jwop
Well-Known Member
go to bed you have school tomorrow
Soda tax
- Thread starter Red rhino grower
- Start date
Red rhino grower
New Member
I'm a 18 year old man. I don't go to school. I'm gonna go steal some CFL's from the apts next to me in a lil bit.
Red rhino grower
New Member
Well at least we can spell. The guy was 45 if that.
jwop
Well-Known Member
lol ... i hate thieves ... grow up
Red rhino grower
New Member
No
Red rhino grower
New Member
I wouldn't steal them but I'm out in the middle of nowhere and the closet walmart is 40 mins in a car
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
Corn subsidies quietly ruin health, nation
By Veronica Polivanaya
Published on March 16, 2009 in Volume 45, Issue 6
As the age-old saying goes, you are what you eat. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the high amounts of corn in our diets have turned us into live, walking corn chips. Although that may be a slight exaggeration, it is not far from the truthwhen scientists tested one persons strand of hair, 69 percent of the carbon came from corn. The government should gradually cut down on corn subsidies, as the high intake of corn in our diets has led to dramatic increases in obesity and diabetes.
The United States is, by far, the largest corn producer in the world, producing around 80 million acres a year on average. Corn production has fluctuated throughout the years, but has mostly been on the rise. The reason for the high production of corn is that the crop is practically everywhereit is fairly easy to grow and responds well to fertilizer. The government subsidizes corn in order to make it very cheap for farmers to produce, which in turn motivates them to produce more and more of it, despite the fact that they still end up making the same amount of money. Because farmers generate an absurd amount of corn, the crop ends up being used not only as a high-fructose sweetener, but also in ordinary objects, such as tires, paint and cosmetics. Because the government subsidizes corn, it, in turn, ends up using corn as an ingredient in practically everything simply to get rid of it.
Corn may appear to be a rather random additive in some things, but it is the primary ingredient for high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Although HFCS is found in nearly everything, it is a rather detrimental component. HFCS is developed through an intricate process that transforms corn starch into a thick, clear liquid, which is not only sweeter, but also less digestible than sugar. It goes directly to the liver when consumed, releasing enzymes that prompt the body to store fat, which may elevate cholesterol levels. Unlike sugar, it also does not stimulate insulin production in the body, which takes away the sense of feeling full and leads to overeating.
Manufacturers started substituting high-fructose corn syrup for sugar in the 1970s, putting it in products such as Coca-Cola, pizza, candy, beeryou name it and high-fructose corn syrup is most likely an ingredient. The reasoning behind the switch is that HFCS is cheaper and easier for manufacturers to use, seeing as how its easy to transport in tanker trucks and isnt as susceptible to freezer burn. Ever since the switch to HFCS, the consumption of corn went up by 1000 percent and the obesity rate doubled. Causation does not always imply correlation, but it would not be much of a stretch to say that the two are, in fact, related. The average person consumes 12 teaspoons of high-fructose corn syrup daily, which may not seem too detrimental to our health, but does accumulate over time. In a recent report published by Minneapolis-based nonprofit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 17 out of 55 tested HFCS samples contained detectable levels of mercury. Mercury is sometimes used in order to make caustic soda, which is a major component of HFCS. Although it may not seem too startling of a statistic, mercury is toxic in any form, and may lead to mercury poisoning, as well as death. A large portion of the corn supply is also used up by the beef industry. Although we may be content with the corn-fed beef that we purchase, it is, in reality, detrimental to our health thanks to the highly flawed methods of the concentrated animal-feeding operations. Cattle traditionally have diets that are composed of grass, but that not only requires large areas of open space, but also takes too long to bring the cattle to a slaughter weight. Manufacturers have hit two birds with one stone by switching to a corn-based dietthe cattle gain a large amount of weight in a shorter time, and can be kept in small storage areas, enabling more cattle to fit. Since cows are not meant to eat corn, they have to be pumped with antibiotics in order for it to agree with their digestive system. The corn also acidifies their digestive system, allowing for E.coli 0157 to thrive. Human consumption of E.coli leads to a destruction of the intestinal wall and can be fatalan estimated 600 people die from it each year. Those cows, in turn, end up in high calorie, low-nutrition fast foods, which do nothing but contribute to obesity and diabetes. Sure, implementing corn into the beef industry may be a quicker and cheaper method of going about things, but were compromising our health in doing so.
Sure, the government subsidizes corn in order to make it very cheap, but if you take a look at what goes into the corn-growing process, is it really as cheap as the government makes it out to be? For one, corn requires an immense amount of fossil fuel. It also requires far more pesticides and fertilizers than do any other crops. To top it off, half a gallon of gasoline is used up each time a bushel of corn is grown, which does little to conserve our oil supply. Producing more and more corn each year simply ups the expenses needed to produce the crop in the first place.
Although the cons of subsidizing corn are evident, we cannot simply pull it out of the system completely. Bringing back the good grass days may sound like a promising solution for the beef industry, but it is easier said than donemeat supply would not meet demand, and millions would be put out of work. We can, however, incorporate grass back into their diets graduallystill a risk, but one with a lot less far-reaching consequences. Grass-fed beef is not only higher in omega-3 acids, also known as good fat, but also contains less saturated fat. Adding grass to the beef industry would benefit our health without impairing the business greatly.
Another solution could involve placing a high tax on HFCS, which would discourage manufacturers from using the substance to begin with. HFCS is banned in Great Britain, and will soon be banned in Europethe United States should folow suit.
Americans may be fixated on corn, but like any other addictwere in dire need of rehab.
By Veronica Polivanaya
Published on March 16, 2009 in Volume 45, Issue 6
As the age-old saying goes, you are what you eat. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the high amounts of corn in our diets have turned us into live, walking corn chips. Although that may be a slight exaggeration, it is not far from the truthwhen scientists tested one persons strand of hair, 69 percent of the carbon came from corn. The government should gradually cut down on corn subsidies, as the high intake of corn in our diets has led to dramatic increases in obesity and diabetes.
The United States is, by far, the largest corn producer in the world, producing around 80 million acres a year on average. Corn production has fluctuated throughout the years, but has mostly been on the rise. The reason for the high production of corn is that the crop is practically everywhereit is fairly easy to grow and responds well to fertilizer. The government subsidizes corn in order to make it very cheap for farmers to produce, which in turn motivates them to produce more and more of it, despite the fact that they still end up making the same amount of money. Because farmers generate an absurd amount of corn, the crop ends up being used not only as a high-fructose sweetener, but also in ordinary objects, such as tires, paint and cosmetics. Because the government subsidizes corn, it, in turn, ends up using corn as an ingredient in practically everything simply to get rid of it.
Corn may appear to be a rather random additive in some things, but it is the primary ingredient for high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Although HFCS is found in nearly everything, it is a rather detrimental component. HFCS is developed through an intricate process that transforms corn starch into a thick, clear liquid, which is not only sweeter, but also less digestible than sugar. It goes directly to the liver when consumed, releasing enzymes that prompt the body to store fat, which may elevate cholesterol levels. Unlike sugar, it also does not stimulate insulin production in the body, which takes away the sense of feeling full and leads to overeating.
Manufacturers started substituting high-fructose corn syrup for sugar in the 1970s, putting it in products such as Coca-Cola, pizza, candy, beeryou name it and high-fructose corn syrup is most likely an ingredient. The reasoning behind the switch is that HFCS is cheaper and easier for manufacturers to use, seeing as how its easy to transport in tanker trucks and isnt as susceptible to freezer burn. Ever since the switch to HFCS, the consumption of corn went up by 1000 percent and the obesity rate doubled. Causation does not always imply correlation, but it would not be much of a stretch to say that the two are, in fact, related. The average person consumes 12 teaspoons of high-fructose corn syrup daily, which may not seem too detrimental to our health, but does accumulate over time. In a recent report published by Minneapolis-based nonprofit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 17 out of 55 tested HFCS samples contained detectable levels of mercury. Mercury is sometimes used in order to make caustic soda, which is a major component of HFCS. Although it may not seem too startling of a statistic, mercury is toxic in any form, and may lead to mercury poisoning, as well as death. A large portion of the corn supply is also used up by the beef industry. Although we may be content with the corn-fed beef that we purchase, it is, in reality, detrimental to our health thanks to the highly flawed methods of the concentrated animal-feeding operations. Cattle traditionally have diets that are composed of grass, but that not only requires large areas of open space, but also takes too long to bring the cattle to a slaughter weight. Manufacturers have hit two birds with one stone by switching to a corn-based dietthe cattle gain a large amount of weight in a shorter time, and can be kept in small storage areas, enabling more cattle to fit. Since cows are not meant to eat corn, they have to be pumped with antibiotics in order for it to agree with their digestive system. The corn also acidifies their digestive system, allowing for E.coli 0157 to thrive. Human consumption of E.coli leads to a destruction of the intestinal wall and can be fatalan estimated 600 people die from it each year. Those cows, in turn, end up in high calorie, low-nutrition fast foods, which do nothing but contribute to obesity and diabetes. Sure, implementing corn into the beef industry may be a quicker and cheaper method of going about things, but were compromising our health in doing so.
Sure, the government subsidizes corn in order to make it very cheap, but if you take a look at what goes into the corn-growing process, is it really as cheap as the government makes it out to be? For one, corn requires an immense amount of fossil fuel. It also requires far more pesticides and fertilizers than do any other crops. To top it off, half a gallon of gasoline is used up each time a bushel of corn is grown, which does little to conserve our oil supply. Producing more and more corn each year simply ups the expenses needed to produce the crop in the first place.
Although the cons of subsidizing corn are evident, we cannot simply pull it out of the system completely. Bringing back the good grass days may sound like a promising solution for the beef industry, but it is easier said than donemeat supply would not meet demand, and millions would be put out of work. We can, however, incorporate grass back into their diets graduallystill a risk, but one with a lot less far-reaching consequences. Grass-fed beef is not only higher in omega-3 acids, also known as good fat, but also contains less saturated fat. Adding grass to the beef industry would benefit our health without impairing the business greatly.
Another solution could involve placing a high tax on HFCS, which would discourage manufacturers from using the substance to begin with. HFCS is banned in Great Britain, and will soon be banned in Europethe United States should folow suit.
Americans may be fixated on corn, but like any other addictwere in dire need of rehab.
sunshine1754
Active Member
The government shouldn't tax soda at all. They shouldn't tax cigarettes either. Just because something is consider unhealthy doesn't mean you should be penalized for buying it. Who the hell is the government to tell me what I can and cannot put in my body. Yes cigarettes are terrible for you, but its up to you to smoke them. I'm sick of the government taxing everything and trying to control everything. Stay the hell out of my life.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
Hear, hear.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
that's what everyone says until they see some particular situation that they feel powerless to remedy. then they start to scream for government to step in. unless we are willing to endure the inconvenience of dealing with those problems ourselves, we will find government taking a larger and larger role in our lives. even in the article stoney posted we find the "more taxes" solution, asking government to save us from a dilemma they helped to start in the first place.
the answers are less a matter of politics than of ethics (something you will find little of in the political arena). government, being in the business of controlling people's lives, will always be more than willing to step in whenever its citizens demand solutions and nine times out of ten those solutions will involve further restrictions of our liberties and another growth spurt for the nanny state. unless we are willing to solve our own problems on an individual level we doom ourselves to the shackles of a totalitarian state. instead of demanding that government restrict the use of hfcs or tax its use, why not just inform the public and refuse to purchase products that contain substances we should avoid? instead of demanding a raise in minimum wage so you can afford your mortgage, why not just train yourself for a better job or, better yet, free yourself of the chains of the wage slave and go into business for yourself? instead of demanding that government provide for the needy and subsidize a growing welfare state, why not give of yourself with donations to private sector charities that might actually do some good in your community? our ever growing dependence on the good intentions of government has led to a vicious cycle of increasing demands for increasing restrictions and the subsequent surrender of our own self-determination.
tinyTURTLE
Well-Known Member
what's funny is that the same people who say the govt. should stay out of whier business are the same people who are making abortion illegal. The same now who are trying to make birth controll illegal. the same kinds of assholes who made weed illegal.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
Just to address the part of your post about hfcs...it's in fucking EVERYTHING.I was making chili yesterday and out of curiosity looked at the ingredients on the kidney beans. Sure enough, corn syrup.Why do we need corn syrup in kidney beans?I say get rid of corn subsidies.And I'm from IOWA.
I don't believe in sin taxes, though,because ultimately,it should be a person's own choice what they do with their own bodies. However, a lot of people don't read the labels and realize what is in their food that doesn't need to be there. Most of us just want to get a meal on the table and feed our family.Sometimes we don't even stop to think that the ingredients we thought were healthy might not be as healthy as we believed.
I don't believe in sin taxes, though,because ultimately,it should be a person's own choice what they do with their own bodies. However, a lot of people don't read the labels and realize what is in their food that doesn't need to be there. Most of us just want to get a meal on the table and feed our family.Sometimes we don't even stop to think that the ingredients we thought were healthy might not be as healthy as we believed.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
having grown up in the midst of the convenience craze, when instant everything was the next big thing, i don't really think we can blame the manufacturers for giving us exactly what we want. tv dinners and hamburger helper may have freed us up to put more effort into our ever more complicated lives, but we just knew there had to be a trade off somewhere down the line. the immediate gratification of cheap prepackaged meals has led us to the point where most american families have no idea what they are actually eating and many don't really care. we know perfectly well that real food can't sit around for weeks and be ready to eat at a moment's notice, but the public demands that convenience and has come to consider it a necessary part of life. in many households the microwave is used more often than the oven, fresh vegetables are only for special occasions and the menu is determined more by commercials and colorful packaging than nutritional value. reading the labels on all these cans, bags and boxes has become almost impossible. we recognize the names of the various chemicals and additives and that's good enough. we don't know what those names really mean or where these bizarre substances come from, but we take for granted that they are a necessary part of the process and choke the shit down as fast as we can. as long as it's easy and someone tells us it's good for us, we really couldn't care less.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
That's very true.And convenience foods tend to be cheaper, as well.The only way you can really know exactly what you're getting anymore is to grow your own produce and raise your own animals.But who has the time for that?
Green Cross
Well-Known Member
You may want to research the issue - and I don't mean watching Bill Mahar - because they've already banning new fast food chains in LA.I smoke also. I didn't like the tax at first but I got used to it. They won't ban fast food in the US. Those are the only companies who still make decent money. This has nothing to do with the health care bill anyway. So you might want to do some research before you post. Not trying to be a dick but know the facts before posting.
Los Angeles City Council passes fast-food ban
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted on Tuesday to put a one-year ban on new fast-food restaurants in one of the city's poorest areas, marking the latest effort by a municipality to fight rising obesity rates.
If approved by the mayor, the ordinance would put a moratorium on construction of new fast-food outlets in a 32-square-mile (82-sq-km) area of Los Angeles. The measure could also be extended for a second year.
The change would affect about half a million Angelenos living in an area that supporters say already has about 400 fast-food eateries and few grocery stores or other outlets for fresh, healthy food.
The 13-0 vote came about a year after research found that roughly 30 percent of children living in the South Los Angeles, West Adams, Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park areas are obese compared to about 21 percent in the rest of the city.
The moratorium would also be accompanied by moves to encourage more grocery chains and fresh food stores to open for business, supporters said.
Fast-food chains opposed the measure, saying that their industry was being unfairly blamed for causing the childhood obesity epidemic.
"Obesity is principally related to what and how much a consumer eats, not where he eats," Andrew Puzder, Chief Executive of Carl's Jr parent CKE Restaurants Inc, said in a letter to Council President Eric Garcetti.
Andrew Casana, spokesman for the California Restaurant Association, said fast-food companies were working to block ordinance or to make amendments to it.
"We have not ruled out lawsuits," Casana said.
Several U.S. cities have adopted measures forcing the restaurant industry to adopt healthier standards. California banned the sale of soft drinks in middle and elementary schools in 2003 and a new law requires fast-food restaurants in New York to post calorie counts above the service counter."
The Liberals are only doing this for your own good, because they know you're too dumb to make your own choices in life.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
Some convenience foods are cheaper, but most are just perceived by consumers to be more affordable, because you're buying one box/package instead of several.
For instance, I can buy a 1 lb bag of corn meal for $2 and make 30 tortillas or more versus $3-$4 for a 10-count box of premade taco shells.
Stocking your pantry with staples to make things from scratch can be costly - but those ingredients can be used for many different dishes and will feed my family for much longer than say, a box of Kraft mac n cheese.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
Preaching to the choir, here.I know all about stocking the pantry, buying meat bundles, coupons, etc.I'm a rather good cook.But unfortunately, there is bad shit creeping into the stuff we use to make meals.I'm still a little stunned about the corn syrup in my kidney beans.