Latest Boeing resembles a flying Twinkie

mmm ... Twinkies.

You know, Boeing could sell some advertising space on this one :P

There is more info on Boeing's new plane [HERE].


So after seeing this plane, I went to the Twinkies official website. There, I was greeted by a slim little girl being embraced by a happy-but-tired-looking mother. Just in case the front page changes, this is the image:


First of all, if this woman feeds her child twinkies, then her child is bulimic. Nobody can eat Twinkies and remain slim without puking it all up later.

This is a much more accurate picture:



Second, a "Twinkies Cookbook"? They must be joking. But they sadly aren't. [This Page] is full of Twinkie recipies -- taking the already-fattening Twinkie to make it even more fattening. Do people even care anymore about what they put into their bodies?

Third, Hostess does not even provide nutritional information about its products anywhere on the website. What does this suggest? It tells me that Hostess products are nutritional suicide, and the company knows it. Otherwise, Hostess would provide easily accessible nutritional information on its website like all of the other reputable food companies do.

I had to go to another website just to find the nutritional info. [Nutritional Info Here]

Let's see ... one itty bitty little 43 gram Twinkie has:

• 150 calories
• 45 calories from fat
• 5g total fat
• 2g saturated fat
• 20mg cholesterol
• 25g carbohydrates (14 g sugar)

That's for one little Twinkie.

A 167 gram 6-inch Subway sandwich has less fat, fewer fat calories, no cholesterol, and additional healthy vitamins than one tiny 43 gram Twinkie.

So if a hungry person eats 167 grams of Twinkies (imagine a 6-inch Subway sandwich-sized Twinkie), they're getting:

Gram for gram, Twinkies are practically poisonous. No wonder Hostess won't provide the nutritional info on its website.

And it's also no wonder that a growing number of people want to impose a "Twinkie Tax" on nutritionally-harmful snacks. The tax would help pay for the medical expenses associated with America's growing obesity epidemic.

Considering that cigarettes and alcohol have been taxed for years because of the high cost of the health problems they cause, a "Twinkie Tax" seems like a good idea.

But wait --surely obesity doesn't cost as much as tobacco and alcoholism. Or does it?

Here are the latest figures for each -- these are the annual healthcare and lost productivity costs in the United States:

• Obesity: $117 billion per year ([source])
• Tobacco: $167 billion per year ([source])
• Alcohol: $185 billion per year ([source])

Obesity isn't costing as much as tobacco or alcohol yet, but I'd say that it's a costly problem worthy of a tax.

A recent article suggests that due to health problems caused by obesity, today's children will be the first generation in history that fails to outlive its parents. [Read the Article]

Make that "Twinkie Tax" high. Really high. The costs are going to be limitless.


On second thought, maybe it would be in Boeing's best interests NOT to sell advertising space on its new plane to Hostess ...