https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/25/health ... gle.com%2F

This article is well-written and fascinating! I've stopped consuming sugary drinks and have been drinking water the past 6 months and it, along with better eating and regular exercising, has caused me to lose weight, over 30 lbs!

I think there needs to be a stronger push against sugary drinks and people need to be encouraged to drink only water. Having a healthier population would greatly reduce healthcare costs and create less of a burden to the medical system. We can do this!

And then we could end our useless debates on the healthcare system as it wouldn't cost as much anymore

As with everything, it boils down to moderation. Enjoying a Coke is fine. Drinking Coke as if it’s water is a problem. Having a donut is fine. Eating multiple donuts is a problem.

At the end of the day, everything can kill you....even drinking too much water (albeit...an insane amount of water). Moderation and self-control go a long way.

stl07 wrote:

And then we could end our useless debates on the healthcare system as it wouldn't cost as much anymore

I couldn't have said it any better myself! Getting people healthcare is one thing; sustaining the system with a healthier population is the key. Healthier people equals lower healthcare costs for everyone.

There's no point in giving "free" healthcare to people that don't work, sit on their behinds all day, play video games and weigh 300 lbs, while eating 2 Big Macs, large french fries and slurping down a large soda.

People should not be rewarded for abusing their bodies. I also believe that everyone should have to go through annual screenings and the healthier people should be rewarded with larger tax credits. Just my thoughts.

Iloveboeing wrote:

stl07 wrote:

And then we could end our useless debates on the healthcare system as it wouldn't cost as much anymore

I couldn't have said it any better myself! Getting people healthcare is one thing; sustaining the system with a healthier population is the key. Healthier people equals lower healthcare costs for everyone.

There's no point in giving "free" healthcare to people that don't work, sit on their behinds all day, play video games and weigh 300 lbs, while eating 2 Big Macs, large french fries and slurping down a large soda.

People should not be rewarded for abusing their bodies. I also believe that everyone should have to go through annual screenings and the healthier people should be rewarded with larger tax credits. Just my thoughts.

This is why sin taxes should be seen as a plus and not a con. Want to enjoy that pack of cigarettes? Pay up, and thank you for supporting programs that want to get people off of tobacco. Want to enjoy that big slurp? Pay up, and thank you for supporting programs that encourage physical activity.

Iloveboeing wrote:

stl07 wrote:

And then we could end our useless debates on the healthcare system as it wouldn't cost as much anymore

I couldn't have said it any better myself! Getting people healthcare is one thing; sustaining the system with a healthier population is the key. Healthier people equals lower healthcare costs for everyone.

There's no point in giving "free" healthcare to people that don't work, sit on their behinds all day, play video games and weigh 300 lbs, while eating 2 Big Macs, large french fries and slurping down a large soda.

People should not be rewarded for abusing their bodies. I also believe that everyone should have to go through annual screenings and the healthier people should be rewarded with larger tax credits. Just my thoughts.

But you see, doing this would mean going against big food's donations to politicians, and that is simply a line politicians don't want to cross since Pepsi's donation are more important than reforming health care. While controversial, FLOTUS Obama was one of the few to step up to big food, and it was funny (yet sad, really) to see how rapidly she was shut down

Try diet sodas.

Federal income tax, state tax, sales tax, property tax, tag fees, 911 fees, gas tax, capital gains tax, hotel tax, gift tax, estate tax...

I think it would be an eye opening experience if people added up the actual real percentage we pay in taxes.

We don’t need more taxes but I do agree that an annual physical to determine your health plan costs would go a long way.

geologyrocks wrote:

As with everything, it boils down to moderation. Enjoying a Coke is fine. Drinking Coke as if it’s water is a problem. Having a donut is fine. Eating multiple donuts is a problem.

At the end of the day, everything can kill you....even drinking too much water (albeit...an insane amount of water). Moderation and self-control go a long way.

This is the correct answer. The rest of the answers are from people who want to run others' lives.

geologyrocks wrote:

Federal income tax, state tax, sales tax, property tax, tag fees, 911 fees, gas tax, capital gains tax, hotel tax, gift tax, estate tax...

I think it would be an eye opening experience if people added up the actual real percentage we pay in taxes.

We don’t need more taxes but I do agree that an annual physical to determine your health plan costs would go a long way.

Absolutely! The ACA charges people who use tobacco significantly higher rates for insurance than non tobacco users.

The USA and a good portion of the world (particularly China) are going through a diabetic epidemic. We have to act now! This requires a radical change in diet and the addition of significantly more exercise. We've got to be healthy people.

If everyone would just eat healthy and exercise regularly, medical costs would plummet worldwide.

johns624 wrote:

geologyrocks wrote:

As with everything, it boils down to moderation. Enjoying a Coke is fine. Drinking Coke as if it’s water is a problem. Having a donut is fine. Eating multiple donuts is a problem.

At the end of the day, everything can kill you....even drinking too much water (albeit...an insane amount of water). Moderation and self-control go a long way.

This is the correct answer. The rest of the answers are from people who want to run others' lives.

This.

Iloveboeing wrote:

geologyrocks wrote:

Federal income tax, state tax, sales tax, property tax, tag fees, 911 fees, gas tax, capital gains tax, hotel tax, gift tax, estate tax...

I think it would be an eye opening experience if people added up the actual real percentage we pay in taxes.

We don’t need more taxes but I do agree that an annual physical to determine your health plan costs would go a long way.

Absolutely! The ACA charges people who use tobacco significantly higher rates for insurance than non tobacco users.

The USA and a good portion of the world (particularly China) are going through a diabetic epidemic. We have to act now! This requires a radical change in diet and the addition of significantly more exercise. We've got to be healthy people.

If everyone would just eat healthy and exercise regularly, medical costs would plummet worldwide.

And get companies to quit dumping toxic waste into the water and air.

I am all for people being healthier. But, when a side salad costs $5 and a deep fried burrito, bag of chips, and large soda cost $2.99, what is the intensive for poor people? When a bottle of water costs $2 but the same size bottle of soda costs 89 cents, what is the intensive for poor people?

I gave up soda and smoking years ago. I had a soda last summer and it made my stomach hurt. I still enjoy beer. I also enjoy taking brisk 5 mile walks at least three times a week. I can afford these things. Partly because I have the income to enjoy them. I remember when my choice was eat junk or starve. It sucked. Income has to be part of the equation.

seb146 wrote:

Iloveboeing wrote:

geologyrocks wrote:

Federal income tax, state tax, sales tax, property tax, tag fees, 911 fees, gas tax, capital gains tax, hotel tax, gift tax, estate tax...

I think it would be an eye opening experience if people added up the actual real percentage we pay in taxes.

We don’t need more taxes but I do agree that an annual physical to determine your health plan costs would go a long way.

Absolutely! The ACA charges people who use tobacco significantly higher rates for insurance than non tobacco users.

The USA and a good portion of the world (particularly China) are going through a diabetic epidemic. We have to act now! This requires a radical change in diet and the addition of significantly more exercise. We've got to be healthy people.

If everyone would just eat healthy and exercise regularly, medical costs would plummet worldwide.

And get companies to quit dumping toxic waste into the water and air.

I am all for people being healthier. But, when a side salad costs $5 and a deep fried burrito, bag of chips, and large soda cost $2.99, what is the intensive for poor people? When a bottle of water costs $2 but the same size bottle of soda costs 89 cents, what is the intensive for poor people?

I gave up soda and smoking years ago. I had a soda last summer and it made my stomach hurt. I still enjoy beer. I also enjoy taking brisk 5 mile walks at least three times a week. I can afford these things. Partly because I have the income to enjoy them. I remember when my choice was eat junk or starve. It sucked. Income has to be part of the equation.

You are absolutely correct in that junk food remains significantly cheaper than healthy food. Food manufacturers are profiting immensely from consumers' consumption of junk food. There has to be a shift in consumer thinking. The taxes on cigarettes are a start and they have caused many people to cut back on smoking. I met someone from New York and they said that it was over $10 per pack there; here in Missouri, it's $5 per pack. Missouri is heavily GOP-leaning and they don't want to increase cigarette taxes that much because they're afraid to "encroach on peoples' freedoms."

johns624 wrote:

This is the correct answer. The rest of the answers are from people who want to run others' lives.

How is discouraging unhealthy items "ruining others' lives"? Drinking orange soda or Tang is not the same as drinking orange juice (even if from concentrate) so why not guide people away from the soda towards the real stuff? It's one thing to outlaw it; it's another to tax it so that people are encouraged to leave it. That's not ruining their lives. Sodas are not a necessity of life.

I drink a lot of water, I stopped drinking Monster after Christmas butbhave gotten back into it again, I think I’m addicted, I drink 5 or 6 cans a week, on occasion a couple more.

There’s a an IT guy in our office who drink 2 x 1.5 litre bottles of coke a day.

I cut out soda and sweets for Lent and I'm down 8 lbs. I have a feeling my recent extreme stress at work is a factor in that too.

Dieuwer wrote:

Try diet sodas.

Just as bad. I cut out soda of any kind late last year and it's amazing the difference.

We could also cut out white flour and all pastas. So bad for you.

NIKV69 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Try diet sodas.

Just as bad. I cut out soda of any kind late last year and it's amazing the difference.

We could also cut out white flour and all pastas. So bad for you.

Since I cut out soda, I've been feeling better, both physically and mentally. Cutting that and junk food has helped my emotions and moods stabilize. Eating healthy and exercising is really important and vital for mental health.

Kiwirob wrote:

I drink a lot of water, I stopped drinking Monster after Christmas butbhave gotten back into it again, I think I’m addicted, I drink 5 or 6 cans a week, on occasion a couple more.

There’s a an IT guy in our office who drink 2 x 1.5 litre bottles of coke a day.

Tell him to make a date to get the best medication for diabetes and high blood pressure. He will have it soon.

Kiwirob wrote:

I drink a lot of water, I stopped drinking Monster after Christmas butbhave gotten back into it again, I think I’m addicted, I drink 5 or 6 cans a week, on occasion a couple more..

You need to stop that habit ASAP. I worked with a guy who drank it like water. He ended up having a mild stroke. Did the Monster cause it? Don't know either way, stopped drinking it though.

NIKV69 wrote:

Just as bad. I cut out soda of any kind late last year and it's amazing the difference.

We could also cut out white flour and all pastas. So bad for you.

Well there's something we can agree on NIKV69.

einsteinboricua wrote:

johns624 wrote:

This is the correct answer. The rest of the answers are from people who want to run others' lives.

How is discouraging unhealthy items "ruining others' lives"? Drinking orange soda or Tang is not the same as drinking orange juice (even if from concentrate) so why not guide people away from the soda towards the real stuff? It's one thing to outlaw it; it's another to tax it so that people are encouraged to leave it. That's not ruining their lives. Sodas are not a necessity of life.

As good as they taste, I've read from multiple sources that fruit juices are just as bad as drinking soda. They have the same (or even more) amount of sugar. When I first started dieting and exercising, I thought I could drink as much fruit juice as I wanted and be ok (like Welch's grape juice---my favorite!), but my sugar intake increased, not decreased. Water is the only (and more plausible) way to go; I'm now drinking over a gallon of water per day. Sure, it makes you urinate more often, but it flushes out your kidneys, so that helps.

einsteinboricua wrote:

johns624 wrote:

This is the correct answer. The rest of the answers are from people who want to run others' lives.

How is discouraging unhealthy items "ruining others' lives"? Drinking orange soda or Tang is not the same as drinking orange juice (even if from concentrate) so why not guide people away from the soda towards the real stuff? It's one thing to outlaw it; it's another to tax it so that people are encouraged to leave it. That's not ruining their lives. Sodas are not a necessity of life.

How many here are telling others to cut something out of their diet? You don't have to cut anything out...just moderate it.

Dieuwer wrote:

Try diet sodas.

The aspartame and artificial sweeteners in diet soda are harmful as well. The thing with diet soda and many other so called "diet" or reduced fat items is that you are just trading one set of negatives for another set of negatives.

I don't know if I agree with encouraging people to only drink water. Black coffee and unsweetened tea are both good choices as well. While I agree that cutting the amount of sugary drinks we drink is a good thing, I don't think drinking only water is the right approach. Most people want more variety than that and drinking high sugar drinks in moderation is fine.

KentB27 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Try diet sodas.

The aspartame and artificial sweeteners in diet soda are harmful as well. The thing with diet soda and many other so called "diet" or reduced fat items is that you are just trading one set of negatives for another set of negatives.

Very well, then buy some organic fruits, stick them in a blender and drink it.

johns624 wrote:

geologyrocks wrote:

As with everything, it boils down to moderation. Enjoying a Coke is fine. Drinking Coke as if it’s water is a problem. Having a donut is fine. Eating multiple donuts is a problem.

At the end of the day, everything can kill you....even drinking too much water (albeit...an insane amount of water). Moderation and self-control go a long way.

This is the correct answer. The rest of the answers are from people who want to run others' lives.

Amen.

My wife and I cut out the majority of sugary drinks roughly 8 years ago. We'll still have an occasional ginger ale or sprite, but coke and pepsi just taste like syrup now. BUT, I wouldn't attempt to tell anyone else how to live... and it's not like people don't know the consequences of ingesting this rubbish day after day.

Guzzle sugary drinks by the liter if you want, but don't expect me to care when it catches up to you... and don't expect me to pay for it. (Another issue altogether, I know.)

But, if you want to dictate this type of thing to others, how about you start with this - make it so that EBT and other welfare payments can't be used for buying sugary drinks or candy. After all, these are the people who are most likely to burden the healthcare system in the future.

May I recommend Zevia if you want a soda replacement... Stevia extract sweetened... 0 everything (Cal's sodium fat etc) and 5 to 7 ingredients all natural. Multiple flavors... Just don't expect them to taste exactly like their soda equivalent... Root beer and ginger ale are close, the cola isn't coke or Pepsi but is drinkable and the tonic is an acquired taste.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

einsteinboricua wrote:

johns624 wrote:

This is the correct answer. The rest of the answers are from people who want to run others' lives.

How is discouraging unhealthy items "ruining others' lives"? Drinking orange soda or Tang is not the same as drinking orange juice (even if from concentrate) so why not guide people away from the soda towards the real stuff? It's one thing to outlaw it; it's another to tax it so that people are encouraged to leave it. That's not ruining their lives. Sodas are not a necessity of life.

Because at some point you need to respect that people have agency over their own lives and that, if we're going to have a free society, you need to give people the leeway to make decisions governing themselves irrespective of whether you agree with them. The efficacy of "sin" taxes, particularly sugar taxes, is still being debated and are in fact regressive taxes that hit the poor most. People who make poor health choices should indeed bear the costs associated with living an unhealthy lifestyle, but it's a cost that should be imposed in a way that isn't burdensome and encroaching on the freedoms of the population writ large.

I am amazed everytime in the US, a bottle (or a can) of Coke (or every other soda - btw, how many types of soda you have there? a thausand brands?) costs less than a bottle of water. Not literally less, but IIRC at a vending machine in a subway station a bottle of coke was like, $ 2,- and a bottle of water was $ 1,75
you'll have the coke, for the same price, or slightly more, right?
Here the price's double and over

FatCat wrote:

I am amazed everytime in the US, a bottle (or a can) of Coke (or every other soda - btw, how many types of soda you have there? a thausand brands?) costs less than a bottle of water. Not literally less, but IIRC at a vending machine in a subway station a bottle of coke was like, $ 2,- and a bottle of water was $ 1,75
you'll have the coke, for the same price, or slightly more, right?
Here the price's double and over

What's the obsession here with bottled water? Municipal tap water is clean, cheap/free and abundant. That consumers are willing to pay as much and as often as they do for bottled water says more about how gullible some people are than it does about public health or some implication to further regulate sugary beverages.

flyguy89 wrote:

Because at some point you need to respect that people have agency over their own lives and that, if we're going to have a free society, you need to give people the leeway to make decisions governing themselves irrespective of whether you agree with them.

Funny how this is the mantra for sin taxes but nothing else. Can a free society also accept gay marriage, prostitution, legalized drugs (marijuana in this case), and abortion?

flyguy89 wrote:

The efficacy of "sin" taxes, particularly sugar taxes, is still being debated and are in fact regressive taxes that hit the poor most. People who make poor health choices should indeed bear the costs associated with living an unhealthy lifestyle, but it's a cost that should be imposed in a way that isn't burdensome and encroaching on the freedoms of the population writ large.

OK. Then let's make healthcare affordable to them. Oh wait. That's socialism and encouraging moochers to take advantage of the system.

einsteinboricua wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Because at some point you need to respect that people have agency over their own lives and that, if we're going to have a free society, you need to give people the leeway to make decisions governing themselves irrespective of whether you agree with them.

Funny how this is the mantra for sin taxes but nothing else. Can a free society also accept gay marriage, prostitution, legalized drugs (marijuana in this case), and abortion?

It can and it should. You're preaching to the choir there.

einsteinboricua wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

The efficacy of "sin" taxes, particularly sugar taxes, is still being debated and are in fact regressive taxes that hit the poor most. People who make poor health choices should indeed bear the costs associated with living an unhealthy lifestyle, but it's a cost that should be imposed in a way that isn't burdensome and encroaching on the freedoms of the population writ large.

OK. Then let's make healthcare affordable to them. Oh wait. That's socialism and encouraging moochers to take advantage of the system.

I think there are ways we can make health care more affordable that don't involve a wholesale nationalization of the industry or the creation of new entitlements.

flyguy89 wrote:

FatCat wrote:

I am amazed everytime in the US, a bottle (or a can) of Coke (or every other soda - btw, how many types of soda you have there? a thausand brands?) costs less than a bottle of water. Not literally less, but IIRC at a vending machine in a subway station a bottle of coke was like, $ 2,- and a bottle of water was $ 1,75
you'll have the coke, for the same price, or slightly more, right?
Here the price's double and over

What's the obsession here with bottled water? Municipal tap water is clean, cheap/free and abundant...

...and comes in bottles that say "Dasani" or "Aquafina" on them.

For a few years I worked full time and was a full time student. I LIVED on energy drinks. I'd pound a 32oz NOS every morning when I started my shift and would run out of steam right at the end of the day. I exceeded the daily recommended sugar intake within an hour of waking up. Throw in the caffeine and other crap in there and I was anxious all day, everyday.

Post graduation I decided to cut out the sugary drinks and coffee, and it was PAINFUL for the first few weeks. It was like I was drying out. But after that I switched to seltzer and regular water and it's been amazing. I feel more energized everyday, less anxious, and I've lost about 10 pounds. I've unfortunately failed a few times, but it's amazing when I do start drinking that stuff again. I just feel like hell.

Now to work on the junk food.....getting there.....

einsteinboricua wrote:

Iloveboeing wrote:

stl07 wrote:

And then we could end our useless debates on the healthcare system as it wouldn't cost as much anymore

I couldn't have said it any better myself! Getting people healthcare is one thing; sustaining the system with a healthier population is the key. Healthier people equals lower healthcare costs for everyone.

There's no point in giving "free" healthcare to people that don't work, sit on their behinds all day, play video games and weigh 300 lbs, while eating 2 Big Macs, large french fries and slurping down a large soda.

People should not be rewarded for abusing their bodies. I also believe that everyone should have to go through annual screenings and the healthier people should be rewarded with larger tax credits. Just my thoughts.

This is why sin taxes should be seen as a plus and not a con. Want to enjoy that pack of cigarettes? Pay up, and thank you for supporting programs that want to get people off of tobacco. Want to enjoy that big slurp? Pay up, and thank you for supporting programs that encourage physical activity.

Who should get to decide what qualifies as a sin tax? But I really hope the liberals push this and apply it to as many things as possible. I can see them applying it to cars, video games, all meat, eggs, and dairy, non-liberal websites and media, movies with a rating higher than PG, hotels, air travel, amusement parks, etc. All of those things can be considered unhealthy for the body or the environment. It all boils down to liberals wanting everyone to be miserable.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Who should get to decide what qualifies as a sin tax?

A committee of experts, based on years of studies as to what has been linked to poor health.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I can see them applying it to cars, video games, all meat, eggs, and dairy, non-liberal websites and media, movies with a rating higher than PG, hotels, air travel, amusement parks, etc.

Talk about a strawman's argument, but let's go for it:
1. Cars: that's what higher emission standards are for and for which you're penalized in the form of tolls and higher registrations fees if the car does not pass standards.
2. Video games: tell me which video games have directly caused cancer or diabetes or the like. That children are not as active is not the fault of video games but rather the parents that refuse to encourage an active lifestyle as well as feed them junk food.
3. All meat: excessive consumption of red meat is linked to certain illnesses. However, the key word there is excessive. Unless you eat steak 3 times a day, without exercising, the effect is negligible.
4. Eggs: see the point 3.
5. Dairy: I have yet to see regular dairy being linked to cancer or gastrointestinal disorders. And since children drink milk every day when they're young (or at least, we expect them to), don't see why this would fall under a sin tax.
6. Non-liberal websites and media: what?!
7. Movies with a rating higher than PG: me attending an R-rated movie has no effect on either of us. You smoking next to me does. Try again.
8. Hotels: hotels are a business. I don't remember when a hotel was linked to any illnesses. And there's no need to discourage people from booking hotels.
9. Air travel: air travel is a necessity for many people, and not everyone can afford to purchase tickets. The high price alone is already a discriminant. Add the surcharges and fees (kept in the dark by conservatives who believe it's necessary for business to keep their charges private) and maybe the airline is already passing on its effect on the environment on to you.
10. Amusement parks: So a roller coaster causes cancer...got it.

TTailedTiger wrote:

All of those things can be considered unhealthy for the body or the environment. It all boils down to liberals wanting everyone to be miserable.

I just argued against your point. If I'm interested in people weaning off of habits that make them sick and drive up health costs, then guilty as charged.

LMP737 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Just as bad. I cut out soda of any kind late last year and it's amazing the difference.

We could also cut out white flour and all pastas. So bad for you.

Well there's something we can agree on NIKV69.

There is hope!

The Sugar (in all it's forms) Lobby -- I guess they're well connected.

einsteinboricua wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Who should get to decide what qualifies as a sin tax?

A committee of experts, based on years of studies as to what has been linked to poor health.

The problem is that even experts can be wrong. Case in point: remember the food pyramid nutrition guidelines we all grew being taught that came from USDA? Canned because its nutritional guidelines were found erroneous. There's still even scientific debate over the extent to which sugar is bad for health (i.e. which types of sugars, how much, etc). Best to just make sure the most up-to-date knowledge and information is available to the public and leave people to make their own decisions about what's best for them.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The Sugar (in all it's forms) Lobby -- I guess they're well connected.

The US sugar industry in fact benefits from extensive government protections. That obviously needs to stop.

flyguy89 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Who should get to decide what qualifies as a sin tax?

A committee of experts, based on years of studies as to what has been linked to poor health.

The problem is that even experts can be wrong. Case in point: remember the food pyramid nutrition guidelines we all grew being taught that came from USDA? Canned because its nutritional guidelines were found erroneous. There's still even scientific debate over the extent to which sugar is bad for health (i.e. which types of sugars, how much, etc). Best to just make sure the most up-to-date knowledge and information is available to the public and leave people to make their own decisions about what's best for them.

You've essentially made the argument for letting experts determine what can be given a sin tax. The food pyramid was based on stats at the time; turns out they were wrong, so they came out with MyPlate (it was also more difficult to understand).

I'm not advocating for these experts to decide that everything deserves a sin tax, but if it's in a state's interest to have residents with a more active lifestyle and weaned off of sugary drinks, then they are the best we have to consult with.

einsteinboricua wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

A committee of experts, based on years of studies as to what has been linked to poor health.

The problem is that even experts can be wrong. Case in point: remember the food pyramid nutrition guidelines we all grew being taught that came from USDA? Canned because its nutritional guidelines were found erroneous. There's still even scientific debate over the extent to which sugar is bad for health (i.e. which types of sugars, how much, etc). Best to just make sure the most up-to-date knowledge and information is available to the public and leave people to make their own decisions about what's best for them.

You've essentially made the argument for letting experts determine what can be given a sin tax. The food pyramid was based on stats at the time; turns out they were wrong, so they came out with MyPlate (it was also more difficult to understand).

I'm not advocating for these experts to decide that everything deserves a sin tax, but if it's in a state's interest to have residents with a more active lifestyle and weaned off of sugary drinks, then they are the best we have to consult with.

The fact that experts erred in their nutritional guidance for an entire generation bolsters the argument to give them more power over our diet habits? Hmmm...