Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Chicago, IL, USA, IL 01/27
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue

I'm starting to feel inspired to make some chili. Normally this is prompted by the onset of cold weather, but it was nearly 80ºF here yesterday, so that's not it. This is just prompted by a couple of recipes I saw recently which were also presumably inspired by the calendar, rather than the weather. I've long wanted to try to create a version where the meat was less falling apart than my long-time method, which would be more in line with how competition chili turns out. I don't actually plan on entering any chili cookoffs, but I guess one can never predict how one thing will lead to another.

Competitive Links: Thanks Ant and Acleacius.
Play: Dragon: Fire and Fury.
Nightmare Runner 2.
Stories: Tokyo Is Preparing for Floods ‘Beyond Anything We’ve Seen.’ Thanks Slashdot.
Scientists say 43 kilos of gold is flushed through Swiss sewers each year.
Chicago's soda tax fizzled after 2 months. What does it mean for the anti-soda movement?
Science: Ten times more children and adolescents obese than 40 years ago.
Media: STAR WARS BATTLEFRONT 2 (React- Gaming).
Skins - Epic NPC Man.
A beetle bit my finger.

View
41 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

41. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 21, 2017, 13:17 RedEye9
 
The Half Elf wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 12:15:
Serious question/suggestion.

Why don't we just have a sugar/high fructose corn syrup tax instead? As I was surprised the other day reading the label on milk and seeing sugar in it.
Are you reading the actual ingredients or are you looking at the nutrition label.
Plain cow’s milk purchased in your local grocery store doesn’t contain added sugar.
 
Avatar 58135
 
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 13, 2017, 08:23 Verno
 
bigspender wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 20:54:
The problem with a lot of the food studies is that they are funded by the people that sell the product. It's annoying and time consuming, but when you go into the studies, it becomes pretty clear that they are designed to mislead.

I'm not trying to be difficult here but I've heard that song and dance before, I never see any proof follow it. There are multiple sourced studies in my links, please feel free to point out who is misleading whom and who they are funded by. I'm an open minded guy, I'm quite willing to be wrong or change my point of view but in this area I feel like the misinformation is not coming from industry. In fact I see a lot of charlatans online, many profit motivated, trying to convince people they can cure most illnesses through diet which is a complete falsehood.
 
Playing: Super Mario Odyssey, Wolfenstein II, SNES Classic
Watching: An Inconvenient Sequel, The Orville, Star Trek Voyager
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 12, 2017, 20:54 bigspender
 
Verno wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 12:52:
jdreyer wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 12:35:
The McDougall program is essentially the same as Ornish and Esselstein, and so is the reasoning: even moderate amounts of fat and cholesterol lead over time to heart disease and cancer. These basically vegan diets have been shown to be best at preventing these illnesses over 30 year longitudinal studies.

No, your body creates a lot of that "poison" itself. In much larger amounts than you consume. It is important to regulate how much fat you consume, particularly foods with trans fats but dietary cholesterol like eggs is relatively unimportant by comparison. For diabetics it is a concern, not the average person. To be honest I'm surprised to hear that still being repeated, it is considered outdated thinking by every nutrionist and doctor I know.

Because humans are genetically progammed to seek out these sweet and oily foods, and higher prices are a disincentive. Also, the money can be used for the subsidies.

I don't disagree that people seek out sodium/sugar whenever possible but I don't think taxation is the answer. First of all good luck implementing it and second it gives the opposition an easy trigger point and PR strategy. I think we can find some money to subsidize healthy foods, the government has more than enough inefficiency to address.


The problem with a lot of the food studies is that they are funded by the people that sell the product. It's annoying and time consuming, but when you go into the studies, it becomes pretty clear that they are designed to mislead.

For example one of the studies that people always show me that 'prove dietary cholesterol isn't related to blood cholesterol' is basically scam. The study takes people who already have maxed out their cholesterol (with a poor diet), so that when they feed them eggs, their cholesterol cannot climb any higher.

The worst part is that things like this you don't need a study for, you can almost do it yourself. Within 30 minutes of eating fats and cholesterol and take a blood sample you can see with your own naked eyes that they are in your blood, you can measure that your arteries stop dilating etc.


EDIT: I'm with you on subsidizing the good rather than taxing bad (although a combination of both could be very effective). I think it's harder to find loopholes when you subsidize, and from a social acceptance angle, people respond better to price drops, instead of price increases.

I guess a good start would be to stop subsidizing things such as dairy to bring prices down to an equal level.
 
_________________________________________________
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 12, 2017, 18:07 jdreyer
 
Verno wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 12:52:
jdreyer wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 12:35:
The McDougall program is essentially the same as Ornish and Esselstein, and so is the reasoning: even moderate amounts of fat and cholesterol lead over time to heart disease and cancer. These basically vegan diets have been shown to be best at preventing these illnesses over 30 year longitudinal studies.

No, your body creates a lot of that "poison" itself. In much larger amounts than you consume. It is important to regulate how much fat you consume, particularly foods with trans fats but dietary cholesterol like eggs is relatively unimportant by comparison. For diabetics it is a concern, not the average person. To be honest I'm surprised to hear that still being repeated, it is considered outdated thinking by every nutrionist and doctor I know.

Eggs and most fish may be fine, but they weren't included in the original longitudinal studies. We'd have to start a new one to find out.

Because humans are genetically progammed to seek out these sweet and oily foods, and higher prices are a disincentive. Also, the money can be used for the subsidies.

I don't disagree that people seek out sodium/sugar whenever possible but I don't think taxation is the answer. First of all good luck implementing it and second it gives the opposition an easy trigger point and PR strategy. I think we can find some money to subsidize healthy foods, the government has more than enough inefficiency to address.

I'm curious if you oppose taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Junk food is no different.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 12, 2017, 12:52 Verno
 
jdreyer wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 12:35:
The McDougall program is essentially the same as Ornish and Esselstein, and so is the reasoning: even moderate amounts of fat and cholesterol lead over time to heart disease and cancer. These basically vegan diets have been shown to be best at preventing these illnesses over 30 year longitudinal studies.

No, your body creates a lot of that "poison" itself. In much larger amounts than you consume. It is important to regulate how much fat you consume, particularly foods with trans fats but dietary cholesterol like eggs is relatively unimportant by comparison. For diabetics it is a concern, not the average person. To be honest I'm surprised to hear that still being repeated, it is considered outdated thinking by every nutrionist and doctor I know.

Because humans are genetically progammed to seek out these sweet and oily foods, and higher prices are a disincentive. Also, the money can be used for the subsidies.

I don't disagree that people seek out sodium/sugar whenever possible but I don't think taxation is the answer. First of all good luck implementing it and second it gives the opposition an easy trigger point and PR strategy. I think we can find some money to subsidize healthy foods, the government has more than enough inefficiency to address.
 
Playing: Super Mario Odyssey, Wolfenstein II, SNES Classic
Watching: An Inconvenient Sequel, The Orville, Star Trek Voyager
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 12, 2017, 12:35 jdreyer
 
Verno wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 08:54:
bigspender wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 00:03:
This doctor has personally cured some 6000 peoples obesity, plus hundreds of thousands more that have applied his methods.

He speaks a little about 'the system' which keeps people sick and obese in this presentation, it's fairly interesting.

I know anecdotes don't count for much, but he's right on the average life expactancy and still working (instead of dying) which he puts down to his lifestyle of stuffing your face with the right foods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWavdmw3rgw

The list of disallowed foods is hilarious, eggs are bad again everyone. What an absurd diet, absolute nonsense and totally unsustainable for most people. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me or not. Also be very careful when talking about "curing" people of things.
The McDougall program is essentially the same as Ornish and Esselstein, and so is the reasoning: even moderate amounts of fat and cholesterol lead over time to heart disease and cancer. These basically vegan diets have been shown to be best at preventing these illnesses over 30 year longitudinal studies.

Fat and cholesterol are poison


1. Taxes on soda, candy, and chips are one part of a multi-prong strategy to encourage healthy eating. They are an important, but not a magic bullet.

Why do we need to do this at all? Why not just subsidize healthy foods?
Because humans are genetically progammed to seek out these sweet and oily foods, and higher prices are a disincentive. Also, the money can be used for the subsidies.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 12, 2017, 12:30 Peter M. Smith
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 11:17:
I'm not sure if soda taxes are a good idea or not.
In the case of Cook County (this tax wasn't enacted at the city level, it's a county-level tax) soda tax there was no desire to improve the health of the citizens of the county. Only the health of the county's bottom line. The first thing Toni Preckwinkle said after the tax was repealed was there would be across-the-board cuts coming, as the county was (if I remember the report from news radio) expecting $200m from the tax.

Even though I don't live in the county, I work in the county, so I was roped into dealing with this nonsense. I ended up bringing in my drinks from home and storing at my desk, rather than dealing with the additional taxes.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 12, 2017, 09:43 Beamer
 
Verno wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 08:54:
bigspender wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 00:03:
This doctor has personally cured some 6000 peoples obesity, plus hundreds of thousands more that have applied his methods.

He speaks a little about 'the system' which keeps people sick and obese in this presentation, it's fairly interesting.

I know anecdotes don't count for much, but he's right on the average life expactancy and still working (instead of dying) which he puts down to his lifestyle of stuffing your face with the right foods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWavdmw3rgw

The list of disallowed foods is hilarious, eggs are bad again everyone. What an absurd diet, absolute nonsense and totally unsustainable for most people. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me or not. Also be very careful when talking about "curing" people of things.

1. Taxes on soda, candy, and chips are one part of a multi-prong strategy to encourage healthy eating. They are an important, but not a magic bullet.

Why do we need to do this at all? Why not just subsidize healthy foods?

I'd gotten into this with him before. I'm sure the doctor has some valid points, but as a whole it's terrible. Eggs are widely regarded as some of the most nutritious things out there.

Overall, it seems like a LittleMe diet - big on huge claims that go against the general consensus, light on anything else.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 12, 2017, 08:54 Verno
 
bigspender wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 00:03:
This doctor has personally cured some 6000 peoples obesity, plus hundreds of thousands more that have applied his methods.

He speaks a little about 'the system' which keeps people sick and obese in this presentation, it's fairly interesting.

I know anecdotes don't count for much, but he's right on the average life expactancy and still working (instead of dying) which he puts down to his lifestyle of stuffing your face with the right foods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWavdmw3rgw

The list of disallowed foods is hilarious, eggs are bad again everyone. What an absurd diet, absolute nonsense and totally unsustainable for most people. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me or not. Also be very careful when talking about "curing" people of things.

1. Taxes on soda, candy, and chips are one part of a multi-prong strategy to encourage healthy eating. They are an important, but not a magic bullet.

Why do we need to do this at all? Why not just subsidize healthy foods?
 
Playing: Super Mario Odyssey, Wolfenstein II, SNES Classic
Watching: An Inconvenient Sequel, The Orville, Star Trek Voyager
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 12, 2017, 08:04 Jaxx
 
Just made me some Blue’s Chili a few weeks ago for a work bbq, it’s always a hit!

I made a modified version last year with bison meat, sooooooo friggin good! And the meat is better for you too.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 12, 2017, 00:03 bigspender
 
This doctor has personally cured some 6000 peoples obesity, plus hundreds of thousands more that have applied his methods.

He speaks a little about 'the system' which keeps people sick and obese in this presentation, it's fairly interesting.

I know anecdotes don't count for much, but he's right on the average life expactancy and still working (instead of dying) which he puts down to his lifestyle of stuffing your face with the right foods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWavdmw3rgw
 
_________________________________________________
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 11, 2017, 19:25 jdreyer
 
1. Taxes on soda, candy, and chips are one part of a multi-prong strategy to encourage healthy eating. They are an important, but not a magic bullet.

2. The poor survived millennia without soda, candy, and chips. They'll be fine being discouraged spending on those empty calories. If worried, we can use the taxes to subsidize healthy food staples in a manner that the CHIP program. I was out of work when my daughter was born, and CHIP kept us healthy during those lean years.

3. The wealthy in general are already much healthier than the poor on average. Healthy eating is correlated to education, which more rich people have. They're already consuming less sugar than everyone else.

4. It's important to remember that junk food isn't really food at all. The are products designed to exploit our evolutionarily honed desires for calorie rich sweets, fats, and salts that are actually rare in nature. You never see companies advertising apples and broccoli. It's always Coke and Reece's. They exploit your weakness and separate you from your cash. These products need to be regulated just like alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and all other products with potential detriment to society.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 11, 2017, 18:19 NKD
 
jdreyer wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 17:35:
Second, few got fat eating whole foods. Our processed food transition over the past several decades has been a major culprit in our obesity. Sweetened beverages and other sweets are a huge part of that, but also chips, candy, cookies, instant ramen, chicken nuggets, sugary cereals, etc. etc. also contribute mightily and could hardly be considered "healthy."

So your plan is to tax the shit out of anything other than the produce section?

I've got a better idea, maybe we can ration food packs to people with a proper balance of carbs, fat, and protein at the correct calorie level. You only get a certain amount, and anyone found running a grey market for food they don't eat can be jailed, or perhaps killed and turned into healthy food.

"Got a problem? Legislation'll fix it!" is not really a good motto for solving problems. I can sit here all day and point out ways in which someone will easily skirt your legislation/tax proposals. If people want to eat unhealthy, there's nothing you can do about it except point out to them it's a bad idea. There's a reason the only people who support these junk food taxes are rich hipsters who shop at Whole Foods.

Rich people would be unaffected by these taxes. The poor have to do what the government says, only get to eat a prescribed amount of "healthy" foods because they can't afford anything else, and only the rich get to color outside the lines because no amount of tax is going to make their food budget too high.

This comment was edited on Oct 11, 2017, 18:34.
 
Avatar 43041
 
You are being watched.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 11, 2017, 17:35 jdreyer
 
NKD wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 16:20:

And how does that compare to getting an equal amount of sugar from another source? A source outside whatever tax scheme you've dreamed up.
Sugar isn't cocaine. People drink soda out of habit. Also, soda is especially insidious because it's mixed with water, and offers no satiety. You don't stop being hungry after drinking soda, like you might after having a piece of cake or a doughnut. That being said, yes, the best effect would be to raise the price of caloric sweeteners across the board.

Will it? I'm a fatty myself, to varying degrees depending on my success with reducing calories, but I don't have a sweet tooth or consume that much sugar at all. How did I get fat? Well I switched from football to online video games after high school, and by eating too much of normal, healthy food.
First, I bet you consume more sugar than you think. It's in everything. Check your ingredient labels. As Helf pointed out, sugar is an ingredient in his milk, for example.
Second, few got fat eating whole foods. Our processed food transition over the past several decades has been a major culprit in our obesity. Sweetened beverages and other sweets are a huge part of that, but also chips, candy, cookies, instant ramen, chicken nuggets, sugary cereals, etc. etc. also contribute mightily and could hardly be considered "healthy."

There's no tax that's going to stop me from making two grilled cheese sandwiches instead of just making one and eating half at lunch and half later in the day. That's all up to me and whether I can muster up the willpower to change my habits.
Put aside for the moment that if you're eating grilled cheese sandwiches, that you got fat eating "healthy" food. If I doubled the price of cheese, I bet you'd have an easier time making that decision.

If someones body is accustomed to eating a certain number of calories a day, they are going to keep eating that number of calories or higher in order to not feel hungry. If you raise the price of one food, they'll either just spend more on food, or switch to another to save money.
Actually untrue. Different foods have different satiety levels. Two apples have the same calories as a can of Coke, but those two apples will leave you not hungry for hours vs. mere minutes for the Coke, causing you to seek additional calories.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 11, 2017, 16:20 NKD
 
"And if that wasn’t scary enough, the researchers found that drinking just one or two serving of pop a day can increase the risk of fatal heart disease or heart attack by a whopping 35 percent."

And how does that compare to getting an equal amount of sugar from another source? A source outside whatever tax scheme you've dreamed up.

As the "War on drugs" has taught us, outright bans are prone to failure. And the poor are exactly the people who can least afford to come down with these kinds of illnesses. Raising the price on these kinds of foods and drinks will encourage them into healthier eating.

Will it? I'm a fatty myself, to varying degrees depending on my success with reducing calories, but I don't have a sweet tooth or consume that much sugar at all. How did I get fat? Well I switched from football to online video games after high school, and by eating too much of normal, healthy food.

There's no tax that's going to stop me from making two grilled cheese sandwiches instead of just making one and eating half at lunch and half later in the day. That's all up to me and whether I can muster up the willpower to change my habits.

If someones body is accustomed to eating a certain number of calories a day, they are going to keep eating that number of calories or higher in order to not feel hungry. If you raise the price of one food, they'll either just spend more on food, or switch to another to save money.
 
Avatar 43041
 
You are being watched.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 11, 2017, 16:12 jdreyer
 
NKD wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 11:40:
Cutter wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 10:21:
Considering the harm pop causes their should be a national tax on it the way Mexico does it. It works. Just like smokers who got outraged when they started taxing the shit out of smokes they'll either get smart and quit or pay the price. No one is saying you can't drink pop, but if you choose to you're just more of a burden on the system and ergo, should pay more tax to support said system.

This is some of the stupidest shit I'll read today I'm sure. Unlike cigarettes, consuming sugar water in moderation isn't going to increase health risks more than any other nutritionally bankrupt food. There is no safe amount of cigarettes you can smoke. Even periodic second-hand exposure drastically increases your odds of lung cancer, stroke, and heart attack.
Consuming sugar water in moderation absolutely increases your risk:

"And if that wasn’t scary enough, the researchers found that drinking just one or two serving of pop a day can increase the risk of fatal heart disease or heart attack by a whopping 35 percent."

Anyway, these sorts of taxes are stupid because they disproportionately impact the poor. In essence, its just a way to make money off poor people. If a product is truly too dangerous to let people purchase it, ban the sale of it.
As the "War on drugs" has taught us, outright bans are prone to failure. And the poor are exactly the people who can least afford to come down with these kinds of illnesses. Raising the price on these kinds of foods and drinks will encourage them into healthier eating.

Plus, what about the million other ways people over-indulge? Do we tax the shit out of coffee to punish caffeine addicts? Caffeine pills? Food that is calorie dense? What about high calorie drinks that aren't soda?
Caffeine has not been linked to the massive numbers of illnesses that sugar has. That being said, there has been talk of restricting, taxing, or even banning overly-caffeinated energy drinks. As for other types of foods, yeah, probably would be a good idea to double the price of candy and potato chips too.

"Soda taxes" in Mexico lowered consumption of soda, but did it lower calorie consumption? Did it reduce obesity? There is no data on that yet. In all likelyhood, people just spent their money on other junk food or drinks. You can't force people to eat healthy, or even make it difficult for them to eat unhealthy.

Taxes on junk food certainly encourages it. It's best coupled with other anti-consumption vectors like education.

You're smarter than this NKD. Please go read up.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 11, 2017, 16:05 NKD
 
Verno wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 15:13:

Personally I track my macros because I lift and I'm going for volume so they are pretty important. Other people I know just count calories and they're perfectly happy. Whatever works for someone and gets them away from the bucket of KFC is cool beans with me.

Yeah a lot of folks struggle with cutting calories in the first place without adding homework for them. I agree that starting with counting calories is good enough. If you're eating less calories than the amount you burn while sitting on your ass, then you can sit there and watch TV and jerk off while you lose weight. That's not all there is to being healthy, but frankly losing excess weight is more important than those other considerations
 
Avatar 43041
 
You are being watched.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 11, 2017, 15:48 jdreyer
 
Verno wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 12:06:
I used to support a tax on soda but I eventually realized that even if it was effective people would simply adjust habits to something else to get their fix. The real solution has to be in food education at home and in schools. Someone made a pretty compelling argument that minimizing corn subsidies would make a big difference too thanks to overuse of HFCS in...pretty much everything.

Yeah, getting rid of subsidies would be a good first step.
Unfortunately that's a national decision. Yet another issue that could be fixed by removing corporate money in politics. All that towns and states can do is control how and what is sold in stores locally.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 11, 2017, 15:45 jdreyer
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 11:44:
Mexico, obviously, isn't the US. I'm guessing 90% of the meals offered in restaurants in Mexico don't provide 1,500+ calories. Also, I'm guessing the percentage of meals eaten at restaurants in the US is much higher. However, I'm open to the possibility of being incorrect.

Would soda taxes reduce obesity in the US? Possibly. Would it be a significant reduction? I'll believe that when I see it.

I'm guessing that Mexicans don't eat out at nearly the rate of the US, being a much poorer nation. That being said, apparently Mexico has the same rates or worse of obesity than the USA.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 11, 2017, 15:32 jdreyer
 
Tipsy McStagger wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 11:07:
Creston wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 10:38:
Oh yeah, look who's #1 in the global obesity chart! WOO!

USA! USA! USA!

There's not much difference between canadians and the americans in terms of diet, we basically have the same things.

I just find it interesting how fat americans are.. but it's not surprising when I can get all you can eat buffet at KFC for like 10$. You can't find that in canada..

Culture plays a huge part. I was in the dentist office yesterday and the food channel was on showing some Southern cooking show. They made about 3 or 4 recipes, each one with copious amounts of cheese, butter, coconut oil, white potatoes, pecans, sausage, etc. etc. Not a single fruit, vegetable (except potatoes), or grain to be seen. It's no surprise to learn that the southern states have the highest rates of obesity.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo