Food, the new sex? Interesting.

An article by George Will I found interesting.

Food has become suspicious. At my daughters' school, we cannot bring homemade cupcakes for a birthday. They must be prepared commercially so that it can be assured that it is safe. Great debates rage over what should be served in the lunchroom and how to get the "junk" out of schools.

In Utah at least, sex as a topic of discussion is proscribed even more than food. It is essentially ignored. When I was teaching 9th graders about Africa and AIDS, I was always nervous when talking about various efforts to reduce the infection rate on that continent because such discussions necessitated information about condom distribution.

To the article itself:

What I found most interesting was the assertion that eating has a moral component. Perhaps because I participate in a religious society where sex outside of marriage is still considered a grievous sin, I myself have never been confronted by anyone making moral judgments about the contents of my plate. Also, said religious society has always had recommendations about diet. Perhaps I have moral judgments about both.

Should we think about food in the same moral way that we (used to) think about sex? Is a decrease in societal restriction on one side related to an increase of societal restriction on the other as the author asserts?

Perhaps to get the ball started, let me send a link and ask a couple of questions.

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2009/02/companies-often.html

The second to last section of this article has the heading "Our Wilting Economy." Do you agree with the author that bait-and-switch policies like those in the online flower industry are dishonest capitalism, and that the general public is then prevented from making rational choices by the obfuscation of the true cost? If it is dishonest, should there be government regulation of that behavior? This is a part of the philosophical question: "Should all unethical behavior also be illegal?" Reply with thoughts.

Phil Bott Added the following:

I'm in and I have several points, but I'll start with one volley and see where it goes. While I don't agree with the extreme labeling of the article, I tend to agree with the sentiment. Most free market economic principles are based on the idea that both parties have the pertinent information. Granted, there is a principle which recognizes that at some point more research into the costs (i.e. comparison shopping) is more expensive than any actual price difference (if you drive to three stores to save $.05 on a gallon of milk, you've actually lost money), but that's not what this is about. This is about going into the store, seeing a gallon of milk for $.75, only to be charged additional fees at check-out. That's the reason I've always hated Ream's supermarkets. They added 10% at check-out.

Let's start there.

Phil