Mayor Bloomberg=food police

New York - New Yorkers on food stamps would not be allowed to spend them on sugar-sweetened drinks under an obesity-fighting proposal being floated by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson.
(first article)

Mayor Bloomberg's latest health campaign -- cutting salt intake -- has targeted soup as one of the big sodium offenders to be taken down with new city ads.

The ads, which will be plastered on subways for the next two months, feature a half-opened can of soup with a geyser of salt spewing from the top and forming a heap around the can.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/no_soup_for_you_mike_targets_salt_Y7r7Xs73WnRLTX8Q08Tl2M#ixzz15TdsWjW4

Answer Question

SHARE THIS QUESTION:

Asked by lovinangels at 2:55 PM on Nov. 16, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

112632 Level 39

Answers (15)

What, if anything, does this kind of legislation accomplish? People who smoke know it's bad...

and here's the kicker...two thirds of the cost of those soup=salt ads are being paid for by the federal government. Why?

IMO- this is a much better solution:
The department recently launched a pilot program to encourage food stamp recipients to make more healthful choices in their food shopping. Under the program, involving 7,500 randomly selected households in Massachusetts, participants get 30 cents added to their benefit balances for every dollar they spend on fruits and vegetables — which reduces the cost of fresh produce by almost one-third.

Comment by lovinangels (original poster) at 2:58 PM on Nov. 16, 2010
Credits: 112632 Level 39 Politics & Current Events Degree
He needs full disclosure here, he is living on tax dollars so I want to know what his BP is and what his most recent Lipid Panel reports.

Answer by jewjewbee at 2:59 PM on Nov. 16, 2010
Credits: 74169 Level 35 Politics & Current Events Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
article one article two

Comment by lovinangels (original poster) at 2:59 PM on Nov. 16, 2010
Credits: 112632 Level 39 Politics & Current Events Degree
And....Lovin....you already know what I think about all of this.

Answer by jewjewbee at 3:00 PM on Nov. 16, 2010
Credits: 74169 Level 35 Politics & Current Events Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
sorry, this is article two

Comment by lovinangels (original poster) at 3:00 PM on Nov. 16, 2010
Credits: 112632 Level 39 Politics & Current Events Degree
While I don't doubt his heart is in the right place (after all, obesity IS a problem in this country, and salt intake SHOULD be limited), I agree with you that the example you quoted is a better way to go about it...

Answer by Anouck at 3:00 PM on Nov. 16, 2010
Credits: 23481 Level 25 Politics & Current Events Minor

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
This is so ridiculous. And that is a good point - government employees are spending billions more in "your tax dollars" on Pepsi and Cambells than anyone receiving any kind of assistance does. I also wonder at the actual letter of his law "sugar sweetened" is a misnomer, and definitely sounds like a publicity stunt while still placating lobbyists. Very few things, especially drinks, are "sugar sweetened". They are HFCS, err sorry, corn sugar, sweetened. The few things thar are actually "sugar sweetened" are more likely to be healthier foods that use small amounts of real sugar in addition to natural ingredients. Products that are all chemical aren't adding a dash of sugar for flavor, they just add more chemicals. Is he actually going to end up banning fruit juice and leaving all the energy drinks and pop on the table?

Answer by NotPanicking at 3:34 PM on Nov. 16, 2010
Credits: 238946 Level 46 Politics & Current Events Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
WHO had to approve the usage of the sodium, the sugar, the high fructose corn syrup, the preservatives, the msg, the sulfites and let's not forget the pesticides, ALL OF THIS GARBAGE, to be used in or on our food sources in the 1st place? Even the plastic containers food comes in, is bad for us, especially our children! And WHY did they allow the manufacturers to use "ALL OF THIS GARBAGE" in the processing of their products? So that they could make more money, of course! SO EXACTLY WHO is responsible for making the majority of our food sources unhealthy? Our food has been intentionally modified, which ensures illnesses like Diabetes and Hypertension to occur at a much younger age, which ensures the need for medications that we are told we must take, to keep us alive. AND WHO is now going after restaurants, who have toys in their kid's meals, as if they are responsible for all of the obesity? Our GVT! The joke's on us!

Answer by agentwanda at 3:41 PM on Nov. 16, 2010
Credits: 72918 Level 35 Politics & Current Events Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
...plastic containers, Are bad for us… : )

Answer by agentwanda at 3:42 PM on Nov. 16, 2010
Credits: 72918 Level 35 Politics & Current Events Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
I agree with your much better solution...give folks the incentive to purchase healthier foods

Answer by tnmomofive at 5:49 PM on Nov. 16, 2010
Credits: 56148 Level 32 Politics & Current Events Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!