Friday, November 16, 2007

I hate the Center for Science in the Public Interest. First, as any Jebustani knows, science is bogus, and if it ain't in the Bible, the 100% literal word of God, then it and doesn't exist, and therefore isn't a problem. Second, who exactly appointed them to watch over the public's health?

Their latest crusade is "Dump Soft Drinks", a global effort to reduce soda consumption, even though it sounds like they advocate a ban on soft drinks.

I know, I know, soda rots your teeth, cooks steak, cleans alumininum, makes you fat, cleans pennies, gives you pimples, and makes you fart. Been there heard that.

But what yanks my chain are a couple of their demands: "Pay a modest Value Added Tax on soft drinks -- with governments using the proceeds for nutrition education and physical activity programs and to subsidize the costs of fruits and vegetables."

So the solution to ending childhood obesity is to tax the stuff people over consume? Here's the problem with that: once imposed, taxes become a treasured income source for governments, and if consumption goes down then the tax has to go up to maintain that revenue. It happened recently in Texas with cigarette Taxes. As sales fell, tax revenue went down, so a brand spanking new tax was imposed to "fund childrens' health programs." Sure. And I'll buy that bridge in Brooklyn, and I believe that not inhaling marijuana is not using marijuana, but not inhaling tobacco smoke is smoking.

If the product is so bad ban it! Instead of finding some income stream to stick your fingers into, advocate the complete ban of the product and the dissolution of any company that makes it!

What makes me think CSPI wants money? "Ensure that sponsorships involving the promotion of physical activity and health be made in a transparent fashion only to independent health charities or government agencies which, in turn, use such funds for programs not associated with the company's logo, brands, or other proprietary information."

Now, some of what they demand makes sense: clearly display the calorie content of each drink on the front of the can or bottle. I would go further and demand that the nutrition label be changed to show that each can or bottle be considered a serving, not one and a half or two servings.

I disagree with their proposed ban on sales in school lunch rooms. I would favor the elimination of the current model where a soda company pays the school to be the only brand sold.

Most of their other demands fly in the face of capitalism and recent trends: Promote and advertise low sugar drinks more, support research into safer substitute sweeteners (remember saccharine anyone? Let's put a carcinogen in our food so we don't get fat!)

And finally, they now refer to soft drinks as sugar-laden drinks. See how they put the last part of Osama bin Laden's name there to make soda sound evil?



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home