Tony the Tiger could get the metaphorical axe. Some NASCAR drivers might have to get new paint jobs, and the Girl Scouts will have to trash the thin mints.
What could these three things possibly have in common?
If the Obama food police get their way, all of these could happen, and more.
The administration is pushing for companies to change their recipes to contain certain levels of sugar, sodium and fats, or they have to completely change their brand.
But it goes beyond normal levels of junk food.
"Although the intent of the guidelines is to combat childhood obesity, foods that are low in calories, fat, and some considered healthy foods, are also targets, including hot breakfast cereals such as oatmeal, pretzels, popcorn, nuts, yogurt, wheat bread, bagels, diet drinks, fruit juice, tea, bottled water, milk and sherbet."
The proposal has been put forward by the Federal Trade Commission, the CDC, the FDA, and the Department of Agriculture.
If the necessary changes are not made, than the companies will no longer be able to advertise their products:
"If the food is not reformulated, no more ads or promotions on TV, radio, in print, on websites, as well as other digital advertising such as e-mail and text messaging, packaging, and point-of-purchase displays and other in-store marketing tools; product placement in movies, videos, video games, contests, sweepstakes, character licensing and toy branding; sponsorship of events including sport teams and individual athletes; and, philanthropic activity tied to branding opportunities."
Ok, I will admit that we have an obesity problem in the US. I recently saw a chart at the gym that showed the obesity levels in all of the states, and most were over 20%.
Honestly though, its not only about what you eat, but how much you eat.
So what is the next step? Do we start regulating portion control? That would be impossible to do, because you couldn't enforce it.
You can't punish companies because Americans can't watch what they eat.
This is the Liberal creed: It couldn't possibly be the individuals fault, it must be those evil corporations. Let's punish them. But if you take away advertising capabilities, than companies lose revenue. They lose revenue, they lose jobs. Other companies depending on the food producers to advertise on their networks or websites will lose revenue, which will in turn lead to jobs being shed.
I understand the problem, but more regulation doesn't ever really fix the problem, it just creates another one down the line, and it isn't in the Liberal job description to think two or three steps ahead.
We see this happening in the health care debate, with the Left demonizing the insurance companies. They want to put all of the pain there, but they don't think about the damage they do to anybody else.
You want Americans skinny? Regulating the food they eat isn't going to change anything as long as they can decide how much they are going to eat.
One idea could be giving tax credits for encouraging companies to offer their employees gym memberships? Seriously…think about it. The cost you spend on the membership will help reduce the amount of insurance and medical care necessary for the company.
This could help seniors also, because a healthy body reduces all of the illnesses and disease that are found in aging citizens: Diabetes, high blood pressure and cholesterol . It would also give them a social avenue, which would increase health.
One final note, I would not be for giving benefits to individuals who are on welfare though. We want to encourage those individuals to rise above their current situation, not give them more reasons to stay on the system.
Follow me on twitter! @afrbottomline
Check out my podcast! www.afa.net/radio/talk/podcasts and click on
"The Bottom Line"