In response to:

Government Junk Food Junkies

dgerszewskiq Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 2:23 PM
I have always had the basic principle that people should not live better than the people supporting them. That's why I support limits on pay in the public sector, restrictions on food stamps and limits to narrowly tailor programs to fix the actual problem. That said there are complexities here that are tough to paint with a broad brush. I think one thing that should be totally non-controversial would be limiting purchases to generic brands only. There is no quantative difference in the food, in many cases they're made in the same factories. There's no need for someone on the dole to be paying an extra 50 cents for a brand name.
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 3:49 PM
I thought about that, but rejected it on the basis that the government has no business picking and choosing winners and losers in the food industry any more than it has picking and choosing winners and losers in any other industry.

Some store brands are superior to their name-brand counterparts though. I think that Food Lion cold cereals are frequently superior to the ones come from Kelloggs and General Mills.

A study from the University of Tennessee which was cited in Reuters indicates that despite what Mayor Bloomberg may think, limiting people’s options on food, even junk food, does not help them to lose weight.

So if the Great Twinkie Prohibition of 2012 is not going to be successful at controlling the national waistline, what will it control? My guess is free agency and the free market. After all, if our dear leaders are so intent on managing our sugar and carbs, a la Mayor Bloomberg., shouldn’t they be concerned with the dietary choices of those people on assistance...

Related Tags: Food