Opinion: To fight obesity and cancer, start with our children

First tobacco, now food! Here we go again! The concern by the American Cancer Society for obesity is touching, but some of its recommendations are not!

First recommendation: Higher taxes on high-calorie food and drink. Higher taxes will naturally lead to higher prices, and who will pay these higher prices? The average consumer.

Second recommendation: Lower prices, through assistance programs, on healthy foods for the poor. Again, who will be paying more for these products? The average consumer.

There is one recommendation not mentioned, and I refer to a Jan. 6 column in the Times titled Public schools subsidized with soda. This column depicts the boom in allowing soda companies to peddle their "high-sugar" sodas in our schools and, in turn, rewarding them. I would like to pass on a part of this column: "Start with the obvious fact that sodas promote tooth decay and obesity, which is steeply on the rise among American children." Where's the recommendation to remove the soda machines from our schools?

It seems to me that instead of waiting until people become obese, we could greatly reduce the risk of obesity and cancer by teaching people the principles of healthy diets and exercise while they are young and in school. Unfortunately, this would reveal the hypocrisy of this country if there was a soda machine a few steps away.

Let's not start another hypocritical series of "class-action" lawsuits because people are "fat" and allow them to blame their cancer on obesity, claiming ignorance, yet continuing to consume these products -- by choice -- while the cost of these products escalates and makes our conglomerates "fatter." We are not talking tobacco but food, which is a "necessity." If only "monetary" were spelled "reality."
-- Jack P. Burlakos, Kenneth City

Put children's health above all else

Re: Cancer Society declares war on obesity, by Wes Allison and Public schools subsidized with soda, by Marjorie Williams, Jan. 6.

I was reminded of two old but fitting adages after reading these articles. "Beware of strangers (soft drink companies) bearing gifts" and "penny wise and pound foolish."

With the Cancer Society declaring war on obesity, it would seem that removing and preventing the availability of empty-calorie beverages from our schools would be an excellent place to begin. What is saved by accepting gifts from soft drink manufacturers, if by doing so we are contributing to obesity in our youth and the risk of cancer later in life?

Let us hope and pray that all new administrations will be willing to place our children's health above all other factors.
-- Mary Whitaker, Holiday

The next no-no: more pie?

Because of the dramatic declaration of war on obesity by the American Cancer Society, restaurants may have to add "fat sections" for people who still want full portions.

The society is calling for an all-out assault on fat through social and policy changes akin to the war on smoking. That's ludicrous. It is neither the function nor the responsibility of the cancer society to "wage war" on obesity. It is a private, non-profit research organization, formed with the sole mission of finding a cure for cancer, and losing weight is not the cure.

Thin people also die of cancer. They should educate us about nutritional values in foods and recommend healthy diets. And they should continue their research for which they receive millions in donations. It is outrageous for this group to suggest social and policy changes. Are they saying it may soon be socially unacceptable and against restaurant policy to have another piece of pie?

There is no debating the fact that cigarettes and drugs are intrinsically deadly. It makes sense to wage war on those addictions. Food, however, is essentially life-giving. It is not addictive. Assuming the society means well, it should give us guidelines for good health, not a mysterious Body Mass Index that will scare the obese into changing their eating habits.

Fat chance of that.
-- Jack Bray, Dunedin

Travel story strayed from facts

Re: Don't miss Montevideo, by John A. Herbert, Jan. 7.

The wonderful thing about the United States is that you have representatives of every nation on this Earth living within its borders. There is no country, no matter how small, remote or underpopulated, that does not have some of its sons and daughters in America.

Consequently, no newspaper in America should write articles about foreign lands without expecting at least a few citizens of those lands to read them. Editors should make a greater effort to catch the mistakes of their eager and time-constrained writers lest they make errors that would be transparent and unremarkable to the average reader, but which would be glaring and potentially offensive to a native.

First, I would like to congratulate John A. Herbert on a very well-written story that accurately describes the local points of interest for an American tourist visiting Uruguay. What would have been a nice travel piece suffers, however, when it crosses the boundary into historical reporting and social commentary.

If I may be permitted the opportunity to correct Herbert:

Money-laundering, though certainly a problem in many Latin American countries, is hardly "one of Uruguay's major drawing cards." On any scale the State Department wishes to measure, Uruguay ranks far below its neighbors in terms of illicit capital flows. There are, in fact, U.S. banks that are far worse offenders.

Herbert is correct in his mention of an urban-guerrilla movement in Uruguay, but he has confused his dates -- the Tupamaros were active from the mid-'60s up to 1973, when a military government took power and quickly suppressed them. Thus, the insurrection did not last until 1985, as Herbert writes, it was the military government that lasted until that date.

Finally, the epic of the Graf Spee is mis-told in Herbert's piece. The German pocket battleship sought refuge in Montevideo after dueling with a small British cruiser force. Rather than face the British awaiting them in the River Plate, the Germans scuttled the ship. At no point did Uruguayan authorities collaborate with or render assistance to the German Navy, though they did intern the ship's crew.

I hope that the editorial staff will take this criticism in the same positive manner that it is given. There is no excuse for erring on facts that are easily available on the Internet or in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I do, however, wish to thank the Times for dedicating an entire page to my homeland. Far beyond the place itself, it is the genuine warmth and sincere hospitality of its people that will endear Uruguay to American travelers and leave them an unforgettable memory of their brief stay.
-- Fernando Betancor, Tampa

Trendy never lasts

Re: Goodbye to the old and in with the old, by Maureen Dowd, Jan. 6.

As a woman and a mother, I was offended when the article stated that George W. Bush was elected by men.

I personally am relieved to have a president who can at least be a moral leader and who follows the Ten Commandments. I am relieved that Bush wants to build our military and that I am able to keep a gun. I am encouraged that my country will be protected and I will be able to protect my family. I am relieved my children will not learn about oral sex on the 6 o'clock news.

Trendy never lasts; good, old-fashioned traditionalism is in.
-- Andrea McGuire, Seminole

Same economic laws govern all

Re: HMO Medicare beneficiaries get the ax, by Froma Harrop, Jan. 6.

In her harangue against private Medicare HMOs that have pulled out of many markets in the country, Froma Harrop conveniently chose to gloss over the reason for their withdrawal: They were losing millions of dollars. This was easily verified by their balance sheets.

Prior to Medicare HMOs, the federal government provided basic medical care to seniors through Medicare, which has definite gaps in coverage, plus co-pays, exclusions, etc. Large insurance companies researched what Medicare was spending and realized that they could provide more coverage (and at lower monthly cost) than the inefficient government bureaucracy. They then made a proposal to the government.

After negotiating a fee schedule, in which it agreed to reimburse the HMOs (at a rate lower than what Medicare was spending per senior), the government contracted with Medicare HMOs to provide health care to seniors. This saved the taxpayers money while providing seniors with more coverage, with no additional monthly premiums.

The so-called Balanced Budget Act of 1997 achieved balance by instituting draconian cuts in the rate of reimbursement the government had previously agreed to pay HMOs each year. As a result of this unilateral mid-stream change, revenues suddenly fell far short of what HMOs needed to pay the ever-increasing costs of drugs and services provided by doctors, labs and hospitals, etc. The HMO and the little "Ma and Pa store" are bound by the same economic laws. If expenses exceed revenues, they must close the doors and go out of business.

If Harrop's primary concern were really the health care of unfortunate seniors who no longer have HMOs, she would use her column to urge restoration of the reimbursement rate the government originally agreed to pay the HMOs. Instead, she uses her column to promulgate her leftist, anti-private-business agenda.
-- Anthony J. Wickel, Clearwater

Ship regular mail

Re: Postage due: 1 cent more, Jan. 4.

It aggravates me that we got another increase in postage. It does not matter what time of year I send priority mail (six or seven days) or cards, etc., to Milwaukee, Wis. This is 2001 and the service is worse than I have ever had. Some mail that I have sent has never been received.

Moral of story: Save a couple of bucks and ship regular mail; priority mail is a rip-off.
-- Caroline Kennedy, Holiday

We don't need this distraction

Cell phones should be banned while driving. In a mall parking lot, a sport utility vehicle passed me, and the driver was holding a cell phone with his left hand and drinking a cup of coffee with his right hand. I wish I had had a camera.

Last year my son was stopped at a red light and was rear-ended by a woman talking on a cell phone. After the impact, she was still on the phone.

There are enough distractions while driving without adding cell phones. If a phone, in use, is involved in an accident, there should be a major fine. Maybe the insurance companies should step in with rate changes or penalties.
-- William J. Mullarkey, St. Petersburg

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible. Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
--

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page