SNAP bans on soda, candy and other foods take effect in five states Jan. 1- Thanks RFK!

[JoeB131]

Probably not, and I'll admit that I don't always make the healthy choice...But, we need education, along with what RFK is doing here which is going after the worst of the worst products out there, and amplifying what these products do over time....Is it a scare tactic? sure....Do we need to be scared? Yes.

You know what, guy, as much as we whine about "unhealthy" foods, Americans live longer now than they did in the past.

I find it amusing that you guys who constantly whine about the "Nanny State" now want Bobby Brainworm to be your Food Nanny.

Oh, wait, you don't want him to be your food Nanny, you just want him to punish poor people for being poor.

 

[JoeB131]

First off, I am not an authoritarian fascist progressive liberal that thinks we should ban anything over your absolute nonsense, and foolish attempt to ignore some very basic things.

Um, you are here defending Bobby Brainworm telling poor people what kind of food they are allowed to have.

If that's not Authoritarian, I don't know what is.

 

[Bitterhook]

You know what, guy, as much as we whine about "unhealthy" foods, Americans live longer now than they did in the past.

I find it amusing that you guys who constantly whine about the "Nanny State" now want Bobby Brainworm to be your Food Nanny.

Oh, wait, you don't want him to be your food Nanny, you just want him to punish poor people for being poor.

Stop making shit up about me you lying sack of shit.

All I did was post the price of rice and the price of Oreo cookies per pound, then indicate one was healthier than the other.
It was in response to a post asking about the cost of healthy food versus junk food.

 

[JoeB131]

Stop making shit up about me you lying sack of shit.

All I did was post the price of rice and the price of Oreo cookies per pound, then indicate one was healthier than the other.
It was in response to a post asking about the cost of healthy food versus junk food.

Guy, your posts speak for themselves.

 

[Bitterhook]

Guy, your posts speak for themselves.

Yes they do, but you don't speak for me you lying sack of shit.
You live in a fairytale world.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes they do, but you don't speak for me you lying sack of shit.
You live in a fairytale world.

Naw, that would be you thinking stamping their meal cards "no dessert" is a useful policy.

Of course, only five of the most backwards states are doing this, the rest are ignoring Brainworm's recommendations.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Not at all....Dangerous people, are dangerous...It's a simple as that...

And this subject isn't about me personally....You made a clearly dumb statement, trying to say that the big mean ol businesses were pulling out of minority neighborhoods unfairly, leaving them without choices, and I gave you simply three videos of resident of those neighborhoods destroying those businesses, and why it's no wonder they close...There are thousands of these types of videos from across the nation...Yet, the only reply you have is that I'm scared of black people? You're a goddamn idiot...

He is one of the rare members I have on ignore.
And my ignore list is short. I only put the most idiotic people on ignore.

 

[Bitterhook]

Naw, that would be you thinking stamping their meal cards "no dessert" is a useful policy.

Of course, only five of the most backwards states are doing this, the rest are ignoring Brainworm's recommendations.

That's just more of your nonsense and has nothing to do with the price of rice of Oreo cookies per pound.
Stop making shit up about me to suit your fantasy world, you lying sack of shit.

 

[Meathead]

He is one of the rare members I have on ignore.
And my ignore list is short. I only put the most idiotic people on ignore.

I've never put anyone on ignore. I kinda enjoy his perpetual insanity which, I suppose, is a bit perverse. He is truly bonkers.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I've never put anyone on ignore. I kinda enjoy his perpetual insanity which, I suppose, is a bit perverse. He is truly bonkers.

He is one of the most intellectually dishonest people here.
You can tell by his writing that he is not actually stupid. He just chooses to be.
I have no idea why anyone wants to ignore reality, and replace it with their own blatant fantasy - and then expect people won't notice.

 

[j-mac]

You know what, guy, as much as we whine about "unhealthy" foods, Americans live longer now than they did in the past.

I find it amusing that you guys who constantly whine about the "Nanny State" now want Bobby Brainworm to be your Food Nanny.

Oh, wait, you don't want him to be your food Nanny, you just want him to punish poor people for being poor.

I thought you morons loved the nanny regulation state? I thought you were in the camp that the average American was too stupid to make choices for themselves?

Now, because a DEMOCRAT is going after chemicals, dyes, and unhealthy crap being funded by our tax dollars, you pull out the tired ol “it’ll hurt the poor” bullshit.

 

[Meathead]

He is one of the most intellectually dishonest people here.
You can tell by his writing that he is not actually stupid. He just chooses to be.
I have no idea why anyone wants to ignore reality, and replace it with their own blatant fantasy - and then expect people won't notice.

No, he's not that stupid, just ******* bonkers. Maybe the voices in his head. Too many years in a shithole will do that to people.

 

[Bitterhook]

I've never put anyone on ignore. I kinda enjoy his perpetual insanity which, I suppose, is a bit perverse. He is truly bonkers.

It's kind of like one of those dolls where you can pull the string, and there is no telling what it will say.
I mean it is probably going to be some nonsensical tirade, but it is kind of fun and perverse at the same time.

Joe is kind of interesting because the sucker can think, he just never really uses it for anything worth thinking.

 

[j-mac]

It's kind of like one of those dolls where you can pull the string, and there is no telling what it will say.
I mean it is probably going to be some nonsensical tirade, but it is kind of fun and perverse at the same time.

Joe is kind of interesting because the sucker can think, he just never really uses it for anything worth thinking.

Everything in Joe’s mind is bad because it’s Trump or his administration doing it….if it were say Obama, through the HHS, doing this his argument would be that it was a good thing.

It’s as dishonest as it gets.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

That works fine and all, but here's the thing.

Most of the poorer areas are "Food Deserts". The big old food chains don't set up, and the only places that do are immigrant-run mom-and-pop stores.

Do you think they are going to take the time to reprogram all their cash registers?

There's a reason why only five states are going along with Bobby Brainworm's brilliant plan.

Why won’t the grocery stores set up in the poor areas?

 

[forkup]

Probably not, and I'll admit that I don't always make the healthy choice...But, we need education, along with what RFK is doing here which is going after the worst of the worst products out there, and amplifying what these products do over time....Is it a scare tactic? sure....Do we need to be scared? Yes.

Using the argument that “educating” people about bad food will help reminds me of the McDonald’s hot coffee case, where warning labels were added not because they solved the underlying problem, but because they shifted responsibility.

Everybody already knows which foods are unhealthy. That’s not the bottleneck. Information isn’t what’s missing, access is. When education is presented as the solution, it often functions as a way to avoid addressing the harder structural causes,cost, availability, and incentives.

That’s why I’m skeptical of approaches that focus primarily on consumer behavior. At best, they produce marginal gains. They don’t change the economic reality that drives people toward cheap, calorie-dense food in the first place.

If the goal is to meaningfully reduce obesity, government intervention is unavoidable,either by incentivizing healthier options so they’re genuinely accessible, or by restructuring the market forces that make unhealthy food the default. Simply restricting bad options without ensuring viable alternatives risks making things worse for people at the bottom.

That’s my concern with RFK’s proposal. It targets the symptom, bad food choices, without adequately addressing the conditions that produce those choices. Policy on the margin may feel like progress, but without structural reform, it’s unlikely to deliver meaningful results and may increase harm for those with the fewest options.

Again I have a non-American perspective and as such a way to compare.

I have a terrible sweet tooth. The way I've prevented from becoming the human version of a bowling ball. Is by playing semi- professional sports into my early thirties. And amateur competitive sports right up until now at age 45, in a country that incentives sports throughout life with tax breaks and the ability to sometimes miss work because of some stupid injury without fear of being fired. But more importantly a country were healthy food is actually cheaper then junk food.

 

[j-mac]

And?

They are both starches, not terribly healthy.

That's a dumb argument...Do you really think that Oreo's are equal to rice in relation to a healthy diet?

Again, if you think Oreos are unhealthy, you should ban their sale completely, right?

No, people have choices, but I'm pretty sure that no one is having say, Chicken and Oreo's for dinner....

Punishing poor people for being poor is just cruel.

Punishing poor people is allowing them to sit on ass, and eating nothing but junk food.

But with Conservatism, the Cruelty is the point.

Your opinion is worthless in this.

It's not like you have ideas to make things better.

lol....Are you serious? You're literally bitching because we are promoting ideas to make healthier choices....You just can't make up the stupidity that you type in here.

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

Jackson has already made a similar point, namely that you can buy both cheap and healthy food in the US. With the caveat that it would make for a very narrow and dare I say spartan diet. Somehing I pointed out would end up being a choice between something akin to prison ration and tasty, or at least satisfying, but unhealthy food choices.

Not a bargain that I'd trust most people would strike correctly.

The specific point I made was that in today’s modern age of Internet it’s actually quite easy to research cheap and healthy recipes. That includes tasty food.

 

[j-mac]

Using the argument that “educating” people about bad food will help reminds me of the McDonald’s hot coffee case, where warning labels were added not because they solved the underlying problem, but because they shifted responsibility.

Everybody already knows which foods are unhealthy. That’s not the bottleneck. Information isn’t what’s missing, access is. When education is presented as the solution, it often functions as a way to avoid addressing the harder structural causes,cost, availability, and incentives.

That’s why I’m skeptical of approaches that focus primarily on consumer behavior. At best, they produce marginal gains. They don’t change the economic reality that drives people toward cheap, calorie-dense food in the first place.

If the goal is to meaningfully reduce obesity, government intervention is unavoidable,either by incentivizing healthier options so they’re genuinely accessible, or by restructuring the market forces that make unhealthy food the default. Simply restricting bad options without ensuring viable alternatives risks making things worse for people at the bottom.

That’s my concern with RFK’s proposal. It targets the symptom, bad food choices, without adequately addressing the conditions that produce those choices. Policy on the margin may feel like progress, but without structural reform, it’s unlikely to deliver meaningful results and may increase harm for those with the fewest options.

Again I have a non-American perspective and as such a way to compare.

I have a terrible sweet tooth. The way I've prevented from becoming the human version of a bowling ball. Is by playing semi- professional sports into my early thirties. And amateur competitive sports right up until now at age 45, in a country that incentives sports throughout life with tax breaks and the ability to sometimes miss work because of some stupid injury without fear of being fired. But more importantly a country were healthy food is actually cheaper then junk food.

The bottom line is that being healthy is a choice, right? But, we don't need artificial dye's, sweeteners, and chemicals in our foods that are causing a health crisis, in the name of convenience, and profit, right? So, if RFK can get rid of say cancer causing dye's in foods, that's a good thing, no?

 

[forkup]

The bottom line is that being healthy is a choice, right? But, we don't need artificial dye's, sweeteners, and chemicals in our foods that are causing a health crisis, in the name of convenience, and profit, right? So, if RFK can get rid of say cancer causing dye's in foods, that's a good thing, no?

It’s that first sentence I struggle with, the idea that being healthy is primarily a choice.
In the abstract, yes, people make choices. But in practice, especially in the U.S., those choices are tightly constrained by cost, time, stress, and availability.

For someone working multiple jobs, relying on SNAP, and living in an environment saturated with cheap, calorie-dense food, “just choose better” isn’t a neutral proposition, it’s a luxury position.

You can technically eat rice, beans, oats, and bananas. You can technically exercise after a long shift. But framing health this way ignores basic human behavior and economic reality. When healthy options require more time, money, energy, and planning than unhealthy ones, outcomes stop being about choice and start being about structure.

That’s why the “personal responsibility” framing is so appealing: it allows only marginal changes while leaving the underlying system untouched.

On the second point, I agree with you, removing genuinely harmful substances like carcinogenic dyes is a good thing. But it’s also limited. It improves the quality of bad food without changing why bad food dominates in the first place.

My concern isn’t that RFK’s proposals are harmful in isolation, although some of his proposals undoubtedly are; it’s that they risk being treated as a solution when they don’t alter the economic incentives that drive diet and health outcomes, especially for the poorest Americans.