Re: Fat tax should be part of policy measures on diets: Study - FYI

[Guest guest]

I agree w a tax on sugary foods. But taxing cheese? How could a government give

away cheese through WIC and then tax folks for buying it? What about the fact

that some of the saturated fatty acids in dairy are known to be cardio risk

neutral? I like to eat cheese. But don't call me a cheese head.... Go Bears!

Osowski MS, RD, LD

Registered Dietitian

Sent from my iPhone

>

LINK<http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Fat-tax-should-be-part-of-policy-m\

easures-on-diets-Study/?c=T0QtS5cvuDV6iNJqJRU4VA%3D%3D & utm_source=newsletter_dai\

ly & utm_medium=email & utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily>

>

> A new study on the public health impact of fat tax and subsidies for healthy

> options concludes they should be included as a suite of policy measures to

> encourage healthy eating – even though they may have a negligible effect on

> disease risk.

>

> So-called ‘fat

tax<http://www.foodnavigator.com/content/search?SearchText=fat+tax & FromNews>’

> on food products that are high in saturated fat and sugar has been proposed

> in a number of countries; most recently Denmark introduced a controversial

> saturated fat-linked tax at the start of 2011. The government-funded

> Forebyggelses Kommisionen (Prevention Commission) says that if the variable

> tax is levied for 10 years it will increase average life expectancy amongst

> the Danish population by 5.5 days.

>

> The idea has also been raised several times in the UK, and debate over a

> proposed tax on sugary soft drinks has been fierce in the United States,

> with health care reformers seeing as a way to increase funds on the one

> hand, and advocates of consumer choice regarding it as a curb on individual

> freedom on the other.

>

> At the same time, there the cost of healthier food options has raised

> concerns in some quarters, as nutritious products tend to carry a higher

> price tag.

>

> The new study, conducted by researchers at the Universities of Reading and

> Edinburgh and published in *The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition*, set

> out to measure the impacts of taxes and subsidies on the risks of

> diet-related disease, accounting for a full range of diets.

>

> Authors Tiffin and Mattieu Arnoult used data collected from 6760

> households in the UK Expenditure and Food Survey to simulate the impacts of

> a policy where a tax based on saturated fat content where combined with a

> subsidy on fruit and vegetables.

>

> The tax and subsidy rates used in the simulation were determined by

> category. The ranged from a tax of 15 per cent on cream, cheese and fat and

> 13.77 per cent on crisps, down to a subsidy of 14.78 per cent on frozen,

> fresh, tinned and prepared fruits and vegetables.

>

> Consumption change projections at the level of individual households were

> then used to work out the effects on risks of a range of diet related

> disease using measures of relative risk.

>

> * *

>

> *Five a day*

>

> The researchers found that the fat tax and subsidy policy would be effective

> at moving diets *“in a direction consistent with improvements in

> diet-related health†*– but mainly because the subsidised fruit and veg

> helped people achieve five-a-day targets.

>

> The tax on saturated fat, on the other hand, was not seen to move fat

> intakes towards recommended amounts.

>

> What is more, although mean levels may move favourably towards guidelines, a

> large proportion of the population would continue with their poor dietary

> habits. This means that individual benefits notwithstanding, on a population

> level the average level of disease risk would not change significantly.

>

> Tiffin and Arnoult concluded that a fat tax should be seen as *“a component

> in a suite of instruments in tackling poor dietsâ€.* They noted that measures

> at a combination of different social levels – community, school, family,

> individual – are increasingly advocated.

>

> Comparing the tackling poor diets with smoking, they said that habits were

> changed not just as a result of price increases for cigarettes, but media

> attention also had a lot to do with it.

>

> Thus, they said *“complex policiesâ€* at different levels of society are

> likely to be more effective in addressing severe chronic dietary disease

> that affects some groups.

>

> *Source*

>

> European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2011), 1–7

>

> *“The public health impacts of a fat taxâ€*

>

>

> --

> Ortiz, MS, RD

> *The FRUGAL Dietitian* <http://www.thefrugaldietitian.com>

> Check out my blog: mixture of deals and nutrition

> Free 8X11 Classic PhotoBook from Snapfish – just pay shipping exp.

> 1/22<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12932>National

> Wear Red Day for Heart Disease: February 4th,

> 2011<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12861>

> **

<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12001><http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=10437>\

" Nutrition

> is a science, Not an Opinion survey "

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree w a tax on sugary foods. But taxing cheese? How could a government give

away cheese through WIC and then tax folks for buying it? What about the fact

that some of the saturated fatty acids in dairy are known to be cardio risk

neutral? I like to eat cheese. But don't call me a cheese head.... Go Bears!

Osowski MS, RD, LD

Registered Dietitian

Sent from my iPhone

>

LINK<http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Fat-tax-should-be-part-of-policy-m\

easures-on-diets-Study/?c=T0QtS5cvuDV6iNJqJRU4VA%3D%3D & utm_source=newsletter_dai\

ly & utm_medium=email & utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily>

>

> A new study on the public health impact of fat tax and subsidies for healthy

> options concludes they should be included as a suite of policy measures to

> encourage healthy eating – even though they may have a negligible effect on

> disease risk.

>

> So-called ‘fat

tax<http://www.foodnavigator.com/content/search?SearchText=fat+tax & FromNews>’

> on food products that are high in saturated fat and sugar has been proposed

> in a number of countries; most recently Denmark introduced a controversial

> saturated fat-linked tax at the start of 2011. The government-funded

> Forebyggelses Kommisionen (Prevention Commission) says that if the variable

> tax is levied for 10 years it will increase average life expectancy amongst

> the Danish population by 5.5 days.

>

> The idea has also been raised several times in the UK, and debate over a

> proposed tax on sugary soft drinks has been fierce in the United States,

> with health care reformers seeing as a way to increase funds on the one

> hand, and advocates of consumer choice regarding it as a curb on individual

> freedom on the other.

>

> At the same time, there the cost of healthier food options has raised

> concerns in some quarters, as nutritious products tend to carry a higher

> price tag.

>

> The new study, conducted by researchers at the Universities of Reading and

> Edinburgh and published in *The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition*, set

> out to measure the impacts of taxes and subsidies on the risks of

> diet-related disease, accounting for a full range of diets.

>

> Authors Tiffin and Mattieu Arnoult used data collected from 6760

> households in the UK Expenditure and Food Survey to simulate the impacts of

> a policy where a tax based on saturated fat content where combined with a

> subsidy on fruit and vegetables.

>

> The tax and subsidy rates used in the simulation were determined by

> category. The ranged from a tax of 15 per cent on cream, cheese and fat and

> 13.77 per cent on crisps, down to a subsidy of 14.78 per cent on frozen,

> fresh, tinned and prepared fruits and vegetables.

>

> Consumption change projections at the level of individual households were

> then used to work out the effects on risks of a range of diet related

> disease using measures of relative risk.

>

> * *

>

> *Five a day*

>

> The researchers found that the fat tax and subsidy policy would be effective

> at moving diets *“in a direction consistent with improvements in

> diet-related health†*– but mainly because the subsidised fruit and veg

> helped people achieve five-a-day targets.

>

> The tax on saturated fat, on the other hand, was not seen to move fat

> intakes towards recommended amounts.

>

> What is more, although mean levels may move favourably towards guidelines, a

> large proportion of the population would continue with their poor dietary

> habits. This means that individual benefits notwithstanding, on a population

> level the average level of disease risk would not change significantly.

>

> Tiffin and Arnoult concluded that a fat tax should be seen as *“a component

> in a suite of instruments in tackling poor dietsâ€.* They noted that measures

> at a combination of different social levels – community, school, family,

> individual – are increasingly advocated.

>

> Comparing the tackling poor diets with smoking, they said that habits were

> changed not just as a result of price increases for cigarettes, but media

> attention also had a lot to do with it.

>

> Thus, they said *“complex policiesâ€* at different levels of society are

> likely to be more effective in addressing severe chronic dietary disease

> that affects some groups.

>

> *Source*

>

> European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2011), 1–7

>

> *“The public health impacts of a fat taxâ€*

>

>

> --

> Ortiz, MS, RD

> *The FRUGAL Dietitian* <http://www.thefrugaldietitian.com>

> Check out my blog: mixture of deals and nutrition

> Free 8X11 Classic PhotoBook from Snapfish – just pay shipping exp.

> 1/22<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12932>National

> Wear Red Day for Heart Disease: February 4th,

> 2011<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12861>

> **

<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12001><http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=10437>\

" Nutrition

> is a science, Not an Opinion survey "

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree w a tax on sugary foods. But taxing cheese? How could a government give

away cheese through WIC and then tax folks for buying it? What about the fact

that some of the saturated fatty acids in dairy are known to be cardio risk

neutral? I like to eat cheese. But don't call me a cheese head.... Go Bears!

Osowski MS, RD, LD

Registered Dietitian

Sent from my iPhone

>

LINK<http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Fat-tax-should-be-part-of-policy-m\

easures-on-diets-Study/?c=T0QtS5cvuDV6iNJqJRU4VA%3D%3D & utm_source=newsletter_dai\

ly & utm_medium=email & utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily>

>

> A new study on the public health impact of fat tax and subsidies for healthy

> options concludes they should be included as a suite of policy measures to

> encourage healthy eating – even though they may have a negligible effect on

> disease risk.

>

> So-called ‘fat

tax<http://www.foodnavigator.com/content/search?SearchText=fat+tax & FromNews>’

> on food products that are high in saturated fat and sugar has been proposed

> in a number of countries; most recently Denmark introduced a controversial

> saturated fat-linked tax at the start of 2011. The government-funded

> Forebyggelses Kommisionen (Prevention Commission) says that if the variable

> tax is levied for 10 years it will increase average life expectancy amongst

> the Danish population by 5.5 days.

>

> The idea has also been raised several times in the UK, and debate over a

> proposed tax on sugary soft drinks has been fierce in the United States,

> with health care reformers seeing as a way to increase funds on the one

> hand, and advocates of consumer choice regarding it as a curb on individual

> freedom on the other.

>

> At the same time, there the cost of healthier food options has raised

> concerns in some quarters, as nutritious products tend to carry a higher

> price tag.

>

> The new study, conducted by researchers at the Universities of Reading and

> Edinburgh and published in *The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition*, set

> out to measure the impacts of taxes and subsidies on the risks of

> diet-related disease, accounting for a full range of diets.

>

> Authors Tiffin and Mattieu Arnoult used data collected from 6760

> households in the UK Expenditure and Food Survey to simulate the impacts of

> a policy where a tax based on saturated fat content where combined with a

> subsidy on fruit and vegetables.

>

> The tax and subsidy rates used in the simulation were determined by

> category. The ranged from a tax of 15 per cent on cream, cheese and fat and

> 13.77 per cent on crisps, down to a subsidy of 14.78 per cent on frozen,

> fresh, tinned and prepared fruits and vegetables.

>

> Consumption change projections at the level of individual households were

> then used to work out the effects on risks of a range of diet related

> disease using measures of relative risk.

>

> * *

>

> *Five a day*

>

> The researchers found that the fat tax and subsidy policy would be effective

> at moving diets *“in a direction consistent with improvements in

> diet-related health†*– but mainly because the subsidised fruit and veg

> helped people achieve five-a-day targets.

>

> The tax on saturated fat, on the other hand, was not seen to move fat

> intakes towards recommended amounts.

>

> What is more, although mean levels may move favourably towards guidelines, a

> large proportion of the population would continue with their poor dietary

> habits. This means that individual benefits notwithstanding, on a population

> level the average level of disease risk would not change significantly.

>

> Tiffin and Arnoult concluded that a fat tax should be seen as *“a component

> in a suite of instruments in tackling poor dietsâ€.* They noted that measures

> at a combination of different social levels – community, school, family,

> individual – are increasingly advocated.

>

> Comparing the tackling poor diets with smoking, they said that habits were

> changed not just as a result of price increases for cigarettes, but media

> attention also had a lot to do with it.

>

> Thus, they said *“complex policiesâ€* at different levels of society are

> likely to be more effective in addressing severe chronic dietary disease

> that affects some groups.

>

> *Source*

>

> European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2011), 1–7

>

> *“The public health impacts of a fat taxâ€*

>

>

> --

> Ortiz, MS, RD

> *The FRUGAL Dietitian* <http://www.thefrugaldietitian.com>

> Check out my blog: mixture of deals and nutrition

> Free 8X11 Classic PhotoBook from Snapfish – just pay shipping exp.

> 1/22<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12932>National

> Wear Red Day for Heart Disease: February 4th,

> 2011<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12861>

> **

<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12001><http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=10437>\

" Nutrition

> is a science, Not an Opinion survey "

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If…“…on a population level the average level of disease risk would not

change significantlyâ€, it’s just about government control and loss of

freedom then. I say we scrap the whole idea!

W. Rowell, RD, LN

Montana State Hospital, Warm Spring, MT

Consultant Dietitian, Long Term Care

Certified LEAP Therapist

Quote of the Day: Regarding the Constitution- " There is not a syllable in the

plan...which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws

according to the spirit of the Constitution. " (Federalist Papers No. 81)

From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of

Osowski

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:01 AM

To: rd-usa

Subject: Re: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on diets:

Study - FYI

I agree w a tax on sugary foods. But taxing cheese? How could a government give

away cheese through WIC and then tax folks for buying it? What about the fact

that some of the saturated fatty acids in dairy are known to be cardio risk

neutral? I like to eat cheese. But don't call me a cheese head.... Go Bears!

Osowski MS, RD, LD

Registered Dietitian

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 21, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Ortiz

<nrord1@...<mailto:nrord1%40gmail.com>> wrote:

>

LINK<http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Fat-tax-should-be-part-of-policy-m\

easures-on-diets-Study/?c=T0QtS5cvuDV6iNJqJRU4VA%3D%3D & utm_source=newsletter_dai\

ly & utm_medium=email & utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily>

>

> A new study on the public health impact of fat tax and subsidies for healthy

> options concludes they should be included as a suite of policy measures to

> encourage healthy eating – even though they may have a negligible effect on

> disease risk.

>

> So-called ‘fat

tax<http://www.foodnavigator.com/content/search?SearchText=fat+tax & FromNews>’

> on food products that are high in saturated fat and sugar has been proposed

> in a number of countries; most recently Denmark introduced a controversial

> saturated fat-linked tax at the start of 2011. The government-funded

> Forebyggelses Kommisionen (Prevention Commission) says that if the variable

> tax is levied for 10 years it will increase average life expectancy amongst

> the Danish population by 5.5 days.

>

> The idea has also been raised several times in the UK, and debate over a

> proposed tax on sugary soft drinks has been fierce in the United States,

> with health care reformers seeing as a way to increase funds on the one

> hand, and advocates of consumer choice regarding it as a curb on individual

> freedom on the other.

>

> At the same time, there the cost of healthier food options has raised

> concerns in some quarters, as nutritious products tend to carry a higher

> price tag.

>

> The new study, conducted by researchers at the Universities of Reading and

> Edinburgh and published in *The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition*, set

> out to measure the impacts of taxes and subsidies on the risks of

> diet-related disease, accounting for a full range of diets.

>

> Authors Tiffin and Mattieu Arnoult used data collected from 6760

> households in the UK Expenditure and Food Survey to simulate the impacts of

> a policy where a tax based on saturated fat content where combined with a

> subsidy on fruit and vegetables.

>

> The tax and subsidy rates used in the simulation were determined by

> category. The ranged from a tax of 15 per cent on cream, cheese and fat and

> 13.77 per cent on crisps, down to a subsidy of 14.78 per cent on frozen,

> fresh, tinned and prepared fruits and vegetables.

>

> Consumption change projections at the level of individual households were

> then used to work out the effects on risks of a range of diet related

> disease using measures of relative risk.

>

> * *

>

> *Five a day*

>

> The researchers found that the fat tax and subsidy policy would be effective

> at moving diets *“in a direction consistent with improvements in

> diet-related health†*– but mainly because the subsidised fruit and veg

> helped people achieve five-a-day targets.

>

> The tax on saturated fat, on the other hand, was not seen to move fat

> intakes towards recommended amounts.

>

> What is more, although mean levels may move favourably towards guidelines, a

> large proportion of the population would continue with their poor dietary

> habits. This means that individual benefits notwithstanding, on a population

> level the average level of disease risk would not change significantly.

>

> Tiffin and Arnoult concluded that a fat tax should be seen as *“a component

> in a suite of instruments in tackling poor dietsâ€.* They noted that measures

> at a combination of different social levels – community, school, family,

> individual – are increasingly advocated.

>

> Comparing the tackling poor diets with smoking, they said that habits were

> changed not just as a result of price increases for cigarettes, but media

> attention also had a lot to do with it.

>

> Thus, they said *“complex policiesâ€* at different levels of society are

> likely to be more effective in addressing severe chronic dietary disease

> that affects some groups.

>

> *Source*

>

> European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2011), 1–7

>

> *“The public health impacts of a fat taxâ€*

>

>

> --

> Ortiz, MS, RD

> *The FRUGAL Dietitian* <http://www.thefrugaldietitian.com>

> Check out my blog: mixture of deals and nutrition

> Free 8X11 Classic PhotoBook from Snapfish – just pay shipping exp.

> 1/22<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12932>National

> Wear Red Day for Heart Disease: February 4th,

> 2011<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12861>

> **

<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12001><http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=10437>\

" Nutrition

> is a science, Not an Opinion survey "

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I say if there is to be regulation it should be with food stamps and what they

allow for purchase with, example can buy soda, candy bars, potato chips etc.

Some kind of regulation with this, much like the ideas used with WIC might be a

good idea. If they limited frivolous purchases in that way I would even be

amenable to helping the needy with personal items as well, like toilet paper,

cleaners, soap for clothing etc.

________________________________

From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of

Rowell,

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 12:57 PM

To: 'rd-usa '

Subject: RE: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on diets:

Study - FYI

If... " ...on a population level the average level of disease risk would not

change significantly " , it's just about government control and loss of freedom

then. I say we scrap the whole idea!

W. Rowell, RD, LN

Montana State Hospital, Warm Spring, MT

Consultant Dietitian, Long Term Care

Certified LEAP Therapist

Quote of the Day: Regarding the Constitution- " There is not a syllable in the

plan...which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws

according to the spirit of the Constitution. " (Federalist Papers No. 81)

From: rd-usa <mailto:rd-usa%40yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:rd-usa <mailto:rd-usa%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of

Osowski

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:01 AM

To: rd-usa <mailto:rd-usa%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on diets:

Study - FYI

I agree w a tax on sugary foods. But taxing cheese? How could a government give

away cheese through WIC and then tax folks for buying it? What about the fact

that some of the saturated fatty acids in dairy are known to be cardio risk

neutral? I like to eat cheese. But don't call me a cheese head.... Go Bears!

Osowski MS, RD, LD

Registered Dietitian

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 21, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Ortiz

<nrord1@...<mailto:nrord1%40gmail.com><mailto:nrord1%40gmail.com>> wrote:

>

LINK<http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Fat-tax-should-be-part-of-policy-m\

easures-on-diets-Study/?c=T0QtS5cvuDV6iNJqJRU4VA%3D%3D & utm_source=newsletter_dai\

ly & utm_medium=email & utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily>

>

> A new study on the public health impact of fat tax and subsidies for healthy

> options concludes they should be included as a suite of policy measures to

> encourage healthy eating - even though they may have a negligible effect on

> disease risk.

>

> So-called 'fat

tax<http://www.foodnavigator.com/content/search?SearchText=fat+tax & FromNews>'

> on food products that are high in saturated fat and sugar has been proposed

> in a number of countries; most recently Denmark introduced a controversial

> saturated fat-linked tax at the start of 2011. The government-funded

> Forebyggelses Kommisionen (Prevention Commission) says that if the variable

> tax is levied for 10 years it will increase average life expectancy amongst

> the Danish population by 5.5 days.

>

> The idea has also been raised several times in the UK, and debate over a

> proposed tax on sugary soft drinks has been fierce in the United States,

> with health care reformers seeing as a way to increase funds on the one

> hand, and advocates of consumer choice regarding it as a curb on individual

> freedom on the other.

>

> At the same time, there the cost of healthier food options has raised

> concerns in some quarters, as nutritious products tend to carry a higher

> price tag.

>

> The new study, conducted by researchers at the Universities of Reading and

> Edinburgh and published in *The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition*, set

> out to measure the impacts of taxes and subsidies on the risks of

> diet-related disease, accounting for a full range of diets.

>

> Authors Tiffin and Mattieu Arnoult used data collected from 6760

> households in the UK Expenditure and Food Survey to simulate the impacts of

> a policy where a tax based on saturated fat content where combined with a

> subsidy on fruit and vegetables.

>

> The tax and subsidy rates used in the simulation were determined by

> category. The ranged from a tax of 15 per cent on cream, cheese and fat and

> 13.77 per cent on crisps, down to a subsidy of 14.78 per cent on frozen,

> fresh, tinned and prepared fruits and vegetables.

>

> Consumption change projections at the level of individual households were

> then used to work out the effects on risks of a range of diet related

> disease using measures of relative risk.

>

> * *

>

> *Five a day*

>

> The researchers found that the fat tax and subsidy policy would be effective

> at moving diets * " in a direction consistent with improvements in

> diet-related health " *- but mainly because the subsidised fruit and veg

> helped people achieve five-a-day targets.

>

> The tax on saturated fat, on the other hand, was not seen to move fat

> intakes towards recommended amounts.

>

> What is more, although mean levels may move favourably towards guidelines, a

> large proportion of the population would continue with their poor dietary

> habits. This means that individual benefits notwithstanding, on a population

> level the average level of disease risk would not change significantly.

>

> Tiffin and Arnoult concluded that a fat tax should be seen as * " a component

> in a suite of instruments in tackling poor diets " .* They noted that measures

> at a combination of different social levels - community, school, family,

> individual - are increasingly advocated.

>

> Comparing the tackling poor diets with smoking, they said that habits were

> changed not just as a result of price increases for cigarettes, but media

> attention also had a lot to do with it.

>

> Thus, they said * " complex policies " * at different levels of society are

> likely to be more effective in addressing severe chronic dietary disease

> that affects some groups.

>

> *Source*

>

> European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2011), 1-7

>

> * " The public health impacts of a fat tax " *

>

>

> --

> Ortiz, MS, RD

> *The FRUGAL Dietitian* <http://www.thefrugaldietitian.com>

> Check out my blog: mixture of deals and nutrition

> Free 8X11 Classic PhotoBook from Snapfish - just pay shipping exp.

> 1/22<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12932>National

> Wear Red Day for Heart Disease: February 4th,

> 2011<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12861>

> **

<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12001><http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=10437>\

" Nutrition

> is a science, Not an Opinion survey "

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

How very bias, not all fat people are on food stamps. If you have not walked the

walk then don't presume all food stamp recipients only buy soda, candy bars, and

chips with their food stamps. We are rapidly becoming a nation of two classes

those who follow what ever is the " healthy " diet of the day and those who do not

or can not. Just because we can follow a " healthy " diet does not mean we have

the right to look down on those who can not afford the " healthy " diet of the

day. Think about how long before you would have to go on food stamps if you are

out of work. Many of people are only 1 pay check from poverty.

Jackie Chase RD

Dillingham, AK

On Jan 21, 2011, at 1:17 PM,

wrote:

> I say if there is to be regulation it should be with food stamps and what they

allow for purchase with, example can buy soda, candy bars, potato chips etc.

Some kind of regulation with this, much like the ideas used with WIC might be a

good idea. If they limited frivolous purchases in that way I would even be

amenable to helping the needy with personal items as well, like toilet paper,

cleaners, soap for clothing etc.

>

> ________________________________

> From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of

Rowell,

> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 12:57 PM

> To: 'rd-usa '

> Subject: RE: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on diets:

Study - FYI

>

> If... " ...on a population level the average level of disease risk would not

change significantly " , it's just about government control and loss of freedom

then. I say we scrap the whole idea!

>

> W. Rowell, RD, LN

> Montana State Hospital, Warm Spring, MT

> Consultant Dietitian, Long Term Care

> Certified LEAP Therapist

>

>

[Guest guest]

But statistically the lower income are more overweight and tend to be on

SNAP (food stamps) - I don't think that is bias just fact. I agree we

should start with SNAP and make changes very similar to WIC. When WIC

changed a few years ago to healthier choices, I saw people who would never

have tried brown rice or whole wheat bread (only vegetable they ate were

potatoes) try new things and enjoy them.

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Jackie Chase wrote:

>

>

> How very bias, not all fat people are on food stamps. If you have not

> walked the walk then don't presume all food stamp recipients only buy soda,

> candy bars, and chips with their food stamps. We are rapidly becoming a

> nation of two classes those who follow what ever is the " healthy " diet of

> the day and those who do not or can not. Just because we can follow a

> " healthy " diet does not mean we have the right to look down on those who can

> not afford the " healthy " diet of the day. Think about how long before you

> would have to go on food stamps if you are out of work. Many of people are

> only 1 pay check from poverty.

>

> Jackie Chase RD

> Dillingham, AK

>

>

> On Jan 21, 2011, at 1:17 PM,

<tnordin@...<tnordin%40regionalhealth.com>>

> <tnordin@... <tnordin%40regionalhealth.com>> wrote:

>

> > I say if there is to be regulation it should be with food stamps and what

> they allow for purchase with, example can buy soda, candy bars, potato chips

> etc. Some kind of regulation with this, much like the ideas used with WIC

> might be a good idea. If they limited frivolous purchases in that way I

> would even be amenable to helping the needy with personal items as well,

> like toilet paper, cleaners, soap for clothing etc.

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: rd-usa <rd-usa%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:

> rd-usa <rd-usa%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Rowell,

>

> > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 12:57 PM

> > To: 'rd-usa <%27rd-usa%40yahoogroups.com>'

> > Subject: RE: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on

> diets: Study - FYI

> >

> > If... " ...on a population level the average level of disease risk would

> not change significantly " , it's just about government control and loss of

> freedom then. I say we scrap the whole idea!

> >

> > W. Rowell, RD, LN

> > Montana State Hospital, Warm Spring, MT

> > Consultant Dietitian, Long Term Care

> > Certified LEAP Therapist

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

If there is to be a government intervention, I would prefer subsidizing fruits

and vegetables, and making them more accessible.

I eat healthfully most of the time, but believe in moderation.

Where do we draw the line? I don't feel that I should have to pay more for the

occasional wheel of brie and bar of dark chocolate I buy just because they

contain saturated fat and sugar, respectively.

Food is already too expensive, and I am not confident that giving the government

more money in the form of a food tax will benefit the public.

Tina Marinaccio MS RD CPT

www.tinamarinaccio.com

>

>

LINK<http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Fat-tax-should-be-part-of-policy-m\

easures-on-diets-Study/?c=T0QtS5cvuDV6iNJqJRU4VA%3D%3D & utm_source=newsletter_dai\

ly & utm_medium=email & utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily>

>

> A new study on the public health impact of fat tax and subsidies for healthy

> options concludes they should be included as a suite of policy measures to

> encourage healthy eating – even though they may have a negligible effect on

> disease risk.

>

> So-called `fat

tax<http://www.foodnavigator.com/content/search?SearchText=fat+tax & FromNews>'

> on food products that are high in saturated fat and sugar has been proposed

> in a number of countries; most recently Denmark introduced a controversial

> saturated fat-linked tax at the start of 2011. The government-funded

> Forebyggelses Kommisionen (Prevention Commission) says that if the variable

> tax is levied for 10 years it will increase average life expectancy amongst

> the Danish population by 5.5 days.

>

> The idea has also been raised several times in the UK, and debate over a

> proposed tax on sugary soft drinks has been fierce in the United States,

> with health care reformers seeing as a way to increase funds on the one

> hand, and advocates of consumer choice regarding it as a curb on individual

> freedom on the other.

>

> At the same time, there the cost of healthier food options has raised

> concerns in some quarters, as nutritious products tend to carry a higher

> price tag.

>

> The new study, conducted by researchers at the Universities of Reading and

> Edinburgh and published in *The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition*, set

> out to measure the impacts of taxes and subsidies on the risks of

> diet-related disease, accounting for a full range of diets.

>

> Authors Tiffin and Mattieu Arnoult used data collected from 6760

> households in the UK Expenditure and Food Survey to simulate the impacts of

> a policy where a tax based on saturated fat content where combined with a

> subsidy on fruit and vegetables.

>

> The tax and subsidy rates used in the simulation were determined by

> category. The ranged from a tax of 15 per cent on cream, cheese and fat and

> 13.77 per cent on crisps, down to a subsidy of 14.78 per cent on frozen,

> fresh, tinned and prepared fruits and vegetables.

>

> Consumption change projections at the level of individual households were

> then used to work out the effects on risks of a range of diet related

> disease using measures of relative risk.

>

> * *

>

> *Five a day*

>

> The researchers found that the fat tax and subsidy policy would be effective

> at moving diets * " in a direction consistent with improvements in

> diet-related health " *– but mainly because the subsidised fruit and veg

> helped people achieve five-a-day targets.

>

> The tax on saturated fat, on the other hand, was not seen to move fat

> intakes towards recommended amounts.

>

> What is more, although mean levels may move favourably towards guidelines, a

> large proportion of the population would continue with their poor dietary

> habits. This means that individual benefits notwithstanding, on a population

> level the average level of disease risk would not change significantly.

>

> Tiffin and Arnoult concluded that a fat tax should be seen as * " a component

> in a suite of instruments in tackling poor diets " .* They noted that measures

> at a combination of different social levels – community, school, family,

> individual – are increasingly advocated.

>

> Comparing the tackling poor diets with smoking, they said that habits were

> changed not just as a result of price increases for cigarettes, but media

> attention also had a lot to do with it.

>

> Thus, they said * " complex policies " * at different levels of society are

> likely to be more effective in addressing severe chronic dietary disease

> that affects some groups.

>

> *Source*

>

> European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2011), 1–7

>

> * " The public health impacts of a fat tax " *

>

>

> --

> Ortiz, MS, RD

> *The FRUGAL Dietitian* <http://www.thefrugaldietitian.com>

> Check out my blog: mixture of deals and nutrition

> Free 8X11 Classic PhotoBook from Snapfish – just pay shipping exp.

> 1/22<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12932>National

> Wear Red Day for Heart Disease: February 4th,

> 2011<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12861>

> **

<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12001><http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=10437>\

" Nutrition

> is a science, Not an Opinion survey "

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I watched " What Would You Do? " on tv last night as a waiter(actor)pointed out

the calories on menu items as an overweight woman (also, acting) proceeded to

order. All the overweight women and some men (non actors) got very huffy and

annoyed and 'rescued' the woman (actor) telling her she could do what she wanted

and the waiter (actor) should be fired. The fat tax, although a money raise like

tobacco tax will unlikely have any effect on consumption.

> >

> >

LINK<http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Fat-tax-should-be-part-of-policy-m\

easures-on-diets-Study/?c=T0QtS5cvuDV6iNJqJRU4VA%3D%3D & utm_source=newsletter_dai\

ly & utm_medium=email & utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily>

> >

> > A new study on the public health impact of fat tax and subsidies for healthy

> > options concludes they should be included as a suite of policy measures to

> > encourage healthy eating – even though they may have a negligible effect on

> > disease risk.

> >

> > So-called `fat

tax<http://www.foodnavigator.com/content/search?SearchText=fat+tax & FromNews>'

> > on food products that are high in saturated fat and sugar has been proposed

> > in a number of countries; most recently Denmark introduced a controversial

> > saturated fat-linked tax at the start of 2011. The government-funded

> > Forebyggelses Kommisionen (Prevention Commission) says that if the variable

> > tax is levied for 10 years it will increase average life expectancy amongst

> > the Danish population by 5.5 days.

> >

> > The idea has also been raised several times in the UK, and debate over a

> > proposed tax on sugary soft drinks has been fierce in the United States,

> > with health care reformers seeing as a way to increase funds on the one

> > hand, and advocates of consumer choice regarding it as a curb on individual

> > freedom on the other.

> >

> > At the same time, there the cost of healthier food options has raised

> > concerns in some quarters, as nutritious products tend to carry a higher

> > price tag.

> >

> > The new study, conducted by researchers at the Universities of Reading and

> > Edinburgh and published in *The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition*, set

> > out to measure the impacts of taxes and subsidies on the risks of

> > diet-related disease, accounting for a full range of diets.

> >

> > Authors Tiffin and Mattieu Arnoult used data collected from 6760

> > households in the UK Expenditure and Food Survey to simulate the impacts of

> > a policy where a tax based on saturated fat content where combined with a

> > subsidy on fruit and vegetables.

> >

> > The tax and subsidy rates used in the simulation were determined by

> > category. The ranged from a tax of 15 per cent on cream, cheese and fat and

> > 13.77 per cent on crisps, down to a subsidy of 14.78 per cent on frozen,

> > fresh, tinned and prepared fruits and vegetables.

> >

> > Consumption change projections at the level of individual households were

> > then used to work out the effects on risks of a range of diet related

> > disease using measures of relative risk.

> >

> > * *

> >

> > *Five a day*

> >

> > The researchers found that the fat tax and subsidy policy would be effective

> > at moving diets * " in a direction consistent with improvements in

> > diet-related health " *– but mainly because the subsidised fruit and veg

> > helped people achieve five-a-day targets.

> >

> > The tax on saturated fat, on the other hand, was not seen to move fat

> > intakes towards recommended amounts.

> >

> > What is more, although mean levels may move favourably towards guidelines, a

> > large proportion of the population would continue with their poor dietary

> > habits. This means that individual benefits notwithstanding, on a population

> > level the average level of disease risk would not change significantly.

> >

> > Tiffin and Arnoult concluded that a fat tax should be seen as * " a component

> > in a suite of instruments in tackling poor diets " .* They noted that measures

> > at a combination of different social levels – community, school, family,

> > individual – are increasingly advocated.

> >

> > Comparing the tackling poor diets with smoking, they said that habits were

> > changed not just as a result of price increases for cigarettes, but media

> > attention also had a lot to do with it.

> >

> > Thus, they said * " complex policies " * at different levels of society are

> > likely to be more effective in addressing severe chronic dietary disease

> > that affects some groups.

> >

> > *Source*

> >

> > European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2011), 1–7

> >

> > * " The public health impacts of a fat tax " *

> >

> >

> > --

> > Ortiz, MS, RD

> > *The FRUGAL Dietitian* <http://www.thefrugaldietitian.com>

> > Check out my blog: mixture of deals and nutrition

> > Free 8X11 Classic PhotoBook from Snapfish – just pay shipping exp.

> > 1/22<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12932>National

> > Wear Red Day for Heart Disease: February 4th,

> > 2011<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12861>

> > **

<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12001><http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=10437>\

" Nutrition

> > is a science, Not an Opinion survey "

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Totally agree with you. but we may have mixed a couple of issues. My post (What

Would You Do? )was about attitudes people have about food. the 'fat' tax is

about raising money.

The real question is how to get effective results; real people adopting healthy

habits. when I figure it out, I'll be sure to market it, maybe, even for a

profit!!! ;-/

I've been reading " The China Study " for a book club. Lots of interesting

perspective in it. Can't wait to hear what other book club members think.

Raphaela

> > > >

> > > > LINK<

> >

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Fat-tax-should-be-part-of-policy-measur\

es-on-diets-Study/?c=T0QtS5cvuDV6iNJqJRU4VA%3D%3D & utm_source=newsletter_daily & ut\

m_medium=email & utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

> > >

> > > >

> > > > A new study on the public health impact of fat tax and subsidies for

> > healthy

> > > > options concludes they should be included as a suite of policy

> > > > measures

> > to

> > > > encourage healthy eating - even though they may have a negligible

> > effect on

> > > > disease risk.

> > > >

> > > > So-called `fat tax<

> > http://www.foodnavigator.com/content/search?SearchText=fat+tax & FromNews>'

> > > > on food products that are high in saturated fat and sugar has been

> > proposed

> > > > in a number of countries; most recently Denmark introduced a

> > controversial

> > > > saturated fat-linked tax at the start of 2011. The government-funded

> > > > Forebyggelses Kommisionen (Prevention Commission) says that if the

> > variable

> > > > tax is levied for 10 years it will increase average life expectancy

> > amongst

> > > > the Danish population by 5.5 days.

> > > >

> > > > The idea has also been raised several times in the UK, and debate over

> > a

> > > > proposed tax on sugary soft drinks has been fierce in the United

> > States,

> > > > with health care reformers seeing as a way to increase funds on the

> > > > one

> > > > hand, and advocates of consumer choice regarding it as a curb on

> > individual

> > > > freedom on the other.

> > > >

> > > > At the same time, there the cost of healthier food options has raised

> > > > concerns in some quarters, as nutritious products tend to carry a

> > higher

> > > > price tag.

> > > >

> > > > The new study, conducted by researchers at the Universities of Reading

> > and

> > > > Edinburgh and published in *The European Journal of Clinical

> > Nutrition*, set

> > > > out to measure the impacts of taxes and subsidies on the risks of

> > > > diet-related disease, accounting for a full range of diets.

> > > >

> > > > Authors Tiffin and Mattieu Arnoult used data collected from

> > 6760

> > > > households in the UK Expenditure and Food Survey to simulate the

> > impacts of

> > > > a policy where a tax based on saturated fat content where combined

> > > > with

> > a

> > > > subsidy on fruit and vegetables.

> > > >

> > > > The tax and subsidy rates used in the simulation were determined by

> > > > category. The ranged from a tax of 15 per cent on cream, cheese and

> > > > fat

> > and

> > > > 13.77 per cent on crisps, down to a subsidy of 14.78 per cent on

> > frozen,

> > > > fresh, tinned and prepared fruits and vegetables.

> > > >

> > > > Consumption change projections at the level of individual households

> > were

> > > > then used to work out the effects on risks of a range of diet related

> > > > disease using measures of relative risk.

> > > >

> > > > * *

> > > >

> > > > *Five a day*

> > > >

> > > > The researchers found that the fat tax and subsidy policy would be

> > effective

> > > > at moving diets * " in a direction consistent with improvements in

> > > > diet-related health " *- but mainly because the subsidised fruit and

> > > > veg

> > > > helped people achieve five-a-day targets.

> > > >

> > > > The tax on saturated fat, on the other hand, was not seen to move fat

> > > > intakes towards recommended amounts.

> > > >

> > > > What is more, although mean levels may move favourably towards

> > guidelines, a

> > > > large proportion of the population would continue with their poor

> > dietary

> > > > habits. This means that individual benefits notwithstanding, on a

> > population

> > > > level the average level of disease risk would not change

> > > > significantly.

> > > >

> > > > Tiffin and Arnoult concluded that a fat tax should be seen as * " a

> > component

> > > > in a suite of instruments in tackling poor diets " .* They noted that

> > measures

> > > > at a combination of different social levels - community, school,

> > family,

> > > > individual - are increasingly advocated.

> > > >

> > > > Comparing the tackling poor diets with smoking, they said that habits

> > were

> > > > changed not just as a result of price increases for cigarettes, but

> > media

> > > > attention also had a lot to do with it.

> > > >

> > > > Thus, they said * " complex policies " * at different levels of society

> > > > are

> > > > likely to be more effective in addressing severe chronic dietary

> > disease

> > > > that affects some groups.

> > > >

> > > > *Source*

> > > >

> > > > European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2011), 1-7

> > > >

> > > > * " The public health impacts of a fat tax " *

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --

> > > > Ortiz, MS, RD

> > > > *The FRUGAL Dietitian* <http://www.thefrugaldietitian.com>

> > > > Check out my blog: mixture of deals and nutrition

> > > > Free 8X11 Classic PhotoBook from Snapfish - just pay shipping exp.

> > > > 1/22<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12932>National

> > > > Wear Red Day for Heart Disease: February 4th,

> > > > 2011<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12861>

> > > > ** <http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=12001><

> > http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=10437> " Nutrition

> > > > is a science, Not an Opinion survey "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

I need some clarification on this thread. Am I correct in interpreting that

some of you out there feel food stamp recipients should be allowed to

purchase " JUNK FOOD " with food stamps?? As a registered dietitian and US

taxpayer I adamantly believe that food stamps should only be applied to

healthy food choices. If anyone wishes to purchase junk, they are welcome

to do it on their dime not mine.

Kathy C. Fielding, RD, LD

Registered/Licensed Dietitian Nutritionist

Natural Health Concepts

Preventive Health Strategies & Wellness,

Complementary & Alternative Medicine

Bios Life Slim

Lose Body Fat & Inches Naturally!

Lower Cholesterol Naturally!

www.myunicity.net/kayceefielding

www.bioslifeslim.com/kayceefielding

RE: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on

> diets: Study - FYI

> >

> > If... " ...on a population level the average level of disease risk would

> not change significantly " , it's just about government control and loss of

> freedom then. I say we scrap the whole idea!

> >

> > W. Rowell, RD, LN

> > Montana State Hospital, Warm Spring, MT

> > Consultant Dietitian, Long Term Care

> > Certified LEAP Therapist

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

I need some clarification on this thread. Am I correct in interpreting that

some of you out there feel food stamp recipients should be allowed to

purchase " JUNK FOOD " with food stamps?? As a registered dietitian and US

taxpayer I adamantly believe that food stamps should only be applied to

healthy food choices. If anyone wishes to purchase junk, they are welcome

to do it on their dime not mine.

Kathy C. Fielding, RD, LD

Registered/Licensed Dietitian Nutritionist

Natural Health Concepts

Preventive Health Strategies & Wellness,

Complementary & Alternative Medicine

Bios Life Slim

Lose Body Fat & Inches Naturally!

Lower Cholesterol Naturally!

www.myunicity.net/kayceefielding

www.bioslifeslim.com/kayceefielding

RE: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on

> diets: Study - FYI

> >

> > If... " ...on a population level the average level of disease risk would

> not change significantly " , it's just about government control and loss of

> freedom then. I say we scrap the whole idea!

> >

> > W. Rowell, RD, LN

> > Montana State Hospital, Warm Spring, MT

> > Consultant Dietitian, Long Term Care

> > Certified LEAP Therapist

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

I need some clarification on this thread. Am I correct in interpreting that

some of you out there feel food stamp recipients should be allowed to

purchase " JUNK FOOD " with food stamps?? As a registered dietitian and US

taxpayer I adamantly believe that food stamps should only be applied to

healthy food choices. If anyone wishes to purchase junk, they are welcome

to do it on their dime not mine.

Kathy C. Fielding, RD, LD

Registered/Licensed Dietitian Nutritionist

Natural Health Concepts

Preventive Health Strategies & Wellness,

Complementary & Alternative Medicine

Bios Life Slim

Lose Body Fat & Inches Naturally!

Lower Cholesterol Naturally!

www.myunicity.net/kayceefielding

www.bioslifeslim.com/kayceefielding

RE: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on

> diets: Study - FYI

> >

> > If... " ...on a population level the average level of disease risk would

> not change significantly " , it's just about government control and loss of

> freedom then. I say we scrap the whole idea!

> >

> > W. Rowell, RD, LN

> > Montana State Hospital, Warm Spring, MT

> > Consultant Dietitian, Long Term Care

> > Certified LEAP Therapist

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I need some clarification on this thread. Am I correct in interpreting that

> some of you out there feel food stamp recipients should be allowed to

> purchase " JUNK FOOD " with food stamps?? As a registered dietitian and US

> taxpayer I adamantly believe that food stamps should only be applied to

> healthy food choices. If anyone wishes to purchase junk, they are welcome

> to do it on their dime not mine.

I will say that I feel the same way. If I lose my job, and need food

stamps, I feel that tax-paying citizens should certainly be able to have

a say in how their money is used.

If I use my food stamps to buy nourishing food, I may stay healthy and

be able to search for work and support myself.

If I use my food stamps to buy cokes, Twinkies, and potato chips, and

become malnourished as a result, then my fellow citizens' tax dollars

will go to pay for my medical costs.

- ne

[Guest guest]

> I need some clarification on this thread. Am I correct in interpreting that

> some of you out there feel food stamp recipients should be allowed to

> purchase " JUNK FOOD " with food stamps?? As a registered dietitian and US

> taxpayer I adamantly believe that food stamps should only be applied to

> healthy food choices. If anyone wishes to purchase junk, they are welcome

> to do it on their dime not mine.

I will say that I feel the same way. If I lose my job, and need food

stamps, I feel that tax-paying citizens should certainly be able to have

a say in how their money is used.

If I use my food stamps to buy nourishing food, I may stay healthy and

be able to search for work and support myself.

If I use my food stamps to buy cokes, Twinkies, and potato chips, and

become malnourished as a result, then my fellow citizens' tax dollars

will go to pay for my medical costs.

- ne

[Guest guest]

> I need some clarification on this thread. Am I correct in interpreting that

> some of you out there feel food stamp recipients should be allowed to

> purchase " JUNK FOOD " with food stamps?? As a registered dietitian and US

> taxpayer I adamantly believe that food stamps should only be applied to

> healthy food choices. If anyone wishes to purchase junk, they are welcome

> to do it on their dime not mine.

I will say that I feel the same way. If I lose my job, and need food

stamps, I feel that tax-paying citizens should certainly be able to have

a say in how their money is used.

If I use my food stamps to buy nourishing food, I may stay healthy and

be able to search for work and support myself.

If I use my food stamps to buy cokes, Twinkies, and potato chips, and

become malnourished as a result, then my fellow citizens' tax dollars

will go to pay for my medical costs.

- ne

[Guest guest]

Kathy I finally must pipe in, as I've watched quietly for me as this thread

develops. I have a new venue in my career, and am doing private practice, or

one-on-one counseling. At this time I am a subcontractor with practitioners

that have been in business for several years and take what I'm assigned,

which is at this time MediCal (MediCaid) patients. The majority right now is

obese children. And why are they obese? I could list their meal and snack

intake and many of you would be as surprised as I was when taking their

history and speaking with the parents. Who buys their 28 oz soft-drinks? And

their chips, candy and ice cream or slurpees? You better believe it, the

parents, bc otherwise the kids would not be able to buy them. Starting with

the 2 breakfasts most of them eat 5 days a week, since they qualify for a

free breakfast and snack at school, ending with the second snack after lunch

before dismissal, none of their food choices are great, however, they didn't

write the menus (and I'm including the school lunch menus) or prepare the

food they eat. Some mothers even joke conspiratorially about the kids

" stealing " their chips out of their rooms or hiding place. Most fathers are

better about it but don't put their foot down bc in the home the mothers

rule.

So yes, I do agree that making sure our tax $$$$s go to good food choices is

important for SNAP and WIC benefits recipients, as well as limiting what we

consider poor or unhealthy choices for these people. Because let me tell

you, the liberal do good attitude is great in theory, but we're all working

hard and paying twice; once for their free (to them) food, then again for

their healthcare when they acquire diabetis or their feet, knees and backs

break down because of their weight. So we get screwed twice.

I'm not in favor of denying any benefits to any needy person for whatever

the reason is they're needy, but this is an outrage and we're being abused.

Digna

From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of

Kathy C. Fielding

Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:12 PM

To: rd-usa

Subject: RE: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on diets:

Study - FYI

I need some clarification on this thread. Am I correct in interpreting that

some of you out there feel food stamp recipients should be allowed to

purchase " JUNK FOOD " with food stamps?? As a registered dietitian and US

taxpayer I adamantly believe that food stamps should only be applied to

healthy food choices. If anyone wishes to purchase junk, they are welcome

to do it on their dime not mine.

Kathy C. Fielding, RD, LD

Registered/Licensed Dietitian Nutritionist

Natural Health Concepts

Preventive Health Strategies & Wellness,

Complementary & Alternative Medicine

Bios Life Slim

Lose Body Fat & Inches Naturally!

Lower Cholesterol Naturally!

www.myunicity.net/kayceefielding

www.bioslifeslim.com/kayceefielding

RE: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on

> diets: Study - FYI

> >

> > If... " ...on a population level the average level of disease risk would

> not change significantly " , it's just about government control and loss of

> freedom then. I say we scrap the whole idea!

> >

> > W. Rowell, RD, LN

> > Montana State Hospital, Warm Spring, MT

> > Consultant Dietitian, Long Term Care

> > Certified LEAP Therapist

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Kathy I finally must pipe in, as I've watched quietly for me as this thread

develops. I have a new venue in my career, and am doing private practice, or

one-on-one counseling. At this time I am a subcontractor with practitioners

that have been in business for several years and take what I'm assigned,

which is at this time MediCal (MediCaid) patients. The majority right now is

obese children. And why are they obese? I could list their meal and snack

intake and many of you would be as surprised as I was when taking their

history and speaking with the parents. Who buys their 28 oz soft-drinks? And

their chips, candy and ice cream or slurpees? You better believe it, the

parents, bc otherwise the kids would not be able to buy them. Starting with

the 2 breakfasts most of them eat 5 days a week, since they qualify for a

free breakfast and snack at school, ending with the second snack after lunch

before dismissal, none of their food choices are great, however, they didn't

write the menus (and I'm including the school lunch menus) or prepare the

food they eat. Some mothers even joke conspiratorially about the kids

" stealing " their chips out of their rooms or hiding place. Most fathers are

better about it but don't put their foot down bc in the home the mothers

rule.

So yes, I do agree that making sure our tax $$$$s go to good food choices is

important for SNAP and WIC benefits recipients, as well as limiting what we

consider poor or unhealthy choices for these people. Because let me tell

you, the liberal do good attitude is great in theory, but we're all working

hard and paying twice; once for their free (to them) food, then again for

their healthcare when they acquire diabetis or their feet, knees and backs

break down because of their weight. So we get screwed twice.

I'm not in favor of denying any benefits to any needy person for whatever

the reason is they're needy, but this is an outrage and we're being abused.

Digna

From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of

Kathy C. Fielding

Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:12 PM

To: rd-usa

Subject: RE: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on diets:

Study - FYI

I need some clarification on this thread. Am I correct in interpreting that

some of you out there feel food stamp recipients should be allowed to

purchase " JUNK FOOD " with food stamps?? As a registered dietitian and US

taxpayer I adamantly believe that food stamps should only be applied to

healthy food choices. If anyone wishes to purchase junk, they are welcome

to do it on their dime not mine.

Kathy C. Fielding, RD, LD

Registered/Licensed Dietitian Nutritionist

Natural Health Concepts

Preventive Health Strategies & Wellness,

Complementary & Alternative Medicine

Bios Life Slim

Lose Body Fat & Inches Naturally!

Lower Cholesterol Naturally!

www.myunicity.net/kayceefielding

www.bioslifeslim.com/kayceefielding

RE: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on

> diets: Study - FYI

> >

> > If... " ...on a population level the average level of disease risk would

> not change significantly " , it's just about government control and loss of

> freedom then. I say we scrap the whole idea!

> >

> > W. Rowell, RD, LN

> > Montana State Hospital, Warm Spring, MT

> > Consultant Dietitian, Long Term Care

> > Certified LEAP Therapist

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have a personal story. One of my daughters lost her excellent well paying

job for health reasons, and because of that she could not work for almost a

year. During that time she ate out of Big Lots and coops, as well as a tiny

garden she planted for herself in pots and a little bit of land she was able

to use outside the room she rented. How did she eat out of Big Lots? She

read labels, that's how. She bought grains, all kinds of grains, canned

beans, rice, pasta, vegetables, and fruits. She rinsed off the canned

vegetables and beans to decrease the sodium, cooked and ate them. She had a

microwave and a tiny stove w 2 burners and a toaster oven during that time.

She drank canned juices or ate fruits when she could buy them. She bought

some milk but since she's mostly intolerant to dairy she found other calcium

sources and drank the cheapest soymilk she could find. She exercised by

doing pushups and running or walking, since she could no longer afford a

gym. She made her own breads or looked for whole grain crackers. She

stayed well nourished and was able to start her own business, and slowly

recovered and is now doing fine. It takes effort. She made it. Yes, she has

a college ed in Liberal Arts and an MBA. But I believe any other rational

and reasonable human adult can do something similar. And this is not

bragging as I was very grateful she came through her ordeal well. Her father

and I as well as her 2 sisters begged her to let us help her out, but she

refused saying she got herself where she ended up and would get herself out

of it. She still is very frugal, buys at coops and discount stores, grows a

fantastic garden in the middle of Oakland, and her family eats very healthy

meals, all home made by her.

Digna

From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of

ne

Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:56 PM

To: rd-usa

Subject: Re: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on diets:

Study - FYI

> I need some clarification on this thread. Am I correct in interpreting

that

> some of you out there feel food stamp recipients should be allowed to

> purchase " JUNK FOOD " with food stamps?? As a registered dietitian and US

> taxpayer I adamantly believe that food stamps should only be applied to

> healthy food choices. If anyone wishes to purchase junk, they are welcome

> to do it on their dime not mine.

I will say that I feel the same way. If I lose my job, and need food

stamps, I feel that tax-paying citizens should certainly be able to have

a say in how their money is used.

If I use my food stamps to buy nourishing food, I may stay healthy and

be able to search for work and support myself.

If I use my food stamps to buy cokes, Twinkies, and potato chips, and

become malnourished as a result, then my fellow citizens' tax dollars

will go to pay for my medical costs.

- ne

[Guest guest]

I have a personal story. One of my daughters lost her excellent well paying

job for health reasons, and because of that she could not work for almost a

year. During that time she ate out of Big Lots and coops, as well as a tiny

garden she planted for herself in pots and a little bit of land she was able

to use outside the room she rented. How did she eat out of Big Lots? She

read labels, that's how. She bought grains, all kinds of grains, canned

beans, rice, pasta, vegetables, and fruits. She rinsed off the canned

vegetables and beans to decrease the sodium, cooked and ate them. She had a

microwave and a tiny stove w 2 burners and a toaster oven during that time.

She drank canned juices or ate fruits when she could buy them. She bought

some milk but since she's mostly intolerant to dairy she found other calcium

sources and drank the cheapest soymilk she could find. She exercised by

doing pushups and running or walking, since she could no longer afford a

gym. She made her own breads or looked for whole grain crackers. She

stayed well nourished and was able to start her own business, and slowly

recovered and is now doing fine. It takes effort. She made it. Yes, she has

a college ed in Liberal Arts and an MBA. But I believe any other rational

and reasonable human adult can do something similar. And this is not

bragging as I was very grateful she came through her ordeal well. Her father

and I as well as her 2 sisters begged her to let us help her out, but she

refused saying she got herself where she ended up and would get herself out

of it. She still is very frugal, buys at coops and discount stores, grows a

fantastic garden in the middle of Oakland, and her family eats very healthy

meals, all home made by her.

Digna

From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of

ne

Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:56 PM

To: rd-usa

Subject: Re: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on diets:

Study - FYI

> I need some clarification on this thread. Am I correct in interpreting

that

> some of you out there feel food stamp recipients should be allowed to

> purchase " JUNK FOOD " with food stamps?? As a registered dietitian and US

> taxpayer I adamantly believe that food stamps should only be applied to

> healthy food choices. If anyone wishes to purchase junk, they are welcome

> to do it on their dime not mine.

I will say that I feel the same way. If I lose my job, and need food

stamps, I feel that tax-paying citizens should certainly be able to have

a say in how their money is used.

If I use my food stamps to buy nourishing food, I may stay healthy and

be able to search for work and support myself.

If I use my food stamps to buy cokes, Twinkies, and potato chips, and

become malnourished as a result, then my fellow citizens' tax dollars

will go to pay for my medical costs.

- ne

[Guest guest]

I have a personal story. One of my daughters lost her excellent well paying

job for health reasons, and because of that she could not work for almost a

year. During that time she ate out of Big Lots and coops, as well as a tiny

garden she planted for herself in pots and a little bit of land she was able

to use outside the room she rented. How did she eat out of Big Lots? She

read labels, that's how. She bought grains, all kinds of grains, canned

beans, rice, pasta, vegetables, and fruits. She rinsed off the canned

vegetables and beans to decrease the sodium, cooked and ate them. She had a

microwave and a tiny stove w 2 burners and a toaster oven during that time.

She drank canned juices or ate fruits when she could buy them. She bought

some milk but since she's mostly intolerant to dairy she found other calcium

sources and drank the cheapest soymilk she could find. She exercised by

doing pushups and running or walking, since she could no longer afford a

gym. She made her own breads or looked for whole grain crackers. She

stayed well nourished and was able to start her own business, and slowly

recovered and is now doing fine. It takes effort. She made it. Yes, she has

a college ed in Liberal Arts and an MBA. But I believe any other rational

and reasonable human adult can do something similar. And this is not

bragging as I was very grateful she came through her ordeal well. Her father

and I as well as her 2 sisters begged her to let us help her out, but she

refused saying she got herself where she ended up and would get herself out

of it. She still is very frugal, buys at coops and discount stores, grows a

fantastic garden in the middle of Oakland, and her family eats very healthy

meals, all home made by her.

Digna

From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On Behalf Of

ne

Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:56 PM

To: rd-usa

Subject: Re: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on diets:

Study - FYI

> I need some clarification on this thread. Am I correct in interpreting

that

> some of you out there feel food stamp recipients should be allowed to

> purchase " JUNK FOOD " with food stamps?? As a registered dietitian and US

> taxpayer I adamantly believe that food stamps should only be applied to

> healthy food choices. If anyone wishes to purchase junk, they are welcome

> to do it on their dime not mine.

I will say that I feel the same way. If I lose my job, and need food

stamps, I feel that tax-paying citizens should certainly be able to have

a say in how their money is used.

If I use my food stamps to buy nourishing food, I may stay healthy and

be able to search for work and support myself.

If I use my food stamps to buy cokes, Twinkies, and potato chips, and

become malnourished as a result, then my fellow citizens' tax dollars

will go to pay for my medical costs.

- ne

[Guest guest]

Wait a minute here. I'm confused. First, we want the government out of

our lives. Now we want to tell folks what they can purchase? I think

the agribusiness folks might have a problem with that.

How about rather than telling folks what they can and cannot purchase,

we provide nutrition education (jobs for dietetics professionals)

which would hopefully (if we do our jobs right) lead to less demand

for the products we are eschewing? Is dietetics ready for that

challenge or would you rather be " Big Brother " and tell folks what to

do?

Digna, do you know what the food landscape looks like where these

children live? Do they and their parents have access to the foods

you'd like them to purchase? Is it safe for them to go outside to

exercise? I once worked for an inner city (Chicago) project where we

had to think long and hard about asking kids to go outside. It wasn't

safe.

Regards,

pam

Pam Charney

pcharney@...

> Kathy I finally must pipe in, as I've watched quietly for me as this

> thread

> develops. I have a new venue in my career, and am doing private

> practice, or

> one-on-one counseling. At this time I am a subcontractor with

> practitioners

> that have been in business for several years and take what I'm

> assigned,

> which is at this time MediCal (MediCaid) patients. The majority

> right now is

> obese children. And why are they obese? I could list their meal and

> snack

> intake and many of you would be as surprised as I was when taking

> their

> history and speaking with the parents. Who buys their 28 oz soft-

> drinks? And

> their chips, candy and ice cream or slurpees? You better believe it,

> the

> parents, bc otherwise the kids would not be able to buy them.

> Starting with

> the 2 breakfasts most of them eat 5 days a week, since they qualify

> for a

> free breakfast and snack at school, ending with the second snack

> after lunch

> before dismissal, none of their food choices are great, however,

> they didn't

> write the menus (and I'm including the school lunch menus) or

> prepare the

> food they eat. Some mothers even joke conspiratorially about the kids

> " stealing " their chips out of their rooms or hiding place. Most

> fathers are

> better about it but don't put their foot down bc in the home the

> mothers

> rule.

>

> So yes, I do agree that making sure our tax $$$$s go to good food

> choices is

> important for SNAP and WIC benefits recipients, as well as limiting

> what we

> consider poor or unhealthy choices for these people. Because let me

> tell

> you, the liberal do good attitude is great in theory, but we're all

> working

> hard and paying twice; once for their free (to them) food, then

> again for

> their healthcare when they acquire diabetis or their feet, knees and

> backs

> break down because of their weight. So we get screwed twice.

>

> I'm not in favor of denying any benefits to any needy person for

> whatever

> the reason is they're needy, but this is an outrage and we're being

> abused.

>

> Digna

>

> From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On

> Behalf Of

> Kathy C. Fielding

> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:12 PM

> To: rd-usa

> Subject: RE: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on

> diets:

> Study - FYI

>

> I need some clarification on this thread. Am I correct in

> interpreting that

> some of you out there feel food stamp recipients should be allowed to

> purchase " JUNK FOOD " with food stamps?? As a registered dietitian

> and US

> taxpayer I adamantly believe that food stamps should only be applied

> to

> healthy food choices. If anyone wishes to purchase junk, they are

> welcome

> to do it on their dime not mine.

>

> Kathy C. Fielding, RD, LD

> Registered/Licensed Dietitian Nutritionist

> Natural Health Concepts

> Preventive Health Strategies & Wellness,

> Complementary & Alternative Medicine

>

> Bios Life Slim

> Lose Body Fat & Inches Naturally!

> Lower Cholesterol Naturally!

>

> www.myunicity.net/kayceefielding

> www.bioslifeslim.com/kayceefielding

>

> RE: " Fat tax " should be part of policy

> measures on

> > diets: Study - FYI

> > >

> > > If... " ...on a population level the average level of disease risk

> would

> > not change significantly " , it's just about government control and

> loss of

> > freedom then. I say we scrap the whole idea!

> > >

> > > W. Rowell, RD, LN

> > > Montana State Hospital, Warm Spring, MT

> > > Consultant Dietitian, Long Term Care

> > > Certified LEAP Therapist

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Digna,

Your daughter is very lucky that she had you to give her the

foundation knowledge that she had to get by. Others do not have that

luxury. When faced with crisis, they cannot be expected to suddenly

learn to garden, to read labels, to take the time to cook dried beans

(if one is supposed to be spending one's complete day job hunting)

etc. Making bread is out of the question for folks who have never been

exposed to that process. Think about this; if you are literally living

hand to mouth, that's survival mode. Your only thought is how to make

sure that you can pay the rent next month, keep food on the table, and

yes maybe even have a bit left over to take the kids to the movies or

to have some small treat for them.

And you said it yourself. Your daughter has an MBA. What if she were

perhaps illiterate or maybe didn't graduate from HS? Do you really

think that her story is a good description of what hunger and poverty

look like in the US?

Many of us cannot even begin to understand what it's like to be at

that level of existence. I'd like to think we have a bit more

compassion.

Regards,

pam

Pam Charney

pcharney@...

> I have a personal story. One of my daughters lost her excellent well

> paying

> job for health reasons, and because of that she could not work for

> almost a

> year. During that time she ate out of Big Lots and coops, as well as

> a tiny

> garden she planted for herself in pots and a little bit of land she

> was able

> to use outside the room she rented. How did she eat out of Big Lots?

> She

> read labels, that's how. She bought grains, all kinds of grains,

> canned

> beans, rice, pasta, vegetables, and fruits. She rinsed off the canned

> vegetables and beans to decrease the sodium, cooked and ate them.

> She had a

> microwave and a tiny stove w 2 burners and a toaster oven during

> that time.

> She drank canned juices or ate fruits when she could buy them. She

> bought

> some milk but since she's mostly intolerant to dairy she found other

> calcium

> sources and drank the cheapest soymilk she could find. She exercised

> by

> doing pushups and running or walking, since she could no longer

> afford a

> gym. She made her own breads or looked for whole grain crackers. She

> stayed well nourished and was able to start her own business, and

> slowly

> recovered and is now doing fine. It takes effort. She made it. Yes,

> she has

> a college ed in Liberal Arts and an MBA. But I believe any other

> rational

> and reasonable human adult can do something similar. And this is not

> bragging as I was very grateful she came through her ordeal well.

> Her father

> and I as well as her 2 sisters begged her to let us help her out,

> but she

> refused saying she got herself where she ended up and would get

> herself out

> of it. She still is very frugal, buys at coops and discount stores,

> grows a

> fantastic garden in the middle of Oakland, and her family eats very

> healthy

> meals, all home made by her.

>

> Digna

>

> From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On

> Behalf Of

> ne

> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:56 PM

> To: rd-usa

> Subject: Re: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on

> diets:

> Study - FYI

>

>

> > I need some clarification on this thread. Am I correct in

> interpreting

> that

> > some of you out there feel food stamp recipients should be allowed

> to

> > purchase " JUNK FOOD " with food stamps?? As a registered dietitian

> and US

> > taxpayer I adamantly believe that food stamps should only be

> applied to

> > healthy food choices. If anyone wishes to purchase junk, they are

> welcome

> > to do it on their dime not mine.

>

> I will say that I feel the same way. If I lose my job, and need food

> stamps, I feel that tax-paying citizens should certainly be able to

> have

> a say in how their money is used.

>

> If I use my food stamps to buy nourishing food, I may stay healthy and

> be able to search for work and support myself.

>

> If I use my food stamps to buy cokes, Twinkies, and potato chips, and

> become malnourished as a result, then my fellow citizens' tax dollars

> will go to pay for my medical costs.

>

> - ne

>

>

[Guest guest]

Digna,

Your daughter is very lucky that she had you to give her the

foundation knowledge that she had to get by. Others do not have that

luxury. When faced with crisis, they cannot be expected to suddenly

learn to garden, to read labels, to take the time to cook dried beans

(if one is supposed to be spending one's complete day job hunting)

etc. Making bread is out of the question for folks who have never been

exposed to that process. Think about this; if you are literally living

hand to mouth, that's survival mode. Your only thought is how to make

sure that you can pay the rent next month, keep food on the table, and

yes maybe even have a bit left over to take the kids to the movies or

to have some small treat for them.

And you said it yourself. Your daughter has an MBA. What if she were

perhaps illiterate or maybe didn't graduate from HS? Do you really

think that her story is a good description of what hunger and poverty

look like in the US?

Many of us cannot even begin to understand what it's like to be at

that level of existence. I'd like to think we have a bit more

compassion.

Regards,

pam

Pam Charney

pcharney@...

> I have a personal story. One of my daughters lost her excellent well

> paying

> job for health reasons, and because of that she could not work for

> almost a

> year. During that time she ate out of Big Lots and coops, as well as

> a tiny

> garden she planted for herself in pots and a little bit of land she

> was able

> to use outside the room she rented. How did she eat out of Big Lots?

> She

> read labels, that's how. She bought grains, all kinds of grains,

> canned

> beans, rice, pasta, vegetables, and fruits. She rinsed off the canned

> vegetables and beans to decrease the sodium, cooked and ate them.

> She had a

> microwave and a tiny stove w 2 burners and a toaster oven during

> that time.

> She drank canned juices or ate fruits when she could buy them. She

> bought

> some milk but since she's mostly intolerant to dairy she found other

> calcium

> sources and drank the cheapest soymilk she could find. She exercised

> by

> doing pushups and running or walking, since she could no longer

> afford a

> gym. She made her own breads or looked for whole grain crackers. She

> stayed well nourished and was able to start her own business, and

> slowly

> recovered and is now doing fine. It takes effort. She made it. Yes,

> she has

> a college ed in Liberal Arts and an MBA. But I believe any other

> rational

> and reasonable human adult can do something similar. And this is not

> bragging as I was very grateful she came through her ordeal well.

> Her father

> and I as well as her 2 sisters begged her to let us help her out,

> but she

> refused saying she got herself where she ended up and would get

> herself out

> of it. She still is very frugal, buys at coops and discount stores,

> grows a

> fantastic garden in the middle of Oakland, and her family eats very

> healthy

> meals, all home made by her.

>

> Digna

>

> From: rd-usa [mailto:rd-usa ] On

> Behalf Of

> ne

> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:56 PM

> To: rd-usa

> Subject: Re: " Fat tax " should be part of policy measures on

> diets:

> Study - FYI

>

>

> > I need some clarification on this thread. Am I correct in

> interpreting

> that

> > some of you out there feel food stamp recipients should be allowed

> to

> > purchase " JUNK FOOD " with food stamps?? As a registered dietitian

> and US

> > taxpayer I adamantly believe that food stamps should only be

> applied to

> > healthy food choices. If anyone wishes to purchase junk, they are

> welcome

> > to do it on their dime not mine.

>

> I will say that I feel the same way. If I lose my job, and need food

> stamps, I feel that tax-paying citizens should certainly be able to

> have

> a say in how their money is used.

>

> If I use my food stamps to buy nourishing food, I may stay healthy and

> be able to search for work and support myself.

>

> If I use my food stamps to buy cokes, Twinkies, and potato chips, and

> become malnourished as a result, then my fellow citizens' tax dollars

> will go to pay for my medical costs.

>

> - ne

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think what is being said is that if someone is purchasing food with their own

money, then it's their choice.   If I'm giving someone money to buy food with

(i.e. food stamps through my tax dollars), then yes, I should be able to

stipulate where my tax dollars are going. 

 

> >

> > > I say if there is to be regulation it should be with food stamps 

> and

> what

> > they allow for purchase with, example can buy soda, candy bars, 

> potato

> chips

> > etc. Some kind of regulation with this, much like the ideas used 

> with WIC

> > might be a good idea. If they limited frivolous purchases in that 

> way I

> > would even be amenable to helping the needy with personal items as 

> well,

> > like toilet paper, cleaners, soap for clothing etc.

> > >

> > > ________________________________

> > > From: rd-usa <mailto:rd-usa%40yahoogroups.com>

> <rd-usa%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:

> > rd-usa <mailto:rd-usa%40yahoogroups.com>

> <rd-usa%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Rowell,

> >

> > > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 12:57 PM

> > > To: 'rd-usa <mailto:%27rd-usa%40yahoogroups.com>

> <%27rd-usa%40yahoogroups.com>'

> > > Subject: RE: " Fat tax " should be part of policy 

> measures on

> > diets: Study - FYI

> > >

> > > If... " ...on a population level the average level of disease risk 

> would

> > not change significantly " , it's just about government control and 

> loss of

> > freedom then. I say we scrap the whole idea!

> > >

> > > W. Rowell, RD, LN

> > > Montana State Hospital, Warm Spring, MT

> > > Consultant Dietitian, Long Term Care

> > > Certified LEAP Therapist

> > >

> > >

> >

> >