Sam Kass appointed "Health food czar"

[Gaspar]

President Bush appointed 31 czars...

They included for the first time:

Foreign Aid Czar
Bioethics Czar
Bird Flu Czar
Birth Control Czar
Cleanup Czar
Cyber Security Czar
Faith-Based Czar
Intelligence Czar
Reading Czar
Weatherization Czar

Actually it started with Regan I believe. 

[RecycleMichael]

FDR appointed the first people with the nickname "Czar" back in 1941.

The first were:

Czar of Censorship
Transportation Czar 
Price Czar
Oil Czar

There are no real titles of Czar, just a term for political purposes.

[Gaspar]

Just found it very interesting, especially with our discusson of the new food Czar.  From Quick Service Restaurant Magazine.

http://www.qsrweb.com/blog/4865/A-Leg-Up-on-Legislation

How to keep your brand one step ahead of the law.

Now and then an irate Ayatollah or North Korea's Dear Leader issues a statement against depraved Western influences that threaten order and decorum. Over breakfast, we hear about the new Silly Bandz fatwa and think, "Yikes! When are these peoples' governments not all up in their lives?" We thank heaven we aren't living there as we bite into a trans fat-free, cage-free, reduced-salt breakfast sandwich, which we wash down with eco friendly-packaged, non-fructose orange juice (grand total: 440 calories, 59 carbs, 710mg sodium, 16g fat, 180mg cholesterol, 13g protein, 35g sugar).

Those involved with the restaurant sector may also pause to wonder, "Geez, when is our government going to stop getting all up in our menus?"

The answer, dear reader, is "Never." So best figure out early how to deal with watchdog regulation and its brand implications.

Today would not be too soon to start. The decibel level is climbing as elected officials and consumer groups voice their dismay over obesity, rising health costs and factory farming ... and lay the blame on "Big Food" — the QSR chains and processed food companies with the highest visibility. As McDonald's recently found out, proposed changes — i.e., a threatened lawsuit to make the company stop giving out Happy Meal toys — can jeopardize the very features that distinguish and differentiate a brand.

So, how can Not-So-Big Food shield itself from the fallout of Big Food-aimed legislation?

[we vs us]

Just found it very interesting, especially with our discusson of the new food Czar.  From Quick Service Restaurant Magazine.

http://www.qsrweb.com/blog/4865/A-Leg-Up-on-Legislation

How to keep your brand one step ahead of the law.

Now and then an irate Ayatollah or North Korea's Dear Leader issues a statement against depraved Western influences that threaten order and decorum. Over breakfast, we hear about the new Silly Bandz fatwa and think, "Yikes! When are these peoples' governments not all up in their lives?" We thank heaven we aren't living there as we bite into a trans fat-free, cage-free, reduced-salt breakfast sandwich, which we wash down with eco friendly-packaged, non-fructose orange juice (grand total: 440 calories, 59 carbs, 710mg sodium, 16g fat, 180mg cholesterol, 13g protein, 35g sugar).

Those involved with the restaurant sector may also pause to wonder, "Geez, when is our government going to stop getting all up in our menus?"

The answer, dear reader, is "Never." So best figure out early how to deal with watchdog regulation and its brand implications.

Today would not be too soon to start. The decibel level is climbing as elected officials and consumer groups voice their dismay over obesity, rising health costs and factory farming ... and lay the blame on "Big Food" — the QSR chains and processed food companies with the highest visibility. As McDonald's recently found out, proposed changes — i.e., a threatened lawsuit to make the company stop giving out Happy Meal toys — can jeopardize the very features that distinguish and differentiate a brand.

So, how can Not-So-Big Food shield itself from the fallout of Big Food-aimed legislation?

It's good to know that every industry squawks about how it's being unfairly regulated.  Or might be unfairly regulated.  Or at some point regulators might start to unfairly regulate it if they were to regulate more strictly.  Specifically under a Democratic President, because, holy crap, they're TOTALLY anti-business, you know?

In other words: 

[Gaspar]

I don't think they're anti-business.  They just feel like they need to impose control over the market.  It's a power thing. 

The market is injustice.  Business is injustice. Why?  Because those with more get more, and those with less get less.  The message of business is "buy", "buy".  The goal of business is profit.

In business, profit and product quality are a balance.  A Big Mac is cheap, it's made of cheap crap.  It will make you fat.  Therefore to the left, it is injustice, because you are too stupid to make your own decisions, they will make them for you.  This is how it starts.

In the end, you are getting pulled over in your convertible for having the top down because the new UV regulations require you to wear SPF 56 or keep the top up on your car.  The government is responsible for your health.  It is in their best interest to regulate your freedom.

It's for your health.  It's to keep you safe.  It's for your own good.

For your own good" is a persuasive argument that will eventually make a man agree to his own destruction. – Janet Frame, Faces In The Water, 1982

[Cats Cats Cats]

I don't think they're anti-business.  They just feel like they need to impose control over the market.  It's a power thing. 

The market is injustice.  Business is injustice. Why?  Because those with more get more, and those with less get less.  The message of business is "buy", "buy".  The goal of business is profit.

In business, profit and product quality are a balance.  A Big Mac is cheap, it's made of cheap crap.  It will make you fat.  Therefore to the left, it is injustice, because you are too stupid to make your own decisions, they will make them for you.  This is how it starts.

In the end, you are getting pulled over in your convertible for having the top down because the new UV regulations require you to wear SPF 56 or keep the top up on your car.  The government is responsible for your health.  It is in their best interest to regulate your freedom.

It's for your health.  It's to keep you safe.  It's for your own good.

For your own good" is a persuasive argument that will eventually make a man agree to his own destruction. – Janet Frame, Faces In The Water, 1982

Except the tax payers pick up the bill if you are on medicaid for your skin cancer from not wearing sun screen.  Thanks to Bush's reforms now the Gov. is the first payer. 

"Don't cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong. " - Newt Gingrich http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704820904575055190217079952.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular

[Gaspar]

Except the tax payers pick up the bill if you are on medicaid for your skin cancer from not wearing sun screen.  Thanks to Bush's reforms now the Gov. is the first payer. 

"Don't cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong. " - Newt Gingrich http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704820904575055190217079952.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular

Good points.  don't care about Bush.  Don't care about Newt.

You see, the result of regulations and taxes is always more layers of regulations and taxes.  No matter who's team is doing it.  Regulation must be minimized, not built on. Don't tell me what to eat or when to poop.  Let me make good decisions and bad decisions.  Don't make a bacon cheese burger contraband.

[Conan71]

Precisely the reason I'm trying to practice proactive health care by watching what I eat and by getting adequate exercize.

[nathanm]

Don't make a bacon cheese burger contraband.

Is someone trying to do that? Or are they merely attempting to balance out the immense power of advertising wielded by the likes of McDonald's (which I do occasionally eat at, thanks) by helping consumers be better informed.

Not that I think it's at all a bad thing to tax the smile out of junk food. Nobody should be allowed to externalize their costs, whether it be McDonald's, a power company, an oil company, a construction company, or anybody else. Market prices should reflect the entire cost, otherwise the market is distorted.

That's something big-L Libertarians don't get. The folks running big business are happy to distort the market, and apparently that's OK. But when government attempts to fix the distortion, whether by making sure people are more fully informed, through taxes to recoup the costs of production borne by society at large, or through regulation attempting to prevent companies from doing that in the first place, that's never OK.

As a great example, look at sprawl. Developers are often subsidized by government-paid-for infrastructure expansions to reach these far away places, thus allowing them to make more money while charging less for the end product. The artificially low price induces people to live out in sprawlsville.

[Gaspar]

Is someone trying to do that? Or are they merely attempting to balance out the immense power of advertising wielded by the likes of McDonald's (which I do occasionally eat at, thanks) by helping consumers be better informed.

Not that I think it's at all a bad thing to tax the smile out of junk food. Nobody should be allowed to externalize their costs, whether it be McDonald's, a power company, an oil company, a construction company, or anybody else. Market prices should reflect the entire cost, otherwise the market is distorted.

That's something big-L Libertarians don't get. The folks running big business are happy to distort the market, and apparently that's OK. But when government attempts to fix the distortion, whether by making sure people are more fully informed, through taxes to recoup the costs of production borne by society at large, or through regulation attempting to prevent companies from doing that in the first place, that's never OK.

As a great example, look at sprawl. Developers are often subsidized by government-paid-for infrastructure expansions to reach these far away places, thus allowing them to make more money while charging less for the end product. The artificially low price induces people to live out in sprawlsville.

Stop subsidizing people's health and then you don't need to control their lives. 

Education is the tool that people need, not control. 

I love a cheap buffet, but I don't eat Golden Corral every day because I know better.  In New York there is actually legislation to remove salt shakers from restaurant tables.  So rather than persuading the public to eat healthier through education and example, legislators choose to simply reduce freedom.  Why?  Force is easy and it is the primary tool of the liberal establishment.

The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society. – Mark Skousen

[we vs us]

Stop subsidizing people's health and then you don't need to control their lives.  

Education is the tool that people need, not control.  

I love a cheap buffet, but I don't eat Golden Corral every day because I know better.  In New York there is actually legislation to remove salt shakers from restaurant tables.  So rather than persuading the public to eat healthier through education and example, legislators choose to simply reduce freedom.  Why?  Force is easy and it is the primary tool of the liberal establishment.

The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society. – Mark Skousen

Do you know the salt content of the food you eat every day?  

Do you know the sugar content?

[nathanm]

Stop subsidizing people's health and then you don't need to control their lives. 

Education is the tool that people need, not control. 

Yet the same people, by and large, who complain about "control" also complain when we try to force restaurants to post nutrition information regarding their food. In any event, you missed my point entirely. Way to go.

[Gaspar]

Do you know the salt content of the food you eat every day?  

Do you know the sugar content?

Most of the time, but not always.  Is it the government's responsibility to tell me how much I can have?

I don't know how much UV I get from the sun every day.  I don't know a lot of things about what I encounter in my environment every day.  Do I want the government to step in and increasingly regulate everything that surrounds me?

Not really.  Why?  Because it cripples me as much as it protects me.

I eat very healthy.  Sometimes I want a rack of ribs (basted with 3 Guys Smokin' Smokin' Razz award winning BBQ sauce available at your local Reasor's Store) and a bag of salty salty potato chips.  Not every day, but sometimes.  I don't want anyone to tell me "no, you can't have that, because it's not good for you."

I want my government to treat me like an adult.  A free adult.

[Conan71]

Not that I think it's at all a bad thing to tax the smile out of junk food. Nobody should be allowed to externalize their costs, whether it be McDonald's, a power company, an oil company, a construction company, or anybody else. Market prices should reflect the entire cost, otherwise the market is distorted.

I'm missing something here.  What costs is McDonalds externalizing?  You mean they should be responsible to pay for people's angioplasty because common sense told those people junk food is, well, junk and they didn't heed that common sense?

Please explain...

[we vs us]

Most of the time, but not always.  Is it the government's responsibility to tell me how much I can have?

No, but it would be good if it could tell you how much you're having.