do would be to put an excessive tax on it so that the cost of salt would be prohibitive to use except for all but the wealthiest, kind of like what they do with tobacco now.

Y'know, sodium, unlike, oh, I dunno, tobacco, is actually an essential mineral for the human body. I think the problem here is not so much that we stupid indiscriminate face-stuffers need to be told what to do, rather it is that food and beverage companies don't really put much thought in how to make some taste good without adding extra salt.

It's better to stay away from processed foods, but I don't really see a problem with getting F&B companies to do a better job with the recipes they use. Don't they do something similar with trans fats?

That's awesome! I was fooled into thinking that homeless dude who was smoking was poor, but now I see he must be one of our wealthiest citizens!

Hummmm, are you saying that sin taxes like they have on tobacco don't stop the poor folks from using the product? I thought that was part of the reason the federal govt. put them on such items.

Maybe the tax just isn't high enough yet?

Hey, somebody added something to my post!

I don't know the reasons gov'ts put in sin taxes. If they do it to discourage the poor, I would say they have failed.

Calm down, I made an error and have corrected it..... JFTR here is the part I wrote.

Hummmm, are you saying that sin taxes like they have on tobacco don't stop the poor folks from using the product? I thought that was part of the reason the federal govt. put them on such items.

Maybe the tax just isn't high enough yet?

Do you think when the federal govt puts a tax on something that it would have the effect of increasing consumption or decreasing consumption?

Do you think that it would be more punative on the poor than on the wealthy?

I'm not sure what we're discussing here.

I would think that, on average if you increase taxes - assuming all other variables stay the same - the effect would be that consumption would go down. Of course, this would not hold true for essential items where consumer demand is outside of the control of the consumer and would be less true (at least in the short term) for items that are addictive. Of course, this is just my gut feeling.

Regarding the punitive nature of taxes, it depends on how you define punitive. If the poor continue to smoke after taxes have gone up, the relative effect of a tax hike would be higher than on the rich. If, on the other hand, the effect of the tax hike were really to reduce the number of smokers, thereby improving the overall health of the poor, the effect of the tax hike would harm the rich more.

I answered these questions for fun, but I'm not exactly sure what your point is.