Reason on the Radio: Radley Balko To Discuss Obesity, Fast Food, and Advertising on the CBC

|

Tomorrow at 8 am ET on the CBC, Reason Senior Editor Radley Balko will discuss childhood obesity, fast food, and Santa Clara County, California's decision to ban restuarants from giving out toys with kids' meals.

Listen here.

NEXT: Where Do They Learn to Write Like This?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Where is a Goldman/Fin Reg article?

    You guys have top-notch writers. The show trial is beckoning.

    (Goldman is an easy winner – btw)

  2. Maybe you can also tackle the question of why anyone would ever try to do business in California.

  3. Fuck California. How much of this shit has to happen before the whole state breaks off into the ocean from the sheer weight of people shoving their heads up their asses?

  4. Which CBC?
    Radio One? Newsworld? SRC?
    Radio Canada International?

    I’d love to listen in, but CBC is like the BBC, and has a lot of versions. Only the CBC doesn’t have numbers, they have names.

    CBC TV has had ads for a long time. I’m guessing you mean CBC Radio. The lack of commercials is the only reason I listen.

  5. Wow thats like totally crazy.

    http://www.anon-vpn.se.tc

  6. I’m not sure what is going on with anonobot. Earlier this week it seemed poised at the edge of sentience and now it appears to be capable of little more than vague non sequiturs … or so it would have us think. I’m not so certain we are out of the skynet woods yet and I’m definitely not ready to return my hat

  7. Just finished listening to this and I think I can fairly say Mr Balko and his arguments–which seem to consist mainly of those old chestnuts, “parents are the ones who decide to feed their children crap” and “businesses have to please their shareholders”–was thoroughly routed by his opponent. Mind you I don’t really fancy having to argue his side of the case–as the vast majority of people are aware, he is essentially arguing for the interests of corporations over children. Must be proud of himself.

  8. which seem to consist mainly of those old chestnuts, “parents are the ones who decide to feed their children crap” and “businesses have to please their shareholders”–was thoroughly routed by his opponent.

    So you found the argument that the State, not parents, should decide what children eat, and that corporations have no duties to their owners, convincing?

    Interesting.

    1. It’s not “the State” that’s doing this, it’s the people via their elected representatives. Many of us are actively engaged in our community’s interests and we get laws passed like this when we see a problem of this magnitude. Obesity, child or otherwise, is a plague on this country. You are more then welcome to convince others to vote for the right of companies to continue to push “food” consisting of nothing but salt, fat, and sugar on children and others through psychological warfare. I doubt you’ll succeed though, especially if the cost of (now mandatory) health care is included in your argument.

      Drug food companies have had free reign in pushing their products for over half a century and their payouts to their owners have been huge. But they continue to do so as the evidence increasingly shows the that junk food is simply a man-made, investor backed disease. Things are going to change.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.