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

[G.T.]

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

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.

The general guidelines ARE the supplying of the data.

Oye.

Are you suggesting that you cant go on the FDA's very website and find the data, or are you tacitly admitting that you haven't even tried?

This is what happens when winning an argument is more important than learning.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

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.

The general guidelines ARE the supplying of the data.

Oye.

Are you suggesting that you cant go on the FDA's very website and find the data, or are you tacitly admitting that you haven't even tried?

This is what happens when winning an argument is more important than learning.

What argument do you think I am trying to win ?

I asked you what does the term "general" mean. Applies to how many.

I don't see anything on the website that has curves (for instance) that show how much fat you can consume as a function of your daily aerobic activity. I've looked...but not to hard.....becasue I am pretty sure it does not exist.

I detest the use of arbitrary terms like "healthy". It means nothing.

 

[G.T.]

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

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.

The general guidelines ARE the supplying of the data.

Oye.

Are you suggesting that you cant go on the FDA's very website and find the data, or are you tacitly admitting that you haven't even tried?

This is what happens when winning an argument is more important than learning.

What argument do you think I am trying to win ?

I asked you what does the term "general" mean. Applies to how many.

I don't see anything on the website that has curves (for instance) that show how much fat you can consume as a function of your daily aerobic activity. I've looked...but not to hard.....becasue I am pretty sure it does not exist.

I detest the use of arbitrary terms like "healthy". It means nothing.

The term healthy isnt arbitrary.

It has a dictionary definition.

What its describing may change.

 

[G.T.]

Anyhoo, good thread

Im gunna unsub at this point. Nothing left to say really. Onto seeing the world!!

 

[Foxfyre]

The argument is not whether government should offer guidelines. I have no problem whatsoever with the government gathering available data and offering guidelines. That fits my definition of promoting the general welfare that I see as a constitutional responsibility of government.

The argument is whether the government should have the authority to enforce its own guidelines in areas with changing information and that present no immediate hazard to people. Yes, the government should prohibit putting arsenic or mercury into foods that the people would have no reasonable reason to believe such substances were in their food.

But should the government exercise authority over what can and cannot be advertised as 'healthy'? To me there is nothing in the constitution or even reasonable assumptions of what government is for that would give it that authority.

The top #10 foods for high saturated fat content:

1. Hydrogenated oils (palm, soy, coconut etc.)
2. Coconut
3. Butter
4. Animal fat
5. Chocolate
6. Fish oils
7. Cheese
8. Cream
9. Nuts
10. Processed meats (Bacon, sausage, luncheon meats, bratwurst etc.)
Top 10 Foods Highest in Saturated Fat

One serving of any of these would exceed the 5 grams of saturated fat that was in that nutrition bar that the government said could not be advertised as 'healthy'. In fact, it was probably one or more of these that created the saturated fat in that bar in the first place.

Here are the government guidelines mandatory for school lunches for any school accepting any federal money. Imagine you are the school dietician trying to slog through this to figure out what is legal and illegal to feed the kids:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-26/pdf/2012-1010.pdf

But it you DO slog through it, you will find the guidelines allow more saturated fat than is contained in that nutrition bar.

The government was wrong to forbid the manufacturer to advertise the bar as 'healthy' for no other reason than it contained 5 grams of saturated fat.

 

[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?

Why not ?

What are you afraid of ?

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

So you are happy to eliminate the FDA, the USDA, the EPA and every other agency that ensures that you are not being poisoned by the food, air and water that you need for your everyday existence?

 

[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.

So you are happy to eliminate the FDA, the USDA, the EPA and every other agency that ensures that you are not being poisoned by the food, air and water that you need for your everyday existence?

I deal with one of them on a regular basis.

They are not ensuring anything.

I'd be happy to eliminate them and put some thing useful in their places.

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, should the government have the authority to regulate advertising? Well, once upon a time, they did not, and this is what us kids were seeing when we turned on cartoon shows on TV:

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

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.

The general guidelines ARE the supplying of the data.

Oye.

Are you suggesting that you cant go on the FDA's very website and find the data, or are you tacitly admitting that you haven't even tried?

This is what happens when winning an argument is more important than learning.

What argument do you think I am trying to win ?

I asked you what does the term "general" mean. Applies to how many.

I don't see anything on the website that has curves (for instance) that show how much fat you can consume as a function of your daily aerobic activity. I've looked...but not to hard.....becasue I am pretty sure it does not exist.

I detest the use of arbitrary terms like "healthy". It means nothing.

The term healthy isnt arbitrary.

It has a dictionary definition.

What its describing may change.

It absolutely is arbitrary when it comes to describing food. If there are no qualifications or constraints...it means nothing.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So, should the government have the authority to regulate advertising? Well, once upon a time, they did not, and this is what us kids were seeing when we turned on cartoon shows on TV:

So what ?

You think that is why kids smoke today ?

Do you think they light up the first one NOT knowing the problems associated with it.

 

[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?

Why not ?

What are you afraid of ?

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

So you are happy to eliminate the FDA, the USDA, the EPA and every other agency that ensures that you are not being poisoned by the food, air and water that you need for your everyday existence?

I deal with one of them on a regular basis.

They are not ensuring anything.

I'd be happy to eliminate them and put some thing useful in their places.

Such as?

 

[Muhammed]

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

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.

The general guidelines ARE the supplying of the data.

Oye.

Are you suggesting that you cant go on the FDA's very website and find the data, or are you tacitly admitting that you haven't even tried?

This is what happens when winning an argument is more important than learning.

That is irelevant compared to food lableing. The government in the USA advocates, via dictatoral law, a high carb, low sodium diet.

Why do they want people to be stupid?

 

[Derideo_Te]

So, should the government have the authority to regulate advertising? Well, once upon a time, they did not, and this is what us kids were seeing when we turned on cartoon shows on TV:

So what ?

You think that is why kids smoke today ?

Do you think they light up the first one NOT knowing the problems associated with it.

CDC - Trends - Infographics - Smoking Tobacco Use

CDC - Trends in Current Cigarette Smoking - Smoking Tobacco Use

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, should the government have the authority to regulate advertising? Well, once upon a time, they did not, and this is what us kids were seeing when we turned on cartoon shows on TV:

So what ?

You think that is why kids smoke today ?

Do you think they light up the first one NOT knowing the problems associated with it.

I think that I will let someone else answer your question of "So what?" about tobacco companies creating tobacco ads designed to addict our children to toxic drugs....

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear @G.T

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.

Dear G.T.
although I agree with the content of your pt, i agree with Foxfyre not to depend on federal govt as a magical fixall. It was never desisned to micromanage every case in every industry.

The root problem is large corporations having collective power as govt has but without checks on them. So we keep bypassing this imbalance and going thru govt to get a collective objection to a collective entity. We cant keep doing that. We should address corporate structures to restore due process and balance. Then that will apply to all cases.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Dear @G.T

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.

Dear G.T.
although I agree with the content of your pt, i agree with Foxfyre not to depend on federal govt as a magical fixall. It was never desisned to micromanage every case in every industry.

The root problem is large corporations having collective power as govt has but without checks on them. So we keep bypassing this imbalance and going thru govt to get a collective objection to a collective entity. We cant keep doing that. We should address corporate structures to restore due process and balance. Then that will apply to all cases.

Actually we can keep on using the government OF the People because that is what it was specifically constructed to do. There is no other entity that keep corporations in check and so We the People are left without any other choice. Either we use our government to protect ourselves from the predations of corporations or we hand over all power to Corporate America and we become an Idiocracy instead.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, should the government have the authority to regulate advertising? Well, once upon a time, they did not, and this is what us kids were seeing when we turned on cartoon shows on TV:

So what ?

You think that is why kids smoke today ?

Do you think they light up the first one NOT knowing the problems associated with it.

I think that I will let someone else answer your question of "So what?" about tobacco companies creating tobacco ads designed to addict our children to toxic drugs....

There are all manner of television programs and other means used to entice our children into doing all manner of things most people consider to be harmful to children. But the only realistic protection our kids have from such influence is the parents themselves. It should be parents who rise up in protest against the tobacco company ads and not the government. The government should always be the referee and never the coach in such matters.

 

[G.T.]

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

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.

The general guidelines ARE the supplying of the data.

Oye.

Are you suggesting that you cant go on the FDA's very website and find the data, or are you tacitly admitting that you haven't even tried?

This is what happens when winning an argument is more important than learning.

That is irelevant compared to food lableing. The government in the USA advocates, via dictatoral law, a high carb, low sodium diet.

Why do they want people to be stupid?

Advocate =/= dictatoral law.

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, should the government have the authority to regulate advertising? Well, once upon a time, they did not, and this is what us kids were seeing when we turned on cartoon shows on TV:

So what ?

You think that is why kids smoke today ?

Do you think they light up the first one NOT knowing the problems associated with it.

I think that I will let someone else answer your question of "So what?" about tobacco companies creating tobacco ads designed to addict our children to toxic drugs....

There are all manner of television programs and other means used to entice our children into doing all manner of things most people consider to be harmful to children. But the only realistic protection our kids have from such influence is the parents themselves. It should be parents who rise up in protest against the tobacco company ads and not the government. The government should always be the referee and never the coach in such matters.

And that, Foxfyre, is exactly what happened, and is why you do not see tobacco ads on TV any more. The tobacco industry fought it tooth and nail, but the banning of tobacco ads was a grass roots movement that resulted in laws passed and regulations made by our elected representatives, as we demanded of them.

And, "Joe Camel", complete with cool shades, was specifically designed as a tool to influence preteens and early teens to smoke. Good luck in providing effective parental resistance to anything that your average subteen decides to emulate on TV, or in other ads. There are now three "Marlboro men" who have died from cancer. There will not be any more "Marlboro men".

 

[G.T.]

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

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.

The general guidelines ARE the supplying of the data.

Oye.

Are you suggesting that you cant go on the FDA's very website and find the data, or are you tacitly admitting that you haven't even tried?

This is what happens when winning an argument is more important than learning.

That is irelevant compared to food lableing. The government in the USA advocates, via dictatoral law, a high carb, low sodium diet.

Why do they want people to be stupid?

Advocate =/= dictatoral law.

So what, dumbass?

Do you know what the phrase "clean debate zone" means?

It means dont make posts like the one you just did, or else get booted.

Im not gunna snitch on you but chill thefuggout, god damn.