Minnesota seeks ban on junk food

It seems that the poor tend to have less access to educational
information about proper nutrition, so this ban on using their stamps on
junk food may benefit them in the sense of having a healthier lifestyle
more akin to that of the middle class, who tend to have better health
for reasons including more education about nutrition, more money
available to set aside for health care, more money to sacrifice for
higher-quality foods, and what not.

On a different tangent, junk food is an unnecessary luxury, and every
human being has a right to basic sustenance, not luxury.

Ignoramus17184 wrote:
Minnesota Seeks Ban on Junk Food Stamps

Friday, April 30, 2004



ST. PAUL, Minnesota ? Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (search) wants to
fight obesity (search) in his state by limiting the amount of junk
food people on public assistance programs can buy.

Pawlenty has asked the federal government for permission to take junk
food off the shopping list of Minnesotans like Angel Buechner, who use
food stamps (search) to buy their groceries.

"We've already eliminated tobacco and booze. Why is it too much of a
leap then to say that things that are particularly unhealthy from a
food supply standpoint or a nutrition standpoint, we would exclude
those too?" asked Pawlenty, a Republican.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (search) is now mulling Pawlenty's
request to de-junk, at least partially, the shopping cart of
Minnesota's food stamp recipients.

Angel Buechner, a working mother of four boys, says junk food is a bad
buy for people who use food stamps like her family, but she doesn't
believe the federal government has the right to prevent her from
buying something special for her sons.

"Why should I have to shop on the other side of the grocery store just
because I get food support?" asked Buechner, a food stamp recipient.

Click here for a report by Fox News' Steve Brown.

Chiser wrote:
:: It seems that the poor tend to have less access to educational
:: information about proper nutrition, so this ban on using their
:: stamps on junk food may benefit them in the sense of having a
:: healthier lifestyle

Nonsense...how can you educate people with a simple ban? All you're going
to do is make htem feel more beat down by the system. More "outside" the
mainstream, more isolated. They'll simply want to break into your nice comfy
house and steal what you have, and what you eat. Also, exactly what foods
are you going to ban? Don't you realize that people will just make their
own junk food? You can buy sugar, flour, fruit, butter, and make foods
which are very high in caloric value. So, now you're going to put those on
the ban list? Bread too? Rice, too? Ever heard of rice pudding?

more akin to that of the middle class, who tend
:: to have better health for reasons including more education about
:: nutrition, more money available to set aside for health care, more
:: money to sacrifice for higher-quality foods, and what not.

So, your solution provides none of that for the needy, yet you see it as a
solution to impose bans on what they can buy with assitance money.

::
:: On a different tangent, junk food is an unnecessary luxury, and every
:: human being has a right to basic sustenance, not luxury.

Nonsense...most junk food is not luxury -- it's junk -- ie, low quality
food.

I see more clearly now why the government is always screwing things up.....

::
:: Ignoramus17184 wrote:
::: Minnesota Seeks Ban on Junk Food Stamps
:::
::: Friday, April 30, 2004
:::
:::
:::
::: ST. PAUL, Minnesota ? Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (search) wants to
::: fight obesity (search) in his state by limiting the amount of junk
::: food people on public assistance programs can buy.
:::
::: Pawlenty has asked the federal government for permission to take
::: junk food off the shopping list of Minnesotans like Angel Buechner,
::: who use food stamps (search) to buy their groceries.
:::
::: "We've already eliminated tobacco and booze. Why is it too much of a
::: leap then to say that things that are particularly unhealthy from a
::: food supply standpoint or a nutrition standpoint, we would exclude
::: those too?" asked Pawlenty, a Republican.
:::
::: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (search) is now mulling
::: Pawlenty's request to de-junk, at least partially, the shopping
::: cart of Minnesota's food stamp recipients.
:::
::: Angel Buechner, a working mother of four boys, says junk food is a
::: bad buy for people who use food stamps like her family, but she
::: doesn't believe the federal government has the right to prevent her
::: from buying something special for her sons.
:::
::: "Why should I have to shop on the other side of the grocery store
::: just because I get food support?" asked Buechner, a food stamp
::: recipient.
:::
::: Click here for a report by Fox News' Steve Brown.

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Nonsense...how can you educate people with a simple ban? All you're going
to do is make htem feel more beat down by the system. More "outside" the
mainstream, more isolated.

And then, you can actually create the exact reverse effect. Junk food will
become something poor people will have a strong desire for. Being able to
afford junk food will become a luxury, and thus a sign of economic well
being. The whole process just makes the junk food all the more attractive.
This means that when they get more money, even a little more money, they
will want to buy *more* junk food.

Don't you realize that people will just make their
own junk food? You can buy sugar, flour, fruit, butter, and make foods
which are very high in caloric value.

Almost per definition, you *want* high calorie low cost food when you're
poor. If you only have little money to spend on food, you want it to be as
filling as possible. Just look at old time traditionnal cuisine. That's
mostly poor folks' cooking. And it's very filling. Italian don't cook pasta
al dente because it tastes better, they do that because it lowers the
glycemic index and makes them last longer. A lot of traditionnal recipes are
about recycling food and turning it into high calorie feeling stuff.
However, there was much less obesity back then. We have more and more low
fat or carb free food. We eat more vegetables. We eat less fat. Yet, obesity
is increasing. Blaming obesity only on high calorie food and junk food is
looking at the problem from the very small end of it... True junk food (ie.
trans fat, false food...) is bad because it's low quality and unhealthy. But
you can't blame obesity on it.
Eating junk food doesn't make people obese anymore than eating healthy food
does. Eating too much food, of any kind, makes people obese. Not exercising
enough doesn't help either. Of course, providing cheap or free structures to
poor people to help them exercise is more expensive than taxing junk food.
But the root of the problem is in portion control and discovering *why*
people, especially the poors, eat that much. I'm afraid it's a much more
complex issue to deal with than just saying "junk food is the root of all
evil".

So, now you're going to put those on
the ban list? Bread too? Rice, too? Ever heard of rice pudding?

Another traditionnal poor folks' recipe. Been there for ages. Yet,
mainstream obesity is a recent phenomenon. Hence, rice pudding doesn't cause
obesity. Eating a pound of rice pudding a day does.

Roger Zoul wrote:

are you going to ban? Don't you realize that people will just make their
own junk food?

*Raises hand*. All it took for me each month was a sack of white flour,
sack of whole wheat flour, a few dozen eggs, margarine (don't shoot me, I
believed it was better just like most people did at one time) sack of
sugar, some yeast, potatoes, (the starch list goes on and on) and I lived
on homemade bread, cookies, pancakes, rice, fried potatoes, etc, etc....

The cost per indulgence was pennies, and real foods like tuna or salad
ingredients were way more expensive than all the baking/cooking I did
myself.

Poor people can be educated to the hilt as to what food is "best to eat",
but it isn't going to make it cost less. They go for what is cheap, and
what keeps, and save the high-falutin' stuff for when they have money.

--
The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion
and experience. Please interpret accordingly.

Lictor wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
:: ...
::: Nonsense...how can you educate people with a simple ban? All
::: you're going to do is make htem feel more beat down by the system.
::: More "outside" the mainstream, more isolated.
::
:: And then, you can actually create the exact reverse effect. Junk
:: food will become something poor people will have a strong desire
:: for. Being able to afford junk food will become a luxury, and thus a
:: sign of economic well being. The whole process just makes the junk
:: food all the more attractive. This means that when they get more
:: money, even a little more money, they will want to buy *more* junk
:: food.

In some twisted world perhaps. If buy junk food we mean the typical
cheap sugar/floury stuff we find in stores, I don't buy it ever becoming a
luxury. Sure, it is a quick sugar fix, but it really doesn't taste good and
after you eat it you wonder why you bothered.

::
::: Don't you realize that people will just make their
::: own junk food? You can buy sugar, flour, fruit, butter, and make
::: foods which are very high in caloric value.
::
:: Almost per definition, you *want* high calorie low cost food when
:: you're poor.

Not the sugary stuff. What you want - in terms of high calorie - are good
sources of protein and fat -- ie, meat! Throw in some veggies and you're
done. when you get high calorie food from sugar/flour mixed in with low
quality fat, you get people who want to eat all the time, and hence they get
fatter and fatter because portion control becomes difficult over time.

If you only have little money to spend on food, you
:: want it to be as filling as possible. Just look at old time
:: traditionnal cuisine. That's mostly poor folks' cooking. And it's
:: very filling.

It was high fat, mostly, not high sugar. Well, some of it was high sugar...

Italian don't cook pasta al dente because it tastes
:: better, they do that because it lowers the glycemic index and makes
:: them last longer.

ARe we talking about old time traditional cuisine? did the old timers know
jack about GI? Also, pasta, I would have thought, would have had them
hungry soon after...

A lot of traditionnal recipes are about recycling
:: food and turning it into high calorie feeling stuff. However, there
:: was much less obesity back then. We have more and more low fat or
:: carb free food.

One can get high calorie foods from too much stuff that metabolizes into
sugar.

We eat more vegetables. We eat less fat. Yet,
:: obesity is increasing. Blaming obesity only on high calorie food and
:: junk food is looking at the problem from the very small end of it...

Not if you're eating too much junk food...I think you're looking at the
small end right now.


:: True junk food (ie. trans fat, false food...) is bad because it's
:: low quality and unhealthy. But you can't blame obesity on it.

Sure you can....by way of the fact that people eat too much of it...and they
eat too much typically because it creates BG swings.

:: Eating junk food doesn't make people obese anymore than eating
:: healthy food does. Eating too much food, of any kind, makes people
:: obese.

True, but the fact is if your diet is mostly carbs, you'll eventually, most
likely (this not being true for everyone), start eating too much.

Not exercising enough doesn't help either. Of course,
:: providing cheap or free structures to poor people to help them
:: exercise is more expensive than taxing junk food. But the root of
:: the problem is in portion control and discovering *why* people,
:: especially the poors, eat that much.

No, it is fairly well understand what the root causes are, though it is a
complex issue.

I'm afraid it's a much more
:: complex issue to deal with than just saying "junk food is the root
:: of all evil".

A constant, steady diet of junk & fast food will land you fat given enough
time (I speak from personal experience here). Even if you exercise, cause
most won't be able to do enough exercise to counteract the BS that excessive
junk food comsumption will bring on.

::
::: So, now you're going to put those on
::: the ban list? Bread too? Rice, too? Ever heard of rice pudding?
::
:: Another traditionnal poor folks' recipe. Been there for ages. Yet,
:: mainstream obesity is a recent phenomenon. Hence, rice pudding
:: doesn't cause obesity. Eating a pound of rice pudding a day does.

But poor folks didn't eat just rice pudding....they had pig's feet, chicken,
pork, lots of fat, etc, to balance out the carbs to some degree. And keep in
mind that a lot of poor folks back i the day were fat, BTW. Today, we have
pre-made, pre-packaged and fast foods that, if made the staple of one's
diet, will make most people fat.

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
In some twisted world perhaps. If buy junk food we mean the typical
cheap sugar/floury stuff we find in stores, I don't buy it ever becoming a
luxury. Sure, it is a quick sugar fix, but it really doesn't taste good
and
after you eat it you wonder why you bothered.

If you start taxing "junk food" and taking steps to prevent poor people from
buying it, it will become a kind of luxury. Look at what your prohibition
did to alcohol. Translate to junk food. This is different, but there is
enough similarities to expect it to produce similar effects.

Not the sugary stuff. What you want - in terms of high calorie - are good
sources of protein and fat -- ie, meat! Throw in some veggies and you're
done. when you get high calorie food from sugar/flour mixed in with low
quality fat, you get people who want to eat all the time, and hence they
get
fatter and fatter because portion control becomes difficult over time.

That's because you're thinking about a nation of pre-diabetic getting carbs
from whiter than white flour. Traditionnal food *is* heavy on carb. But it
was mostly unprocessed carbs (wholewheat, potatoes cooked with the skin...),
because they were less expensive. It was also not low fat. If you combine
reasonnable fat content with unprocessed carbs, you have carbs with a
reasonnable glycemic index. Besides, things like potatoes or corn were not
the same kind we have today, years of bio-engineering have made them easier
to digest, just compare the glycemic index for modern American corn and the
one for traditionnal corn.
Besides, most of the people did get plenty of exercise. They walked daily,
to buy food, to go to work... They also had physical jobs. Physical activity
is one of the best way to fight insuline resistance.
If you have little insulin resistance, and if you eat meals with moderate
glycemic indexes, carbs are not a problem. Besides, even with insulin
resistance, eating carbs doesn't make you hungry all the time. It just
doesn't for me, and I'm diabetic. When I get reactive hypoglycemia, it makes
me nauseous, the last thing I want then is to eat. As long as I eat high GI
food as part of a whole meal, I don't have problems with that. If I want to
snack, I go for fruits, chocolate or nuts which seem to do fine for me.

If you only have little money to spend on food, you
:: want it to be as filling as possible. Just look at old time
:: traditionnal cuisine. That's mostly poor folks' cooking. And it's
:: very filling.

It was high fat, mostly, not high sugar. Well, some of it was high
sugar...

Bread, pasta, potatoes, corn, beans...

Italian don't cook pasta al dente because it tastes
:: better, they do that because it lowers the glycemic index and makes
:: them last longer.

ARe we talking about old time traditional cuisine? did the old timers
know
jack about GI? Also, pasta, I would have thought, would have had them
hungry soon after...

Old timers knew that overcooked pasta made you hungry soon after eating it.
It didn't fill your belly. On the other hand, al dente pasta did fill your
belly. They did not know about GI, but they had a pretty good idea of what
felt right to their stomach. Besides, they were not trying to do a low fat
diet, so the pasta was served with enough fat (cheese, olive oil) to lower
the glycemic index some more - again, probably empirical knowledge of GI.
Pasta was also done with whole or partly whole weat, not white flour. It was
not quick to cook stuff - the ready in 2-3 minutes pasta has insanely high
GI because of the industrial process that makes it fast to cook.

A lot of traditionnal recipes are about recycling
:: food and turning it into high calorie feeling stuff. However, there
:: was much less obesity back then. We have more and more low fat or
:: carb free food.

One can get high calorie foods from too much stuff that metabolizes into
sugar.

I still think that the problem is mainly psychological and sociological. We
are in a society where more is better. At the restaurant, an XL menue is
considered a good deal, even if it's way more than you should eat. Same
thing with healthy food and vitamins, the inflation is insane. People
compare vitamin supplement to see which one will provide best bang for your
bucks - is 500% of daily needs enough, or should you need 1000%? I wonder
when we will start seeing the first cases of severe vitamin overdoses.
When the official diet split the food groups into Good and Evil, a society
like ours thought it could - and should - eat as much of the Good Stuff (low
fat) as long as the Evil Stuff was avoided (fats). It became okay to make an
orgy of "diet" products, actually, it was probably a good way to lose
weight, these products were "healthy" after all, as long as you banned the
Evil stuff. If you gained weight, it was not because of the ten pounds of
Diet and Healthy food you had eaten, it was because of the craving that had
caused you to eat a single mouthful of Evil chocolate.
Now that the trend is towards low carb, I expect the same to happen with all
these special low carb diet goods. Mainstream people will just make their
stomach explode on low carb candy bars, and think that it's all fine as long
as they eat no carbs (and no veggies, you can count on mainstream making
every false and dumb choices).
That's why banning junk food is awfully wrong. It goes the same way as
before. Junk food in any quantity = Evil. Healthy food in unlimited quantity
= Good. That's a recipe for a catastrophe.

We eat more vegetables. We eat less fat. Yet,
:: obesity is increasing. Blaming obesity only on high calorie food and
:: junk food is looking at the problem from the very small end of it...

Not if you're eating too much junk food...I think you're looking at the
small end right now.

If you're eating too much of *any* kind of food. That's exactly what people
do *not* want to here. You're fat because you eat too much food. Point. If
you want to lose weight, you have to eat less. Point.

:: True junk food (ie. trans fat, false food...) is bad because it's
:: low quality and unhealthy. But you can't blame obesity on it.

Sure you can....by way of the fact that people eat too much of it...and
they
eat too much typically because it creates BG swings.

BG swings apply only to certain kinds of junk food. You're not getting much
BG swings from eating all kind of junk food. We didn't get the low fat
revolution to the same level you did here, so we have plenty of very high
fat junk food. People manage to get obese on this just as well as the rest.
People also get obese on gastronomic food - no need for any junk food there.
I doubt the chocolate cake that came after the foie gras and the royal king
size sauerkraut with meat is causing much of a BG swing.
Many people have trained themselves to eat until their stomach is full. When
their stomach is empty, it's "hunger" to them, and they try to fill it to
the max again. These people can do that on any kind of food, BG swings or
not.

:: Eating junk food doesn't make people obese anymore than eating
:: healthy food does. Eating too much food, of any kind, makes people
:: obese.

True, but the fact is if your diet is mostly carbs, you'll eventually,
most
likely (this not being true for everyone), start eating too much.

Yet, people did not get obese on this kind of diet before. Most of Europe
has been on a high carb (bread) diet for centuries, and it did without major
obesity. Actually, back then, the obese people were the rich ones who could
afford meat. Moreover, unless you're eating only diet food (and I'm not
denying that it's exactly what many obese do eat), you're not going to eat
"mostly" carbs. You're going to eat a lot of carbs, with a lot of (trans)
fat and little proteins.

A constant, steady diet of junk & fast food will land you fat given enough
time (I speak from personal experience here). Even if you exercise, cause
most won't be able to do enough exercise to counteract the BS that
excessive
junk food comsumption will bring on.

Some people stay slim, if unhealthy, all their life with this kind of diet.
They don't even need exercise. They just need to eat a reasonnable amount.
You don't *have* to eat an XXXL portion just because you're at a fast food.
Hell, I did lose 30 pounds while eating at McDonald once a day, and I wasn't
even hungry.

:: Another traditionnal poor folks' recipe. Been there for ages. Yet,
:: mainstream obesity is a recent phenomenon. Hence, rice pudding
:: doesn't cause obesity. Eating a pound of rice pudding a day does.

But poor folks didn't eat just rice pudding....they had pig's feet,
chicken,
pork, lots of fat, etc, to balance out the carbs to some degree. And keep
in
mind that a lot of poor folks back i the day were fat, BTW. Today, we have
pre-made, pre-packaged and fast foods that, if made the staple of one's
diet, will make most people fat.

They were not fat, they were overweight. Big difference. Being overweight is
not unhealthy, it's just not fashionable. They also had a decent amount of
muscles along with the fat. Back then, being slightly overweight was a sign
of good health and well being. If you could afford to eat enough to sport
that fashionable fat, you certainly did so. Some people were obese, but it
was a small minority, not 30% of the population.
And yes, they were not frantic about cutting a food group from their diet.
So they had their carbs (poorly processed, which meant cheaper and more
feeling) along with some fat and whatever meat they could afford.
Depending on how much you eat, fast food might make you fat, or it might
not. If you think that a normal meal is a Big Mac or two with XXL French
Fries, coke and sunday, you will indeed grow fat, unless you exercise a
*lot*. If you think a normal meal is a hamburger or two, a salad with sauce
and a diet coke, you won't. I did lose weight eating the later.

In article ,
"Lictor" wrote:
snip
Italian don't cook pasta
al dente because it tastes better, they do that because it lowers the
glycemic index and makes them last longer.
snip

It could be that it tastes better to them because it has those effects.

But do you think they really like pasta cooked American style for taste?

It is the more expensive resturants that serve al dente

"Walter Bushell" wrote in message
news
It could be that it tastes better to them because it has those effects.
But do you think they really like pasta cooked American style for taste?
It is the more expensive resturants that serve al dente

I mean, they do cook them al dente - I hope I didn't mess with the double
negative. In Italy, that's the only "right" way to cook pasta! The origin is
that it was more filling that way. Since pasta is traditionnal folk cuisine,
al dente became the norm. As a result, real Italian restaurants will serve
them that way.
If you check a glycemic index table, the difference between well cooked and
al dente is rather huge. For instance, on my table (glucose at index 100),
white flour pasta is 55 when well cooked (which is actually rather low when
you compare it to potatoes, white bread...). Al dente spaghetti are at 35,
same as true wholewheat bread, quinoa, apples... Then you can compare that
to "instant" stuff (rice, pasta...) that cooks in 3 minutes and are at index
90. If you eat GI 35 real spaghetti with a gorgonzola or even plain olive
oil sauce, you're not going to get hungry for a while.