But they can regulate. For example, in Japan there was a high rate of stomach cancer because of high sodium in certain processed foods like canned fish. The government put a limit on sodium content and in subsequent years the rate of stomach cancer declined. It was considered successful and the Japanese can still decide where they will live, how to worship, who to associate with, what occupation they will choose and how many kids they will have.

They shut down the Twinkie factory because of a lack of demand. While they were gone, other less expensive items took over their shelf space. Also they say that people are now looking for healthier items.

Well stated.

Brown bagging it sounds like a good idea if they reject the healthier foods served in the cafeteria.

I wonder what those 11 items were and what the reasons were for banning them. Some might be because of fecal contamination of water used for irrigation or unacceptable pesticide levels etc..

I'm not familiar with the drink you mentioned.

Rat poop is not banned. Nor is mold.

11 Revolting Things Government Lets in Your Food

I seem to remember reading an article several years ago explaining why the New York City Health Commissioner was interested in banning trans fat. I remember him saying something to the effect that all the free bypass operations were costing New York City a lot of money. I just tried doing a search to find that information but nothing like that comes up.

But, regardless of that, there is a cost to be paid by the public. We pay for Medicaid and the VA. Medicare premiums are slowly being raised, particularly for those with higher incomes and it's not indexed for inflation. And the new health care plan offers subsidies to those who can't afford to pay. Then we have businesses that provide health care and the cost goes up as workers gain more health issues. Private insurance goes up too as disease rates increase. The health care costs of many people in nursing homes are paid for with tax dollars. And they expect an ever increasing number of people in nursing homes in the future due to Alzheimer's disease.

The national health care bill is rising rapidly and could be close to 3 trillion per year by now. I think it's unsustainable and something has got to give before long. Hasn't it been said that Rome fell from within? Could that be our fate too?

THAT is waaaaaaay tooo simplistic and essentially your own interpretation.

Kids are kids. When given a choice they will eat what tastes good to them.

Poor health may be in part due to diet, but is way too pat an answer. I would say that a lot of exercise can override a poor diet.

That's fine as long as everyone is living a reasonably healthy lifestyle. But with 2/3 of the population overweight and the national health care bill approaching 3 trillion per year, costs, whether public or private, will be more and more difficult to pay.

So far, Medicare is acceptable, but for how long?

I know, life is risky, so why do so many people add to the risk with unhealthy
lifestyle habits? My point is not to do away with insuring large groups that spread the risk, my point is to live healthier lifestyles so as to reduce to cost overall.

No, that was not my interpretation. But your reply is your interpretation of what I said.

Yes, to some extent, but not to the extent that you carry the plight of the whole world on your shoulders. Is this thread going to be about feelings now?

Absolutely. But what does that have to do with this thread?

Thank you for the compassionate comments.

How do you support your statement that in Japan reduction of salt was the reason for stomach cancer rates dropping?

THERE IS NOTHING on God's green earth that is gonna make kids choose foods that are healthy for them unless they like how they look and taste. Not Mrs. OBAMA, not a caring mother, maybe watching others enjoy a variety of fruits and vegetables MAY help, but not even Popeye could get a lot of kids from our era to like Spinach.

I read a good book by a doctor who had an explanation for why children and pregnant women don't like the healthier non-starchy vegetables. It goes like this: Children, including unborn fetuses, are in a rapid growth phase and non-starchy vegetables do not promote growth the way animal protein does. Thus nature provides a natural dislike for certain vegetables at that time.

Of course there are always exceptions but, in general, it's often difficult to get kids to eat healthy vegetables. I wouldn't expect kids to like spinach, Brussels sprouts, turnips, asparagus, collard greens, and many other such vegetables. And I wouldn't try to force them to eat those things.

On the other hand, I think there should be some reasonable standard set by schools. I don't know exactly what they serve in schools today so I can't say whether it's too strict or not.

I read about it so I support it with my memory of what I read but, unfortunately, I don't remember where I read it. This was for mainland Japan, not Okinawa.

Thanks, it's nice to know that some people understand.

I intended to concentrate on the U.S. but that's okay. It's interesting to hear about what's going on in other countries. Yes, the food industry is powerful and can exert a lot of pressure on those who write the laws.

Now some will interpret my statement to mean that I want a lot of laws written to ban various foods. I didn't say that. I simply stated that the food industry exerts a powerful influence over what happens.