Yesterday, June 12th, marked World Day Against Child Labor. For this occasion I highlight the plight of young children employed to work in the tobacco agribusiness in the United States. It is estimated, by Deutsche Welle, that 500,000 children labor in this market; most are exposed to hazardous conditions ranging from exposure to high levels of nicotine and pesticides, farm implements, and long working hours among others. Variances in the standard federal child labor standards permit tobacco growers to employ children–some of whom are under twelve years in age.
After decades of public objection and later government restrictions on advertisements, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to minors for reasons not limited to just health and nicotine dependency, the cultivation of “green tobacco” by children exposes them often to immediately hazardous levels of nicotine at often unconscionably young ages.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2013 published an extensive study into the child labor practices of the tobacco growers industry in four states: North Carolina; Kentucky; Tennessee; and Virginia. According to this study one hundred and forty one children participating in the tobacco harvests of 2012 and 2013 were interviewed by HRW. Ages of these children ranged from seventeen to as young as seven.
According to this study, “nearly three quarters of those interviewed reported sudden onsets of serious illnesses—including nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, difficulty breathing, irritations to their eyes and mouths—while working in the fields of tobacco plants and barns with dried tobacco leaves and tobacco dust. Many of these symptoms are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning.”
Duties assigned to children in tobacco cultivation and harvesting included seed planting, topping, thinning undesirable leaves, applying pesticides, harvesting leaves by hand or with machinery, cutting plants with sharpened tobacco knives, storage and removal of cured leaves from barns, and stripping and sorting dried leaves.
Resulting from these exposures, often from unprotected skin and lax safety policies, children suffer often from a condition known as Green Tobacco Sickness. This illness is an occupational disease caused by workers absorbing nicotine through their skin after prolonged exposure to the plants. These symptoms, references earlier, are identified by Public and Occupation health officials. The long term effects are currently unknown though other studies on the usage of tobacco products (such as smoking) in adolescents may have links to complications in brain development. Public health research indicates that non-smoking workers in tobacco agriculture have similar levels of nicotine in their bodies as do smokers in the general population.
The study contained interviews consistent with their findings generally, where child workers reported being sprayed by pesticides applied to rows nearby causing illnesses contemporaneously. To mitigate this environment the children often would bring plastic garbage bags with them that they could fashion into ad-hoc raingear to resist spray landing on their clothes and skin—though this did not protect necessarily their hands and faces.
Due to the nature of tobacco cultivation and harvesting occurring within the summer months, the combination of high levels of heat and long hours of labor puts great amount of stresses on children that often culminate with heat stroke and dehydration. Compliance with break time standards is widely varied with some farms providing a reasonable break period for workers and others mandating that workers continue almost without pause.
The introduction of labor contractors, those who sell labor for a fixed price to farmers and where the workers are actually the employees of the contractor, has provided an opportunity for exploitation. Since these contractors retain earnings based on the margin between the revenue from the farm and the labor costs they endure, the temptation to extract more earnings often becomes high; especially in light of the fact that most workers are of an economic underclass that is less likely to report labor abuses and especially in the case of children having not the life experience or foreknowledge of what constitutes a proper and healthy working environment.
Compounding the problem is that current U.S. child labor laws permit children to labor in tobacco farms with liberal policies that permit very young children to work simply with parental permission to do so. It is often the case where this parental permission is granted by parents who also work on these farms where low wages create a need and temptation for parents allowing their children to work to supplement household incomes. Small farms are given the most leeway to employ young children. Agriculture is permitted by federal law to employ children as young as twelve with parental permission but with these small farms children under twelve may labor with parental consent. In all other industries the employment of children under fourteen is prohibited, and children fourteen to fifteen may only be employed in certain jobs with a limited number of hours each day.
The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for work in tobacco farms. Some employers caused children to be paid on a piece basis which can in some respects be exploited to motivate children to perform more productively than what is reasonable for their abilities. HRW reported children interviewed expressed that they are often confused as to the actual wage they are paid and some stating they were actually paid less than the minimum permitted. Contractors were said to stoop to the level of charging children for necessities such as water and for inaccurate recording of work performed.
Internationally, treaties ratified by the United States might actually be in conflict with current federal child labor laws and their applicability to the tobacco farming industry. HRW addresses this as follows:
International Standards on Child Labor
via Human Rights Watch
In recognition of the potential benefits of some forms of work, international law does not prohibit children from working. The International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, which the US has ratified, obligates
countries to prohibit certain types of work for children under age 18 as a matter of urgency, including work that is likely to jeopardize children’s physical or mental health, safety or morals (also known as hazardous labor). The ILO leaves it up to governments to determine which occupations are hazardous to children’s health. Several countries, including major tobacco producing countries such as Brazil and India, prohibit children under 18 from performing work in tobacco farming. Based on our field research, interviews with health professionals, and analysis of the public health literature, Human Rights Watch has concluded that no child under age 18 should be permitted to perform any tasks in which they will come into direct contact with tobacco plants of any size or dried tobacco leaves, due to the health risks posed by nicotine, the pesticides applied to the crop, and the particular health risks to children whose bodies and brains are still developing.
The ILO Worst Forms of Child Labor
Recommendation states that certain types of work in an unhealthy environment may be appropriate for children ages 16 and older “on the condition that the health, safety and morals of the children concerned are fully protected, and that the children have received adequate specific instruction or vocational training in the relevant branch of activity.” Because exposure to tobacco in any form is unsafe, Human Rights Watch has determined, based on our field investigations and other research, that as a practical matter there is no way for children under 18 to work safely on US tobacco farms when they have direct contact with tobacco plants of any size or dried tobacco leaves, even if wearing protective equipment. Though protective equipment may help mitigate exposure to nicotine and pesticide residues, rain suits and watertight gloves would not completely eliminate absorption of toxins through the skin and would greatly increase children’s risk of suffering health related illnesses. Such problems documented by Human Rights Watch in the US seem likely to extend to tobacco farms outside the United States
HRW called upon the tobacco product manufactures and tobacco leaf companies to provide statements of their policy to address the issue of child labor. The NGO queried “companies that source tobacco from the states we visited. Eight of those companies manufacture tobacco products (Altria Group, British American Tobacco, China National Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Group, Japan Tobacco Group, Lorillard, Philip Morris International, and Reynolds American), and two are leaf merchant companies (Alliance One International and Universal Corporation).”
In the months prior to the release of this report, HRW sent letters to each company and requested a response along with a request to meeting with company officials to discuss the issue. The HRW report stated the following regarding these exchanges:
Nine companies responded to Human Rights Watch and stated that they took steps to prohibit child labor in their supply chains. Only China National Tobacco did not respond to Human Rights Watch’s letter or repeated attempts to secure a meeting with company executives.
All of the tobacco manufacturing companies and leaf supply merchants that replied to Human Rights Watch expressed concerns about child labor in their supply chain. Only a few of the companies have explicit child labor policies in place. The approaches to child labor in the supply chain varied from company to company, as detailed below. Human Rights Watch correspondence with these companies is included in an appendix to this report, available on the Human Rights Watch website.
Of the companies approached by Human Rights Watch, Philip Morris International (PMI) has developed the most detailed and protective set of policies and procedures, including training and policy guidance on child labor and other labor issues which it is implementing in its global supply chain. PMI has also developed specific lists of hazardous tasks that children under 18 are prohibited from doing on tobacco farms, which include most tasks in which children come into prolonged contact with mature tobacco leaves, among other hazardous work.
Several companies stated that in their US operations they required tobacco growers with whom they contract to comply with US law, including laws on child labor, which, as noted above, do not afford sufficient protections for children. These companies stated that their policies for tobacco purchasing in countries outside of the US were consistent with international law, including with regard to a minimum age of 15 for entry into work under the ILO Minimum Age Convention, with the exception of certain light work, and a prohibition on hazardous work for children under 18, unless national laws afford greater protections. However, most companies did not specify the tasks that they consider to constitute hazardous work. Under these standards, children working in tobacco farming can remain vulnerable to serious health hazards and risks associated with contact with tobacco plants and tobacco leaves. A number of companies stated that they had undertaken internal and third party monitoring of their supply chains to examine labor conditions, including the use of child labor, as defined within the scope of their existing policies.
100 years later are we still doing enough?
To commemorate World Day Against Child Labor it is time to perhaps seek a reassessment of the need to employ children in an occupation that studies have shown is hazardous to their health, especially during their development. We as a society have said no to the notion of children consuming nicotine as end users but we have been mostly blind to the poisonous effect of the substance on children participating in its cultivation. Yet with inconsistent oversight by tobacco companies of their farm suppliers, it is likely that opposition from the tobacco states will result in protective child labor laws. The indifference to the subject by Congress is often due to lack of demands from their constituents and heavy lobbying efforts by the tobacco industry. It is not likely these children will see improvement in their young lives as long as they are employed in an industry that in many ways is shown to be detrimental to their wellbeing.
Since approximately ninety percent of the tobacco produced in the United States comes from these four tobacco states, it is probable that they industry still will survive the additional cost of a tobacco leaf that is harvested by an adult or machine instead of a child but it is unlikely tobacco agribusinesses will want you to believe such a reality.
A true measure of a society is how well it treats its most vulnerable.
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
229 thoughts on “The Tobacco Industry And Child Labor”
Ahhhh, and a Fox link describing the problem, too. I’m going to be busy making T-shirts for the new members. 🙂
Loading...
How lovely to see the admission that regulations can actually be bad, whether they are in a red or blue state. This is a national issue, as the link to the lemonade gestapo map illustrates.
So the next time anyone jumps on conservatives when they want to re-visit a regulation, we will have this thread to refer to. Clearly the point has been made that not all regulations are good.
Time for a feel good story as long as we are off topic anyway.
“Just leave me alone. I’ve lived her for 59 years. I don’t know how much longer I’ve got to live here. I’ll be 76 in July. I’m 75 now and I’ve never had a speeding ticket. I’ve never had a parking ticket — and now here I’ve got a warrant for my arrest from the big city of Riesel,” Suttle told KWTX.”
A poor elderly woman’s grass got too high in Texas and was going to be arrested. Two boys stepped up and mowed her lawn for her, what great kids. What the hell is wrong with Texas, first the Lemonade stand and little girls, now arresting an elderly woman over long grass? For a conservative state they sure seem to have a lot of regulations.
Loading...
Paul – the lemonade stands don’t have high priced lobbyists like the tobacco industry does. That’s why we end up with weird restrictions on snow shoveling but not exposure to pesticides or nicotine.
I say take out all special interest funding.
And I oppose regulations that make government responsible for cradle to grave making decision for the people such as what to eat.
Loading...
Movies like “Supersize Me” and other educational efforts are far preferable over government taking over our decisions.
Government defends our border (or is supposed to), and builds infrastructure, and basically keeps everything running so we can go about our free lives. It does not investigate the lunch box contents of children or decide what adults should be allowed to eat.
Loading...
Paul – they’ll probably just keep deferring it, or soften it somehow. It would be political suicide otherwise.
I wish they’d have let the law hit as it was written, all at once, as they were legally obligated to do. There would be no smug derision from those who are not affected. Heck, repealing Obamacare would have likely been a cornerstone of Hillary’s campaign.
Speaking of which, is The Queen granting tough interviews yet, or is she still too frightened? She’ll get the Dem votes regardless. Polls show her media blackout had no effect on her popularity. Polls showing most people thought she was dishonest had no effect on her popularity.
I don’t get this phenomenon. If I found out my favorite candidate was untrustworthy, I wouldn’t vote for her. She’ll have access to The Red Button, you know she’s untrustworthy, and you still want to vote for her??? I would either vote for someone else or stay home. But, full disclosure, I would vote for a trained ferret before I would vote for either Hillary or Warren. Ferrets are cute.
Loading...
I want to add that it may be due to special interest money that we end up with regulations that target lemonade stands but allow green tobacco poisoning in children.
Remove corporation and union donations, and limit contributions to individual people, with reasonable limits, as Aridog suggested earlier. That would defang special interest meddling, and make our politicians more answerable to their constituents.
Loading...
Karen – just which special interest is driving out lemonade stands? 🙂
Loading...
Aridog – ““Social Engineering” is what the EPA does now, since they’re expanding wetlands and waterways to virtually anything that is ever wet. That is no different than a private monopoly or oligarchy, just dressed up in federal outfits. And one reason why I do not trust government to protect children or kids from dangers…especially those not yet fully diagnosed scientifically.”
So true.
Loading...
Isaac:
“As for the original topic of this post, I see no reason why, when a high risk is discovered, for adults or children that it should not be managed and regulated.”
This thread has to run something like 9 pages now. The general consensus of the thread is that kids should not be exposed to hazards or over work.
“The regulatory protections in place today make sense” – Actually no. If our regulations shut down lemonade stands and snow shoveling, but allow picking tobacco and Green Tobacco Poisoning, that would be a resounding “No!”
Sweeping floors, shoveling snow, babysitting, selling lemonade, or picking (I now add organic!) apples on Grandpa’s farm is consistent with that caveat.
Loading...
And a Libertarian, Republican, or conservative Democrat can be a fiscal conservative. Pretty much anyone except a Liberal.
Loading...
I drink soda very rarely, maybe a couple of times a year. And yet, it is anathema to me to even consider taxing them in order to force poor people not to buy them. Because it’s the poor whom the tax would most affect.
It’s not necessary for a tax to affect me to care about its affect.
I cannot understand this Liberal trend to impose taxes on “other people.” The health conscious want to tax the unhealthy to force them to change their own decisions. It’s just the most basic freedom to choose what you put in your own mouth. But those same people sputter and protest when higher taxes affect them. I recall a meager $26 payroll tax caused massive outrage, but there is such disdain when the middle class complain about having to pay HUNDREDS more a month on Obamacare premiums. Those same disdainful people will change their tune when the mandate hits and it affects employers.
But this is basic human nature. I recall reading about a psychiatric study in college where subjects were more likely to push a button that shocked someone else than shock themselves. (Seriously, they needed to prove this?) People who lack self awareness apply this behavior to taxation.
People with self awareness become fiscal conservatives.
Loading...
Karen – what until the Obamacare premiums hit this year. There will not be a Democrat left in the country, even Obama will change to Republican.
Loading...
Issac said ..
I know this means an infringement of the 2nd amendment to some…
Actually, in many states what you suggest, more or less, is the law already, other than the magazine capacities and automatic issues. The latter are spurious to the use firearms are put to, but I’d agree on the full automatic point. I’ve had several rancorous discussions, where I was derided for suggesting common sense improvements in pistols, such as “de-cocker” mechanisms were in fact better.
All private money, union money, billionaire money, etc. The governments of Canada and other more progressive countries fund their political campaigns based on the number of votes the candidate represents.
The part highlighted bothers me…why not equal funding to all candidates if their party, or their last election run, met a minimum threshold of votes? For example, are those criteria, where applied, threshold values that when met give equal funding to all candidates remaining? Or is the funding allocated based upon prior election votes? It would seem that allowing all manner of funding to “surface” candidates weakens the concept. I’d further limit the “individual contribution” by the candidates themselves to the same limits for all others…e.g., no self funded candidacy.
That said, I can’t wholly sponsor government funding of elections with no individual voter contributions. Some form of it is available now, but few pols elect to take it. Maybe when the government itself is drastically changed…e.g., reduced in size and special interests I could get behind funding in the manner you suggest. As it is now I’d not trust it because I worked in it for so long….and witnessed the financial manipulations performed.
Finally, I despise “caucuses” and would eliminate them if I could…only a primary election should anoint candidates, period.
As for the original topic of this post, I see no reason why, when a high risk is discovered, for adults or children that it should not be managed and regulated. An example would be asbestos exposure. I was exposed routinely for decades, as well as to chemicals like raw cyanide, but so far have not found ill effects. I’ve had cancer, but not of the Mesothelioma type. Doesn’t mean I won’t down the road. The regulatory protections in place today make sense….even if you have to expose yourself to loose asbestos to remedy it….which I have also done in more recent years. I just don’t favor taxes as a means to do “regulation.” “Social Engineering” is what the EPA does now, since they’re expanding wetlands and waterways to virtually anything that is ever wet. That is no different than a private monopoly or oligarchy, just dressed up in federal outfits. And one reason why I do not trust government to protect children or kids from dangers…especially those not yet fully diagnosed scientifically.
Loading...
Isaac:
“Grains are an important part of any diet.”
No. They are not. This shows the common nutritional ignorance spawned by the US Governments Food Pyramid. You do NOT need grain to survive. They are not important, necessary, or even helpful to your diet. A diet that exists exclusively of healthy foods would include meat, fish, poultry, nuts, fruit, vegetables, etc. The only time that grain is really useful is for vegans, who would otherwise be very hard pressed to get enough calories in their diet.
Grain does come from a plant. But it has extremely poor nutritional value. That is why manufacturers have to add synthetic acid. Which then the grain binds and prevents absorption. READ the back of your porridge box, and be sure to note the ingredients. Not only with it have very limited vitamins, but you will find those vitamins added in the list of ingredients. Look at a bag of whole grains. The processed grains remove the germ, which has the very limited nutrition of grain. That has to be added back. They still add vitamins to most whole grains, as well.
Sugar is a carbohydrate. So is grain. We feed whole grains to horses if we need to keep their weight up, but it is also known as a “hot feed” because it’s basically like feeding them sugar. This is similar to its effects on humans.
How does the average American consume grains 4 times a day: cereal or porridge for breakfast, sandwich for lunch, chips for a snack, pasta for dinner, cookies for dessert. It’s all carbohydrates all the time.
There are plenty of studies now that examine the detrimental health effects of our over-dependence on grains. The reason why I am on my anti-grain soap box is because I am trying to show you that not all of your choices are superior, and that you might, actually, have the taxes you espouse affect you, and not just “other people.” You included sugar in your list of deadly sins like tobacco, and so that is the thread that I followed.
Since you have, once again, refused to answer a very simple question, I deduce your answer as follows: You would NOT support the government taxing something that YOU LIKED and that you DISAGREED with not being allowed to have it.
Thank you for the edifying exchange. I’m sure this makes you very uncomfortable to realize. Many Liberals go through this period of catharsis before becoming fiscal conservatives or Libertarians, or even conservative Democrats. Let me know when you’re ready to receive your “Welcome to The Club” T-shirt.
Loading...
Please help. Comment not posting. Thanks.
Loading...
For Karen and Isaac
Here is a link to a group of scientists and links within the article that states that the Federal Dietary Guidelines are not scientifically based and are basically bunk. Junk science.
I’ve always known this, that the food guidelines were a pack of dopy lies, and we eat a varied diet that includes sugar, butter,eggs, meat, fish, dairy, grains, fruits, vegetables and of COURSE coffee and alcohol. Moderation in all things. I don’t worry about what the government says because they don’t have a clue and they keep changing the forbidden foods. Trying to scare us.
Use common sense when eating. Avoid too much of anything for example high sugar foods in excess. High fat in excess. Eat what is in season. Right now lots of fruit, fresh vegetables and salads.
However, it isn’t going to take away your trip to Heaven if you indulge in some creme brulee or a bit fat slice of chocolate cake once in a while. That juicy rib eye isn’t going to kill you if you splurge once in a while.
The minute someone starts in lecturing me about my food…..or anything else…..I assume that they don’t have any idea what they are talking about and tune them out. In fact…..it makes me WANT to go out and buy some Sugar Pops, just because I haven’t had any in about 45years. 😀
Our average breakfast. Oatmeal with some fruit mixed in, like raisins or craisins or blueberries or peaches. Whatever is in season. Big dollop of butter and cane sugar for sweetener, half and half also. A couple of slices of bacon once in a while. Sometimes I will make scrambled eggs with heavy cream to make them fluffy and creamy and have some sausage patties. Muffins or toast with home made jam (wild plum is our favorite)
Lunch: Yesterday. Ham sandwiches made with sliced mozzarella, roasted red peppers, lettuce, mayo, mustard on cracked wheat bread and sliced peaches. A handful of corn chips Water. I don’t drink milk.
Dinner: Yesterday. because it is freaking HOT here. Sliced hard salami,sliced ham (left over from lunch) brie cheese, mozzarella, cheddar cheese, several different types of crackers. a medely of olives (black, kalamata, green stuffed with anchovies, green stuffed garlic, green stuffed with romano-parmesan cheese in olive oil, green grapes, red grapes, sliced nectarines. Wine.
Tonight we are having chicken breast parmesan: pounded, breaded with panko and parmesan cheese sauteed in butter and peanut oil. YES butter. Linguini in a sauce of minced garlic, olive oil, butter YES…more butter … with basil and hot red pepper flakes. Caesar salad with home made croutons from an old loaf of sour dough bread. Haven’t decided on dessert yet. Maybe some ice cream with strawberries macerated in cane sugar, in season and the Vietnamese farmers have the best vine ripened strawberries YUM.
Because we are older, we don’t eat as much as we used to eat.
What I choose to eat is no one’s concern and certainly not the government’s to try to force me to eat what they consider to be a good diet.
Loading...
Dust Bunny Queen,
I retrieved your comment on 2015/06/14 at 10:42 am
Loading...
You can measure society all you want, but I don’t think it can be stopped. Certainly, in history it never has been, except by itself. Maybe the internet will change that, but the lack of intelligent understanding by the majority seems to be a limiting factor. I hear you, but it is a little like listening to the Grateful Dead – those that get it love it, but if you don’t get it you are mystified by those that are devoted.
Loading...
Karen
First of all grains are not, “almost like sugar’. I’ll replace ‘cherry picking’ which can be and is used in place of selecting examples that do not illustrate a situation but are ‘picked’ to support an argument, with ‘picked’. Your arguments are typically based on selective points that are then exaggerated in an attempt to smother the argument you are addressing. There are others of your ilk who perform in a similar manner; one in particular who will chastise, with vitriol, the writer of the offending position for grammatical errors as if that would add weight to their position.
But enough regarding your style. Grains are an important part of any diet. Your expose’ on gluten and other randomly ‘picked’ parts of nuggets of new discoveries follow the typical tabloid design of assembling a selection of findings to organize a position, leaving out any elements that would work to neutralize or oppose that position. That carbs turn into sugar and can be stored as fat takes away none of the nutritional value of grains. The more refined a grain, the less nutritious. Some grains are more nutritious than others. Not all people celebrate Lent. Not all people are affected by gluten the same way. In fact most people’s systems handle gluten just fine, if ingested in moderate amounts. The same is true with dairy, fruit, and vegetables. Years ago two health nuts poisoned themselves to death taking in too much raw carrot. Some foods are better cooked, some are better raw, all cleaned up some organic is no better than some conventionally grown food. The crux of the problem is concentrated elements in meats, vegetables, grains, and fruits that big agriculture uses for efficiency and profit. We need to address that as a society, under the banner of social engineering.
My point in comparing my childhood breakfasts, in this case grains, with those that come soaked in refined sugar was evidently missed by you as you ‘picked’ an unrelated morsel of some article you might have read and went off the beam exaggerating for effect. We did’t have porridge four times a day. Some weeks included bacon and eggs, pancakes, etc as well. Bacon is actually good in moderate amounts. Eggs have been scientifically proven to be both good and bad, depending on the research du jour. Take a shot at liver and onions, spinach, and mashed potatoes while you’re at it. I would like to understand further how my parents ‘neglected’ us. Again, your selective pounce followed by an exaggerated ramble of associated sparks of ‘picked’ nuggets only weakens your position.
Your linking of the obvious connection between poisons such as tobacco, alcohol, and super refined sugars and adulterated grains and much of America’s costly health problems and eating too much of one or another type of good food is typical of the argumentative style of yourself and some others on this blog. It does not inform, educate, or assist in an intelligent exchange of ideas. Try a little subtlety with your sarcasm. Choose more carefully your examples. Cherry pick less and try and stay on the beam.
We tax most, if not all, commodities. The freedom of producing crap and the freedom of eating crap is not the issue. The issue put forth earlier was simply that excessive use of tobacco, alcohol, and super refined grains and sugars, for simplicity’s sake to be referred to as ‘Twinkies’, is not only bad for the individual or the sacred I but costly for the We, which by the way is composed of a whole lot of I’s. We are the government that We developed and continue to develop to protect our selves I by I from ignorance and fraud. Tobacco, soft drink companies, Post and Kellogs, do better financially when the public is kept ignorant and when the government regulates little or not at all. History proves this to be so. The FDA is there for a reason.
That government is not perfect is a call to perfect government, not do away with it. The problem with social engineering is how it’s done, not whether or not it’s done. It’s done from day one, has been since day one. Tax the dangerous crap ingested by the sacred I and direct the proceeds to offsetting the health costs that burden the We. Leave porridge alone for the moment. We’ll get to that; come the revolution.
Loading...
Isaac:
“Still cherry picking. Dentists will tell you to brush your teeth. I have all mine. I am in tip top shape. It’s not eating porridge that will harm you. It’s eating only carbs. Porridge for breakfast is a great and healthy start to the day. My point, which you missed and I see why, is that kids are habituated to having sugar with whatever they eat, and fat, and salt, etc. It’s all about the habits and what one gets used to. I’m surprised you didn’t spout off about dried fruit/raisins. They will rot your teeth if you don’t brush.”
No, Isaac. You are missing my point. Again. I’ve asked you a single question repeatedly. “Cherry picking” does not mean what you think it means.
You want to tax food that other people buy. You have chosen sugar, for example. I have pointed out that grain is almost identical to sugar in many respects. I have asked you, quite clearly, how you would feel if something that you liked was chosen for a massive tax increase to try to force you not to buy it. Like porridge.
So let me ask you, once again, to see if you will answer me. If you won’t, then I have my answer.
If the government decided to tax grains so highly because it wanted to force the population to stop eating them, or at least moderate them, would you support it? Or choose any other food that YOU LIKE but isn’t, say, as healthy as a carrot. Or are you only OK taxing something that other people like?
As I have remarked before, it is SO EASY to impose a tax on or interfere with the choices of “other people”. But if you are truly honest and committed you would accept such treatment, yourself. Do not do to others what you would not bear yourself.
The only reason why people think that grain is a health food is because they didn’t realize they studied the eating habits of healthy populations during Lent. When their eating habits are different. Modern gluten is a far larger molecule than ever before. Our immune system has such a hard time digesting it that it experiences chronic inflammation. Grains have a high glycemic index (causing spikes and rapid drops in blood sugar). Studies show that overdoing it on high GI foods is a risk factor for heart disease, cancer, and obesity. It contains phytic acid, which binds to some vitamins and prevents their absorption, increasing vitamin D loss by up to 30%. (Ever had a physical reveal you had low vitamin D and had no idea why?) So those synthetic added vitamins get flushed out of your system.
Grain is not a deadly poison, but if you eat it 4 times a day like most Americans, you aren’t going to be very healthy. Think of what that costs the rest of us – the obesity, heart disease, poor nutrition, chronic inflammation, and exacerbation of auto-immune disorders.
We really need to tax that porridge, Isaac. Hand it over.
You see, the problem with social engineering, is that sometimes it applies to you, too.
Loading...
Karen S
1, June 13, 2015 at 10:53 pm
“Nick said, ‘As I expressed earlier, I support regulations that make the job safe.’ The thread has unravelled (sic) with accusations that people don’t care about the children. From his comments, I don’t see the connection . . .”
It’s not about the kids, Karen. It’s about Darren Smith’s liberal agenda to outlaw tobacco:
Nick Spinelli
1, June 13, 2015 at 12:47 pm
“And Squeek, are you seeing the real agenda here? There are these reasons who (sic) the obvious remedy will not work. I have spent my entire professional career seeking the truth. If this was about children then ‘Children’ would have led off the title. We say what is most important to us, first. We do what is most important to us, first. And, if it were about children this would have included children working in the myriad other agricultural fields where pesticides and herbicides are used. This is about banning evil tobacco.”
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 10:37 am
“I think the only thing about this article that bothered my (sic) was the possible and I say possible cheating of the kids on their pay. Even that is iffy.”
You seem to read threads like you watch videos.
Grab a glove and get in the game. 🙂
Loading...
Karen
Still cherry picking. Dentists will tell you to brush your teeth. I have all mine. I am in tip top shape. It’s not eating porridge that will harm you. It’s eating only carbs. Porridge for breakfast is a great and healthy start to the day. My point, which you missed and I see why, is that kids are habituated to having sugar with whatever they eat, and fat, and salt, etc. It’s all about the habits and what one gets used to. I’m surprised you didn’t spout off about dried fruit/raisins. They will rot your teeth if you don’t brush.
Yesterday, June 12th, marked World Day Against Child Labor. For this occasion I highlight the plight of young children employed to work in the tobacco agribusiness in the United States. It is estimated, by Deutsche Welle, that 500,000 children labor in this market; most are exposed to hazardous conditions ranging from exposure to high levels of nicotine and pesticides, farm implements, and long working hours among others. Variances in the standard federal child labor standards permit tobacco growers to employ children–some of whom are under twelve years in age.
Resulting from these exposures, often from unprotected skin and lax safety policies, children suffer often from a condition known as Green Tobacco Sickness. This illness is an occupational disease caused by workers absorbing nicotine through their skin after prolonged exposure to the plants. These symptoms, references earlier, are identified by Public and Occupation health officials. The long term effects are currently unknown though other studies on the usage of tobacco products (such as smoking) in adolescents may have links to complications in brain development. Public health research indicates that non-smoking workers in tobacco agriculture have similar levels of nicotine in their bodies as do smokers in the general population.
The introduction of labor contractors, those who sell labor for a fixed price to farmers and where the workers are actually the employees of the contractor, has provided an opportunity for exploitation. Since these contractors retain earnings based on the margin between the revenue from the farm and the labor costs they endure, the temptation to extract more earnings often becomes high; especially in light of the fact that most workers are of an economic underclass that is less likely to report labor abuses and especially in the case of children having not the life experience or foreknowledge of what constitutes a proper and healthy working environment.
Ahhhh, and a Fox link describing the problem, too. I’m going to be busy making T-shirts for the new members. 🙂
How lovely to see the admission that regulations can actually be bad, whether they are in a red or blue state. This is a national issue, as the link to the lemonade gestapo map illustrates.
So the next time anyone jumps on conservatives when they want to re-visit a regulation, we will have this thread to refer to. Clearly the point has been made that not all regulations are good.
http://fox6now.com/2015/06/13/arrest-warrant-issued-for-woman-over-lawn-young-brothers-step-up-for-her-its-the-least-we-could-do/
Time for a feel good story as long as we are off topic anyway.
“Just leave me alone. I’ve lived her for 59 years. I don’t know how much longer I’ve got to live here. I’ll be 76 in July. I’m 75 now and I’ve never had a speeding ticket. I’ve never had a parking ticket — and now here I’ve got a warrant for my arrest from the big city of Riesel,” Suttle told KWTX.”
A poor elderly woman’s grass got too high in Texas and was going to be arrested. Two boys stepped up and mowed her lawn for her, what great kids. What the hell is wrong with Texas, first the Lemonade stand and little girls, now arresting an elderly woman over long grass? For a conservative state they sure seem to have a lot of regulations.
Paul – the lemonade stands don’t have high priced lobbyists like the tobacco industry does. That’s why we end up with weird restrictions on snow shoveling but not exposure to pesticides or nicotine.
I say take out all special interest funding.
And I oppose regulations that make government responsible for cradle to grave making decision for the people such as what to eat.
Movies like “Supersize Me” and other educational efforts are far preferable over government taking over our decisions.
Government defends our border (or is supposed to), and builds infrastructure, and basically keeps everything running so we can go about our free lives. It does not investigate the lunch box contents of children or decide what adults should be allowed to eat.
Paul – they’ll probably just keep deferring it, or soften it somehow. It would be political suicide otherwise.
I wish they’d have let the law hit as it was written, all at once, as they were legally obligated to do. There would be no smug derision from those who are not affected. Heck, repealing Obamacare would have likely been a cornerstone of Hillary’s campaign.
Speaking of which, is The Queen granting tough interviews yet, or is she still too frightened? She’ll get the Dem votes regardless. Polls show her media blackout had no effect on her popularity. Polls showing most people thought she was dishonest had no effect on her popularity.
I don’t get this phenomenon. If I found out my favorite candidate was untrustworthy, I wouldn’t vote for her. She’ll have access to The Red Button, you know she’s untrustworthy, and you still want to vote for her??? I would either vote for someone else or stay home. But, full disclosure, I would vote for a trained ferret before I would vote for either Hillary or Warren. Ferrets are cute.
I want to add that it may be due to special interest money that we end up with regulations that target lemonade stands but allow green tobacco poisoning in children.
Remove corporation and union donations, and limit contributions to individual people, with reasonable limits, as Aridog suggested earlier. That would defang special interest meddling, and make our politicians more answerable to their constituents.
Karen – just which special interest is driving out lemonade stands? 🙂
Aridog – ““Social Engineering” is what the EPA does now, since they’re expanding wetlands and waterways to virtually anything that is ever wet. That is no different than a private monopoly or oligarchy, just dressed up in federal outfits. And one reason why I do not trust government to protect children or kids from dangers…especially those not yet fully diagnosed scientifically.”
So true.
Isaac:
“As for the original topic of this post, I see no reason why, when a high risk is discovered, for adults or children that it should not be managed and regulated.”
This thread has to run something like 9 pages now. The general consensus of the thread is that kids should not be exposed to hazards or over work.
“The regulatory protections in place today make sense” – Actually no. If our regulations shut down lemonade stands and snow shoveling, but allow picking tobacco and Green Tobacco Poisoning, that would be a resounding “No!”
Sweeping floors, shoveling snow, babysitting, selling lemonade, or picking (I now add organic!) apples on Grandpa’s farm is consistent with that caveat.
And a Libertarian, Republican, or conservative Democrat can be a fiscal conservative. Pretty much anyone except a Liberal.
I drink soda very rarely, maybe a couple of times a year. And yet, it is anathema to me to even consider taxing them in order to force poor people not to buy them. Because it’s the poor whom the tax would most affect.
It’s not necessary for a tax to affect me to care about its affect.
I cannot understand this Liberal trend to impose taxes on “other people.” The health conscious want to tax the unhealthy to force them to change their own decisions. It’s just the most basic freedom to choose what you put in your own mouth. But those same people sputter and protest when higher taxes affect them. I recall a meager $26 payroll tax caused massive outrage, but there is such disdain when the middle class complain about having to pay HUNDREDS more a month on Obamacare premiums. Those same disdainful people will change their tune when the mandate hits and it affects employers.
But this is basic human nature. I recall reading about a psychiatric study in college where subjects were more likely to push a button that shocked someone else than shock themselves. (Seriously, they needed to prove this?) People who lack self awareness apply this behavior to taxation.
People with self awareness become fiscal conservatives.
Karen – what until the Obamacare premiums hit this year. There will not be a Democrat left in the country, even Obama will change to Republican.
Issac said ..
I know this means an infringement of the 2nd amendment to some…
Actually, in many states what you suggest, more or less, is the law already, other than the magazine capacities and automatic issues. The latter are spurious to the use firearms are put to, but I’d agree on the full automatic point. I’ve had several rancorous discussions, where I was derided for suggesting common sense improvements in pistols, such as “de-cocker” mechanisms were in fact better.
All private money, union money, billionaire money, etc. The governments of Canada and other more progressive countries fund their political campaigns based on the number of votes the candidate represents.
The part highlighted bothers me…why not equal funding to all candidates if their party, or their last election run, met a minimum threshold of votes? For example, are those criteria, where applied, threshold values that when met give equal funding to all candidates remaining? Or is the funding allocated based upon prior election votes? It would seem that allowing all manner of funding to “surface” candidates weakens the concept. I’d further limit the “individual contribution” by the candidates themselves to the same limits for all others…e.g., no self funded candidacy.
That said, I can’t wholly sponsor government funding of elections with no individual voter contributions. Some form of it is available now, but few pols elect to take it. Maybe when the government itself is drastically changed…e.g., reduced in size and special interests I could get behind funding in the manner you suggest. As it is now I’d not trust it because I worked in it for so long….and witnessed the financial manipulations performed.
Finally, I despise “caucuses” and would eliminate them if I could…only a primary election should anoint candidates, period.
As for the original topic of this post, I see no reason why, when a high risk is discovered, for adults or children that it should not be managed and regulated. An example would be asbestos exposure. I was exposed routinely for decades, as well as to chemicals like raw cyanide, but so far have not found ill effects. I’ve had cancer, but not of the Mesothelioma type. Doesn’t mean I won’t down the road. The regulatory protections in place today make sense….even if you have to expose yourself to loose asbestos to remedy it….which I have also done in more recent years. I just don’t favor taxes as a means to do “regulation.” “Social Engineering” is what the EPA does now, since they’re expanding wetlands and waterways to virtually anything that is ever wet. That is no different than a private monopoly or oligarchy, just dressed up in federal outfits. And one reason why I do not trust government to protect children or kids from dangers…especially those not yet fully diagnosed scientifically.
Isaac:
“Grains are an important part of any diet.”
No. They are not. This shows the common nutritional ignorance spawned by the US Governments Food Pyramid. You do NOT need grain to survive. They are not important, necessary, or even helpful to your diet. A diet that exists exclusively of healthy foods would include meat, fish, poultry, nuts, fruit, vegetables, etc. The only time that grain is really useful is for vegans, who would otherwise be very hard pressed to get enough calories in their diet.
Grain does come from a plant. But it has extremely poor nutritional value. That is why manufacturers have to add synthetic acid. Which then the grain binds and prevents absorption. READ the back of your porridge box, and be sure to note the ingredients. Not only with it have very limited vitamins, but you will find those vitamins added in the list of ingredients. Look at a bag of whole grains. The processed grains remove the germ, which has the very limited nutrition of grain. That has to be added back. They still add vitamins to most whole grains, as well.
Sugar is a carbohydrate. So is grain. We feed whole grains to horses if we need to keep their weight up, but it is also known as a “hot feed” because it’s basically like feeding them sugar. This is similar to its effects on humans.
How does the average American consume grains 4 times a day: cereal or porridge for breakfast, sandwich for lunch, chips for a snack, pasta for dinner, cookies for dessert. It’s all carbohydrates all the time.
There are plenty of studies now that examine the detrimental health effects of our over-dependence on grains. The reason why I am on my anti-grain soap box is because I am trying to show you that not all of your choices are superior, and that you might, actually, have the taxes you espouse affect you, and not just “other people.” You included sugar in your list of deadly sins like tobacco, and so that is the thread that I followed.
Since you have, once again, refused to answer a very simple question, I deduce your answer as follows: You would NOT support the government taxing something that YOU LIKED and that you DISAGREED with not being allowed to have it.
Thank you for the edifying exchange. I’m sure this makes you very uncomfortable to realize. Many Liberals go through this period of catharsis before becoming fiscal conservatives or Libertarians, or even conservative Democrats. Let me know when you’re ready to receive your “Welcome to The Club” T-shirt.
Please help. Comment not posting. Thanks.
For Karen and Isaac
Here is a link to a group of scientists and links within the article that states that the Federal Dietary Guidelines are not scientifically based and are basically bunk. Junk science.
http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/13/new-article-blasts-feds-pseudoscientific
I’ve always known this, that the food guidelines were a pack of dopy lies, and we eat a varied diet that includes sugar, butter,eggs, meat, fish, dairy, grains, fruits, vegetables and of COURSE coffee and alcohol. Moderation in all things. I don’t worry about what the government says because they don’t have a clue and they keep changing the forbidden foods. Trying to scare us.
Use common sense when eating. Avoid too much of anything for example high sugar foods in excess. High fat in excess. Eat what is in season. Right now lots of fruit, fresh vegetables and salads.
However, it isn’t going to take away your trip to Heaven if you indulge in some creme brulee or a bit fat slice of chocolate cake once in a while. That juicy rib eye isn’t going to kill you if you splurge once in a while.
The minute someone starts in lecturing me about my food…..or anything else…..I assume that they don’t have any idea what they are talking about and tune them out. In fact…..it makes me WANT to go out and buy some Sugar Pops, just because I haven’t had any in about 45years. 😀
Our average breakfast. Oatmeal with some fruit mixed in, like raisins or craisins or blueberries or peaches. Whatever is in season. Big dollop of butter and cane sugar for sweetener, half and half also. A couple of slices of bacon once in a while. Sometimes I will make scrambled eggs with heavy cream to make them fluffy and creamy and have some sausage patties. Muffins or toast with home made jam (wild plum is our favorite)
Lunch: Yesterday. Ham sandwiches made with sliced mozzarella, roasted red peppers, lettuce, mayo, mustard on cracked wheat bread and sliced peaches. A handful of corn chips Water. I don’t drink milk.
Dinner: Yesterday. because it is freaking HOT here. Sliced hard salami,sliced ham (left over from lunch) brie cheese, mozzarella, cheddar cheese, several different types of crackers. a medely of olives (black, kalamata, green stuffed with anchovies, green stuffed garlic, green stuffed with romano-parmesan cheese in olive oil, green grapes, red grapes, sliced nectarines. Wine.
Tonight we are having chicken breast parmesan: pounded, breaded with panko and parmesan cheese sauteed in butter and peanut oil. YES butter. Linguini in a sauce of minced garlic, olive oil, butter YES…more butter … with basil and hot red pepper flakes. Caesar salad with home made croutons from an old loaf of sour dough bread. Haven’t decided on dessert yet. Maybe some ice cream with strawberries macerated in cane sugar, in season and the Vietnamese farmers have the best vine ripened strawberries YUM.
Because we are older, we don’t eat as much as we used to eat.
What I choose to eat is no one’s concern and certainly not the government’s to try to force me to eat what they consider to be a good diet.
Dust Bunny Queen,
I retrieved your comment on 2015/06/14 at 10:42 am
You can measure society all you want, but I don’t think it can be stopped. Certainly, in history it never has been, except by itself. Maybe the internet will change that, but the lack of intelligent understanding by the majority seems to be a limiting factor. I hear you, but it is a little like listening to the Grateful Dead – those that get it love it, but if you don’t get it you are mystified by those that are devoted.
Karen
First of all grains are not, “almost like sugar’. I’ll replace ‘cherry picking’ which can be and is used in place of selecting examples that do not illustrate a situation but are ‘picked’ to support an argument, with ‘picked’. Your arguments are typically based on selective points that are then exaggerated in an attempt to smother the argument you are addressing. There are others of your ilk who perform in a similar manner; one in particular who will chastise, with vitriol, the writer of the offending position for grammatical errors as if that would add weight to their position.
But enough regarding your style. Grains are an important part of any diet. Your expose’ on gluten and other randomly ‘picked’ parts of nuggets of new discoveries follow the typical tabloid design of assembling a selection of findings to organize a position, leaving out any elements that would work to neutralize or oppose that position. That carbs turn into sugar and can be stored as fat takes away none of the nutritional value of grains. The more refined a grain, the less nutritious. Some grains are more nutritious than others. Not all people celebrate Lent. Not all people are affected by gluten the same way. In fact most people’s systems handle gluten just fine, if ingested in moderate amounts. The same is true with dairy, fruit, and vegetables. Years ago two health nuts poisoned themselves to death taking in too much raw carrot. Some foods are better cooked, some are better raw, all cleaned up some organic is no better than some conventionally grown food. The crux of the problem is concentrated elements in meats, vegetables, grains, and fruits that big agriculture uses for efficiency and profit. We need to address that as a society, under the banner of social engineering.
My point in comparing my childhood breakfasts, in this case grains, with those that come soaked in refined sugar was evidently missed by you as you ‘picked’ an unrelated morsel of some article you might have read and went off the beam exaggerating for effect. We did’t have porridge four times a day. Some weeks included bacon and eggs, pancakes, etc as well. Bacon is actually good in moderate amounts. Eggs have been scientifically proven to be both good and bad, depending on the research du jour. Take a shot at liver and onions, spinach, and mashed potatoes while you’re at it. I would like to understand further how my parents ‘neglected’ us. Again, your selective pounce followed by an exaggerated ramble of associated sparks of ‘picked’ nuggets only weakens your position.
Your linking of the obvious connection between poisons such as tobacco, alcohol, and super refined sugars and adulterated grains and much of America’s costly health problems and eating too much of one or another type of good food is typical of the argumentative style of yourself and some others on this blog. It does not inform, educate, or assist in an intelligent exchange of ideas. Try a little subtlety with your sarcasm. Choose more carefully your examples. Cherry pick less and try and stay on the beam.
We tax most, if not all, commodities. The freedom of producing crap and the freedom of eating crap is not the issue. The issue put forth earlier was simply that excessive use of tobacco, alcohol, and super refined grains and sugars, for simplicity’s sake to be referred to as ‘Twinkies’, is not only bad for the individual or the sacred I but costly for the We, which by the way is composed of a whole lot of I’s. We are the government that We developed and continue to develop to protect our selves I by I from ignorance and fraud. Tobacco, soft drink companies, Post and Kellogs, do better financially when the public is kept ignorant and when the government regulates little or not at all. History proves this to be so. The FDA is there for a reason.
That government is not perfect is a call to perfect government, not do away with it. The problem with social engineering is how it’s done, not whether or not it’s done. It’s done from day one, has been since day one. Tax the dangerous crap ingested by the sacred I and direct the proceeds to offsetting the health costs that burden the We. Leave porridge alone for the moment. We’ll get to that; come the revolution.
Isaac:
“Still cherry picking. Dentists will tell you to brush your teeth. I have all mine. I am in tip top shape. It’s not eating porridge that will harm you. It’s eating only carbs. Porridge for breakfast is a great and healthy start to the day. My point, which you missed and I see why, is that kids are habituated to having sugar with whatever they eat, and fat, and salt, etc. It’s all about the habits and what one gets used to. I’m surprised you didn’t spout off about dried fruit/raisins. They will rot your teeth if you don’t brush.”
No, Isaac. You are missing my point. Again. I’ve asked you a single question repeatedly. “Cherry picking” does not mean what you think it means.
You want to tax food that other people buy. You have chosen sugar, for example. I have pointed out that grain is almost identical to sugar in many respects. I have asked you, quite clearly, how you would feel if something that you liked was chosen for a massive tax increase to try to force you not to buy it. Like porridge.
So let me ask you, once again, to see if you will answer me. If you won’t, then I have my answer.
If the government decided to tax grains so highly because it wanted to force the population to stop eating them, or at least moderate them, would you support it? Or choose any other food that YOU LIKE but isn’t, say, as healthy as a carrot. Or are you only OK taxing something that other people like?
As I have remarked before, it is SO EASY to impose a tax on or interfere with the choices of “other people”. But if you are truly honest and committed you would accept such treatment, yourself. Do not do to others what you would not bear yourself.
The only reason why people think that grain is a health food is because they didn’t realize they studied the eating habits of healthy populations during Lent. When their eating habits are different. Modern gluten is a far larger molecule than ever before. Our immune system has such a hard time digesting it that it experiences chronic inflammation. Grains have a high glycemic index (causing spikes and rapid drops in blood sugar). Studies show that overdoing it on high GI foods is a risk factor for heart disease, cancer, and obesity. It contains phytic acid, which binds to some vitamins and prevents their absorption, increasing vitamin D loss by up to 30%. (Ever had a physical reveal you had low vitamin D and had no idea why?) So those synthetic added vitamins get flushed out of your system.
Grain is not a deadly poison, but if you eat it 4 times a day like most Americans, you aren’t going to be very healthy. Think of what that costs the rest of us – the obesity, heart disease, poor nutrition, chronic inflammation, and exacerbation of auto-immune disorders.
We really need to tax that porridge, Isaac. Hand it over.
You see, the problem with social engineering, is that sometimes it applies to you, too.
Karen S
1, June 13, 2015 at 10:53 pm
“Nick said, ‘As I expressed earlier, I support regulations that make the job safe.’ The thread has unravelled (sic) with accusations that people don’t care about the children. From his comments, I don’t see the connection . . .”
It’s not about the kids, Karen. It’s about Darren Smith’s liberal agenda to outlaw tobacco:
Nick Spinelli
1, June 13, 2015 at 12:47 pm
“And Squeek, are you seeing the real agenda here? There are these reasons who (sic) the obvious remedy will not work. I have spent my entire professional career seeking the truth. If this was about children then ‘Children’ would have led off the title. We say what is most important to us, first. We do what is most important to us, first. And, if it were about children this would have included children working in the myriad other agricultural fields where pesticides and herbicides are used. This is about banning evil tobacco.”
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 13, 2015 at 10:37 am
“I think the only thing about this article that bothered my (sic) was the possible and I say possible cheating of the kids on their pay. Even that is iffy.”
You seem to read threads like you watch videos.
Grab a glove and get in the game. 🙂
Karen
Still cherry picking. Dentists will tell you to brush your teeth. I have all mine. I am in tip top shape. It’s not eating porridge that will harm you. It’s eating only carbs. Porridge for breakfast is a great and healthy start to the day. My point, which you missed and I see why, is that kids are habituated to having sugar with whatever they eat, and fat, and salt, etc. It’s all about the habits and what one gets used to. I’m surprised you didn’t spout off about dried fruit/raisins. They will rot your teeth if you don’t brush.