It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lawmaker wants ban on taxpayer-funded ad campaigns against sodas, junk food

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

At least, that's the premise behind a bill that was just introduced in Congress. The bill, written by Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., would prohibit federal money from going toward ad campaigns against foodstuffs and beverages that the feds consider safe and legal.


Link

Finally some common sense. This bill would prevent the government from using any taxpayer money on ad campaigns against soda and foods.




posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Common sense? Disagree.

1) This is a bill proposed by a Republican. At this stage of history, that pretty much guarantees that he is funded by the corporations that are impacted by such ads.

2)

I don't think it's the federal government's (role) to try and regulate people's habits on products that were deemed safe by the FDA," he told FoxNews.com. "The government is reaching too far into our lives in trying to regulate personal habits."


Same Source as OP

Post the Bush adminstration, the FDA is little more than a front for the corps... FDA "approval" is now more a matter of who is willing to pay for it than it is a matter of what is safe or not.

3)

"Portions have grown," the ad said. "So has Type 2 Diabetes, which can lead to amputations."
This is a true statement. Whether the guy in the ad had actually had an amputation is not relevant.

4)

DesJarlais cited federal statistics that show $230 million in federal stimulus money went toward anti-obesity campaigns.

So we have $230 Million spent on this. Obesity-related health care costs in the US were around $147 Billion in 2009. That is an order of magnitude difference.


This guy is spouting the same stuff that has gotten us into trouble - short term thinking. And he is also trying to capitalize on the current "Don't use MY taxes to educate or help anybody. MY taxes are for killing people only." frenzy in the US.

A bad idea all around.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Ancient Champion
 


You need a link?

Secondly...this is the junk food lobby at work. The same folks who got Pizza counted as a vegatable on the recent changes to the school nutirition guidelines.

Money directed at encouraging kids to stop eating gooey lumps of Monsanto chemicals is a good thing.

Of course I expect Junk Food lobbyists to do their thing...give a microsecond before we start seeing headlines about how our socialist government is taking away our freedoms and how the founding fathers fought the revolution so our kids could be fat and lethargic...

Read the label on the crap in most HS vending machines. Just saying...a little less monsanto goo might help with our education crisis, it sure as hell can't hurt.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


Sounds like you want the government to regulate your life and tell you want to eat.
edit on 3-2-2012 by Ancient Champion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by Ancient Champion
 


Money directed at encouraging kids to stop eating gooey lumps of Monsanto chemicals is a good thing.


I personally don't want to pay for these ad campaigns. We wouldn't need these types
of ads if parents did their job as a parent in the first place. It is their responsibility to teach
their child about the dangers of some foods.

Therefore,
"Parents directed at encouraging their kids to stop eating gooey lumps of Monsanto chemicals is a good thing."



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 



Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
"Don't use MY taxes to educate or help anybody. MY taxes are for killing people only."


You said a mouthful right there!

This country needs help. I can't believe the amount of people who have NO CLUE that there are 10 teaspoons of sugar in their coke and enough acidity to erode your tooth enamel.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Secondly....Stop being so concerned about people do with their life and stop trying to control them



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnholyBones
I personally don't want to pay for these ad campaigns.


Yeah, I don't want to pay for war, either. Too bad we don't get to pick and choose where our taxes go.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Ancient Champion
 


No, I am OK with some of my tax money going to improve education on the matter.

See the difference? I'm in support of something I do not need, but for which there is an undeniable need in the country.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ancient Champion

The bill, written by Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., would prohibit federal money from going toward ad campaigns against foodstuffs and beverages that the feds consider safe and legal.




Let's do this...who gives Rep. Scott DesJarlais money? Excerpted Via Opensecrets...

Crop Production & Basic Processing
Chemical & Related Manufacturing
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing
Food & Beverage
Food Processing & Sales
Beer, Wine & Liquor

www.opensecrets.org...
edit on 3-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


And since when does the government do whats in our best interest? People on ATS should know that the government is only out for control.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


This country needs help. I can't believe the amount of people who have NO CLUE that there are 10 teaspoons of sugar in their coke and enough acidity to erode your tooth enamel.


Here's some scary stuff:


PH factor of Sodas - in the 2.5 ~ 3 range.

PH factor of Vinegar ~3.

For those that might not know, PH is a number that indicates the acidity or alkalinity of a substance. The lower the number, the more acidic.

So as can be seen, Soda and Vinegar are about equally acidic. They just add a ton of sugar to the soda to hide it.

And at the same source as the Vinegar PH:



LOW "pH": If your "pH" is too low (consumption of too much ACIDITY, which is very common), it wears your body down; the ACIDS attack your glands, its a struggle to live, and you can easily catch many diseases. Acidity also cause OBESITY and OVER WEIGHT problems.


Emphasis added.

So yeah, I'm fine with some tax dollars going to an education campaign that tells people the truth about this stuff.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


And? What's your point?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ancient Champion
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Secondly....Stop being so concerned about people do with their life and stop trying to control them


"Control" would be outlawing junk food.

"Encouraging" kids to not stuff their faces with junk food through a few ads is not "controling" them...it's not "taking away our freedoms!" either. That is just spin directed at the ignorant and any American with two brain cells to rub together should be offended that lobbyists think they can't tell the difference.
edit on 3-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Ancient Champion
 


Shifting the subject a bit? I wasn't aware this was a discussion on the overall merits of government, but rather on a tax-funded ad campaign that educates people on the dangers present in the US food chain...



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


And since when does the government ever stop at ads? The government has been wanting more control over the average american



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Ancient Champion
 


Then again, maybe if we had legislation that banned corporations from running promotional ads that push their garbage off on the unsuspecting public, we wouldn't need these tax-payer funded "educational" ads.

The republican party is against any government regulation that would prohibit selling this crap to the public, they're against legislation that would provide healthcare to treat the ailments caused by that crap and now, they're against any government efforts to educate the people with respect to the crap they're being sold. But, They're "ALL FOR" a corporations right to run unlimited ads promoting unhealthy junk food. Go figure!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out whose influence these republicans are beholden to, corporate lobbyist. That's why they just got through shooting down Rand Paul's proposed amendment to the Stock Act yesterday. His amendment would have forced any retired congressman to forfeit his/her government pension & healthcare if they became lobbyist after serving in Congress. Check it out here;

ibankcoin.com...


The legislation would mandate that lawmakers report all major transactions within 30 days and file financial disclosure reports electronically.
But lawmakers defeated several proposals to significantly reform the perks and powers critics charge have a corrupting influence on Capitol Hill.
Senators voted down a bipartisan proposal to permanently ban earmarks as well as an amendment to require lawmakers and senior staff to divest of stocks or put their stock holdings in blind trusts.
The amendment sponsored by Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) to permanently ban earmarks failed by a vote of 40-59.
A solid block of Republicans, including Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), John Hoeven (N.D.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), James Inhofe (Okla.), Dick Lugar (Ind.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Richard Shelby (Ala.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.), voted to preserve Congress’s future power to earmark federal funds.
The amendment sponsored by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) requiring lawmakers and senior staff to divest of stocks lost 26 to 73.
Senate leaders denied Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) a vote on an amendment to deny federal pensions to lawmakers who become lobbyists.
The anti-lobbying amendment raised the hackles of some senior lawmakers, including those planning to retire at the end of this year.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who will leave the Senate at the end of the 112th Congress, called the proposal “foolish.”
“Why should someone who has worked and accumulated some equity and is investing that in American businesses no longer be able to do that when they’re elected to public office?” he said Wednesday.
Leaders also denied a vote on an amendment sponsored by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Jon Tester (D-Mo.) to permanently bar lawmakers from becoming lobbyists and restrict former staff from lobbying their old bosses in Congress for a period of six years.


I'm not a real big Rand Paul fan but I know good legislation when I see it. His amendment, as well as several others mentioned in the article, should definitely have been adopted into this bill. Without the restrictions proposed in the unaccepted amendments, the Stock Act is nothing more than a colossal farse.

It would seem more than apparent to me that we need to either eliminate corporate lobbying altogether or at least save ourselves some money and eliminate their middle-men, who happen to be the republican arm of U.S. Congress.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnholyBones

We wouldn't need these types of ads if parents did their job as a parent in the first place. It is their responsibility to teach their child about the dangers of some foods.



Right...right...Why don't we let Marlboro and Jose Cuervo advertise on the Disney chanel as well, as long as those parents are doing their job...no problem? Just the free market? How far does the "those damn parents aren't doing their job" argument go?

As a matter of fact, why not allow kids to buy tobacco? as long as their parents do their job, no problem.

"We wouldn't need these ads" if the junk food industry didn't spend Billions on advertising to our kids and another 30 million+ last year in lobbying our representitives to keep the crap flowing.

Out of EVERY country on the planet, the USA ranks #1 in Obesity..

I have no issue with parents teaching their children about what junk food does and I have no problem giving them a little help given the massive amount of advertising aimed at easily influenced children that those parents are battling.


edit on 3-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by UnholyBones

We wouldn't need these types of ads if parents did their job as a parent in the first place. It is their responsibility to teach their child about the dangers of some foods.



Right...right...Why don't we let Marlboro and Jose Cuervo advertise on the Disney chanel as well, as long as those parents are doing there job...no problem? Just the free market? How far does the "those damn parents aren't doing their job" argument go?

Now that's just funny right there: kids can go down to the local mexi-mart and buy tequila flavored candy, so why not allow advertisements? [/sarcasm]

I imagine, if Disney were allowed to do so, parents would be cancelling their cable subscriptions in no time.

Come to think of it, how many drama shows are put out specifically addressing alcohol / drug / tobacco abuse and what it can do to the family on channels such as Disney and ABC Family, Nickelodeon, etc.? That doesn't seem to influence many kids against substance abuse does it?


As a matter of fact, why not allow kids to buy tobacco? as long as their parents do their job, no problem.

If they're old enough to be irresponsible... like having birth control given to them freely, getting pregrant in spite of that and having abortions without their parents' knowledge or consent... or procuring drugs / alcohol in some way, making stupid decisions like driving when intoxicated and getting killed in accidents or overdose, why not?

Obviously, government regulations regarding advertisements have helped immensely, right?


Out of EVERY country on the planet, the USA ranks #1 in Obesity..
...


Maybe gov't should regulate prices on things so that food in general is more expensive: staple foods cost 2 hours' wages to feed a family of 4 single meal, candy bars cost 4 hours' wages each bar, and a 2 liter soda costs 8 hours' wage . Then, people couldn't afford to buy as much, so they'd lose weight, right? And, they'd focus more on buying the dietary staples more than the treats, right?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian
Maybe gov't should regulate prices on things so that food in general is more expensive: staple foods cost 2 hours' wages to feed a family of 4 single meal, candy bars cost 4 hours' wages each bar, and a 2 liter soda costs 8 hours' wage . Then, people couldn't afford to buy as much, so they'd lose weight, right? And, they'd focus more on buying the dietary staples more than the treats, right?



Or maybe, just maybe government could do the right thing just one time and use some revenue to try to help educate Americans... you know, do some "nation building" here in the US, instead of starting another war.

It's not a choice between two extremes, as difficult as that may be to comprehend... if you don't think obesity is a problem in the US, you haven't been in the US for some number of years. Here for just one instance, our tax dollars are being used, yes, for something that should not be necessary, but IS necessary.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join