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

[Derideo_Te]

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?

Which begs the questions that the OP failed to address when it was posted earlier in this thread.

Who does the OP trust to be the watchdog if not the government of We the People? What powers would this alternative watchdog have to enforce their standards?

Or does the OP prefer a Libertarian Utopia where anyone can sell any "healthy" snake oil they like to anyone without any recourse at all if it turns out to be laden with unhealthy substances?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

So none of the "faceless government bureaucrats" at the FDA was ever a parent who "fed, clothed, and provided shelter" for their own children?

Why has this factoid never been made known to all before now?

 

[Ravi]

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.

So none of the "faceless government bureaucrats" at the FDA was ever a parent who "fed, clothed, and provided shelter" for their own children?

Why has this factoid never been made known to all before now?

It's not that some people hate government. It's just that they hate government when things don't reflect their personal values.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion the government should require labeling of the contents of processed foods but should regulate advertising only if it is proactively harmful. Anybody should be able to claim in their advertising that a product is 'best' when it isn't. But they should not be allowed to claim that it cures cancer if it won't. The first harms nobody. The second is dangerously misleading.

Certainly it is not the prerogative of government to dictate to any commercial entity or the public what is and is not 'healthy' since the term can mean very different things to any two people.

That nutritional bar would be perfectly healthy to me who is not allegic to any ingredient in it. And even if saturated fat is a concern--the OP also showed that it may not be so much of a concern--it would not be a problem for me who consumes very little saturated fat. But to a person who, for whatever reason, must restrict their fat intake or who is allergic to an ingredient in the bar, it wouldn't be healthy. But the people should decide that, not the government.

 

[G.T.]

Yea. I think its reasonable to expect the govt to enforce false advertisment laws.

Reasonable to expect the govt to approve foods for govt (pubic)schools.

Reasonable to enforce that foods are accurately labeled.

After all that? Sccchhhhtoppit.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't think the poll questions were clear as to the agreement between people and govt.
If people reach an agreement and pass laws through either the state or federal level,
that is the people deciding but making it statutory through govt, so it is both govt and people.

If you mean govt IMPOSING against the will of the people, I believe that type of relationship should be avoided.

So I guess my answer is more geared toward the people making scientifically based decisions,
and then agreeing what to implement through law or govt. If people can't agree, such as on the balance between dangers of nuclear useage and the benefits, or on the issue of global warming, then the focus should be on the science and solutions that can be proven. Stick to what will solve the problems by agreement. And quit abusing govt to bully politically by coercion.

 

[gipper]

The feds do a very poor job of protecting us from anything. As it relates to health, they certainly have failed in numerous ways.

The feds fail to protect our food supply from dangerous chemicals...thanks to Monsanto and others owning the government.

Dangerous pharmaceutical drugs are regularly approved by the FDA, since big pharm owns the government.

Big healthcare performs all sort of dangerous procedures with gov approval, since they own the government. Anyone who has bothered to research cancer and the failed treatments offered by doctors and hospitals knows this. Death by doctor is rated as the number 3 cause of death in the USA...it likely is the #1 cause if truth be told.

Hey he died of cancer...when in reality he died from chemo treatments...but the healthcare industry gets rich and pays tons to the corrupt political machines to keep doing it over and over and over....................

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think the poll questions were clear as to the agreement between people and govt.
If people reach an agreement and pass laws through either the state or federal level,
that is the people deciding but making it statutory through govt, so it is both govt and people.

If you mean govt IMPOSING against the will of the people, I believe that type of relationship should be avoided.

So I guess my answer is more geared toward the people making scientifically based decisions,
and then agreeing what to implement through law or govt. If people can't agree, such as on the balance between dangers of nuclear useage and the benefits, or on the issue of global warming, then the focus should be on the science and solutions that can be proven. Stick to what will solve the problems by agreement. And quit abusing govt to bully politically by coercion.

But let's be careful to not go out to left field with nuclear usage and global warming here. Let's keep the focus on government authority to dictate what is and is not healthy.

The OP is rather narrowly focused on whether the government should have the power to dictate to us what is and is not 'healthy'. The point is made that the conventional wisdom as to what is or is not 'healthy' is rather controversial and has been shown to be wrong on numerous occasions. (See the OP for illustrations.)

I am very aware of what foods make me feel great and which foods I should avoid because of unpleasant consequences. Shouldn't I be able to access information on what foods, vitamins, minerals etc. are recommended and then make my own choices about what is or is not healthy for me and mine? And am I too stupid to look beyond a statement of 'healthy' on a nutrition or energy bar and calculate whether the amount of fat or sugar or salt or whatever in that bar is healthy for me?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yea. I think its reasonable to expect the govt to enforce false advertisment laws.

Reasonable to expect the govt to approve foods for govt (pubic)schools.

Reasonable to enforce that foods are accurately labeled.

After all that? Sccchhhhtoppit.

But is advertising a nutrition bar 'healthy' actually false advertising? As long as the bar contains no products deemed unsafe for human consumption, why should some government bureaucrat have power to determine whether something is 'healthy' or not? Chances are that nutrition bar is a whole bunch healthier than what I might otherwise grab in the kitchen when I have a persuasive munchy attack in the mid afternoon.

 

[G.T.]

Yea. I think its reasonable to expect the govt to enforce false advertisment laws.

Reasonable to expect the govt to approve foods for govt (pubic)schools.

Reasonable to enforce that foods are accurately labeled.

After all that? Sccchhhhtoppit.

But is advertising a nutrition bar 'healthy' actually false advertising? As long as the bar contains no products deemed unsafe for human consumption, why should some government bureaucrat have power to determine whether something is 'healthy' or not?

Yea, false advertising the bar as healthy when its not is breaking the law.

So long as the govt is using the current scientific consensus and not some arbitrary source, 100% they can justify that enforcement.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But is advertising a nutrition bar 'healthy' actually false advertising?

If it violates the standards as determined by the FDA then yes, it is false advertising.

Where does the OP draw the line?

How about advertising candy bars as "healthy"?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yea. I think its reasonable to expect the govt to enforce false advertisment laws.

Reasonable to expect the govt to approve foods for govt (pubic)schools.

Reasonable to enforce that foods are accurately labeled.

After all that? Sccchhhhtoppit.

But is advertising a nutrition bar 'healthy' actually false advertising? As long as the bar contains no products deemed unsafe for human consumption, why should some government bureaucrat have power to determine whether something is 'healthy' or not?

Yea, false advertising the bar as healthy when its not is breaking the law.

So long as the govt is using the current scientific consensus and not some arbitrary source, 100% they can justify that enforcement.

The government tells us that onions are an acceptable food. You find them served in products everywhere and many of those products, by government standards, can be labeled 'healthy'. But consumption of raw onions has a very negative result for me and are not at all healthy for me to consume. So because I might respond negatively, should all products containing raw onions be denied a 'healthy' label?

And that nutritional bar described in the link in the OP would be perfectly healthy for me as I consume very little saturated fat and what is contained in the bar is within acceptable limits. To deny the manufacturer the ability to label a product as 'healthy' when it is arguably healthier than most snacks people might choose, just smacks of government overreach and as wrong to me.

 

[G.T.]

Yea. I think its reasonable to expect the govt to enforce false advertisment laws.

Reasonable to expect the govt to approve foods for govt (pubic)schools.

Reasonable to enforce that foods are accurately labeled.

After all that? Sccchhhhtoppit.

But is advertising a nutrition bar 'healthy' actually false advertising? As long as the bar contains no products deemed unsafe for human consumption, why should some government bureaucrat have power to determine whether something is 'healthy' or not?

Yea, false advertising the bar as healthy when its not is breaking the law.

So long as the govt is using the current scientific consensus and not some arbitrary source, 100% they can justify that enforcement.

The government tells us that onions are an acceptable food. You find them served in products everywhere and many of those products, by government standards, can be labeled 'healthy'. But consumption of raw onions has a very negative result for me and are not at all healthy for me to consume. So because I might respond negatively, should all products containing raw onions be denied a 'healthy' label?

And that nutritional bar described in the link in the OP would be perfectly healthy for me as I consume very little saturated fat and what is contained in the bar is within acceptable limits. To deny the manufacturer the ability to label a product as 'healthy' when it is arguably healthier than most snacks people might choose, just smacks of government overreach and as wrong to me.

Your personal food sensitivities shouldnt shift a national standard.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yea. I think its reasonable to expect the govt to enforce false advertisment laws.

Reasonable to expect the govt to approve foods for govt (pubic)schools.

Reasonable to enforce that foods are accurately labeled.

After all that? Sccchhhhtoppit.

But is advertising a nutrition bar 'healthy' actually false advertising? As long as the bar contains no products deemed unsafe for human consumption, why should some government bureaucrat have power to determine whether something is 'healthy' or not?

Yea, false advertising the bar as healthy when its not is breaking the law.

So long as the govt is using the current scientific consensus and not some arbitrary source, 100% they can justify that enforcement.

The government tells us that onions are an acceptable food. You find them served in products everywhere and many of those products, by government standards, can be labeled 'healthy'. But consumption of raw onions has a very negative result for me and are not at all healthy for me to consume. So because I might respond negatively, should all products containing raw onions be denied a 'healthy' label?

And that nutritional bar described in the link in the OP would be perfectly healthy for me as I consume very little saturated fat and what is contained in the bar is within acceptable limits. To deny the manufacturer the ability to label a product as 'healthy' when it is arguably healthier than most snacks people might choose, just smacks of government overreach and as wrong to me.

Your personal food sensitivities shouldnt shift a national standard.

In my opinion there should be no national standard. Leave nutritional decisions up to the people and whatever private consultants they consult whether that is a doctor or nutritionist or whomever. And the only 'false advertising' that should be any business of the government is that which could seriously harm people.

The role of the government should be to prohibit known toxins and harmful contaminants from entering the food supply without knowledge of the people, and to provide information about what the current conventional wisdom is. And then leave the people alone to live their lives as they choose.

 

[G.T.]

Yea. I think its reasonable to expect the govt to enforce false advertisment laws.

Reasonable to expect the govt to approve foods for govt (pubic)schools.

Reasonable to enforce that foods are accurately labeled.

After all that? Sccchhhhtoppit.

But is advertising a nutrition bar 'healthy' actually false advertising? As long as the bar contains no products deemed unsafe for human consumption, why should some government bureaucrat have power to determine whether something is 'healthy' or not?

Yea, false advertising the bar as healthy when its not is breaking the law.

So long as the govt is using the current scientific consensus and not some arbitrary source, 100% they can justify that enforcement.

The government tells us that onions are an acceptable food. You find them served in products everywhere and many of those products, by government standards, can be labeled 'healthy'. But consumption of raw onions has a very negative result for me and are not at all healthy for me to consume. So because I might respond negatively, should all products containing raw onions be denied a 'healthy' label?

And that nutritional bar described in the link in the OP would be perfectly healthy for me as I consume very little saturated fat and what is contained in the bar is within acceptable limits. To deny the manufacturer the ability to label a product as 'healthy' when it is arguably healthier than most snacks people might choose, just smacks of government overreach and as wrong to me.

Your personal food sensitivities shouldnt shift a national standard.

In my opinion there should be no national standard. Leave nutritional decisions up to the people and whatever private consultants they consult whether that is a doctor or nutritionist or whomever.

Umm...the decision is still up to the consumer.

The govt is just not allowing a business to mislead them about their product. That is its job, quite literally. Regulate commerce. Right in the constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

But is advertising a nutrition bar 'healthy' actually false advertising? As long as the bar contains no products deemed unsafe for human consumption, why should some government bureaucrat have power to determine whether something is 'healthy' or not?

Yea, false advertising the bar as healthy when its not is breaking the law.

So long as the govt is using the current scientific consensus and not some arbitrary source, 100% they can justify that enforcement.

The government tells us that onions are an acceptable food. You find them served in products everywhere and many of those products, by government standards, can be labeled 'healthy'. But consumption of raw onions has a very negative result for me and are not at all healthy for me to consume. So because I might respond negatively, should all products containing raw onions be denied a 'healthy' label?

And that nutritional bar described in the link in the OP would be perfectly healthy for me as I consume very little saturated fat and what is contained in the bar is within acceptable limits. To deny the manufacturer the ability to label a product as 'healthy' when it is arguably healthier than most snacks people might choose, just smacks of government overreach and as wrong to me.

Your personal food sensitivities shouldnt shift a national standard.

In my opinion there should be no national standard. Leave nutritional decisions up to the people and whatever private consultants they consult whether that is a doctor or nutritionist or whomever.

Umm...the decision is still up to the consumer.

The govt is just not allowing a business to mislead them about their product. That is its job, quite literally. Regulate commerce. Right in the constitution.

Pardon me if I say 'baloney'? The government allows advertisers to mislead the public in every possible way from sale of cars to computers to quality of fruit to what the hamburger you actually get looks like compared to the photo used to sell it. Further, the government is no greater judge of what is and what is not 'healthy' than I am or anybody else is. Because 'healthy' is such a personal issue with each individual person, for government to co-opt that particular word and presume to dictate what it must or must not mean is simply government overreach and another example of Big Brother-ism at its worst.

 

[Gracie]

INFORM, yes. DICTATE? No.

 

[Gracie]

Personally, I am disgusted at the blatant acts of the drug companies in commercials telling us to ask our doctors if blahblah is right for *you*, then listing all the awful things that drug CAN do to you that is worse than the disease itself. Since when is TV a non stop commerical of drug companies wanting your money but fuck you if you die taking it?

 

[Gracie]

Which in turns dominoes into twobit lawyers asking you took that drug and you or a loved one died..call them! BUT WAIT! If you call NOW, they will double their attempts to suck money out of the drug companies but not for you or your dead loved one..oh no no no. THey want the money themselves. So they can eagerly await yet another lawsuit from said drug company that is pushing its poison unto stupid people who believe some hasbeen celeb pushing it in the camera.
Lets face it. Lots of gullible people out there. And these schmucks know it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Personally, I am disgusted at the blatant acts of the drug companies in commercials telling us to ask our doctors if blahblah is right for *you*, then listing all the awful things that drug CAN do to you that is worse than the disease itself. Since when is TV a non stop commerical of drug companies wanting your money but fuck you if you die taking it?

That is another example of government overreach for sure--the concept that all pharmaceutical companies must advertise all the known side effects of the drug along with the potential benefits of the drug. The reasoning for this is obvious, but the also obvious unintended consequence is that the people tune out that long list of side effects and most don't take them seriously at all. Or they are frightened into not taking a drug that really could help them.

It should suffice simply to make it a prescription drug and let your doctor tell you what side effects are associated with it. Or require that to be printed information furnished with the drug when you get it.

But for sure, the more government regulation there is and the more the government dictates what the people can and cannot legally say or advertise or do, and what people HAVE to do, it opens up a huge market for opportunistic trial lawyers.