by Marion Nestle
Nov 5 2012

Tuesday: Vote with your vote!

Tuesday’s election has huge implications for food politics (see previous post).  I’ve been asked to state an opinion.  In case myviews are not obvious, here’s what I’m voting for and hoping you will too:

  • If you care abou the issues discusssed here: Vote to reelect President Obama.
  • If you live in California, lead the nation: Vote YES on 37 (GMO labels).
  • If you live in Richmond, CA: Vote YES on Measures N and O (soda taxes and where that money will go).
  • If you live in El Monte, CA: Vote YES on Measure H (soda taxes).

It’s great to vote with your fork.  But the food movement needs real votes.

Vote with your vote!

  • John

    I already voted – to re-elect the President. My state is Hawaii, so the electoral votes are small. I should have moved to Nevada for a few months, just to make my vote worth more.

    I’ll be looking forward to fatty vs skinny in 2016. Christie vs whoever the democrats put up. The “Obese-Americans for Christie” button will be a collectors item. The drug company, sugar lobby, food lobby, and alcohol lobby is already salivating (pun intended) over the opportunity to donate to next election’s super pacs. Best candidates money can buy.

  • Steve

    I’m for less national debt and more jobs, so I’m voting for Romney and Ryan. Ryan is the only man on either ticket that shows great concern for fitness and health.
    The folks that aren’t bright enough to know when they’ve had too much soda are on their own, and I don’t believe Obama and Biden can save them.

  • Cathy Richards

    @Steve – I’m pretty sure Obama shows great concern for fitness and health — Obamacare is one sign of this. There are many more.

    And brightness isn’t the only factor required for healthy individual choice. Our environment either supports our individual choice, or sabotages our individual choice. Business has shown this over and over. That’s why they streamline assembly lines – assembly lines limit choice overall, support good choices, and prevent bad choices. We’re just wanting that business model to apply to our social environment as well. And healthier employees equals healthier businesses. It’s actually selfish for businesses to want healthy employees. Plus, healthier unemployed equals lower taxes.
    Sort of the opposite of socialism, if you look at it from that angle.

  • Pingback: nother expert who also studies attachment styles said the link between attachment anxiety and tension is not new, nevertheless the link to immune system function is newer. And it is “not that surprising,” explained Jeni Burnette, an associate ()