- November 16, 2012 - 13:55
Just another example of minority controlling the majority
- November 16, 2012 - 13:46
It's disappointing that someone of Gerry Phalen's intelligence and experience would take such a short-sighted reactionary stance on something so pivotal, not only to the health of new generations of Canadians, but to our ability to rein in public health care costs that are skyrocketing out of control. You accept the role that punitive taxes and graphic warnings have played in combating tobacco induced cancers, but you have a problem accepting that we are today with dietary related diseases where were with smoking back in the sixties and seventies. As was the case with tobacco, public education alone has not been able to bring about a necessary, fundamental change in consumer behaviour. Nor are consumers solely responsible for their near addiction to foodstuffs that have been scientifically linked to a multitude of diseases. The absence of regulations governing potentially harmful substances, including sodium chloride, caffeine, hydrogenated oils and fructose-glucose, has triggered a race to the bottom among food manufacturers. (Witness the newfound concern, for example, that caffeine laden energy drinks might be killing children.) Gerry says "I don't think food should ever be taxed". Maybe, but consider the definition of 'food'. It is 'any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth'. Therein lies a major flaw in Gerry's argument. Junk foods might be edible but they are hardly nutritious and they would certainly not sustain life or growth for very long. Most of us, like Gerry, are resentful of any attempt by government to limit our freedoms. And that's fine, but these progressive doctors in Ontario - like the mayor of New York - are not trying to outlaw your favourite foods. They simply want to make sure that you know what this junk is doing to you and that, by paying a premium to purchase it, you are helping to defray at least a small part of the cost to the taxpayer of dealing with the disease conditions tied to its consumption. Its O.K. to 'let kids be kids' but, left to their own devices, there are a great many activities in which kids might engage that are seriously detrimental to their health. You need to adopt a broader, less defensive outlook on what is good for you, your children and the community at large.
- November 16, 2012 - 10:43
Well joe, maybe if we subsidized things like milk, eggs, bread, vegetables and fruit we wouldn't need to raise taxes on junk food to pay for the obesity burden.
- November 16, 2012 - 08:12
Tax the sh1t out of it just like we do with booze and smokes. Because down the road it's the taxpayers that going to have to pay to keep these consumers alive, all because of the crap they want to put into their bodies.