Debate Now Should the Government Dictate What Is and Is Not Healthy?

Other than protecting us from dangerous toxins and contaminants, the government:

  • 1. should have total power to dictate what is and is not healthy for us to consume.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2. should have a lot of power to dictate what is and is not healthy for us to consume in most

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3. should have some power to dictate what is and is not healthy for us to consume

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • 4. should have no power to dictate what is and is not healthy for us to consume.

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • 5. Other and I'll explain in my post.

    Votes: 6 54.5%

  • Total voters
    11

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 11, 2007
66,972
32,313
2,330
Desert Southwest USA
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, 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.​

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:
As someone who has spent his life ignoring the fads of what is "bad" for you I just went by what my body reacted to either positively or negatively.

Yes, some food will harm me that is perfectly harmless for others to consume. I believe the opposite is also true.

As far as the role of government goes it has a responsibility, as stated in the OP, to ensure the overall safety of our food supply and to regulate that we be given the information we need to know what we are actually consuming, especially when it comes to processed foods.

And yes, the government does have a role in passing along the latest knowledge about what foods can have a negative impact on our health if consumed in excess. Note that the government doesn't invent any of this information. Instead it obtains these recommendations from authorities on the subject matter like the American Medical Association.

But no, the government doesn't get to "dictate" what we consume or how much. Then again it has never done that before and aside from the purely anecdotal incident by Mayor Bloomberg I don't recall any other time where it has ever done so either.

Since the government is not "dictating" what we consume then what is the point of the OP?

Maybe I am missing something here. Perhaps the OP can explain what purpose this thread is supposed to achieve.
 
Try reading the OP and the link to the article that inspired it and the purpose should be reasonably clear. The specific example the author of the article used was the nutritional bar that the govenrment said could not be advertised as 'healthy'.
 
Try reading the OP and the link to the article that inspired it and the purpose should be reasonably clear. The specific example the author of the article used was the nutritional bar that the govenrment said could not be advertised as 'healthy'.

Aha!

So this thread is about government advertising regulations.

Thank you for clarifying.
 
No this thread is not about government advertising regulations, though that certainly is one aspect of the topic as it was used as an example and could certainly be included as it pertains to the thread topic. Now what the thread is about is specified in the OP. Perhaps those who can't figure that out aren't interested in the topic enough to enjoy participating here maybe?
 
None of the above. They should have NO power to dictate anything to us. Advise, yes, but dictate, no.
 
Try reading the OP and the link to the article that inspired it and the purpose should be reasonably clear. The specific example the author of the article used was the nutritional bar that the govenrment said could not be advertised as 'healthy'.

You wrote, "Do we want government at any level to control advertising or have power to mandate in that regard?"

You wrote, "No this thread is not about government advertising regulations, though that certainly is one aspect of the topic as it was used as an example and could certainly be included as it pertains to the thread topic."

So, yes, your op is in part about the role and correctness of government having the power to investigate truth in advertising issues.

If a business advertises that it's product is healthy and nutritious, then, yes, the government as the representative of We the People is empowered to investigate it.
 
No this thread is not about government advertising regulations, though that certainly is one aspect of the topic as it was used as an example and could certainly be included as it pertains to the thread topic. Now what the thread is about is specified in the OP. Perhaps those who can't figure that out aren't interested in the topic enough to enjoy participating here maybe?

Your OP is based upon an article where the government is stipulating that the portion size of the bar exceeds the level of saturated fat in order for it to be advertised as "healthy".

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.

If the government is not empowered to regulate truth in advertising then who should be the watchdog for truth? There are plenty of examples of corporations lying to consumers about their products and causing harm and even death.

So who should We the People "trust" to ensure that products advertised to consumers as "healthy" are not loaded with sugar, saturated fat and other harmful substances?
 
For me the connotation of the word "dictate" is the issue. I don't know how they are supposed to even do that.

Well in the example the author used in the link in the OP, a nutritional bar manufacture was 'dictated to' by the government who said they couldn't advertise it as a 'healthy' because of the saturated fat content.

So there is one example of the government dictating what is or is not 'healthy'.

The argument posed by the OP is given how many times the government has been shown to be wrong its published opinions of what is and is not 'healthy', do we really want the government dictating to us and commerce and industry what is and is not healthy? Or should the government butt out of that, provide the best information available, and then let the people decide for themselves what is and is not healthy?
 
For me the connotation of the word "dictate" is the issue. I don't know how they are supposed to even do that.

Well in the example the author used in the link in the OP, a nutritional bar manufacture was 'dictated to' by the government who said they couldn't advertise it as a 'healthy' because of the saturated fat content.

So there is one example of the government dictating what is or is not 'healthy'.

The argument posed by the OP is given how many times the government has been shown to be wrong its published opinions of what is and is not 'healthy', do we really want the government dictating to us and commerce and industry what is and is not healthy? Or should the government butt out of that, provide the best information available, and then let the people decide for themselves what is and is not healthy?

Well in the example the author used in the link in the OP, a nutritional bar manufacture was 'dictated to' by the government who said they couldn't advertise it as a 'healthy' because of the saturated fat content.

So there is one example of the government dictating what is or is not 'healthy'.

Upholding the law is not "dictating".
 
The government is We the People's representatives and appointments, so, no, it is not dictating to anybody. We the People are responsible for reining in any inappropriate governmental behavior.
 
I think a lot of us conclude that those in government think we the people are too stupid and incompetent to decide for ourselves what is and is not good for us. Maybe some re too stupid and incompetent to make good choices, but is it a function of government to concern itself with that?

Sylvia Burrell, Health and Human Services secretary, said recently at s speechj at Georgetown that in order to get Americans to eat healthier, they needed to be educated and provided the proper tools. She added that some people didn’t even know how to serve fresh fruit – citing as an example the difficulty of cutting a fresh pineapple or a pomegranate. The suggestion was that this is a legitimate function of government to address. (And the history has generally been that if the government addresses it, the government finds some way to involve itself in an authoritarian way.)

Do you agree with her?
 
And the point made here, is the laws that government passers that dictates to the people. If the law is dictatorial, then enforcing it is also dictatorial.

I am not quarreling with requirements imposed on those who take government money and then have to abide by what the government requires of them because they took it. Such people have nobody to blame for themselves if they don't like the requirements. It is more problematic when they have no choice in whether or not to accept the government program.

But in this case, the question is really whether government is the best judge of what is and is not healthy for any of us. Most especially when it dictates that, lawfully or not.

For instance, this photo of an actual school lunch is making the rounds today. It 100% complies with USDA requirements for a healthy school lunch. Would you approve of this for your kid? I sure wouldn't feel cared for if this was served to me.

portsmouth-lunch-e1429202916475-665x385.jpg
 
The OP seems to be more fixated on the use of arbitrary words like "healthy"....just what does that mean ?

And since when was the government ever assigned the role of telling us that ? If you want to get rid of all such words in advertising....then take them away from all products and only reports the "facts" about your food.

Frankly, I think letting nature weed out the morons who buy into advertising is just fine.

The government has much more important things to do (things they could do that might even come close to being meaningful).

I've noticed through the years how their little label on the side of cigarrettes has been so effective. I recall when it was first instituted. Everyone figured nobody would pick up the habit with that bit of information.

WRONG.

Can we get rid of airbags too ?

One final question that I didn't see addressed in the article.

How did that standard come to be ? Did congress pass that law ?

Or does the FDA have some arbitrary power to pick those levels based on the latest "science" (which we know is NEVER EVER political) ? If so, then I think the OP has a valid point about the government "dictating" what is healthy and what is not.
 
Last edited:
The OP seems to be more fixated on the use of arbitrary words like "healthy"....just what does that mean ?

And since when was the government ever assigned the role of telling us that ? If you want to get rid of all such words in advertising....then take them away from all products and only reports the "facts" about your food.

Frankly, I think letting nature weed out the morons who buy into advertising is just fine.

The government has much more important things to do (things they could do that might even come close to being meaningful).

I've noticed through the years how their little label on the side of cigarrettes has been so effective. I recall when it was first instituted. Everyone figured nobody would pick up the habit with that bit of information.

WRONG.

Can we get rid of airbags too ?

One final question that I didn't see addressed in the article.

How did that standard come to be ? Did congress pass that law ?

Or does the FDA have some arbitrary power to pick those levels based on the latest "science" (which we know is NEVER EVER political) ? If so, then I think the OP has a valid point about the government "dictating" what is healthy and what is not.

The whole problem with government, ever since it started overstepping its constitutional authority, is that more and more of our laws are passed without representation. The FDA or any other government agency can issue pretty well whatever rules and regulations it wishes and these carry the force of law because the agency can impose monetrary or worse penalities on those who do not comply.

'Healthy', for instance, is not arbitrary on the part of the OP. 'Healthy' is whatever the government says it is when it comes to government regulations.

But given how poorly, ineffectively, or inefficiently the government does so many things, why in the world would we think government would do a better job deciding what is and is not healthy for us than we would do for ourselves?
 
Last edited:
The OP seems to be more fixated on the use of arbitrary words like "healthy"....just what does that mean ?

And since when was the government ever assigned the role of telling us that ? If you want to get rid of all such words in advertising....then take them away from all products and only reports the "facts" about your food.

Frankly, I think letting nature weed out the morons who buy into advertising is just fine.

The government has much more important things to do (things they could do that might even come close to being meaningful).

I've noticed through the years how their little label on the side of cigarrettes has been so effective. I recall when it was first instituted. Everyone figured nobody would pick up the habit with that bit of information.

WRONG.

Can we get rid of airbags too ?

One final question that I didn't see addressed in the article.

How did that standard come to be ? Did congress pass that law ?

Or does the FDA have some arbitrary power to pick those levels based on the latest "science" (which we know is NEVER EVER political) ? If so, then I think the OP has a valid point about the government "dictating" what is healthy and what is not.

The whole problem with government, ever since it started overstepping its constitutional authority, is that more and more of our laws are passed without representation. The FDA or any other government agency can issue pretty well whatever rules and regulations it wishes and these carry the force of law because the agency can impose monetrary or worse penalities on those who do not comply.

'Healthy', for instance, is not arbitrary on the part of the OP. 'Healthy' is whatever the government says it is when it comes to government regulations.

But given how poorly, ineffectively, or inefficiently the government does so many things, why in the world would we think government would do a better job deciding what is and is not healthy for us than we would do for ourselves?

The claim was made that this is part of applying the law. That is what I object to.

This has migrated to an arbitrary application.

I recall watching a moron member of the house (from New York) saying he was going to "help us make good choices".

It was almost sick.

Your description of "healthy" absolutely says it is arbitrary. I have the some objections about the HHSS being able to move Obamacare around without the approval of congress.

Whether they do a good job or not is not at issue here.

It is whether they should be doing this job or not.

We don't take children away from parents who do a bad job because they are the kids parents.
 
I am just social minded enough to believe that parents who have kids should feed, clothe, and provide them shelter or those kids should be placed with people who will provide them with that.

I am just libertarian enough to believe that as a parent who fed, clothed, and provided shelter for my children, I am a better judge of what is good and right for them than any faceless government bureaucrat can ever be.

And I am just pragmatic enough to believe that school lunches should provide reasonable nutrition but should be something that the kids will eat and provide sufficient energy that they can focus on afternoon classes instead of their too empty stomachs. And if that means they don't get all the basic food groups in that particular meal, that is no big deal because the parents can make up for it with breakfast and dinner.
 

Forum List

Back
Top