Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Nannied vs Nurtured

We subscribe to the Dallas Morning News for the Sunday paper (mainly just for the coupons and the ads) but the front page story caught my attention this past week...

"Health Bill draws 'nanny state' concerns".

The article goes on to say that legislators are wrestling with how much they should intervene in what we "eat, drink and breathe". Supporters of this bill are proposing 4 areas for reform:

1. Soda tax: a penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages. The proceeds, at an estimated 2 billion, would be used to make up for Medicaid expenses.

2. School Drinks: would ban sweetened drinks and whole milk from being sold to school-aged children during school hours.

3.Restaurant Food: would fine restaurants that do not post the nutritional information of the menu items.

4. Statewide smoking ban: no smoking in/near/around any public buildings.

Opponents to this proposed legislation say that the new laws "wont help fight obesity and it will keep families from making their own decisions at the grocery store". Let me get this straight, we are worried that families NEED to have the option to buy soda?? Like Coca-Cola is a unalienable right for all Americans, with freedom and justice for all?

As for school drinks, I am all for banning soda and sugar-laden drinks. Opponents say that "it discriminates against particular beverages and that it discourages families from teaching responsibility to children". I call bullshit. It discriminates against certain beverages? Are our schools ran by the soda companies? Are we so afraid to hurt Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. that we just couldn't live with ourselves for banning their products in our schools? Or is it that these soda companies give so much money to districts for selling their products that the schools would be unable to continue running without their contributions? Either way, it is a sad state of affairs. Our childrens education and health should not be determined by the sponsorship of soda products.

Restaurant Food: Critics say that all the nutritional information is already available. Ummm....not really. Maybe for large companies, located somewhere on their website, or in a pamphlet in a drawer somewhere, but for the majority of restaurants its simply not easily accessible. Haven't you seen those Eat This Not That articles? Even someone that thinks they are making a healthy choice with a grilled chicken salad can be fooled into a 1000 calorie nightmare at many major restaurants...I am talking to you California Pizza Kitchen and Cheesecake Factory...

Statewide Smoking Ban: Are we seriously still belaboring this point. Smoking is BAD. Second hand smoking is BAD. Cancer is a terrible disease. No one debates the fact that smoking is not good for you...but damn, Americans just don't want to be told not to do it.

I don't think these proposed laws are to trying to MAKE decisions for Americans, just make it EASIER to make healthy, informed decisions. I mean, aren't we all a little embarrassed when we put that bag of Cheetos in the cart?? We should be, but it still isn't stopping us.

1 comment:

  1. Agreed!
    I hate when they say choices are being limited. I say keep the vending machines and fill it with better foods. Carrots instead of Cheetos. The same amount of choice in your life, but 3/4 of the calories. Really America, is it so important to you to have fake coloring and corrosive syrups that you expect/demand it be readily accessible to the youngest and most impressionable people in our society?

    ReplyDelete