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

[Derideo_Te]

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.

It was Libertarian "free markets" dogma that resulted in Big Pharma being allowed to advertise their prescription drugs directly to the public.

Blaming the government of We the People now is disingenuous since it only did what was demanded of it by the corporate special interest lobbyists.

 

[Greenbeard]

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?

Who's stopping you from doing that now? Your frequent use of the word "dictate" throughout this thread and this rhetorical question do suggest that somehow your choices have been in some way restricted or inhibited. And yet as far as I can tell nothing in this thread is about restricting consumer choice. You can buy any candy/power/nutrition bar you want.

So what gives?

 

[G.T.]

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.

Thats why i said science.

Not arbitrary.

They use science.

False advertisment laws exist.

Dont know which u.s. law youre reading that it doesnt.

And a company not being able to false advertise doesnt limit your choices at all. They can still sell their product, so saying all that my choice my choice is a bit of exaggeraring/drama queening.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Who's stopping you from doing that now? Your frequent use of the word "dictate" throughout this thread and this rhetorical question do suggest that somehow your choices have been in some way restricted or inhibited. And yet as far as I can tell nothing in this thread is about restricting consumer choice. You can buy any candy/power/nutrition bar you want.

So what gives?

Perhaps you could read the OP and understand what the thread topic is? The topic is not what I am allowed to buy. The illustration used for the topic, which is not limited to that illustration, was the government DICTATING to a company that it could not advertise its perfectly healthy nutrition bar as 'healthy' because it contained saturated fat.

I also included an argument in the OP for why it is inappropriate for government to do that on the specific basis of saturated fat.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Thata why i said science.

Not arbitrary.

They use science.

False advertisment laws exist.

Dont know which u.s. law youre reading that it doesnt.

And a company not being able to false advertise doesnt limit your choices at all. They can still sell their product, so saying all that my choice my choice is a bit of exaggeraring/drama queening.

I am not arguing the law. I rarely do. Most especially on threads in which the topic is specifically what the law should or should not be.

Now unless you can show how ALL advertising of products must be 100% honest or it is illegal, that is an irrelevent argument. (hint: you won't be able to do that.)

The argument is what the law should be re what is 'healthy'. In my argument in the OP and since, I say the government is not a competent authority on that and should not be given authority to dictate that.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Thata why i said science.

Not arbitrary.

They use science.

False advertisment laws exist.

Dont know which u.s. law youre reading that it doesnt.

And a company not being able to false advertise doesnt limit your choices at all. They can still sell their product, so saying all that my choice my choice is a bit of exaggeraring/drama queening.

I am not arguing the law. I rarely do. Most especially on threads in which the topic is specifically what the law should or should not be.

Now unless you can show how ALL advertising of products must be 100% honest or it is illegal, that is an irrelevent argument. (hint: you won't be able to do that.)

The argument is what the law should be re what is 'healthy'. In my argument in the OP and since, I say the government is not a competent authority on that and should not be given authority to dictate that.

Not a competent authority per who?

The science itself has been rehashed.

Not simply the governments arbitrary opinion on whats healthy. The actual science is what changed.

They are using professionals in the field to become informed.

Then, they use said knowledge for consumer protections.

They are SUPPOSED TO. They are obligated.

 

[Greenbeard]

Perhaps you could read the OP and understand what the thread topic is? The topic is not what I am allowed to buy.

Then what is the point of this question?

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?

The government isn't stopping you from accessing that information and making your own choices about what is healthy. I find the fixation on whether a company can slap the word "healthy" on the label rather odd and frankly I don't know what the connection is between that marketing and your decision-making process.

If the presence of the word "healthy" on the label (or some other advertising gimmick) is determinative in your decision-making process, then you're likely exactly the person the FDA is trying to help by having standards for its use.

 

[G.T.]

Perhaps you could read the OP and understand what the thread topic is? The topic is not what I am allowed to buy.

Then what is the point of this question?

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?

The government isn't stopping you from accessing that information and making your own choices about what is healthy. I find the fixation on whether a company can slap the word "healthy" on the label rather odd and frankly I don't know what the connection is between that marketing and your decision-making process.

If the presence of the word "healthy" on the label (or some other advertising gimmick) is determinative in your decision-making process, then you're likely exactly the person the FDA is trying to help by having standards for its use.

Which is ironic. Heh, hadnt thought about that, its exactly right.

That, and the word "dictate" is being misused in the most egregious of ways in this thread

 

[Ravi]

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?

You would rather not they have to disclose the side effects?

 

[Ravi]

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?

Who's stopping you from doing that now? Your frequent use of the word "dictate" throughout this thread and this rhetorical question do suggest that somehow your choices have been in some way restricted or inhibited. And yet as far as I can tell nothing in this thread is about restricting consumer choice. You can buy any candy/power/nutrition bar you want.

So what gives?

Perhaps you could read the OP and understand what the thread topic is? The topic is not what I am allowed to buy. The illustration used for the topic, which is not limited to that illustration, was the government DICTATING to a company that it could not advertise its perfectly healthy nutrition bar as 'healthy' because it contained saturated fat.

I also included an argument in the OP for why it is inappropriate for government to do that on the specific basis of saturated fat.

How do you define perfectly healthy?

 

[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?

You would rather not they have to disclose the side effects?

What I want is for them to STFU and let our doctors decide which med to take. It's nothing but being drug pushers..and some people can die because they believe the bullshit crap some wannabe celeb is touting that probably doesn't take it at all but does take the payout of recommending it.

 

[G.T.]

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?

You would rather not they have to disclose the side effects?

What I want is for them to STFU and let our doctors decide which med to take. It's nothing but being drug pushers..and some people can die because they believe the bullshit crap some wannabe celeb is touting that probably doesn't take it at all but does take the payout of recommending it.

In what way do the words ASK YOUR DOCTOR inform you that your doctor is not deciding?

 

[Ravi]

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?

You would rather not they have to disclose the side effects?

What I want is for them to STFU and let our doctors decide which med to take. It's nothing but being drug pushers..and some people can die because they believe the bullshit crap some wannabe celeb is touting that probably doesn't take it at all but does take the payout of recommending it.

You are then giving doctors a lot of power. You realize they get perks from pharmaceutical companies, right? And/or too busy/lazy to do their own research?

 

[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?

You would rather not they have to disclose the side effects?

What I want is for them to STFU and let our doctors decide which med to take. It's nothing but being drug pushers..and some people can die because they believe the bullshit crap some wannabe celeb is touting that probably doesn't take it at all but does take the payout of recommending it.

You are then giving doctors a lot of power. You realize they get perks from pharmaceutical companies, right? And/or too busy/lazy to do their own research?

Yes, I am aware.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Since corporations exercise unequal access to collective influence and resources, I recommend holding companies to have some standards of due process and right to petition to redress grievances that Govt is supposed to maintain.

Unfortunately our system has been hijacked by the costs of legal actions,
so I recommend more accessible mediation, some system of issuing grievances to companies if their practices are deemed problematic or unethical.

That way people can petition directly, and resolve issues effectively case by case,
without depending on going through govt to pass laws to micromanage every case.

 

[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.

Since corporations exercise unequal access to collective influence and resources, I recommend holding companies to have some standards of due process and right to petition to redress grievances that Govt is supposed to maintain.

Unfortunately our system has been hijacked by the costs of legal actions,
so I recommend more accessible mediation, some system of issuing grievances to companies if their practices are deemed problematic or unethical.

That way people can petition directly, and resolve issues effectively case by case,
without depending on going through govt to pass laws to micromanage every case.

Corporations are held to certain standards via RICO, anti-trust and some necessary environmental laws. Again, there are regulations that disallow claims that could cause severe harm to people. The example I used earlier is that you can claim your product is BEST when it isn't. But you can't claim it cures cancer if it doesn't.

So when it comes to a term like 'healthy', and given how wrong the government has been in the past as to what is and what is not 'healthy' and the general ambiguity of that term. . .

. . .and add to that the wide variances involved. Onions for instance might be completely healthy for you and very unhealthy for me.

Add all that up, and I see it as inappropriate, unjustifiable, and detrimental government overreach for the government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise its nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

 

[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? 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.

Since corporations exercise unequal access to collective influence and resources, I recommend holding companies to have some standards of due process and right to petition to redress grievances that Govt is supposed to maintain.

Unfortunately our system has been hijacked by the costs of legal actions,
so I recommend more accessible mediation, some system of issuing grievances to companies if their practices are deemed problematic or unethical.

That way people can petition directly, and resolve issues effectively case by case,
without depending on going through govt to pass laws to micromanage every case.

Corporations are held to certain standards via RICO, anti-trust and some necessary environmental laws. Again, there are regulations that disallow claims that could cause severe harm to people. The example I used earlier is that you can claim your product is BEST when it isn't. But you can't claim it cures cancer if it doesn't.

So when it comes to a term like 'healthy', and given how wrong the government has been in the past as to what is and what is not 'healthy' and the general ambiguity of that term. . .

. . .and add to that the wide variances involved. Onions for instance might be completely healthy for you and very unhealthy for me.

Add all that up, and I see it as inappropriate, unjustifiable, and detrimental government overreach for the government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise its nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

The government doesnt have a track record of being wrong.

The sciences were wrong.

Stop conflating the two.

And it is very detrimental to ones health to think that a food is healthy when it's not, and so it meets your own standard for when the Government SHOULD interfere, which you described above.

Your onion example fails again also, because outliers dont (and shouldnt) effect a national standard. Meaning - people can be allergic to almonds and that doesnt disqualify them as being categorized as HEALTHY because the science says otherwise.

 

[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.

Since corporations exercise unequal access to collective influence and resources, I recommend holding companies to have some standards of due process and right to petition to redress grievances that Govt is supposed to maintain.

Unfortunately our system has been hijacked by the costs of legal actions,
so I recommend more accessible mediation, some system of issuing grievances to companies if their practices are deemed problematic or unethical.

That way people can petition directly, and resolve issues effectively case by case,
without depending on going through govt to pass laws to micromanage every case.

Corporations are held to certain standards via RICO, anti-trust and some necessary environmental laws. Again, there are regulations that disallow claims that could cause severe harm to people. The example I used earlier is that you can claim your product is BEST when it isn't. But you can't claim it cures cancer if it doesn't.

So when it comes to a term like 'healthy', and given how wrong the government has been in the past as to what is and what is not 'healthy' and the general ambiguity of that term. . .

. . .and add to that the wide variances involved. Onions for instance might be completely healthy for you and very unhealthy for me.

Add all that up, and I see it as inappropriate, unjustifiable, and detrimental government overreach for the government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise its nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

The government doesnt have a track record of being wrong.

The sciences were wrong.

Stop conflating the two.

And it is very detrimental to ones health to think that a food is healthy when it's not, and so it meets your own standard for when the Government SHOULD interfere, which you described above.

Your onion example fails again also, because outliers dont (and shouldnt) effect a national standard. Meaning - people can be allergic to almonds and that doesnt disqualify them as being categorized as HEALTHY because the science says otherwise.

I know that is your argument. But I think I made an adequate argument in the OP for why government should not be making ultimatums and dictates based on scientific opinion that changes with the seasons. Compile the information of what the prevailing scientific opinion is--pro and con--yes. But let the people decide.

 

[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? 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.

Since corporations exercise unequal access to collective influence and resources, I recommend holding companies to have some standards of due process and right to petition to redress grievances that Govt is supposed to maintain.

Unfortunately our system has been hijacked by the costs of legal actions,
so I recommend more accessible mediation, some system of issuing grievances to companies if their practices are deemed problematic or unethical.

That way people can petition directly, and resolve issues effectively case by case,
without depending on going through govt to pass laws to micromanage every case.

Corporations are held to certain standards via RICO, anti-trust and some necessary environmental laws. Again, there are regulations that disallow claims that could cause severe harm to people. The example I used earlier is that you can claim your product is BEST when it isn't. But you can't claim it cures cancer if it doesn't.

So when it comes to a term like 'healthy', and given how wrong the government has been in the past as to what is and what is not 'healthy' and the general ambiguity of that term. . .

. . .and add to that the wide variances involved. Onions for instance might be completely healthy for you and very unhealthy for me.

Add all that up, and I see it as inappropriate, unjustifiable, and detrimental government overreach for the government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise its nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

The government doesnt have a track record of being wrong.

The sciences were wrong.

Stop conflating the two.

And it is very detrimental to ones health to think that a food is healthy when it's not, and so it meets your own standard for when the Government SHOULD interfere, which you described above.

Your onion example fails again also, because outliers dont (and shouldnt) effect a national standard. Meaning - people can be allergic to almonds and that doesnt disqualify them as being categorized as HEALTHY because the science says otherwise.

I know that is your argument. But I think I made an adequate argument in the OP for why government should not be making ultimatums and dictates based on scientific opinion that changes with the seasons. Compile the information of what the prevailing scientific opinion is--pro and con--yes. But let the people decide.

The people already do decide, because the products arent being banned.

The company is just not allowed to false advertize its product. Dont know why thats such a harsh dictatorship, to you.

To me, its quite obvious that people are either really really ignorant of what "healthy" means, or they're really really bad at self control.

And this ignorance or lack of self control doesnt only effect themselves. It is a cost driver in the healthcare industry and in the Government (medicare/aid) sector (taxe$).

The government has 3 vested interests here.
- regulating commerce (false advertising)
- healthcare costs
- tax burden

I find it really difficult to see any fault whatsoever with disallowing a nutrition bar from calling itself "healthy" when it contains a leading contributor to heart disease - which last i looked was one of if not THE top killers in America.

Its actually one of the most egregious attempts at false advertising Ive seen.

 

[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? 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.

Since corporations exercise unequal access to collective influence and resources, I recommend holding companies to have some standards of due process and right to petition to redress grievances that Govt is supposed to maintain.

Unfortunately our system has been hijacked by the costs of legal actions,
so I recommend more accessible mediation, some system of issuing grievances to companies if their practices are deemed problematic or unethical.

That way people can petition directly, and resolve issues effectively case by case,
without depending on going through govt to pass laws to micromanage every case.

Corporations are held to certain standards via RICO, anti-trust and some necessary environmental laws. Again, there are regulations that disallow claims that could cause severe harm to people. The example I used earlier is that you can claim your product is BEST when it isn't. But you can't claim it cures cancer if it doesn't.

So when it comes to a term like 'healthy', and given how wrong the government has been in the past as to what is and what is not 'healthy' and the general ambiguity of that term. . .

. . .and add to that the wide variances involved. Onions for instance might be completely healthy for you and very unhealthy for me.

Add all that up, and I see it as inappropriate, unjustifiable, and detrimental government overreach for the government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise its nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

The government doesnt have a track record of being wrong.

The sciences were wrong.

Stop conflating the two.

And it is very detrimental to ones health to think that a food is healthy when it's not, and so it meets your own standard for when the Government SHOULD interfere, which you described above.

Your onion example fails again also, because outliers dont (and shouldnt) effect a national standard. Meaning - people can be allergic to almonds and that doesnt disqualify them as being categorized as HEALTHY because the science says otherwise.

I know that is your argument. But I think I made an adequate argument in the OP for why government should not be making ultimatums and dictates based on scientific opinion that changes with the seasons. Compile the information of what the prevailing scientific opinion is--pro and con--yes. But let the people decide.

The people already do decide, because the products arent being banned.

The company is just not allowed to false advertize its product. Dont know why thats such a harsh dictatorship, to you.

To me, its quite obvious that people are either really really ignorant of what "healthy" means, or they're really really bad at self control.

And this ignorance or lack of self control doesnt only effect themselves. It is a cost driver in the healthcare industry and in the Government (medicare/aid) sector (taxe$).

The government has 3 vested interests here.
- regulating commerce (false advertising)
- healthcare costs
- tax burden

I find it really difficult to see any fault whatsoever with disallowing a nutrition bar from calling itself "healthy" when it contains a leading contributor to heart disease - which last i looked was one of if not THE top killers in America.

Its actually one of the most egregious attempts at false advertising Ive seen.

Did you read the OP? Did you read the 'scientific' information re saturated fat that was included in the OP? If that new information is correct, the government has unjustly and unfairly accused the nutrition bar of being unhealthy.

Government is not some all knowing, all seeing, all wise entity. It is as fallible and self-serving as anybody including people trying to market a nutritional snack bar.

Government regulation commerce and industry in a constitutional republic should be extremely limited and clearly defined--and those limits should be restricted only to what people are not reasonably able to determine for themselves.

If we are going to allow government regulation to be appropriate based on healthcare costs, then we give justification for the government to dictate virtually everything we do in our lives including who we are allowed to have sex with, whether or not we are allowed to have children and how many, what kind of work we are allowed to do, what kind of recreation we are allowed to engage in, and every product we are allowed to buy and use.

And the tax burden is always the result of what we tolerate of government. That is better discussed on my social contract thread in this forum however.