Of course we want the government to have the power to order that the food we buy meet reasonable standards of hygiene and be free of dangerous toxins and disease causing organisms. These are things we have no reasonable way to determine for ourselves so such protection is appreciated and necessary in the interest of the general welfare.
And most of us appreciate laws that require that a list of ingredients be provided on the processed products that we buy. This also is in the interest of the general welfare to inform people of salt, suger, fat, allergen, calorie etc. content that they otherwise would have no reasonable way to know.
And many of us appreciate government information on what the conventional wisdom is regarding nutrition and recommendations to achieve optimal nutrition.
BUT. . . .
Given the rapidly changing conventional wisdom, do we want the federal government to dictate what is and is not healthy? Do we want government at any level to control advertising or have power to mandate in that regard? Certainly the school board, school administration, and PTA can agree on basic content for school lunches. But do you want the state or federal government to dictate that? Or any other aspect of what is and is not healthy to eat?
For decades the government has issued opinion that no more than three whole eggs should be consumed in any given week due to the high cholesteral content.
But this February in Reuters (see link below):
For decades the government has issued opinion that saturated fat is a leading cause of coronary and other diseases.
Until last year in a NPR report (see link below):
Should KIND Be Banned From Labelling Their Bars as Healthy
How many times has coffee been bad for us in one year only to be presented as good for us the following year? The expert opinion is all over the map on grains, sugar content, the amount of salt content that is acceptable, etc. etc. etc.
What prompted this discussion was an article by Katrina Trinko (linked above) who questioned the government telling a company that it couldn't advertise a nutritional bar as 'healthy' because it contained saturated fat. But if that bar is the only saturated fat the consumer eats that day, it is a relatively low amount. As the author asks, shouldn't what else a person consumes that day be a factor in whether that product is actually healthy for a person?
And then there was the infamous soft drink law in New York City restricting the size of soft drink a customer could buy. That one was way too 'big brotherish' for a lot of us.
RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Stay on topic please and keep it civil with no personal insults or ad hominem. We aren't discussing the character or intentions or thoughts of the members participating. Address your questions or comments to what the members say and/or add your own thoughts generated by the topic and discussion.
2. Links can be useful as informative or to support your argument, but they are not required. If you use them, please post only a representative paragraph or two that is pertinent to the thread topic and explain in your own words what the link will show or support.
3. Leave political parties and ideologies (conservatives and liberals etc.) out of it please. We aren't discussing Republicans or Democrats or any other political party or conservatism or liberalism or any other ideology. We are discussing governing power regarding what is healthy.
QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IN THIS DISCUSSION:
Let's agree that government at all levels should protect us from dangerous toxins and contamination of our food that we cannot realistically determine for ourselves and should require general labeling of contents.
But then should government at all levels leave the people alone to decide what is and is not healthy for them? Or are the people too uninformed or incompetent to make those decisions for themselves?
And most of us appreciate laws that require that a list of ingredients be provided on the processed products that we buy. This also is in the interest of the general welfare to inform people of salt, suger, fat, allergen, calorie etc. content that they otherwise would have no reasonable way to know.
And many of us appreciate government information on what the conventional wisdom is regarding nutrition and recommendations to achieve optimal nutrition.
BUT. . . .
Given the rapidly changing conventional wisdom, do we want the federal government to dictate what is and is not healthy? Do we want government at any level to control advertising or have power to mandate in that regard? Certainly the school board, school administration, and PTA can agree on basic content for school lunches. But do you want the state or federal government to dictate that? Or any other aspect of what is and is not healthy to eat?
For decades the government has issued opinion that no more than three whole eggs should be consumed in any given week due to the high cholesteral content.
But this February in Reuters (see link below):
For decades, health and government officials warned against consumption of high-cholesterol foods, such as red meat and eggs, saying they greatly increased the risk of heart disease and obesity. But many doctors and nutritionists now say there is no link between dietary cholesterol and dangerous levels of cholesterol in the blood that cause disease.
For decades the government has issued opinion that saturated fat is a leading cause of coronary and other diseases.
Until last year in a NPR report (see link below):
The U.S. Dietary Guidelines urge us to limit consumption because of concerns that saturated fat raises the risk of heart disease. But after decades of research, a growing number of experts are questioning this link.
In fact, the authors of a new meta-analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine conclude that there’s insufficient evidence to support the long-standing recommendation to consume saturated fat in very low amounts.
In fact, the authors of a new meta-analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine conclude that there’s insufficient evidence to support the long-standing recommendation to consume saturated fat in very low amounts.
Should KIND Be Banned From Labelling Their Bars as Healthy
How many times has coffee been bad for us in one year only to be presented as good for us the following year? The expert opinion is all over the map on grains, sugar content, the amount of salt content that is acceptable, etc. etc. etc.
What prompted this discussion was an article by Katrina Trinko (linked above) who questioned the government telling a company that it couldn't advertise a nutritional bar as 'healthy' because it contained saturated fat. But if that bar is the only saturated fat the consumer eats that day, it is a relatively low amount. As the author asks, shouldn't what else a person consumes that day be a factor in whether that product is actually healthy for a person?
And then there was the infamous soft drink law in New York City restricting the size of soft drink a customer could buy. That one was way too 'big brotherish' for a lot of us.
RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Stay on topic please and keep it civil with no personal insults or ad hominem. We aren't discussing the character or intentions or thoughts of the members participating. Address your questions or comments to what the members say and/or add your own thoughts generated by the topic and discussion.
2. Links can be useful as informative or to support your argument, but they are not required. If you use them, please post only a representative paragraph or two that is pertinent to the thread topic and explain in your own words what the link will show or support.
3. Leave political parties and ideologies (conservatives and liberals etc.) out of it please. We aren't discussing Republicans or Democrats or any other political party or conservatism or liberalism or any other ideology. We are discussing governing power regarding what is healthy.
QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IN THIS DISCUSSION:
Let's agree that government at all levels should protect us from dangerous toxins and contamination of our food that we cannot realistically determine for ourselves and should require general labeling of contents.
But then should government at all levels leave the people alone to decide what is and is not healthy for them? Or are the people too uninformed or incompetent to make those decisions for themselves?
Last edited: