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

[Vandalshandle]

Corporations always do what is best for you, without any interference from the government. Turning Love Canal into a toxic waste site was actually in the public's best interest. it has created billions of dollars in jobs....

Strawman

Corporations utilize government to protect themselves from their poor decisions.

And they use government to create barriers to entry so that they can modulate prices higher than the market might otherwise dictate.

Try starting a restaraunt and see how much red tape you hit. It's not wonder that we mostly have the Chile's, Applebee,s and Burger Kings...etc. of the world.

I used to own a restaurant. The health department was completely unreasonable. They demanded that i wash the chicken cutting board every single day.....

1. You needed to be told that ?

2. Did they check you every day ?

Your local community college probably offers a course in sarcasm. Sign up immediately! In Dan Quayle's words, "A mind is a terrible thing to lose"! (Or something along those lines).

 

[Foxfyre]

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please and keep it civil with no personal insults or ad hominem. We aren't discussing the character or intentions or thoughts of the members participating. Address your questions or comments to what the members say and/or add your own thoughts generated by the topic and discussion.

2. Links can be useful as informative or to support your argument, but they are not required. If you use them, please post only a representative paragraph or two that is pertinent to the thread topic and explain in your own words what the link will show or support.

3. Leave political parties and ideologies (conservatives and liberals etc.) out of it please. We aren't discussing Republicans or Democrats or any other political party or conservatism or liberalism or any other ideology. We are discussing governing power regarding what is healthy.


QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

Let's agree that government at all levels should protect us from dangerous toxins and contamination of our food that we cannot realistically determine for ourselves and should require general labeling of contents.

But then should government at all levels leave the people alone to decide what is and is not healthy for them? Or are the people too uninformed or incompetent to make those decisions for themselves?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Corporations always do what is best for you, without any interference from the government. Turning Love Canal into a toxic waste site was actually in the public's best interest. it has created billions of dollars in jobs....

Strawman

Corporations utilize government to protect themselves from their poor decisions.

And they use government to create barriers to entry so that they can modulate prices higher than the market might otherwise dictate.

Try starting a restaraunt and see how much red tape you hit. It's not wonder that we mostly have the Chile's, Applebee,s and Burger Kings...etc. of the world.

I used to own a restaurant. The health department was completely unreasonable. They demanded that i wash the chicken cutting board every single day.....

1. You needed to be told that ?

2. Did they check you every day ?

As a matter of fact, I personally washed it every day. Any more personal questions?

 

[G.T.]

In my experience, government "nutritional" advice is a good guide for what NOT to do. The FDA "Food pyramid" is one of the reasons we have so many fat slobs in this country. They've demonized fat and protein in favor of processed carbohydrates.

It's the height of stupidity. If you want severe inflammation and a morbidly obese body, just follow the "food pyramid".

So no, I don't need a morbidly obese government clerk in stretch pants telling me what to eat.

PS- I don't ask retarded people for directions either.....

That is not the latest food pyramid.

I know. That's the one they used for 50 years- ya know that time in US history where our population became fatter and fatter.

Here is the the newest Food Pyramid

is a little better, but still designed for retards......

It isn't much better when such a huge chunk is designated as grains and half of those can be processed grains.

And look at the government recommendation that the other largest category be dairy and that the milk consumed be low fat or skim milk.

But that is up against this:

. . .1. Low-fat foods do not lower calorie consumption: Low-fat versions are supposed to reduce the amount of calories that people eat, and in an absolute sense, they do. A cup of low-fat milk contains fewer calories than a cup of whole milk. But Ludwig and Willett note that there isn’t much evidence to support the idea that drinking lower-calorie beverages in general leads to lower-calorie intake. Reduced-fat foods and drinks may not be as filling, so consumers may end up compensating for the lack of calories and eating or drinking more. In a study published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood in March, scientists found that kids who drank lower-fat milks were actually more likely to be overweight later on.

“Our original hypothesis was that children who drank high-fat milk, either whole milk or 2% would be heavier because they were consuming more saturated-fat calories. We were really surprised when we looked at the data and it was very clear that within every ethnicity and every socioeconomic strata, that it was actually the opposite, that children who drank skim milk and 1% were heavier than those who drank 2% and whole,” study author Dr. Mark Daniel DeBoer, an associate professor of pediatric endocrinology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and the chair-elect for the AAP Committee on Nutrition, told TIME in March.. . . ​

Skim Milk Is Healthier Than Whole Milk Right Maybe Not TIME.com

Government has not demonstrated competence or credibility in dictating to anybody what is and is not healthy.

Exactly. Vegetable oils are the worst too. The best oils are : Coconut. Avocado, and Olive oil. Corn, vegetable, and canola oil are garbage.

I have always wondered too about the generation before me who grew up eating lots and lots of eggs, bacon, fried salt pork, and sausage for breakfast almost every morning of the world, lots of fried fish and fried chicken fried all fried in lard (which makes the best fried fish and chicken in the world) all complimented with lots of mashed potatoes and gravy plus veggies from the garden. Homemade bread served up with their own churned butter. There were cakes and pies for desserts at supper time, a cookie and whole milk, often unpasteurized and unhomogenized after school. Folks canned their garden produce to get them through the winter, but otherwise processed foods were pretty nonexistent.

And I don't remember ANY of them being fat. Most lived to a ripe old age and were active and productive late into life.

I don't think you do kids any favors feeding them meager food they hate for lunch that almost certainly contributes to binge eating bad foods just as soon as they get home.

And I would sure rather my kid snack on that nutrition bar than really bad snacks, but I guess the government is discouraging that too.

Most died of heart disease


Magic coincedence, right?

Statistical fact

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Corporations always do what is best for you, without any interference from the government. Turning Love Canal into a toxic waste site was actually in the public's best interest. it has created billions of dollars in jobs....

Strawman

Corporations utilize government to protect themselves from their poor decisions.

And they use government to create barriers to entry so that they can modulate prices higher than the market might otherwise dictate.

Try starting a restaraunt and see how much red tape you hit. It's not wonder that we mostly have the Chile's, Applebee,s and Burger Kings...etc. of the world.

I used to own a restaurant. The health department was completely unreasonable. They demanded that i wash the chicken cutting board every single day.....

1. You needed to be told that ?

2. Did they check you every day ?

Your local community college probably offers a course in sarcasm. Sign up immediately! In Dan Quayle's words, "A mind is a terrible thing to lose"! (Or something along those lines).

Corporations always do what is best for you, without any interference from the government. Turning Love Canal into a toxic waste site was actually in the public's best interest. it has created billions of dollars in jobs....

Strawman

Corporations utilize government to protect themselves from their poor decisions.

And they use government to create barriers to entry so that they can modulate prices higher than the market might otherwise dictate.

Try starting a restaraunt and see how much red tape you hit. It's not wonder that we mostly have the Chile's, Applebee,s and Burger Kings...etc. of the world.

I used to own a restaurant. The health department was completely unreasonable. They demanded that i wash the chicken cutting board every single day.....

1. You needed to be told that ?

2. Did they check you every day ?

As a matter of fact, I personally washed it every day. Any more personal questions?

Before or after the department of health ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That is not the latest food pyramid.

I know. That's the one they used for 50 years- ya know that time in US history where our population became fatter and fatter.

Here is the the newest Food Pyramid

is a little better, but still designed for retards......

It isn't much better when such a huge chunk is designated as grains and half of those can be processed grains.

And look at the government recommendation that the other largest category be dairy and that the milk consumed be low fat or skim milk.

But that is up against this:

. . .1. Low-fat foods do not lower calorie consumption: Low-fat versions are supposed to reduce the amount of calories that people eat, and in an absolute sense, they do. A cup of low-fat milk contains fewer calories than a cup of whole milk. But Ludwig and Willett note that there isn’t much evidence to support the idea that drinking lower-calorie beverages in general leads to lower-calorie intake. Reduced-fat foods and drinks may not be as filling, so consumers may end up compensating for the lack of calories and eating or drinking more. In a study published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood in March, scientists found that kids who drank lower-fat milks were actually more likely to be overweight later on.

“Our original hypothesis was that children who drank high-fat milk, either whole milk or 2% would be heavier because they were consuming more saturated-fat calories. We were really surprised when we looked at the data and it was very clear that within every ethnicity and every socioeconomic strata, that it was actually the opposite, that children who drank skim milk and 1% were heavier than those who drank 2% and whole,” study author Dr. Mark Daniel DeBoer, an associate professor of pediatric endocrinology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and the chair-elect for the AAP Committee on Nutrition, told TIME in March.. . . ​

Skim Milk Is Healthier Than Whole Milk Right Maybe Not TIME.com

Government has not demonstrated competence or credibility in dictating to anybody what is and is not healthy.

Exactly. Vegetable oils are the worst too. The best oils are : Coconut. Avocado, and Olive oil. Corn, vegetable, and canola oil are garbage.

I have always wondered too about the generation before me who grew up eating lots and lots of eggs, bacon, fried salt pork, and sausage for breakfast almost every morning of the world, lots of fried fish and fried chicken fried all fried in lard (which makes the best fried fish and chicken in the world) all complimented with lots of mashed potatoes and gravy plus veggies from the garden. Homemade bread served up with their own churned butter. There were cakes and pies for desserts at supper time, a cookie and whole milk, often unpasteurized and unhomogenized after school. Folks canned their garden produce to get them through the winter, but otherwise processed foods were pretty nonexistent.

And I don't remember ANY of them being fat. Most lived to a ripe old age and were active and productive late into life.

I don't think you do kids any favors feeding them meager food they hate for lunch that almost certainly contributes to binge eating bad foods just as soon as they get home.

And I would sure rather my kid snack on that nutrition bar than really bad snacks, but I guess the government is discouraging that too.

Most died of heart disease


Magic coincedence, right?

Statistical fact

Source please.

Additionally, it would need to be weighted against other generations to see if the "most" is more or less than the previous.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The government is serving the special interests that purchased the elections. That is not a good thing but right now it still beats the alternative being offered by the extreme right.

As far as the OP goes though some segments of the government are still functioning as intended. Truth in advertising is in the best interests of all corporations even if the one in question has to deal with finding another way to convince their customers that they are pushing a "healthy" product.

Truth in advertising doesn't really have anything to do with the OP. The question is whether the government that, as you note, is serving the special interests that purchased the elections should have the power to tell us what is healthy, and to prohibit us from imbibing anything else.

This question becomes more interesting, and more urgent, as government assumes more and more responsibility for our health care. This is where the liberal and conservative authoritarians will join forces in a statist tag-team. The liberals expanding government's caretaker role, and the conservatives using that role as an excuse to dictate personal behavior. It's a lose-lose proposition for freedom.

The question is whether the government that, as you note, is serving the special interests that purchased the elections should have the power to tell us what is healthy, and to prohibit us from imbibing anything else.

That is a strawman since nothing is being "prohibited from imbibing".

This question becomes more interesting, and more urgent, as government assumes more and more responsibility for our health care.

The government has a vested interest in a healthy workforce. It is far cheaper than one that is poverty stricken and disease ridden.

It's a lose-lose proposition for freedom.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Government has not demonstrated competence or credibility in dictating to anybody what is and is not healthy.

Care to stipulate who has demonstrated "competence or credibility" when it comes to "dictating" "what is and is not healthy"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Which is why I posted earlier that if the government wanted to really fight obesity in children, it should be pushing and pushing and pushing for parents to shut down the computers and smart phones and television sets and Xboxes and get those kids out moving, running, jumping, doing stuff.

Hmmm, isn't that exactly what the government is doing right here?

Let s Move

Let’s Move! supports the Presidential Active Lifestyle Award (PALA+) challenge, which helps individuals commit to regular physical activity and healthy eating -- and rewards them for it. The challenge is for anyone, from students to seniors, but it’s geared toward people who want to set themselves on the road to a healthier life through positive changes to physical activity and eating behaviors.

For kids and teens (that’s anyone between 6 and 17 years), your goals are:
​

• • Physical activity: You need to be active 60 minutes a day, at least 5 days a week, for 6 out of 8 weeks. As an alternative, you can count your daily activity steps using a pedometer (girls’ goal: 11,000; boys’ goal: 13,000).
  • Healthy eating: Each week, you’ll also focus on a healthy eating goal. There are eight to choose from, and each week you will add a new goal while continuing with your previous goals. By the end of the six weeks, you’ll be giving your body more of the good stuff it needs.

For adults (that’s anyone aged 18 and older), your goals are:
​

• • Physical activity: You need to be active 30 minutes a day, at least 5 days a week, for 6 out of 8 weeks. As an alternative, you can count your daily activity steps using a pedometer (goal: 8,500).
  • Healthy eating: Each week, you’ll also focus on a healthy eating goal. There are eight to choose from, and each week you will add a new goal while continuing with your previous goals. By the end of the six weeks, you’ll be giving your body more of the good stuff it needs.

 

[Derideo_Te]

n the case of the OP, we are dealing with an arbitrary mandate from the federal government

There is nothing "arbitrary" about setting standards for truth in advertising.

Unless the standards are arbitrary, which in this case they are.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Thanks for the laugh.

Your concession that you cannot substantiate your fallacious allegation about an "arbitrary mandate from the federal government" is accepted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Jimmy Carter lowered the speed limit to 55 mph. I've heard that saved lives and fuel. Why are we back to 70 mph ?

Cars today are identical to cars back in the Carter era?

Do they still have poor brakes, iffy handling, no airbags or crumple zones?

Or did the government of We the People step in and require greater safety standards for cars since then?

So because of the government we can now drive safer cars at higher speeds.

FTR it was also the government that pushed for better fuel mileage standards so you aren't stuck with 12 mpg while polluting the atmosphere.

More people die at 70 than at 55. Regardless of the type of car.

Nice try though.

Unless you have an "acceptable" level of death on the highway.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Fatalities today per million vehicle miles traveled is one third of what it was in 1979.

List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What facts did I assume ?

Please share.

Facts in the link expose your fallacy. Less people are dying in accidents now even though speeds are higher because of greater vehicle safety owing to government safety standards.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I'm enjoying the unbiased nature of this thread (which is why I did not vote). The government does not "dictate what is healthy and what is unhealthy". The government simply regulates truth in advertising. This is the kind of poll that the right uses to prove their agenda. Sort of like, "We have determined that you have never stopped beating your wife".

 

[dblack]

This question becomes more interesting, and more urgent, as government assumes more and more responsibility for our health care.

The government has a vested interest in a healthy workforce. It is far cheaper than one that is poverty stricken and disease ridden.

Yes. It's this attitude I reject wholesale. We are not the property of the state. Anyone's health is a private, personal concern. But we'll hear this argument repeated more and more as healthcare becomes the responsibility of government, which was my point. Your response proves it isn't a strawman.

It's a lose-lose proposition for freedom.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Huh? Are we playing lawyer now?

"Objection overruled!"

 

[Foxfyre]

That is not the latest food pyramid.

I know. That's the one they used for 50 years- ya know that time in US history where our population became fatter and fatter.

Here is the the newest Food Pyramid

is a little better, but still designed for retards......

It isn't much better when such a huge chunk is designated as grains and half of those can be processed grains.

And look at the government recommendation that the other largest category be dairy and that the milk consumed be low fat or skim milk.

But that is up against this:

. . .1. Low-fat foods do not lower calorie consumption: Low-fat versions are supposed to reduce the amount of calories that people eat, and in an absolute sense, they do. A cup of low-fat milk contains fewer calories than a cup of whole milk. But Ludwig and Willett note that there isn’t much evidence to support the idea that drinking lower-calorie beverages in general leads to lower-calorie intake. Reduced-fat foods and drinks may not be as filling, so consumers may end up compensating for the lack of calories and eating or drinking more. In a study published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood in March, scientists found that kids who drank lower-fat milks were actually more likely to be overweight later on.

“Our original hypothesis was that children who drank high-fat milk, either whole milk or 2% would be heavier because they were consuming more saturated-fat calories. We were really surprised when we looked at the data and it was very clear that within every ethnicity and every socioeconomic strata, that it was actually the opposite, that children who drank skim milk and 1% were heavier than those who drank 2% and whole,” study author Dr. Mark Daniel DeBoer, an associate professor of pediatric endocrinology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and the chair-elect for the AAP Committee on Nutrition, told TIME in March.. . . ​

Skim Milk Is Healthier Than Whole Milk Right Maybe Not TIME.com

Government has not demonstrated competence or credibility in dictating to anybody what is and is not healthy.

Exactly. Vegetable oils are the worst too. The best oils are : Coconut. Avocado, and Olive oil. Corn, vegetable, and canola oil are garbage.

I have always wondered too about the generation before me who grew up eating lots and lots of eggs, bacon, fried salt pork, and sausage for breakfast almost every morning of the world, lots of fried fish and fried chicken fried all fried in lard (which makes the best fried fish and chicken in the world) all complimented with lots of mashed potatoes and gravy plus veggies from the garden. Homemade bread served up with their own churned butter. There were cakes and pies for desserts at supper time, a cookie and whole milk, often unpasteurized and unhomogenized after school. Folks canned their garden produce to get them through the winter, but otherwise processed foods were pretty nonexistent.

And I don't remember ANY of them being fat. Most lived to a ripe old age and were active and productive late into life.

I don't think you do kids any favors feeding them meager food they hate for lunch that almost certainly contributes to binge eating bad foods just as soon as they get home.

And I would sure rather my kid snack on that nutrition bar than really bad snacks, but I guess the government is discouraging that too.

Most died of heart disease

Magic coincedence, right?

Statistical fact

No. In fact my paternal grandfather, a banker, did die of heart failure as most likely did my father, a heavy smoker and alcoholic who died young, but I believe they were the only ones of their generation. So far as I know, everybody else in my family died of something else.

From what I've read though, the greatest factor for heart disease is longegivity with genes probably running in second place. An 80 year old man has almost a 100% greater risk for heart failure than does a 30 year old man no matter what lifestyle people live. Given all the factors that can compromise the heart from diet, lack of or wrong kinds of exercise, parasites, viruses, various drugs, smoking, stress, excessive alcohol consumption, genetic weaknesses, and general old age, thinking that government can control all that with a few government edicts is just silly.

And it is not only silly but serious government overreach for the government to dictate to a nutrition bar manufacturer that it cannot advertise its product as 'healthy' purely because it contains saturated fat when the school lunch the same government authorizes as 'healthy' contains more saturated fat than is contained in that nutrition bar.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

n the case of the OP, we are dealing with an arbitrary mandate from the federal government

There is nothing "arbitrary" about setting standards for truth in advertising.

Unless the standards are arbitrary, which in this case they are.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Thanks for the laugh.

Your concession that you cannot substantiate your fallacious allegation about an "arbitrary mandate from the federal government" is accepted.

Still laughing.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Jimmy Carter lowered the speed limit to 55 mph. I've heard that saved lives and fuel. Why are we back to 70 mph ?

Cars today are identical to cars back in the Carter era?

Do they still have poor brakes, iffy handling, no airbags or crumple zones?

Or did the government of We the People step in and require greater safety standards for cars since then?

So because of the government we can now drive safer cars at higher speeds.

FTR it was also the government that pushed for better fuel mileage standards so you aren't stuck with 12 mpg while polluting the atmosphere.

More people die at 70 than at 55. Regardless of the type of car.

Nice try though.

Unless you have an "acceptable" level of death on the highway.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Fatalities today per million vehicle miles traveled is one third of what it was in 1979.

List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What facts did I assume ?

Please share.

Facts in the link expose your fallacy. Less people are dying in accidents now even though speeds are higher because of greater vehicle safety owing to government safety standards.

Never said that wasn't the case.

What I did say was that driving faster was more dangerous, especially if you are speeding.

The overall evaluation of the speed limit reduction to 55 under Carter is very difficult. Traffic deaths dropped, but there are several things that were going on at the time. So, unlike those who propose stupid stuff (like the stimulus worked based on a single variable), there is a not a clear answer based on history. And, in fact, there have been numerous studies that show that the probability of an accident is higher in situations where there is large difference in the speeds at which people are traveling. So what becomes really challenging is understanding how many deaths did occur because traffic slowed but there were still many who refused to slow down thus creating a higher number of cars traveling at different speeds.

There are articles out there that claim that data show that higher speed kills:

http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/files/speedkills.pdf

But these tend to be obscure and I don't hold with their analysis in it's entirety.

I'll simply appeal to the basic physics to say that traveling at 70 is more dangerous than 55. And 55 is more dangerous than 40. I'd much rather be in a head on where both cars are traveling at 20 than at 60. I'd rather be in a rollover at 15 as opposed to 65. Regardless of safety features.

The Physics of a High-Speed Crash 70 MPH vs. 85 MPH WIRED

At the limit, nobody drives and nobody dies due to traffic accidents.

But then, the list of unintended consequences would be a mile long...no disputing that.

Carter dropped the speed limit to save fuel. It saved a little (supposedly, as much by properly inflating car tires...in fact I recall reading that washing and waxing your car will improve gas mileage by 7%...I highly doubt it.....but I can't imagine Carter not passing a law requiring us to wash and wax cars if that was really the case....I am sure Obama and Pelosi would be tempted). Everything I've read says it was a failure in that regard.

In any event, there is a clearly a balancing act involved. There are many factors involved. Carters attempt (or to use someone else's working WE the people) to regulate speed for a specific outcome was a failure. Hence the law was repealled.

One of a long list of many.

But there are still some who claim Uncle Sammy knows best.

 

[Foxfyre]

While federal speed limits are definitely an example of government overreach, let's take CAFE standards, federal speed limits, etc. to a different thread and devote this one to the thread topic please.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This question becomes more interesting, and more urgent, as government assumes more and more responsibility for our health care.

The government has a vested interest in a healthy workforce. It is far cheaper than one that is poverty stricken and disease ridden.

Yes. It's this attitude I reject wholesale. We are not the property of the state. Anyone's health is a private, personal concern. But we'll hear this argument repeated more and more as healthcare becomes the responsibility of government, which was my point. Your response proves it isn't a strawman.

It's a lose-lose proposition for freedom.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Huh? Are we playing lawyer now?

"Objection overruled!"

Yes. It's this attitude I reject wholesale. We are not the property of the state. Anyone's health is a private, personal concern. But we'll hear this argument repeated more and more as healthcare becomes the responsibility of government, which was my point. Your response proves it isn't a strawman.

Your rampant dishonesty is duly noted since I called your fallacious claim that the government "prohibit(ing) us from imbibing" was nothing but a strawman.

That you took something entirely different and made an utterly false accusation means that you owe me an apology and a retraction for your falsehood if you want to retain any credibility.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And it is not only silly but serious government overreach for the government to dictate to a nutrition bar manufacturer that it cannot advertise its product as 'healthy' purely because it contains saturated fat when the school lunch the same government authorizes as 'healthy' contains more saturated fat than is contained in that nutrition bar.

What is really silly is equating a school lunch to a snack bar without actually calculating the percentages of saturated fat in each.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Carter dropped the speed limit to save fuel.

Jimmy Carter lowered the speed limit to 55 mph. I've heard that saved lives and fuel. Why are we back to 70 mph ?

Great job on disposing of your original fallacy.

However you haven't proven that government vehicle safety standards don't save lives. The data has clearly demonstrated a reduction by two thirds of the number of fatalities per million miles traveled since 1979. It is indisputable that cars today are considerably safer than they were back then. So much so that manufacturers even promoted safety when it came to selling vehicles.

Uncle "Sammy" has saved lives through improved vehicle safety standards and not even the OP could argue that isn't a "healthy" thing to do.