“…we have a problem with “sin taxes,” such as the penny-per-ounce surcharge on sweetened beverages championed by CDC Director Thomas Frieden. Most of us would probably agree that we’d be better off if we drank less soda, but any government action designed to control consumption puts us on alert. A tax is far less likely to induce reactance than an outright ban, but we feel queasy whenever we think The Man is trying to influence our behavior. In the case of the sugar-sweetened-beverage tax, which has often been referred to as a “fat tax,” our discomfort is greater because the measure seems to encourage finger-pointing. In defense of the proposal, New York Gov. David Paterson has said, “Someone has got to contribute to the $7.6 billion the state spends every year to treat diseases from obesity.” Those who are not obese may feel that they should not have to pay for the “sins” of the fat people over there, the ones creating the problem. Those who are obese are likely to feel shamed and persecuted. And we all recoil at the thought of the government trying to regulate our bodies.”
COMMENTS
47 responses to “The Mockingpolitics of Soda Tax (or Co-Cola if you live in my neck of the woods)”
Leave a Reply
Browder,
don't ever change.
How will this affect other sugared up drinks??? In my neck of the woods if you order tea with lunch, it is assumed that you mean "Sweet Tea", especially if you are at a BBQ place. We go through Sweet Tea by the gallons, especially during the hot summer months. Read my lips: "NO Sweet Tea Tax." If enacted, I guess I can buy sugar and lipton and make my own– as long as The Man doesn't find out and start levying the sugar by itself.
My guess is that sweet tea will be affected if the sugar is added to the tea at the plant and you are buying cans or gallon jugs of premade sweet tea. If, in contrast, the tea is made by the BBQ restaurant itself, and they add their own sugar, then it won't be taxed.
Ironically, I am guessing that "100% juice beverages" will not be taxed, though most of them are just as likely to cause you to gain weight as coke.
You can legislate health about as well as you can legislate morality.
Pretty soon we're going to have to swim the Rio Grande just to drink a co-cola. I'm fixing to drink one now just so I can get one last fix.
Hey Dave. Can you expand on that a bit? ("You can legislate health about as well as you can legislate morality.")
Morality is impossible to legislate (from our MB Reformation perspective) because morality is concerned with people's hearts. Thoughts and feelings, not to mention those that are in the realm of the unconscious, can't be touched by human laws.
But public health strikes me as something that responds much better to civil govt, since govt is only interested in behavior (not one's inner life). New York's ban on trans fats has significantly improved that aspect of NYC's health. Lots of cities are banning smoking in public venues like bars, restaurants, etc.; which has also improved public health. Various public health groups exist to enforce laws requiring minimum standards in drinking water, toxic waste, air quality, etc.
If I could interject, StampyD, I'll bet people in New York are now just going to New Jersey to buy their lard 🙂 Really, I know the place like the back of my hand… Cozzens and I are cousins 😉 (seriously,I did represent Yonkers in a case once, though…long,long story, but Yonkers is about 10 light years from NYC)People in Yonkers are NOT from the midwest.
Given the recent studies suggesting the addictive properties of sweet foods, I don't think a soda tax will work.
That said, I would support an impossibly expensive tax on the producers of sugared foods. This avoids the persecution and accusations described above. It may be The Man trying to influence our behavior, but whether we like it or not, the Man is always influencing our behavior. Why else would they have a cartoon character selling cereal? If I'm going to be manipulated anyway, better it be a Good Man, than a bad one.
To MC Hammer: Lard is good. No trans fats!
Todd: interesting thought. How would a tax on the companies work? The penny an ounce tax on soda seems very clear, and directly related to c company's output of the offending product. How would companies be taxed in a way that is substantially different?
It's also worth fleshing out more what it means for a tax to "work." If its purpose is to bring in revenue — to pay for (say) a state's medical programs — then it most certainly will work.
If its purpose is to cause Joe Public to consume fewer gallons of sugary drinks, then you just need to raise the tax high enough and make sure there aren't untaxed loophole products. I know for sure that if the cost of a 12-pack of coke is raised to $20, then a lot fewer cokes will be drunk.
All of which is not to say that I favor the tax — I don't know really what I think of it.
You raise a great point, though, which is that I am not sure that the Man in the form of the IRS is any worse than the Man in the form of some marketing firm.
Stampdawg, Thanks for the good news on lard. I'm going to fix me a lard sandwich to go with my co-cola.
Why don't we just let people eat and drink what they want and leave them alone?
David- (this is Andrea, not Aaron) I can't help but to comment on this. Just out of curiosity, do you know anything about high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), the sweetener used in most sugared drinks? Do you know that it actually works like a poison in our bodies? Our bodies cannot process HFCS like we can natural foods. The government is in bed with corn producers and will not regulate HFCS. However this ingredient (also found in most manufactured foods- many marketed as "healthy") is a leading cause of the most common health problems in our society and increasingly in children. Especially in lower income households where access to healthy food is limited and education about this ingredient (as well as food dyes) is absent. Have you ever tried to shop in a supermarket and find products that don't contain HFCS? Maybe drive to a "food desert" and give it a shot. It is fine if you choose to drink sugared drinks, especially since you know how damaging it is to your body and you can make an educated choice. That is not the case for many people. I appreciate any move, at any level of any government, to discourage food manufacturers from poisoning my family and our society. If the FDA won't ban this poison then kudos to local governments for taking action. These food toxins and other environmental toxins fall under "first use" in my book. Especially since the average baby born today has over 200 chemicals in their cord blood at birth.
Mexican co-cola doesn't have HFCS. It's good for you, like lard.
Stampdawg, you're right about hte comprehensiveness of the tax. It would need to be extended to all drinks, including "juices" like Capri-Sun. I'm not entirely sold on the tax idea, but from the somewhat little I know about Econ, the tax would have to be sufficiently burdensome and would probably extinguish the reliable profits of the soda companies. Soda would become a luxury item like wine that only the rich can drink, which especially works here since it's the poor that tend to have the worst health. Apart from the short term loss of utility gained from drinking soda, the increased consumption of water would allow for a better overall quality of life.
Browder, in some sense I'm sympathetic to the ideal of giving people penultimate freedom to do what they want. Yet the problem is much worse than presupposed. How does one "want" something? I am not as autonomous I as think. The truth is that the combined powers of advertising and artificially engineered food has imprisoned the "want" of everyone to make self-destructive choices.
OK. I'll bite.
Who exactly is going to be regulating this stuff? The government "Man" who is better than the corporate "Man"? If you believe that, I suggest you either watch "The Wire" again or work a few years in politics. I am amazed by people who somehow see government as this benevolent entity that is just working for our good. It's just not true. Who can resist having a fiefdom and being answered to?
Another question: Where do we stop? Here in Columbia, every public housing project has both a KFC and a Church's Chicken right in the middle of it. Should we pass a law prohibiting either of these establishments to be within 7 miles of public housing projects? You know, these people are so uneducated and they just don't know what's good for them. But I know what's good for them. What about when McDonald's moves in?
We've had a drug war going on for decades (and we had Prohibition) that has tried to make people behave in a certain way. It has failed.
The answer is to keep people informed and let them make their own choices. There actually is a private industry that responds to demand and produces information. Just like that documentary on corn.
Make information available and let people make their own minds up. They're adults just like you and me. Let's treat them as such.
Knowledge leading to good choices are key. I didn't know breakfast cereal (Yes, Cheerios, etc.) are awful for you. Bagels as well. My doctor friend taught me this– more protein and vegetables, less sugar and carbs. Manage your blood sugar with healthy snacks mid morning and afternoon. Bagels, for example, spike your bood sugar and then you crash late morning and end up really hungry at lunch time ("Yes, extra fries please") Following the good docs advice has made all the difference in the world. Now, either I had forgotten what I was taught in elemetary school (5 food groups, etc) or I liked the easy, cheap breakfast and fast food. Anyway, I'm 42 and trying to make some changes these days. By the way, we should all watch "Babette's Feast". And, if interested, I will sponsor any Mockingbird fan to be a member of The South Carolina BBQ Association. Seriously. Sweet tea, fellowship, and good BBQ (cooked low and slow) in moderation is okay. BBQ is a Friday lunch tradition down here, especially in the Summer. By the way, BBQ joints are only open Fridays and Saturdays for the most part so it is self regulating to a certain extent. Y'all have a great weekend.
For now, I suppose I'm not so much interested in trying to defend the institution of the Government against its obvious limitations and failures. Can you acknowledge that private industry often acts as a malevolent force? Even more, can you acknowledge the individual's impotence against such "powers"?
I do not mean to talk down about people as much as I want to make the case for understanding of man that is helpless subject to forces beyond his/her rational, willful control. We are never adults, but always children- unconsciously led by false Gospels through the exploitation of our desires. If Mad Men has taught us anything it's that there is a man behind the curtain pulling our consumerist levers.
This is the ground-level reality of our buying habits. I'm all for debating the effectiveness of various solutions and how to implement such solutions, but I don't want to begin that discussion without acknowledging how deep the problem is.
I'm not sure we can compare this to drugs/alcohol/cigarettes. It is no secret those things are bad for you and we've had decades of education on the subjects. When a person chooses to consume those things, they are no doubt making an informed decision. Did you know HFCS is in whole wheat bread? This ingredient and other toxins make their way into our lives without us even knowing about it and it is only now getting attention.
I'm not sure how a person living in low-income communities without a supermarket is supposed to have a choice with what they eat. If anything, the food chains you mentioned are making the decision for them. Are they supposed to just stop eating? They are not making informed decisions because they lack the information as well as any other option.
I'm not suggesting that the government acts in our best interests. Or any of our interests. However, there are times when it can be helpful to ban certain things. Like lead. Do you think lead shouldn't have been banned? Do you think people automatically knew that it lined children's lunch boxes for years? Not to mention the repercussions of it being in paint, gasoline and other daily uses. How can a person make an "informed" decision when the chemical is slipped into a product with no warning?
Maybe the sweet drink tax should be doubled. Half of it going to pay for the health problems the drinks cause and half of it going towards education until people are informed enough to make an informed decision. Then after folks are educated enough to make an informed decision, that second half of the drink tax can go towards the health care for the people who choose to continue to drink it. 🙂 Or the ingredient could just be banned. For the same reasons we have seat belts, electrical outlet covers and guard rails.
On another note- when we lived overseas, one of our students cleaned spray paint off the floor with Coke. It came right up!
Thoughtful response, Dave.
One thing to remember is that the proposed soda tax (a penny per ounce) does not make the purchase of soda illegal. Thus, comparisons with Prohibition and the Drug War, in which substances are outlawed, may have limited value. Indeed, some of the Drug War's biggest critics typically argue that the substances should be made legal but taxed at a high level.
Another thing: your line of argument (don't tax dangerous products, just give people info) would suggest that we also drop all taxes on cigarettes — which unquestionably would result in people smoking a lot more and more deaths and illness.
I have a lot of sympathy for the libertarian place you come from. That's my inclination as well.
On the other hand, are you willing to go all the way with it? If someone chooses to smoke and/or drink lots of soda, and consequently develops health problems, do you favor insurance reform such that the non-smokers and non-soda drinkers don't contribute toward his health bills? And of course cutting off all medicare and medicaid funding for that? After all, those choosing to smoke should also choose to set aside extra funds for their healthcare, right?
Almost forgot to point out the achievement of the day of the private sector. McDonald's recall of 12 MILLION (!!!) drinking cups for children made with cadmium- a known toxic chemical.
Another fun fact- there are 80,000 chemicals on the market, 200 of which have been tested for safety. I'll take a bit of regulation on those remaining chemicals from wherever I can get it.
There is no question that there are a lot of corporate interests who are bad. The difference is that we can switch to a competitor, look for an alternative, appeal to the rule of law, or live without the products/whatever altogether. That is the prerogative we have in a society that disburses power and has free markets. When the government gets involved, however, there is no competition or recourse. It is the final say. Why? Because they have the power of coercion. That is why it is so much better to push the power down to the people.
Todd, I think you know that I share your low anthropology. But that was the whole thrust of the article. If we want to talk theologically about it, the Gospel is about freedom. The political analogy would then seem to point to allowing people to drink or not drink sugary drinks as they would like. The way that would actually impede progress on getting people NOT to drink it would be trying to coerce behavior with the Law. I know we both see this as pretty basic Law/Gospel theology and we're assuming it actually works.
Nowhere is smoking more persecuted than New York City. And nowhere do I see more smokers than New York City.
Andrea, I don't think companies were "slipping" lead into children's lunchboxes because they wanted to expose as many children to toxins as possible before they were found out. It was found out that lead was poisonous (somehow) and there was a public interest in getting rid of it. I think Coca-Cola is really not the same thing as lead, though. Neither is greasy fried chicken. Banning lead doesn't necessarily open up the logic to banning everything that might be remotely bad for you.
If we err (and we will), we should err on the side of maximum freedom and not soft paternalism. If there is something you don't like in wheat bread, then make your own bread or buy another sort of bread. Organic, perhaps. And I know you will because you are a good mother.
But I've been eating whole wheat bread all my life and my health is just fine. That is the beauty of maximum freedom. You can adjust your diet accordingly and I can, too, if I want. And I didn't need government fiat to do it.
Well, here's some achievements of the public sector:
Segregation
Pork barrel spending
Cover-ups
Secret military action
Domestic surveillance
I can just quit going to McDonald's. Or make my own hamburgers. I can't do that with my citizenship. They hold all the cards. I'll take more freedom wherever I can get it.
John, I'm not in favor of singling out cigarettes or alcohol either. Put the regular sales tax on them. Taxes don't make people not smoke. Understanding the health risks do.
And I believe in privately funded health insurance. As soon as the federal government begins to pay for my insurance, my behavior becomes their business. No thanks.
But that's another discussion for another day.
And those public sector achievements are just in the United States. The people always need recourse to remain free. That is what the devolution of power does.
Luther preached neoliberalism!
🙂
Well Dave, you're being a philosophically consistent libertarian — which is a position I can respect.
It sounds like you want the govt to get out of the role of taxing bad-for-you products… but you also think that people who take health risks shouldn't get any health care paid for by the rest of us later in life.
Libertarianism has two characteristic weaknesses as I see it (and you're talking to a guy who is very sympathetic to it). Both are related to its fiction of autonomous citizens freely choosing to do the things each wants to do.
The first has been brought up by Todd in this thread. "I am not as autonomous I as think. The truth is that the combined powers of advertising and artificially engineered food has imprisoned the "want" of everyone to make self-destructive choices."
The second is that libertarianism is based on a fictive world in which children do not exist. It really makes no provision for them in its conceptual framework. Children are supreme examples of people for whom choice is extremely limited: both by the power of their parents and the economic stratum they are born into, and by the very nature of being a child.
And the debate on obesity right now, as an issue of public health, is especially focused on the epidemic of obesity amongst CHILDREN in the last 20 years.
I have an 11 yr old SUV with 181,000 miles on it. It has long been "paid for". We thought we thought it had died on us this week. But two reasonable repair bills and it is back on the road. My wife just called after getting it back from the shop. Our sons wanted McDonald's on the way home from school, which my wife bought for them. I have ice cream in the fridge for later tonight. And, most importantly, I just read Paul Walker's most recent sermon online. I recommnend it.
On a most personal note, I visited with my very ill father for the last time one year ago today. As Forrest Gump might say, "He died on a Saturday . . ." If you haven't seen "Somewhere over the rainbow by Izzy" here's the link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHzTKplPw30. I told David Zahl I would send him something about how much Mockingbird has meant to me, especially over the past year or so. Izzy says it best.
God really loves us, he really does. He gave us ice cream, our loved ones and much, much more. May we have eyes to see more and more clearly.
Freedom. I wonder what somebody on dialysis might say about that. Or the parents of a child with cancer. Or the 1,529,560 people in the US who will be diagnosed with cancer this year. Or the child with autism. All the research is pointing to environmental toxins, all unregulated, to be the common denominator. HFCS creates fat that the body doesn't know what to do with (it usually hangs out around the belly area) and creates fertile ground for cancers.
Yes, the government screws up a lot of what it does, but sometimes simple actions that protect those most vulnerable are a really good thing.
Why isn't the NY sugar drink tax an acceptable action? It sends a message to the drink manufacturers, shows the public that there are consequences to drinking such things (and if they don't know what those consequences are, they can learn about it), and helps pay for the health crisis to which sugared drinks contribute. And it is done at the local level. So if you want to drink it, fine, you'll just make a small contribution to the cost of the health consequences. It actually seems like a very direct way of dealing with the problem- the people who consume the harmful beverages are paying for the consequences. Instead of the rest of us paying for their decisions.
"Government" itself is no more inherently good of evil than personal freedom of choice. It is all steeped in sin and self-interest. What the Nazis tried but ultimately failed to do, now every upper middle-class person seeking a genetically perfect child does as a matter of course, all in the exercise of informed decision-making. So don't give me any libertarian line blaming the big, bad government. We are the problem, every one of us. More information is not the cure. I don't know the answer, but I do know I need a cold co-cola now after reading all of this. Hope I've got enough change left to pay the sin tax.
John, I totally disagree.
So, I can be a libertarian only if I have free will that is objectively rational? Do you think I would hold a position that would require everyone to hold free will that is objectively rational?
No, the problem with libertarianism and devolution is that it facilitates the tyranny and bias of the provincial. That's the real issue that devolution has to answer for.
Human beings are fallen and irrational, so the opponents of devolution wish to place power in the hands of the relative few. A rule by a few enlightened philosophers, if you will, who decide what is good and bad in society and then impose it. That is actually what crashes on the rocks of human irrationality.
Simple and ingenious. Empower the governed so more eyes will look at the policy. Not just a fallen few.
Unfortunately, the fallen many are no better than the fallen few. Jacksonian democracy screwed the Cherokees; George Wallace-style states-rights screwed the African-Americans; and on and on…
Hey Dave… you are using some words and phrases that I don't know the meaning of — or at least how you are meaning them.
Don't what you mean by "devolution" and "the tyranny and bias of the provincial."
Michael, I think I went ahead and volunteered what the downside to libertarianism or Jacksonian democracy (an idea I have a lot of sympathy with) is. I don't turn from that. It has a lot to answer for. But I'd rather have a Jacksonian democracy than a Wilsonian one any day.
Why?
RECOURSE. For precisely what you mention. The few and the many are equally fallen. But with devolution and reliance on free markets and individual freedom, you have RECOURSE. With a strong centralized government, there is no recourse. They have the power of coercion. McDonald's does not. Try not eating a Big Mac for a year and try not paying your taxes for a year. There is profundity in that difference.
That's what I'm saying.
Andrea, I'm not quite sure how you are tying the idea of freedom to disease. Obviously, we have found out about whatever it is that is in this product. People are made aware and their buying habits have changed. A new market has been created for a healthier product and the demand is going to be filled. Free market corrective. From an entrepreneur who is creating jobs. All I see now in Publix is generic brand organic this and that.
No to the soda tax and no to soft paternalism. Legislating morality doesn't work and nether does regulating health. If you're going to tax soda, you're going to need to tax hamburgers, french fries, Twix, Oreos, fried chicken, and everything else to be consistent. I'm a big boy and I can make decisions without checking with my local legislator first.
David, The Cherokees had absolutely no recourse to Andrew Jackson and his "devolved" redneck democracy, in spite of the fact that the "elites" on the U.S.Supreme Court had ruled in their favor and against the good ol' boys' version of ethnic cleansing. So I am a little skeptical about claims of "recourse" in a "devolved" system. Alabama politics is far more corrupt, and far easier controlled by a small elite, than the federal government, which is subject to media scrutiny to a far greater degree. The history of the South is the history of "small government" allowing the strong to crush the weak.
And, of course, Michael, I am in favor of the strong crushing the weak.
No, I think you just made my point for me. The Cherokees had no recourse against Jackson. That's exactly what I have been saying. If it had been Massachusetts Bay Company or something of the sort, then they would have.
And I made this point several posts ago. Libertarianism and devolution must own up to the tyranny and bias of provincialism. Did I not say that? Am I not being self-critical here? Something that I have not heard a peep from on the other side?
And what I said was a Jacksonian democracy in present day was preferable to a Wilsonian one TODAY. And I would certainly expect you to understand that I meant without the Trail of Tears.
By the way, my Grandfather ran against and worked against George Wallace his whole career (and mostly failed), so I won't have Wallace hung around my neck. Wallace's purpose was raw political power, a deadly thing when centralized into one powerful position.
Two more things:
1) Forced relocation for me would fall under the category of government not leaving people alone.
2) Why don't we say that I would rather have a Calvin Coolidge than a Woodrow Wilson? I think the historical parallels would line up better that way.
David, I am not trying to hang George Wallace around your neck, blame you for the Trail of Tears, or accuse you of defending your lunch counter against the "tyrany" of a broad interpretation of the commerce clause. What I am saying is that "small government", "free enterprise", and so forth, may sound marvelous in the abstract, but when they are seen in the concrete expression of historical practice in a world of fallen humanity, they can and have caused every bit as much human misery as anything else because human nature spoils it all. I am also a little at a loss as far as the evils of "Wilsonian" democracy. What was so terrible about that?
Aside from inciting Germany to nationalistic rage after WWI, I would say nothing evil came from the Wilson Administration. And nothing evil came from the Coolidge Administration either. I just prefer Coolidge's governing style.
And I never said small business and free markets were freer from the bondage of the will than the public sector. And I never said we wouldn't get stung by small business and free markets.
I said that, thanks to the rule of law and the competition of the free markets, we have recourse against that bondage where we (and the Cherokees of 1825) do not against the public sector. Therefore, why not keep all we can private and allow competition for the sake of a freer society? No claim of utopia, here. Free-ER.
That's my argument in a nutshell and I hope I stated it clearly this time.
🙂 Sorry guys. I was just blowing off some steam yesterday and a good political row always does the trick.
I feel better now 😉
I hope I still have some friends.
I take one night away and this thread explodes.
David, I'm still your friend. We should go out for a Coke float sometime!
I think we're agreed with the premise of freedom from the law as the ideal. If there is to be a freedom from a soda taxation, then there also must be a freedom from the coercion of the soda manufacturers. No more TV advertisements, no more product placements, no more government subsidies to make the price artificially low, no more soda machines in elementary/middle schools, no more exclusive contracts at public events and restaurants, etc… To the soda companies, this is certainly a law, but to the consumer it levels the playing field.
Like Todd I stepped away for a bit only to find the thread had grown a lot. I was delighted, however, that the thread provided another piece of evidence for Godwin's Law:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Both the Hammer and DB independently brought up Nazi Germany in their debate with each other. That's a Double Godwin. 🙂
Hopefully folks over the weekend will see the post at the top of the blog and decide to visit this thread, which I directed them to. I also encourage you all to take a look at that post and, if you feel like it, read the Atlantic Monthly article I give excerpts from. I think you might find it fascinating — and touching as well.
Some of Todd's last few points get discussed in the Atlantic piece as well.
Todd, I still disagree. Let people and parents decide if they/their children are going to drink soda. It's not like soda is the only thing making people fat. Banning all that stuff would be at best a violation of the 1st Amendment.
From David Foster Wallace: "If you can think of times in your life that you've treated people with extraordinary decency and love, and pure uninterested concern, just because they were valuable as human beings. The ability to do that with ourselves. To treat ourselves the way we would treat a really good, precious friend. Or a tiny child of ours that we absolutely loved more than life itself. And I think it's probably possible to achieve that. I think part of the job we're here for is to learn how to do it."
David,
I really wonder if you understand the severity of this issue. Did you know there are pesticides in Colgate toothpaste? It isn't listed in the ingredients and it is perfectly legal. Most people wouldn't buy that product if it came with a warning or if they knew it was toxic. But there is nothing requiring them to make that information available and this toxin has direct links to cancer. As advocacy groups approach manufacturers, they are told the chemicals are safe. This is false. The same goes for HFCS, but to a much greater extent as it is in so many products, especially ones that are aimed at children. I don't understand why you are convinced that people know this- because you see some organic items at your local store? Well, there are very few ay my local store (in a wealthy town) and what is available I certainly can't afford. (nor do I have the time to make bread as you suggest and which I resent- I work, raise three children and support a clergy husband. How is a single mom supposed to respond to your suggestion?) Why is it acceptable to you for companies to poison us? Why do you consider that part of the First Amendment? There is no reason this stuff should be legal. If we were in a physical war involving the number of people being poisoned by these toxins (think just those diagnosed with cancer, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer's, and infertility this year), we'd be a complete police state right now. Did you know the rate of breast cancer in the US rose 12% last year? 20% in China. The rise is consistent with the rise in toxins used in food, cosmetics and household items (think plastics). Obesity is directly related to this in that researches are linking it (and these other conditions I mentioned) to the build up of toxins in generations of women, passing them on to their babies in the womb. This is a health crisis of incredible magnitude and we're just seeing the beginning of it. I'm afraid I just can't agree with you that it is only up to parents of children to solve this problem because that is simply impossible. It will be interesting to me to see how you deal with this issue with your own family because it is very real and is more than just "making your own bread."
David, I am still your friend, even if you do love Hitler and have a Nazi uniform in your closet. (Stampdawg made me say that)
Andrea, I did some checking around and the effects of that stuff in Colgate is inconclusive. I've known people who have used Colgate all of their lives and lived to 100.
Mildew in the shower heads. Coffee causes cancer. No… wait… coffee fights cancer. It will never end.
There exist industries that benefit from whipping people up into a frenzy and scaring them. I think a lot of these documentaries have good points and a lot of them are sensational. And the mother of small children (and the soon-to-be father of small children) is probably more of a target than most. And for good reason. And they know that.
The truth is that there are no guarantees and government regulation certainly can't guarantee anything.
Factoid: Toothpaste tubes used to be made out of lead.
I ate junkfood all day yesterday, including ice cream right before bedtime. If I had coca-cola I would have had a coke float. My behavior was likely self-soothing at its worst. I don't have a weight problem and am in goood health for a 42 year old, so maybe it wasn't too bad.
Enough about me, I have posted entries in this thread because I wanted to try and keep others from arguing fruitlessly. Lifelong habit of mine and I probably shouldn't have done so. Who am I to judge what is a fruitless argument? I apologize for my rudeness. So, I know leave for Church my sons, wife and I go. I have some more praying to do. Thank God for The Gospel. Peace to all.