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

[G.T.]

You need a lot more than one study to overturn the multitude of studies in regard to saturated fat.

The govt is NOT god, correct, which is why it HAS to rely on current scientific consensus which is FAR greater an expert voice than any one goon on the internet or company trying to falsely advertise their product as a scam. Like that bar.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

Why not ?

What are you afraid of ?

Unless the Libertarian Utopia is putting a gun to your head, they only sell if you buy.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You need a lot more than one study to overturn the multitude of studies in regard to saturated fat.

The govt is NOT god, correct, which is why it HAS to rely on current scientific consensus which is FAR greater an expert voice than any one goon on the internet or company trying to falsely advertise their product as a scam. Like that bar.

Yes, we need to government to also tell us when "improved" is and isn't "improved". I'm sure they'd get all over that one.

Why can't we demand that people publish what is in their foods...and then produce something that says this is what it will do to you.

Of couse, you'd have to know a whole lot more about yourself. Because not all foods affect people the same way.

 

[G.T.]

If the government is going to get into the business of telling people how to be healthy, then why is smoking still allowed ?

And why is drinking still allowed ?

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?

Why not ?

What are you afraid of ?

Unless the Libertarian Utopia is putting a gun to your head, they only sell if you buy.

Theres a difference here between advising of whats healthy and banning what is not.

Im not seeing posters in this conversation advocating BANNING unhealthy foods.

Your post was a straw man.

 

[G.T.]

You need a lot more than one study to overturn the multitude of studies in regard to saturated fat.

The govt is NOT god, correct, which is why it HAS to rely on current scientific consensus which is FAR greater an expert voice than any one goon on the internet or company trying to falsely advertise their product as a scam. Like that bar.

Yes, we need to government to also tell us when "improved" is and isn't "improved". I'm sure they'd get all over that one.

Why can't we demand that people publish what is in their foods...and then produce something that says this is what it will do to you.

Of couse, you'd have to know a whole lot more about yourself. Because not all foods affect people the same way.

Of course foods effect certain people different.

But again, outlier data are not what is used to establish a standard.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If the government is going to get into the business of telling people how to be healthy, then why is smoking still allowed ?

And why is drinking still allowed ?

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?

Why not ?

What are you afraid of ?

Unless the Libertarian Utopia is putting a gun to your head, they only sell if you buy.

Theres a difference here between advising of whats healthy and banning what is not.

Im not seeing posters in this conversation advocating BANNING unhealthy foods.

Your post was a straw man.

You are correct.

That was supposed to be deleted from the post.

I forget that re-relying keeps your old reply in the window.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You need a lot more than one study to overturn the multitude of studies in regard to saturated fat.

The govt is NOT god, correct, which is why it HAS to rely on current scientific consensus which is FAR greater an expert voice than any one goon on the internet or company trying to falsely advertise their product as a scam. Like that bar.

Yes, we need to government to also tell us when "improved" is and isn't "improved". I'm sure they'd get all over that one.

Why can't we demand that people publish what is in their foods...and then produce something that says this is what it will do to you.

Of couse, you'd have to know a whole lot more about yourself. Because not all foods affect people the same way.

Of course foods effect certain people different.

But again, outlier data are not what is used to establish a standard.

That is not outlier data.

And the point is that if you understand that different things affect people differently, you realize there can be no single standard.

As I've said before...the use of he word "healthy" is silly.

 

[G.T.]

You need a lot more than one study to overturn the multitude of studies in regard to saturated fat.

The govt is NOT god, correct, which is why it HAS to rely on current scientific consensus which is FAR greater an expert voice than any one goon on the internet or company trying to falsely advertise their product as a scam. Like that bar.

Yes, we need to government to also tell us when "improved" is and isn't "improved". I'm sure they'd get all over that one.

Why can't we demand that people publish what is in their foods...and then produce something that says this is what it will do to you.

Of couse, you'd have to know a whole lot more about yourself. Because not all foods affect people the same way.

Of course foods effect certain people different.

But again, outlier data are not what is used to establish a standard.

That is not outlier data.

And the point is that if you understand that different things affect people differently, you realize there can be no single standard.

As I've said before...the use of he word "healthy" is silly.

Different things effect MOST people the same way.

The people who react "different" are by definition outliers.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You need a lot more than one study to overturn the multitude of studies in regard to saturated fat.

The govt is NOT god, correct, which is why it HAS to rely on current scientific consensus which is FAR greater an expert voice than any one goon on the internet or company trying to falsely advertise their product as a scam. Like that bar.

Yes, we need to government to also tell us when "improved" is and isn't "improved". I'm sure they'd get all over that one.

Why can't we demand that people publish what is in their foods...and then produce something that says this is what it will do to you.

Of couse, you'd have to know a whole lot more about yourself. Because not all foods affect people the same way.

Of course foods effect certain people different.

But again, outlier data are not what is used to establish a standard.

That is not outlier data.

And the point is that if you understand that different things affect people differently, you realize there can be no single standard.

As I've said before...the use of he word "healthy" is silly.

Different things effect MOST people the same way.

The people who react "different" are by definition outliers.

Only if you are talking about getting wet in a rainstorm.

The government can't know what else you are eating that could very well have a huge impact on the effects of saturated fats. And since most of us don't all eat the same way.....there is no way to know.

 

[G.T.]

You need a lot more than one study to overturn the multitude of studies in regard to saturated fat.

The govt is NOT god, correct, which is why it HAS to rely on current scientific consensus which is FAR greater an expert voice than any one goon on the internet or company trying to falsely advertise their product as a scam. Like that bar.

Yes, we need to government to also tell us when "improved" is and isn't "improved". I'm sure they'd get all over that one.

Why can't we demand that people publish what is in their foods...and then produce something that says this is what it will do to you.

Of couse, you'd have to know a whole lot more about yourself. Because not all foods affect people the same way.

Of course foods effect certain people different.

But again, outlier data are not what is used to establish a standard.

That is not outlier data.

And the point is that if you understand that different things affect people differently, you realize there can be no single standard.

As I've said before...the use of he word "healthy" is silly.

Different things effect MOST people the same way.

The people who react "different" are by definition outliers.

Only if you are talking about getting wet in a rainstorm.

The government can't know what else you are eating that could very well have a huge impact on the effects of saturated fats. And since most of us don't all eat the same way.....there is no way to know.

Which is why they establish what are called GENERAL guidelines, general being a key term that learned men use on purpose to convey the message of "yea, in some cases, people are different which is why we use the term GENERAL."

But when study after study shows that saturated fats contribute to heart disease, one study doesn't change the game and magically contradict the rest.

And to call saturated fat healthy is pretty absurd. To the point of being false advertisment? Yes.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

Let's take it further.

Everyone in the FDA should fall within a certain BMI, have low cholesterol in their blood, not have diabetes....etc. etc. etc.

 

[Muhammed]

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"?

What the hell makes you think the FDA is some sort of paragon of truth?

Do you even know who controlls the FDA?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes, we need to government to also tell us when "improved" is and isn't "improved". I'm sure they'd get all over that one.

Why can't we demand that people publish what is in their foods...and then produce something that says this is what it will do to you.

Of couse, you'd have to know a whole lot more about yourself. Because not all foods affect people the same way.

Of course foods effect certain people different.

But again, outlier data are not what is used to establish a standard.

That is not outlier data.

And the point is that if you understand that different things affect people differently, you realize there can be no single standard.

As I've said before...the use of he word "healthy" is silly.

Different things effect MOST people the same way.

The people who react "different" are by definition outliers.

Only if you are talking about getting wet in a rainstorm.

The government can't know what else you are eating that could very well have a huge impact on the effects of saturated fats. And since most of us don't all eat the same way.....there is no way to know.

Which is why they establish what are called GENERAL guidelines, general being a key term that learned men use on purpose to convey the message of "yea, in some cases, people are different which is why we use the term GENERAL."

But when study after study shows that saturated fats contribute to heart disease, one study doesn't change the game and magically contradict the rest.

And to call saturated fat healthy is pretty absurd. To the point of being false advertisment? Yes.

General guidelines mean nothing and the question is whether or not the government should even be establishing them. And once again, there is nothing general.

Study after study has changed year after year. And there isn't just one study. There has been an evolution over time.

Cut all fat out of your diet and tell me how healthy that is. The fact is that it isn't healthy. Your body does need some fat.

So, "some" saturated fat might be healthy.

 

[G.T.]

Of course foods effect certain people different.

But again, outlier data are not what is used to establish a standard.

That is not outlier data.

And the point is that if you understand that different things affect people differently, you realize there can be no single standard.

As I've said before...the use of he word "healthy" is silly.

Different things effect MOST people the same way.

The people who react "different" are by definition outliers.

Only if you are talking about getting wet in a rainstorm.

The government can't know what else you are eating that could very well have a huge impact on the effects of saturated fats. And since most of us don't all eat the same way.....there is no way to know.

Which is why they establish what are called GENERAL guidelines, general being a key term that learned men use on purpose to convey the message of "yea, in some cases, people are different which is why we use the term GENERAL."

But when study after study shows that saturated fats contribute to heart disease, one study doesn't change the game and magically contradict the rest.

And to call saturated fat healthy is pretty absurd. To the point of being false advertisment? Yes.

General guidelines mean nothing and the question is whether or not the government should even be establishing them. And once again, there is nothing general.

Study after study has changed year after year. And there isn't just one study. There has been an evolution over time.

Cut all fat out of your diet and tell me how healthy that is. The fact is that it isn't healthy. Your body does need some fat.

So, "some" saturated fat might be healthy.

There are different kinds of fat, and no science calls eating "no fat" healthy.

So this was again a strawman.

There is most definitely such thing as "general."

The law of averages demands that there is, and each peer reviewed scientific study has to reach a threshold for repeatable data in order to form a guideline.

Its not "rocket science" that science has been wrong - BUT - there are enough studies at this point to say that we have the clearest picture we've ever had.

General guidelines are most certainly warranted, and its up to you to know if youre a special needs eater who falls outside of those guidelines and realize not to follow them.

The exceptions dont make the rules

 

[Muhammed]

Yes, we need to government to also tell us when "improved" is and isn't "improved". I'm sure they'd get all over that one.

Why can't we demand that people publish what is in their foods...and then produce something that says this is what it will do to you.

Of couse, you'd have to know a whole lot more about yourself. Because not all foods affect people the same way.

Of course foods effect certain people different.

But again, outlier data are not what is used to establish a standard.

That is not outlier data.

And the point is that if you understand that different things affect people differently, you realize there can be no single standard.

As I've said before...the use of he word "healthy" is silly.

Different things effect MOST people the same way.

The people who react "different" are by definition outliers.

Only if you are talking about getting wet in a rainstorm.

The government can't know what else you are eating that could very well have a huge impact on the effects of saturated fats. And since most of us don't all eat the same way.....there is no way to know.

But when study after study shows that saturated fats contribute to heart disease, one study doesn't change the game and magically contradict the rest.

And to call saturated fat healthy is pretty absurd. To the point of being false advertisment? Yes.

No.

Not when the studies you speak of are flawed.

[VIDEO]

 

[G.T.]

Of course foods effect certain people different.

But again, outlier data are not what is used to establish a standard.

That is not outlier data.

And the point is that if you understand that different things affect people differently, you realize there can be no single standard.

As I've said before...the use of he word "healthy" is silly.

Different things effect MOST people the same way.

The people who react "different" are by definition outliers.

Only if you are talking about getting wet in a rainstorm.

The government can't know what else you are eating that could very well have a huge impact on the effects of saturated fats. And since most of us don't all eat the same way.....there is no way to know.

But when study after study shows that saturated fats contribute to heart disease, one study doesn't change the game and magically contradict the rest.

And to call saturated fat healthy is pretty absurd. To the point of being false advertisment? Yes.

No.

Not when the studies you speak of are flawed.

Kay scientist

 

[G.T.]

The reason the study that found no link between saturated fat was flawed - was so simple its stupid, and its been picked apart by Harvard.

Google it.

Or - i can link it for you when im at a computer and not on my cellphone.

In short, Harvard was saying that controlling for saturated fat but not controlling what it was replaced with made the study null and void - because the two main staples of the american diet (sugar and bad starches) also lead to heart disease and so when there was not a significant decrease, it tells us nothing.

WHEREAS - they LINK to actual studies who do CONTROL for the food being replaces as being those not heavy in processed sugars and starch, and found a significant decrease in risk for heart disease when removing the saturated fat.


Further, jumping from that to calling it HEALTHY is an egregious form of false advertisment, according to the consensus of the scientific community, i.e. the giys who study this shit and are peer reviewed and not outlier studies paid for by the very Corporations who stand to lose something if the untainted science would prevail.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course foods effect certain people different.

But again, outlier data are not what is used to establish a standard.

That is not outlier data.

And the point is that if you understand that different things affect people differently, you realize there can be no single standard.

As I've said before...the use of he word "healthy" is silly.

Different things effect MOST people the same way.

The people who react "different" are by definition outliers.

Only if you are talking about getting wet in a rainstorm.

The government can't know what else you are eating that could very well have a huge impact on the effects of saturated fats. And since most of us don't all eat the same way.....there is no way to know.

Which is why they establish what are called GENERAL guidelines, general being a key term that learned men use on purpose to convey the message of "yea, in some cases, people are different which is why we use the term GENERAL."

But when study after study shows that saturated fats contribute to heart disease, one study doesn't change the game and magically contradict the rest.

And to call saturated fat healthy is pretty absurd. To the point of being false advertisment? Yes.

General guidelines mean nothing and the question is whether or not the government should even be establishing them. And once again, there is nothing general.

Study after study has changed year after year. And there isn't just one study. There has been an evolution over time.

Cut all fat out of your diet and tell me how healthy that is. The fact is that it isn't healthy. Your body does need some fat.

So, "some" saturated fat might be healthy.

Years ago I read about a scientific study in which a control group--each containing mixed genders and races--who for a period of two months ate only what was served to them by a designated cafeteria. Each person received identical trays of food in exact portions--the guys got somewhat larger portions than the gals. The food was all within government guidelines for a 'healthy' diet that was essentially saturated fat free. The only difference is that in addition to the food provided to all, one group also was also provided 2 pats of butter at each meal.

At the end of the test period, the group receiving the butter reported that they felt more full and satisfied than did the no-butter group, and the butter group experienced no change in their general health and weight, while the no-butter group not only had weight gain but other negative results.

Conclusive? No. Informative? Yes.

(This was before everybody's most insignificant thought was posted on the internet, so I can't post a link.)

 

[Foxfyre]

I will remind everybody that we are in the Structured Debate Zone and one of the explicit rules is that you will not utilize ad hominem or personal attacks. Direct your responses to the member's post and not the member.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That is not outlier data.

And the point is that if you understand that different things affect people differently, you realize there can be no single standard.

As I've said before...the use of he word "healthy" is silly.

Different things effect MOST people the same way.

The people who react "different" are by definition outliers.

Only if you are talking about getting wet in a rainstorm.

The government can't know what else you are eating that could very well have a huge impact on the effects of saturated fats. And since most of us don't all eat the same way.....there is no way to know.

Which is why they establish what are called GENERAL guidelines, general being a key term that learned men use on purpose to convey the message of "yea, in some cases, people are different which is why we use the term GENERAL."

But when study after study shows that saturated fats contribute to heart disease, one study doesn't change the game and magically contradict the rest.

And to call saturated fat healthy is pretty absurd. To the point of being false advertisment? Yes.

General guidelines mean nothing and the question is whether or not the government should even be establishing them. And once again, there is nothing general.

Study after study has changed year after year. And there isn't just one study. There has been an evolution over time.

Cut all fat out of your diet and tell me how healthy that is. The fact is that it isn't healthy. Your body does need some fat.

So, "some" saturated fat might be healthy.

There are different kinds of fat, and no science calls eating "no fat" healthy.

So this was again a strawman.

There is most definitely such thing as "general."

The law of averages demands that there is, and each peer reviewed scientific study has to reach a threshold for repeatable data in order to form a guideline.

Its not "rocket science" that science has been wrong - BUT - there are enough studies at this point to say that we have the clearest picture we've ever had.

General guidelines are most certainly warranted, and its up to you to know if youre a special needs eater who falls outside of those guidelines and realize not to follow them.

The exceptions dont make the rules

That is not outlier data.

And the point is that if you understand that different things affect people differently, you realize there can be no single standard.

As I've said before...the use of he word "healthy" is silly.

Different things effect MOST people the same way.

The people who react "different" are by definition outliers.

Only if you are talking about getting wet in a rainstorm.

The government can't know what else you are eating that could very well have a huge impact on the effects of saturated fats. And since most of us don't all eat the same way.....there is no way to know.

Which is why they establish what are called GENERAL guidelines, general being a key term that learned men use on purpose to convey the message of "yea, in some cases, people are different which is why we use the term GENERAL."

But when study after study shows that saturated fats contribute to heart disease, one study doesn't change the game and magically contradict the rest.

And to call saturated fat healthy is pretty absurd. To the point of being false advertisment? Yes.

General guidelines mean nothing and the question is whether or not the government should even be establishing them. And once again, there is nothing general.

Study after study has changed year after year. And there isn't just one study. There has been an evolution over time.

Cut all fat out of your diet and tell me how healthy that is. The fact is that it isn't healthy. Your body does need some fat.

So, "some" saturated fat might be healthy.

There are different kinds of fat, and no science calls eating "no fat" healthy.

So this was again a strawman.

There is most definitely such thing as "general."

The law of averages demands that there is, and each peer reviewed scientific study has to reach a threshold for repeatable data in order to form a guideline.

Its not "rocket science" that science has been wrong - BUT - there are enough studies at this point to say that we have the clearest picture we've ever had.

General guidelines are most certainly warranted, and its up to you to know if youre a special needs eater who falls outside of those guidelines and realize not to follow them.

The exceptions dont make the rules

Somehow this argument always travels down this path.

The case against saturated fats has diminished over time. I would have loved to see the general guidelines when this crap first came out. Would those have changed over time ? Good luck with that one.

"General" guidelines means what ? it applies to 50%, 60%...what....again another ambiguous term.

And they are not warranted. Because people put their trust in them.....which is foolish by itself...but that is a different argument.

Once again, just supply the data. I don't care if you call if the nectar of the gods. I'll make my choices based on data and my own experiences.