If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ignoramus17184 wrote: In article , Roger Zoul wrote: Bad policy....government has done enough (too much) in terms of telling people what to eat.... Yes, and no. Personally, I have not decided if I like this policy or not, but I would not want my tax dollars spent by food stamps recipients to buy junk food. Junk food is very expensive. That's just one consideration, and there are other valid considerations. i Like eating junk food makes it easier to remain in poverty? Sugar I consider to be alcohol lite. I remember eating corn muffins and passing out. The same after drinking a 6 pack of coca colas. Sugar and especially corn syrup should be considered as drugs, _In My Arrogant Opinion_. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Walter Bushell wrote:
Like eating junk food makes it easier to remain in poverty? Sugar I consider to be alcohol lite. Only difference is, it's far cheaper than beer to get your "fix" When I had BTDT with little to no money, I had a huge sack of flour, eggs, a big bag of sugar, and oatmeal, and I made lots of oatmeal cookies. Heck, if you can't go buying junkfood, you can at least make your own A little bit of money spent made a LOT of whole wheat bread, cookies, biscuits, pancakes, pita breads, popcorn, rice, etc etc... What the poor look for the most is shelf longevity vs a cheap cost. I remember eating corn muffins and passing out. The same after drinking a 6 pack of coca colas. Sugar and especially corn syrup should be considered as drugs, _In My Arrogant Opinion_. IIRC (and I am too lazy to look it up) at one point, refined white sugar was considered contraband and only the wealthy could get it. I should do some research on the history of sugar. CM -- The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion and experience. Please interpret accordingly. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ignoramus17184 wrote:
Roger Zoul wrote: Bad policy....government has done enough (too much) in terms of telling people what to eat.... Yes, and no. Personally, I have not decided if I like this policy or not, but I would not want my tax dollars spent by food stamps recipients to buy junk food. Junk food is very expensive. That's just one consideration, and there are other valid considerations. Actually we could live on fish & chips and pizza for a fraction of what it costs us to buy meat and vegetables each week. But yes, potato chips and soda are fairly expensive if you get them regularly. Over here I think there are restrictions on what people can buy in that position - I have a feeling cigarettes and most magazines are out, and presumably alcohol, but I don't think there's much else in the way of limitations - but there should be. If people genuinely need government assistance to feed their families, that assistance should be used as wisely as possible - on real, healthy food that hopefully isn't going to see the same recipients end up needing more assistance in the form of healthcare down the track. Rachel (New Zealand) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Supergoof" wrote in message ... Ignoramus17184 wrote: Roger Zoul wrote: Bad policy....government has done enough (too much) in terms of telling people what to eat.... Yes, and no. Personally, I have not decided if I like this policy or not, but I would not want my tax dollars spent by food stamps recipients to buy junk food. Junk food is very expensive. That's just one consideration, and there are other valid considerations. Actually we could live on fish & chips and pizza for a fraction of what it costs us to buy meat and vegetables each week. Which is why the poor are often disproportionately fat. They can afford processed starches, bread, pasta, etc. and simple starches, corn, rice, potatoes - all can be had very cheaply. Meat is expensive. Hence, fat city. Venger |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Venger wrote:
:: "Supergoof" wrote in message :: ... :::: Ignoramus17184 wrote: ::::: Roger Zoul wrote: :::::: Bad policy....government has done enough (too much) in terms of :::::: telling people what to eat.... ::::: ::::: Yes, and no. Personally, I have not decided if I like this policy ::::: or not, but I would not want my tax dollars spent by food stamps ::::: recipients to buy junk food. Junk food is very expensive. That's ::::: just one consideration, and there are other valid considerations. ::: ::: Actually we could live on fish & chips and pizza for a fraction of ::: what it costs us to buy meat and vegetables each week. :: :: Which is why the poor are often disproportionately fat. They can :: afford processed starches, bread, pasta, etc. and simple starches, :: corn, rice, potatoes - all can be had very cheaply. Meat is :: expensive. Hence, fat city. And this is historyically true. That's why a ban on junk food is nonsense... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Supergoof wrote:
::: Ignoramus17184 wrote: :::: Roger Zoul wrote: ::::: Bad policy....government has done enough (too much) in terms of ::::: telling people what to eat.... :::: :::: Yes, and no. Personally, I have not decided if I like this policy :::: or not, but I would not want my tax dollars spent by food stamps :::: recipients to buy junk food. Junk food is very expensive. That's :::: just one consideration, and there are other valid considerations. :: :: Actually we could live on fish & chips and pizza for a fraction of :: what it costs us to buy meat and vegetables each week. :: :: But yes, potato chips and soda are fairly expensive if you get them :: regularly. Over here I think there are restrictions on what people :: can buy in that position - I have a feeling cigarettes and most :: magazines are out, and presumably alcohol, but I don't think there's :: much else in the way of limitations - but there should be. :: :: If people genuinely need government assistance to feed their :: families, that assistance should be used as wisely as possible - on :: real, healthy food that hopefully isn't going to see the same :: recipients end up needing more assistance in the form of healthcare :: down the track. So why should assistance be used any more wisely than the funds that people earn and spend on themselves? And what is real, healthy food? Are you saying that there are some foods that people can eat as much of as they wish and remain healthy? Are there no other factors that come to bear on remaining healthy? If someone needs food assistance, do you really think it likely that they won't need healthcare also? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Minnesota seeks ban on junk food | Roger Zoul | General Discussion | 37 | May 7th, 2004 02:41 AM |
help needed on where to start | Diane Nelson | General Discussion | 13 | April 21st, 2004 06:11 PM |
"Food for Fuel" vs. "Food is LOVE & Food is FUN" | vlcd_hell | General Discussion | 14 | February 15th, 2004 03:15 PM |
New Target of the Food Police (CSPI) | jmk | General Discussion | 74 | December 24th, 2003 01:40 AM |
WSJ: How to Give Your Child A Longer Life | Jean B. | General Discussion | 0 | December 9th, 2003 06:10 PM |