|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:Neither the Canadian Dairy Commission Act nor its associated regulations make any provisions about food quality*. In point of fact, it's the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that manages food quality and food safety, an Agency that is fully independent of the supply management boards. If you remove supply management and tariffs from dairy we would probably end up importing everything from the US, which has lower standards than our own dairy so in turn yes, supply management is keeping up with quality as well.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
Funkdreamer posted:We're not talking about health standards, we're talking about the affordability of produce and diet incentives. How about we eliminate supply management (because it's stupid), tax sugar, and subsidize cabbage?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
I want whatever policy gives me more cheese. I'm single issue cheese voter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I want whatever policy gives me more cheese. I'm single issue cheese voter. I had researched this when it came up before, and you can get a metric ton of shredded cheese from thailand for around $600. Just write "Chinese currency" on the customs declaration and they probably won't even open the container.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Are you arguing that the point of supply management is to discourage the unhealthy eating of cheese? What?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
unknown posted:From one failing ship (PC) to another (real estate)... The housing bubble is a supply problem that can only be solved by creating ONE MILLION HOMES
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Funkdreamer posted:The organization you're citing is meant to balance certain growers' relationships with a monopolized processor industry, doesn't operate in the same way as supply management, and doesn't apply to fresh produce or to the majority of HFV categories, which function as normal commodities in Canada. You haven't answered my question as to why eliminating supply management would be better than expanding subsidies. Why on earth would we be provide subsidies when the cause of the punitive financial impact is government created in the first place? If you're concerned about the impact on dairy farmers, why wouldn't you provide them with support rather than maintain policies that are actively harmful to literally ever individual and family in Canada expect for the owners of a supply managed company?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
JVNO posted:Three slices of bread can easily hit 500-600 calories alone, depending on how generous he is with the butter. God drat- that's like a big mac except lacking the benefit of protein. Yeah, I know. I still get to hear him complain about it, and how little he can eat if he wants to maintain his weight. News flash: you could eat a whole hell of a lot of more filling stuff if you didn't eat so much goddamn bread. Also, he knows that, but says "I really like bread..." I typically have a carb-heavy breakfast (oatmeal with coconut and honey) but I don't have too much of it at least. The rest of the day I'm all about protein and fat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Fluffy Chainsaw posted:Why on earth would we be provide subsidies when the cause of the punitive financial impact is government created in the first place? If you're concerned about the impact on dairy farmers, why wouldn't you provide them with support rather than maintain policies that are actively harmful to literally ever individual and family in Canada expect for the owners of a supply managed company? I don't care about dairy farmers. The amount people pay for cheese isn't relevant to the discussion here and you're conflating two senses of the word harm. Supply management has a negligible bearing on improving dietary incentives because it's limited to cheese, eggs, and certain meats. It doesn't address produce costs for low-income Canadians. For the third time, why would eliminating supply management produce better health outcomes than taxing unhealthy foods and subsidizing healthy ones?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
You used a totally unrelated topic to try to hammer your libertarian peg into a square hole. "Let's dump supply management to make people healthier" is as logical as "let's defund CBC to make people healthier"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Funkdreamer posted:For the third time, why would eliminating supply management produce better health outcomes than taxing unhealthy foods and subsidizing healthy ones? It wouldn't, but it would be better than the status quo by making a food budget go further. There's also the problem of determining what foods are "unhealthy." The dose makes the poison. Is a pound of butter an unhealthy food that should be taxed, for example?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It wouldn't, but it would be better than the status quo by making a food budget go further. You do it based on volume. If sugar is artificially added, then you price it based on how many grams you add. Charge a penny per gram. A can of Pepsi at 355 mL has 42 grams of sugar, so it would be $0.42 added, so a case of 12 would have $5.04 added to it--an average case is $5 so the price would double. An average chocolate bar has 30 grams of sugar, so $0.30, meaning your $1.25 bar is now $1.55. For things like potato chips, I am not 100% sure where to price that but there is a way. Of course this is fascism according to libertarian dimwits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
PT6A posted:There's also the problem of determining what foods are "unhealthy."
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:For things like potato chips, I am not 100% sure where to price that but there is a way. Is there, though? It seems like this is one of those common sense things, where everyone knows that potato chips are basically nutritionally empty garbage, but it becomes exceedingly hard to actually codify into law a tax on such products in such a way that it will not also target other foods, and yet cannot be trivially circumvented. Fat content? Guess that butter's going to be expensive. Carb ratio? Hope you don't like eating pasta! Caloric density? Bye bye, nuts. Sugar's an easy target because no one needs to eat it. The same cannot be said of calories and fat in general. Also: would your proposed sugar tax apply to sugar itself, or only to products which contain added sugar? Would things that contain high amounts of naturally occurring sugars be exempt, like juice? It shouldn't be -- juice is pretty goddamn bad for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Is there, though? It seems like this is one of those common sense things, where everyone knows that potato chips are basically nutritionally empty garbage, but it becomes exceedingly hard to actually codify into law a tax on such products in such a way that it will not also target other foods, and yet cannot be trivially circumvented. Fat content? Guess that butter's going to be expensive. Carb ratio? Hope you don't like eating pasta! Caloric density? Bye bye, nuts. The problem you're using with your butter example is that it's not in the same category of awfulness a bag of Lays is. Anyway, just base it on what this document says: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/arc-cra/Rv12-5-21-2006-eng.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:You do it based on volume. If sugar is artificially added, then you price it based on how many grams you add. Charge a penny per gram. So you would tax based on how much sugar is in processed food? Like for example you'd add a tax of $.10 per 100mL of apple juice. Taxing soda is dumb and bad but it's better than this idea at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Taxing the gently caress out of juice would be good since it's a major cause of childhood obesity. People think juice is "healthy" but a single glass is like 25% of a child's daily caloric requirements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Taxing the gently caress out of juice would be good since it's a major cause of childhood obesity. People think juice is "healthy" but a single glass is like 25% of a child's daily caloric requirements. School-age children need 1600-2000+ calories per day. A glass (250mL = 1 cup) of Tropicana orange juice is 110 calories. Even being generous and having a big loving 2 cup glass is 220 calories. What the gently caress are you talking about? Sources: http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/how-many-calories-do-children-need.aspx?CategoryID=51 https://www.tropicana.ca/products/tropicana-pure-premium%C2%AE-original-4
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:School-age children need 1600-2000+ calories per day. A glass (250mL = 1 cup) of Tropicana orange juice is 110 calories. Even being generous and having a big loving 2 cup glass is 220 calories. What the gently caress are you talking about? You could say the very same thing about coke. A 591mL bottle of coke, in fact, has 230 calories. The only difference is that the orange juice has vitamins and poo poo, but really you should be feeding your kid a diet where they can get that without juice. And, yes, it's not that much in and of itself, but it adds up quickly if you have more than one, and most children (people, in fact!) quite like to also eat food -- possibly even more food than their calorie requirements dictate -- and that extra soda every day can turn into a weight gain of a pound in a month. EDIT: Hurrr, I see now that you're disagreeing with the numbers, which is true, and not the assertion that juice is pretty unhealthy (also true). OSI bean dip posted:The problem you're using with your butter example is that it's not in the same category of awfulness a bag of Lays is. The problem is that there's no objective measurement of awfulness. If you put 28g of butter in your coffee in the morning, every morning, it's going to turn out just as bad as if you ate a 1oz. bag of potato chips for breakfast. The difference is in the use patterns, and that's very hard to legislate around. PT6A fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You could say the very same thing about coke. A 591mL bottle of coke, in fact, has 230 calories. The only difference is that the orange juice has vitamins and poo poo, but really you should be feeding your kid a diet where they can get that without juice.  I was very specifically calling out his/her numbers. I never said anything about any of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:
Oh poo poo, yeah, never mind. Juice is bad, but his numbers are also very wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The problem is that there's no objective measurement of awfulness. If you put 28g of butter in your coffee in the morning, every morning, it's going to turn out just as bad as if you ate a 1oz. bag of potato chips for breakfast. The difference is in the use patterns, and that's very hard to legislate around. You're ignoring the PDF I linked to which answers this question. You cannot do it so easily outside of sugar so you base it on how GST/HST is applied and then formulate a tax on that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:You're ignoring the PDF I linked to which answers this question. You cannot do it so easily outside of sugar so you base it on how GST/HST is applied and then formulate a tax on that. That would be a wonderful idea is all snack food were equally "awful." GST/HST categories may be correlated with nutritional value, but not to the point that it would be an effective thing to base a sin tax off of. And it still wouldn't address the fact that pretty much anything can be a problem if you eat too loving much of it. A sin tax on lovely food might seem like a good idea, but it's not at all practical. Sugary drinks are a good target because they're easily definable, completely unnecessary, and even in the best of circumstances do not contribute to good health. The same is not true of snack foods, even if we can agree that a healthy and balanced diet probably doesn't have a whole bunch of potato chips in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
The proper solution is to collectivize agriculture, nationalize grocery stores, and send Albertans to mine for diamonds on Ellesmere Island.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:School-age children need 1600-2000+ calories per day. A glass (250mL = 1 cup) of Tropicana orange juice is 110 calories. Even being generous and having a big loving 2 cup glass is 220 calories. What the gently caress are you talking about? I'm not talking about 14 year olds. Up to three years of age caloric needs are under 1000 calories. Pediatric obesity, in under three years, is increasingly common and the first and most effective intervention is to remove juice from the diet with only milk and water allowed as liquid calories. Milk satiates, has half the sugar, and is lactose. Kids can suck down a lot of juice if you freely provide it and that's how you end up with obese children. Robert Lustig goes over some of this stuff in his lectures, he's a pediatric endocrinologist. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
yes let's make food more unaffordable while bankrolling the libs' latest attempt to pander to some contested riding with an infrastructure boondoggle, this is definitely the best idea
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
bonus points if you think the price of healthy alternatives won't also rise to match the cost of pop etc on the consumer end
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
a primate posted:yes let's make food more unaffordable while bankrolling the libs' latest attempt to pander to some contested riding with an infrastructure boondoggle, this is definitely the best idea You think that soda is food?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
why should we allow poors access to pop? treats are for the bourgeoisie. birthday cake is a luxury they shouldn't be able to afford
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Trans fat still legal in Canada lol ~let consumers decide if they want to eat poison~
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
a primate posted:bonus points if you think the price of healthy alternatives won't also rise to match the cost of pop etc on the consumer end Assuming you're talking just pop/caloric beverages, which is the only thing I support taxing, no. Last I checked, food prices haven't been tracking with cigarette and liquor prices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
a primate posted:why should we allow poors access to pop? treats are for the bourgeoisie. birthday cake is a luxury they shouldn't be able to afford Why should we not subsidize the cost of produce and dairy, something that those with low-income cannot afford? You do realise that there are people who give their 3-year olds store-brand cola because it's cheaper than healthier options like milk. Why shouldn't milk cost $0.50 per litre and soda $1.25 instead of the other way around? Or are you against the poor having healthy options to choose from? Why punish the poor by giving them health problems?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
a primate posted:why should we allow poors access to pop? treats are for the bourgeoisie. birthday cake is a luxury they shouldn't be able to afford Soda should cost as much as beer. Either make beer cheaper or soda more expensive; they're both absolute garbage for your health, so why pick sides? EDIT: Also, OSI is correct: milk should be cheaper than either one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Why should we not subsidize the cost of produce and dairy, something that those with low-income cannot afford? You do realise that there are people who give their 3-year olds store-brand cola because it's cheaper than healthier options like milk. Why shouldn't milk cost $0.50 per litre and soda $1.25 instead of the other way around? I'm sorry, I don't remember saying I was against subsidies for healthy foods
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
THC posted:Trans fat still legal in Canada lol do you support banning meat and dairy or am I missing something here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
a primate posted:do you support banning meat and dairy or am I missing something here? Jesus christ that's such a pointless non-sequitur that even I'm embarrassed for you. You should feel bad about yourself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Why should we not subsidize the cost of produce and dairy, something that those with low-income cannot afford? You do realise that there are people who give their 3-year olds store-brand cola because it's cheaper than healthier options like milk. Why shouldn't milk cost $0.50 per litre and soda $1.25 instead of the other way around? This is a separate issue from taxing processed foods. PT6A posted:Soda should cost as much as beer. Either make beer cheaper or soda more expensive; they're both absolute garbage for your health, so why pick sides? Soda is water and sugar and some gas. Why would it possibly cost as much as something that takes months to prepare? I feel like that statement is totally at odds with your general political and economic views.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
a primate posted:I'm sorry, I don't remember saying I was against subsidies for healthy foods No. You're opting to be obtuse and assume I am out to punish the poor when in reality you seem to think that I am out to limit the freedom of low-income persons. Jordan7hm posted:Soda is water and sugar and some gas. Why would it possibly cost as much as something that takes months to prepare? Sugar takes months to grow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Jesus christ that's such a pointless non-sequitur that even I'm embarrassed for you. You should feel bad about yourself. http://bfy.tw/796Z
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:No. You're opting to be obtuse and assume I am out to punish the poor when in reality you seem to think that I am out to limit the freedom of low-income persons. Freedom ain't free. It costs $1.99/litre at 7-11
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 04:38
|
|
