>UPDATE : Crap, I almost forgot why I logged back on. This article was just forwarded to me, seemed timely given the nature of our discussion.
>
>Food industry decries tighter rules on marketing to kids
>http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/27/food-industry-decries-tighter-rules-on-marketing-to-kids/
>The government proposal would require that foods marketed to children and teens come from one of the following food groups: fruit, vegetable, whole grain, fat-free or low-fat milk products, fish, extra lean meat or poultry, eggs, nuts and seeds, or beans. They must also contain no more than trace amounts of saturated fat, trans fat, added sugars and sodium.
>
>Here's yet another proposed "freedom crimping" limitation.
>
>For clarity here's the freedom that's being crimped:
>The proposed restrictions make foods already considered healthy under current FDA guidelines inappropriate to market to kids younger than 18. Of the 100 most-consumed products in the country, 88 would have to be reformulated to meet these criteria or simply go unadvertised.

The implication there is that 88% of the most consumed products are crap. Not going to enter into the debate about what should be done about it tho........

>
>>>>>>>>>I blame the parents.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's not about blame. It's about freedom. Who is the government to try to control what we eat? As the government gets more intrusive, our freedom shrinks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That would be fine and dandy if medical costs for treating obesity and all of its related medical issues was limited to the Quad-Burger-with-cheese-fries buyers themselves. If you have an overweight or obese kid and you take them to McDs, BK, etc..., i will certainly blame them for celebrating their freedom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point from Message #1519357.
>>>>>>>When government controls the levers of health care spending, then they are unlimited in their ability to tell us how to live our lives, after all, whatever we put in or do with our bodies may cost them money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For one, i humbly submit that you are not being honest with yourself. If you saw parents taking their overweight kids into one of these restaurants, i have a feeling that you would not praise them for their freedom-flexing purchasing power. Instead, i suspect that you would question their dining choice.
>>>>>
>>>>>I give them no thought whatsoever. It's none of my business.
>>>>
>>>>I find that hard to believe. You already noted earlier that you do blame the parents, not the corporation.
>>>
>>>The parents are responsible for what and how much their children eat, not the business providing the food.
>>
>>Agree. But you used the word "blame" in your sarcastic comment that "the parents were not to blame, that corporations were". Again, it sounds like you were/did blame the parents.
>>
>>>I do not care what someone else chooses to feed their children. It's not my business, just as what I feed my children is not anyone elses.
>>
>>In an indirect manner, your medical costs/insurance are impacted by others... especially with a significant rise in obesity.
>
>Agreed. As they are by smokers, rock climbers, motorcycle riders people who live in violent cities and most significantly, every single person that engages in the single most dangerous activity of all...driving. As I stated before, anything and everything we eat or participate in can impact our health and is therefore subject to the whims of central planners as long as governments are cutting the checks.
>
>>>>>>Secondly, the "taking consumers choices away!" charge noted in your original post -- because McD's is adding apple slices to happy meals -- sounds rather shrill.
>>>>>
>>>>>The article pointed to a specific choice that is currently available which is being removed.
>>>>>effectively taking away consumers' current choice between either having apples with caramel dip or fries as a Happy Meal side.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps the parents can supersize their own fry order to cover the difference.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no perhaps, this is exacly what will happen. In addition, examples like this are why McDonalds is one of the most successful corporations in history. They adapt, overcome and make even more profit. ;)
>>>>
>>>>It does not sound so freedom-crimping to me.
>>>
>>>Really?!? only about 11 percent of customers were ordering apples with their Happy Meals, even though 88 percent were aware they had the option Do you seriously believe that McDonalds would keep this option for if it weren't for the threat of regulation?
>>
>>No, it does not sound so freedom-crimping to me. I am not surprised by the low percentage.
>
>How is it you do not see a restriction on activity as "freedom-crimping"?
>
>>>>>>Third, is there currently a govt food police that is prohibiting people from buying junk, or is this a preemptive outrage?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. See transfats.
>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/
>>>>
>>>>NY state. I thought "states rights" was the panacea to all federal evils.
>>>
>>>That the feds have dramatically oversteped the boundries of the Constitution does not mean that they are exclusive in their abuse.
>>>
>>>You asked the suicide question is there currently a govt food police that is prohibiting people from buying junk
>>>I answered in the affirmative and offered proof. The precedent is now set and the limits and bans will only increase from here.
>>
>>Again, i do not find this to be a freedom-crimping example.
>
>Again, how do you not see the restriction of a ingredient as freedom-crimping? One day chefs were free to use trans-fat, the next they were not owing to a new law. All bans and limitations restrict freedom, by definition. We can have a debate regarding where the line should be drawn, however, to do so, we must accept a common language. ;)
>
>>>>>>Lastly, i would have thought that Ayn Randian peeps would not appreciate having their own medical care costs go up as a result of poor and costly habits of others.
>>>>>
>>>>>Freedom means allowing people to make their choices regardless of your opinion. This is why believers in liberty want the public sector out of health care.
>>>>
>>>>That sounds like a dodge.
>>>
>>>I cannot speak for Randian peeps as I have not read her works. I own a couple, but they've never risen to a must-read level on my pile. ;)
>>
>>The dodge is not that you have or have not read AR's books.
>
>I'm not understanding what you see as a "dodge".
>
>>>>And earlier when i stated "bombastic hyperbole", the better word would have been "petty".
>>>
>>>Please explain.
>>>
>>>Note: I'll have to continue this another day. Too much to do. ;)
>
>Now I really am done for the day. ;)