As this is annual report season, while studying the upcoming weight loss drugs on the horizon by such firms as Merck, Pfizer and Bristol Myers; I was hearing various analysts speak about the national health costs for obesity is 77% higher than the average, versus that of 22% higher than the average for smokers. Hearing this made me cringe about the future potential for lawsuits and such because of a lack of warning labels on Big Mac's for the ignorant that don't know its bad for you. I think we all know that fatty foods, like smoking can be a bit addictive, just like anything in life. When eating fried foods daily for years, it is VERY difficult to just switch to eating anything else. This raises the question of are we as a society constantly blaming others for our problems and trying to sue/ and or recieve reparations. Smoking lawsuits, reparations for slavery wages and even the Ex-President Clinton blaming his lusty ways on his strained relationship with his mother. It seems no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions, and the push for increased socialist reform of more benefits for the lower income producing households at the expense of others and healthcare for all at the cost of quality is just another notch on the increasing sentiment of non-self reliance.
<i>Nick: Now there are many options available for dangerously underweighted individuals like yourself. I recommend a slow steady gorging process combined with assal horizontology. Homer: [pensive] Of course. Nick: [points to a chart] You'll want to focus on the neglected food groups such as the whipped group, the congealed group and the chocotastic! Homer: What can I do to speed the whole thing up, Doctor? Nick: Well...be creative. Instead of making sandwiches with bread, use poptarts. Instead of chewing gum, chew bacon, heh... Bart: You could brush your teeth with milkshakes! Dr. Nick: Hey, did you go to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College too? And remember, if you're not sure about something, rub it against a piece of paper. If the paper turns clear, it's your window to weight gain. Bye bye, everybody!</i> WHY did I think of that when I opened this thread?
FD: I agree with you in part. There is a significant difference between purposefully and knowingly adding chemicals that have addictive properties to cigarettes and making food that people find yummy. Nicotine and the chemical additives in cigarettes produce a measurable chemical response in the body that creates the environment for addictive behavior. Those don't exist, that we know of, in food. Now, if we find out McDonald's has been sprinkling methodone in our french fries, that's another issue. I was with you for a minute there. I agree that Americans do not take responsibility for their actions on the whole. Even as a country, we do things in other countries that piss people off and then act surprised when they say they don't like us. Hell, check the Catholic Church if you want to see a classic case of blame someone else. However, there is a difference between providing for those less fortunate and simple self-reliance or self-responsibility. If you cannot afford adequate healthcare and you are sick, you can't really solve your money problems. If you are born disabled, you can't really fix that. There are over 1 million children living homeless in the United States today. Are we going to blame them for being born poor? I think there is a significant difference between placing blame where it is due and accepting self-responsibility. There is also a significant difference between supporting those who need it and expecting self-reliance. IMO, it is our moral and ethical responsibility to help when we can no matter what the circumstance or blame game even if I agree that self-reliance and responsible behavior are traits that often times escape the best of us. Just because we think people don't often take responsibility for their actions doesn't excuse us from trying to help those truly in need. That, in essence, would be placing the responsibility for helping those in need on someone else. Not very responsible of us.
Jeff, I think I might have gone a little too far in my words, because I do believe very much in a social welfare system that allows individuals help when they are down and that help orphans and children in economically burdened families. But the current system is not conducive to these conditions. It simply makes it financially more beneficial to stay home with three kids and collect the welfare check, than it is to pay for day care and actually work for a living. Being an owner of a business I see the same sad scenario of a girl in her late-teens to early-twenties with children that financially benefits more from sitting home and recieving a check from the tax payers. If that is not a loss of incentive, I truly don't know what is.
Really? I don't think you are looking at the facts. It's easy to read the papers and blame poor people but the truth is that welfare is not nearly as big a problem as most would suggest. A few facts... - The welfare system makes up just under 6 percent of the entire Social Security system - the other 94 percent is social security benefits and retirement plans for government workers - The average family of 4 on welfare is given $520 per month. Each additional child brings an increase of only $60 per month on average. - Since welfare reform in 1996, the welfare rolls have dropped by half but the number of people using food banks and food stamps has doubled. In addition, homeless numbers in most states are on the rise, not the decline. I'm just not sure you are putting the blame (since you want there to be responsibility somewhere) in the correct place when it comes to social welfare. Try living on $520 per month with 4 family members! Somewhere, you got your numbers wrong.
By the way, under the new revised system, welfare programs including aid to dependant mothers expire after only one year. You can re-apply but it is difficult to return without a disability. In addition, if you get a part time job paying minimum wage, you are automatically removed from the welfare system. That is not truly welfare-to-work. Finally, have you priced day care recently? Try paying for daycare when you make $6 per hour at McDonald's. How are parents supposed to be responsible for their children AND for earning an income on their own when the two are mutually exclusive activities?
As long as food places make available the fat content, cholesterol, etc and all other pertinent health information about their foods, I don't see how anyone could possibly win a lawsuit because they got fat on some food product they consumed too much of.
Additionally, according to recent surveys, over 70% of recipients of what people call 'welfare' (was AFDC, now TANF) are off said benefits in two years or less despite the five year limit instituted by the welfare reforms of 1996. In other words, women on welfare don't want to be on it any more than you want them to be; moreover, the widely touted 'culture of welfare' is mostly a myth. Jeff is right: women (and single parent men) on benefits are damned if they do and damned if they don't; why should they be paying $600+ a month on daycare to earn minimum wage? If looking after children effectively is so important (as many people argue when commenting unfavourably about middle class white women who go out to work), why should these women be forced to work outside the home anyway - if daycare is a job for someone, why can't looking after your own children be paid work too? Benefits in Louisiana for a woman with one child are around $180 a month plus food stamps. Woo, raking it in...
I got to take a 1hr crashcourse on Welfare Reform when visiting Georgetown last month. Now I get to use that info!! Some interesting facts about the welfare-reform of 1996. * Contrary to many people's initial fears, it has not led to mass poverty and such by reducing benefits. * While a large number of welfare #'s have been reduced, it's still uncertain how much of this was due to reforms and how much was do the incredible economy of the late 1990's. * In most cases, time limits haven't really even taken effect. The 5-yr periods most states use will just be coming into play over the next year or two for the poorest individuals. No one really knows what the consequences of kicking these people off the rolls will be. * Unlike many doomsday predictions, people aren't just getting hired and fired and going in circles. Welfare recipients who get work seem to be staying on longer than people expected. * Unfortunately, in many states, while the # of welfare recipients getting jobs has dramatically improved, it does not appear that these people are any more upwardly mobile than in the past. In other words, they are staying in poverty. Basically, the results are mixed. States are still experimenting with different problems and many are substantially increasing non-monetary benefits like improving health care, daycare, etc -- those things could pay off down the road. One unfortunate quirk about the system is that's its shrinking. Congress agreed to a certain amount of funding -- something like $14B -- and spread it amongst the states in the exact proportion as was being used in 1996. The problem is that, to avoid a Congressional fight, that number is LOCKED IN. It doesn't change year-to-year -- not for inflation, not for the # of people on Welfare. If Texas manages to knock its welfare rolls by 90% (as Wisconsin did, I believe), they'll still get exactly as much money as they did in 2000, 1999, 1998, and 1997. That's simply ridiculous, in my opinion. The poor states already get the least money (it was originally based on a split between states & fed, so the poor states like LA contributed less, meaning the fed contributed less, and now those block-grants are locked in). The poor states get poorer, have more people on welfare, get no more money. It has the potential to have a spiral effect. Congress is r****ded at times.
Then how do you explain suing tobacco companies and claiming you didn't know it would be bad for you?
Nicotine is naturally present in tobacco. As such even if Big Tobacco had not added other chemicals, the product itself would be addictive. So there's not a difference from pushing fat on people. And that has been known for decades. And yet people are now winning suits over health effects. Makes no sense. Also, there is significant evidence that particular foods reenforce their consumption by causing cravings similar to nicotine (although not usually as strong). It is being used to explain our obesity in the US as we gorge on particular types of foods. It would be naive to assume that McDonald's is unaware of this, and that their marketing does not target these 'food addictions (sweets like Coke and carb heavy foods like french fries). In addition to that we are now learning of the increase in attributed risk of cancer from french fries ect, which they push, and they will be sued for that soon enough. So what's the difference again?
The difference is that big tobacco manipulated nicotine through chemical additives to make it MORE addictive and did so without notifying the public despite the fact that they knew further addiction would lead to more early deaths. Additionally, eating fast foods in moderation will not result in any an increased risk of cancer. If you eat a Big Mac and fries once a week or once every couple of weeks while maintaining a healthy diet otherwise, your risk is no higher. However, smoking only a LITTLE still results in increased birth defect and cancer risk. Finally, there is no risk of cancer from second-hand fat. However, children and family members of those who smoke are at a MUCH higher risk of cancer from second-hand smoke. You don't have to choose to smoke to be effected adversely. If we find out that McDonald's has been purposefully altering foods to make them more addictive or that Coke has been adding chemicals to make caffeine more potent and neither have warned the consumer, they deserve to get their asses kicked also. Of course, Coke did used to be addictive because it was made with cocaine, but that's another story.
The public was well aware the (first hand) smoke was bound to have adverse health effects, such as lung cancer (the 'early deaths' you speak of). And yet they chose to start smoking. The fact that many people quit also proves that the levels of nicotine and chemicals was not so great as to prevent you from quitting. Do you think that McDonalds spends all that money on advertising to get you to eat there once a week? Pure fiction. That is total BS with NO scientific foundation. To use your analogy if you smoke one cigarette a week and otherwise maintain a sound diet and exercise, there is no higher risk. Again, pure fiction. You have no idea what you are talking about. However, it would be true that if you were a parent, and you were taken in by McDonald's advertising and subsequently brought your kids there a lot, then your children would certainly be adversly affected. In fact, that is precisely what is happening with our child obesity problem which is reaching epidemic proportions.
First, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. That just pisses me off and makes you look like an *******. You don't have to agree with all the scientific evidence that exists out there if you don't want to. You don't have to stop smoking if you currently do. But, simply ignoring that there is a battery of scientific evidence that second hand smoke and "recreational" or "part time" smoking isn't a hazard is ignorant. I'll post the EPA's findings in the next post but I want to acknowledge that we've been round and round on this before so I realized going in that you were going to disagree. Fine. But, that sarcastic "I know everything and you know nothing" crap is, well, crap. Just say you disagree and move on. Don't try to make people look like idiots in the process, particularly when this is a subject in which science is not necessarily on your side.
***second edit. Jeff, I think there is evidence that the EPA report is not as reliable as one might believe.
Hayes: I'm going to stop arguing with you now. You obviously have some freaky obsession with smoking and that's fine. I'm going to be the calm one here and back away. Because, frankly, the way you are going is going to lead to something much worse very quickly. All I'm going to say is lay off of the path you are heading down. It will be better for both of us.
Nicotine is naturally present in tobacco. As such even if Big Tobacco had not added other chemicals, the product itself would be addictive. So there's not a difference from pushing fat on people. Irrelevent. We don't know if any lawsuits against Tobacco would have been successful had they not <B>purposely and knowingly lied about the content of their products</B>. So yes, there is a substantial difference between the two. Tobacco committed fraud to build market share. As far as we know, fast food companies have not done so.
Consider the EPA released its conclusions before it even commissioned the Report, before it even examined the research, and it is not hard to conclude it was a politically expedient result. Add to that the fact that there are no studies that have measured ETS exposure in the EPA Report at all and you should enter this debate with a healthy skepticism for the result. Instead most of you will ignore those failings and follow you media induced assessment which places such a presumption for the EPAs conclusion that you will ignore the science anyway. Just as happened in the last discussion of this topic, where it took 90 posts for someone to even challenge my assertion that it was scientifically proven that ETS was not harmful as measured by OSHA or the EPA in normal air quality debates, and that SOME of you even went so far as to say "I don't care about science cause I don't like smoke." You pretend to be objective but your own bias is hilarious, and a sad testament to how easily duped we all can be. Now on to the EPA's conclusions... (Dr. Chris Coggins, Congressional Hearings before the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation, 'Assessing the Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke,' May 11, 1994) "The EPA manipulated, ignored, and cherry-picked data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. For example, EPA completely ignored two large studies published in the United States (Brownson and Stockwell) although these studies were brought to EPA's attention prior to its release of the final EPA Report. Borwnson is the largest study published on spousal smoking status and lung cancer and was sponsered by the National Cancer Institute. It reports no increased risk for overall exposure..." "By generally accepted scientific convention at least a 95 percent confidence level is required in epidemiologic studies to conclude that an association is statistically significant. In its ETS assessment, EPA reviewed 30 published epidemiologic studies. The studies primarily address whether a nonsmoking woman's risk of lung cancer may be statistically correlated with whether or not her spouse smokes. The studies do not measure actual ETS exposure. Instead, they rely simply on questionnaire responses as to whether a woman's spouse smokes. These responses provide the only information on ETS exposure. "Of the 30 published studies EPA relied upon, 11 were conducted in the United States. As originally reported, none of the US studies reports an overall risk estimate for lung cancer that is statistically significant...In total, 24 of the 30 studies reviewed by EPA--80 percent--as originally reported in the published literature do not support EPA's conclusion. One study even shows a statistically significant protective effect. In the face of these conclusions...EPA lowered the threshold for achieving statistical significance by lowering the standard 95 percent confidence level..to an unorthodox 90 percent confidence level. In altering the original analyses of the authors of the studies, the EPA doubled the possibility that any statistical significant association is simply a random and meaningless event. EPA's use of the lower 90 percent confidence level in the final report stands in stark contrast to (1) its use of the generally accepted 95 percent level in its 1990 ETS Risk Assessment, (2) the use of the 95 percent level in the original reports themselves, and (3) EPAs use of studies employing the 95 percent level in other carcinogenic risk assessments. "Associations of less than 3.0 are generally considered in the scientific community and by EPA to be weak and unequivocal. Associations under 2.0 are considered to be extremely weak and are far more likely to be an artifact produced by chance, bias, or confounding, rather than strong associations....Of the 30 epidemiological studies analyzed by EPA in connection with its classification of ETS as a Group A carcinogen, 80 percent did not report an overall statistically significant association of ANY magnitude between ETS and lung cancer. Even ignoring statistiscal significance, all of the studies reported overall relative risks under 3.0, and 21 reported relative risks under 2.0. Six of those 21 even reported associations below 1.0....Dr. Morton Lippman, chairman of the committee of the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) which reviewed the EPA Report, acknowledged the weakness of the association found by EPA when he noted to reporters at a press conference called to publicize the draft that the risk of ETS ws "probably much less than you took to get here through Washington traffic."
WTF: That's cool. Run away. You present this startling declaration that a little smoke can cause birth defects, which is just not so. People reading these posts will take that as fact, which suits you just fine apparently. I, however, have read a lot on the subject, and know that if nothing else, there is NOT a consensus on the subject, and that presenting it as such is MISLEADING. You call me an ******* and a freak (or if you want to argue semantics you said I was 'acting' like that) and then say you are the one who is calm? Niiiice. Much worse? What, like someone challenging your psuedo-scientific analysis and exposing your perposterously naive adoption of the EPAs line? Major: I'll admit there is a damning aspect of the manipulation of the chemicals in cigarettes by Big Tobacco. Its why they finally started to lose cases after not losing a SINGLE one for forty years. However, a lot of that was for market share, as you said, not increasing the overall market. And in principle, if a company knowingly pushes a harmful product on you, and encourages you to purchase more of that product than is good for you (its fast, stop for the kids on your way home, its good, all beef is good, fries are a vegetable), then why WOULDN'T they be liable just as Big Tobacco is liable? As for my response to Jeff, the fact that Big Tobacco was so shady for so long is really screwing them now, because no one believes ANYTHING they say, which is at the heart of my contention of his scientific conclusions.
