# First they came for Tony the Tiger...



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

Hmmm...are food police more left or more right...the story...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44343

from the article:

Tony the Tiger, some NASCAR drivers and cookie-selling Girl Scouts will be out of a job unless grocery manufacturers agree to reinvent a vast array of their products to satisfy the Obama administration&#8217;s food police.

Either retool the recipes to contain certain levels of sugar, sodium and fats, or no more advertising and marketing to tots and teenagers, say several federal regulatory agencies.

The same goes for restaurants.

It&#8217;s not just the usual suspected foods that are being targeted, such a thin mint cookies sold by scouts or M&Ms and Snickers, which sponsor cars in the Sprint Cup, but pretty much everything on a restaurant menu.

Although the intent of the guidelines is to combat childhood obesity, foods that are low in calories, fat, and some considered healthy foods, are also targets, including hot breakfast cereals such as oatmeal, pretzels, popcorn, nuts, yogurt, wheat bread, bagels, diet drinks, fruit juice, tea, bottled water, milk and sherbet.

Food industries are in an uproar over the proposal written by the Federal Trade Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 21, 2011)

I gotta hand it to you. That was an awesome thread title.
Sean


----------



## rlobrecht (Jun 21, 2011)

<sarcasm>We definitely need to crack down on that unhealthy bottled water.</sarcasm>


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 21, 2011)

I guess you've never read the nutrition labels on those foods. They are all laden with sodium.


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

I'm sorry, what is the point on sodium?


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 21, 2011)

Sodium is one of the leading contributors of high blood pressure. Which has a tendency to lead to heart disease. Your avarage diet of packaged food will have you consuming 4-5 times your daily requirement of sodium. Most times it's there either as a preservative, or as a flavour enhancer because it's cheaper than real spices and stuff.


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

But do you want the likes of Anthony Weiner telling you that you can't have those foods?
What you eat is not the federal authorities business.  If I want to watch what I eat, I can research it myself, and the feds can worry about terrorists.


----------



## granfire (Jun 21, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> Sodium is one of the leading contributors of high blood pressure. Which has a tendency to lead to heart disease. Your avarage diet of packaged food will have you consuming 4-5 times your daily requirement of sodium. Most times it's there either as a preservative, or as a flavour enhancer because it's cheaper than real spices and stuff.



true enough...

Cook real food and...


No, wait, what's the intend of this thread?

(fat and salt....the 2 things guaranteed to make things taste...and cheap to boot...)


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2011)

It is one of the essential food groups...Salt, chocalate, sugar, fat...


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 22, 2011)

billcihak said:


> It is one of the essential food groups...Salt, chocalate, sugar, fat...


 
Wrong again.

The 4 basic food groups are:













Eat-in 
Take-out
Frozen
Canned

:ultracool


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 22, 2011)

All wrong, the 4 food groups are:

Scotch, dead animal, bread and chocolate


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 22, 2011)

With enough scotch and chocolate, who needs the other 2?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 22, 2011)

No, it's tequila, dead animal, chocolate and beer. Oh, and wine so you get some fruit....


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 22, 2011)

High Fructose Corn syrup has been banned in several countries...along with Aspertame.

And I wouldn't mind that to happen here...it would make it easier to make healthy choices.

being lactose intolerant that I am...you wouldn't belive how many food have milk product in it...if your thinking, oh...milk is good for you...think again.

http://saveourbones.com/osteoporosis-milk-myth/


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 22, 2011)

It is the reasoning being exhibited in this thread that makes me grind my teeth and speak poorly of liberals (Canadian, American, British, whatever).

Fact: Something is bad for you.



Conservative Solution: So what?  I don't believe it.  And even if I did, freedom, baby!
Moderate Solution: Good to have laws that require we be told so that we can make informed decisions, even if we make unhealthy choices sometimes.
Liberal Solution: People won't make rational decisions, so we must ban things for their own good.
I'm somewhere between the conservative and moderate approach on this.  I like the fact that food has to have labels on it saying what is in it.  I'd really like to be able to avoid certain foods, and being a diabetic, I have to avoid some kinds of food.  So I see that as a useful law and a valid use of the power of government to _'support the general welfare'_.

People who want to ban products _'for your own good'_ make me rather upset.  Yes, logic, reason, and science are on your side.  No, that's not a good enough reason to tell adults what they can and cannot eat.  Mind your own business.  You want to eat healthy?  Do so.  I don't want to eat healthy, and it's my money, my health, my life, and yes, my freedom.  So shut it.

Let me put it this way - if there is some compelling reason why government ought to be permitted to ban food on the sole basis that it is unhealthy for us, then they also have the right to ban _'extreme sports'_ and smoking, and drinking, and to force people to exercise and lose weight.  There is no slippery slope, even; it's all the same thing.  If _'your health'_ is a valid reason to tell you how to live, then there is no limit on what the government can tell you to do.  *Non servium*, baby.  When you come for my twinkies, bring guns.  Lots of 'em.


----------



## granfire (Jun 22, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> High Fructose Corn syrup has been banned in several countries...along with Aspertame.
> 
> And I wouldn't mind that to happen here...it would make it easier to make healthy choices.
> 
> ...




aye, working on the milk avoidance ATM....though the US is much better about it than the foods in Europe...the EU has a big milk lake to disperse...

And have you not listened to the ads on TV: Highfructose Cornsyrup is just like cane sugar (paid for by the corn industry)


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2011)

I'm sure the free choice to eat yourself to death, have heart attacks because of too much salt or diabetes through being overweight is a grand thing but I think fellow citizens who watch their diets and try to stay healthy may complain when their medical insurance premiums go up because of the less healthy. Even in capitalist countries no man is an island and what one group of people do affects many others.

Quota restrictions have reduced radically the 'milk lake' thankfully, though it's not so good for dairy farmers.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It is the reasoning being exhibited in this thread that makes me grind my teeth and speak poorly of liberals (Canadian, American, British, whatever).
> 
> Fact: Something is bad for you.
> 
> ...


 
I'd put myself around the Moderate. However, there does come a time when knowing what's in the food is not enough when all the food is the same crap. 

I've been strugling with hypertension for the better part of a decade. I read the lables for sodium content. You'd be amazed how much of that stuff is out there. And in places you'd not think about. The mind bogling one was a few weks ago. The local supermarket had boxes of frozen fish filets on sale. Not seasoned, coated or anything. Just frozen fish. I looked at the box and the sodium content was off the scale. It's frozen fish!!!


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jun 22, 2011)

When it comes to food I'm glad I don't live in the US, not that Canada's perfect but man, people are being systematically poisoned in North America, it's time everyone woke up!

Governmaents in general have done a terrible job in this area and that's not about to change.

People need to take control of what they're feeding themselves.

Chocolate is ok though


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 22, 2011)

granfire said:


> aye, working on the milk avoidance ATM....though the US is much better about it than the foods in Europe...the EU has a big milk lake to disperse...
> 
> And have you not listened to the ads on TV: Highfructose Cornsyrup is just like cane sugar (paid for by the corn industry)


 

Yeah, here in the states, it pops up in bold at the bottom of the ingrediants label, and when I go out to eat, i tell them I have a food allergy, and if I say that and milk is in the product, and I eat it and ingest it...and it makes me sick...its grounds for a lawsuit. That being said, they are usually good about making my food.  Most food places will have a manager actually prepare the food just to make sure...and its usally made perfect.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 22, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I'm sure the free choice to eat yourself to death, have heart attacks because of too much salt or diabetes through being overweight is a grand thing...



Stop right there, please.  With respect, that is one way to describe it.  One could also (and just as accurately) say _"I'm sure the free choice to live your life the way you choose, understanding the risks and accepting the consequences for your own choices is a grand thing..."_



> I think fellow citizens who watch their diets and try to stay healthy  may complain when their medical insurance premiums go up because of the  less healthy. Even in capitalist countries no man is an island and what  one group of people do affects many others.


Everything everyone does affects others, no question.  However, that has to beg the question - at what point does the effect I have on others allow the government to restrict my actions for the good of the rest?

Let's face facts.  Far more people die of heart disease than anything else, primarily caused by obesity.  If one is to use the argument that one's behavior affects the cost of health insurance or other aspects of the lives of fellow citizens, then the government has the absolute right to demand that everyone who is overweight exercise, eat less, and lose weight, and to back it up with fines, penalties, even prison and mandatory exercise.

Again, I am not talking 'slippery slope' here.  This is simple.  If the government has the right to restrict my dietary intake for the good of society as well as myself, then there is no limit to the restrictions that can be place for the same reasons.



> Quota restrictions have reduced radically the 'milk lake' thankfully, though it's not so good for dairy farmers.


I like milk, and I'm not allergic to it.  I understand that lots of people are, and that's certainly up to them whether or not they want to drink it.  I fail to see what right the government has to restrict milk production when *I* can drink it and want to drink it, and milk is legal to own and consume.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 22, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> I'd put myself around the Moderate. However, there does come a time when knowing what's in the food is not enough when all the food is the same crap.



And the solution is to force people to eat healthier food, or force manufacturers to make it?



> I've been strugling with hypertension for the better part of a decade. I read the lables for sodium content. You'd be amazed how much of that stuff is out there. And in places you'd not think about. The mind bogling one was a few weks ago. The local supermarket had boxes of frozen fish filets on sale. Not seasoned, coated or anything. Just frozen fish. I looked at the box and the sodium content was off the scale. It's frozen fish!!!



Yeah, I totally get that.  As a diabetic, I go down the rows of cold breakfast cereal looking for cereal that does not have sugar in it.  Know how many there are?  Two.  Shredded wheat and wheat germ.  Everything else has sugar in it.

And that sucks.  But it is the government's responsibility to make sure that I have enough choices in sugar-free breakfast cereal?  I don't think so.  I have choices, I can cook an egg or make oatmeal.

I reject the kind of thinking that goes _"It's gotten so bad that the government must step in and fix this!"_  People choose not to read labels or do not care - that's the end of it.  The ends (a healthier populace) do not justify the means (government control of the food industry).

But that's the typical lament.  _"I eat healthy, but other people don't, and it's hurting them!  Something must be done!  Make them eat healthier whether they like it or not!"_  I have to reject that notion.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 22, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> People need to take control of what they're feeding themselves.



And if they choose not to?  What's the _'or else'_?

That's why I can never call myself a liberal.  In my world, people _'should'_ take control of what they're feeding themselves.  But if they don't, they don't.  End of discussion.  I try not to tell people what they _'need'_ to do in general.

That's the liberal position:  I see a problem in you.  I tell you about it.  You refuse to fix it.  That gives me the right to force you to fix it or demand that the government do so.  

Uh, no.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2011)

The government can tell the makers to keep salt, sugar out of their food but you don't have to buy it. Do you all live on pre-prepared food which is what these 'laws' will affect, can't you cook your own and put in as much or little salt as you like?

Where it depends on whether you can tell someone to 'fix' their food habit is if it's affecting *you,* not them, in having to pay higher premiums for health insurance (because you know the insurance companies will find any excuse to put their prices up). Here it would affect us as in costing more for the NHS to treat people who don't eat properly and give themselves illnesses. We pay for their treatment ( we pay National Insurance) so we _can_ say they should eat better.

As I said it's a grand thing to have the freedom to eat what you wish but if and when it starts costing other people ie you, then you do have the right to tell them to eat properly or they opt out of the systems you use for medical treatment so you don't end up paying for them. I don't care whether they eat themselves to death or not.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 22, 2011)

Childhood obesity is a parental problem not food. If parents would watch what their kids would eat (and watch what they eat themselves) then obesity would be a problem for people with glandular problems not gluttonous.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 22, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> The government can tell the makers to keep salt, sugar out of their food but you don't have to buy it. Do you all live on pre-prepared food which is what these 'laws' will affect, can't you cook your own and put in as much or little salt as you like?


 

Problem is, there is a lot of food that I would not classify as 'prepeared' that contains horrible amounts of sodium, for ne reason. See my example of frozen fish. It's a fish filet, frozen. Why does it have to contain sodium. Same can be said for canned veggies. There are times when it's the only available alternative, why does it need so much crap in it?

And when it comes to High-fructuse corn syrup, well there are not many choices. It's in everything. The corn lobby is strong in NA.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2011)

Here you can buy fresh fish from the fishmongers, no need for frozen. 

Anyone wonder how much it costs the country to have people off work with illnesses caused by unhealthy eating and obesity? How much productivity is lost? At first glance it would seem the government is poking it's nose in but have a think of how much it could actually cost you in taxes etc if there is an obesity 'epidemic' and many man hours as well as revenue are lost to the country.


----------



## granfire (Jun 22, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Here you can buy fresh fish from the fishmongers, no need for frozen.
> 
> Anyone wonder how much it costs the country to have people off work with illnesses caused by unhealthy eating and obesity? How much productivity is lost? At first glance it would seem the government is poking it's nose in but have a think of how much it could actually cost you in taxes etc if there is an obesity 'epidemic' and many man hours as well as revenue are lost to the country.



Yep, eventually the followup costs do become a matter of interest for the government.
(Kinda like child labor laws....they were not invented because politicians liked children so much...they found themselves in need of able bodied recruits for the army....)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 22, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> As I said it's a grand thing to have the freedom to eat what you wish but if and when it starts costing other people ie you, then you do have the right to tell them to eat properly or they opt out of the systems you use for medical treatment so you don't end up paying for them. I don't care whether they eat themselves to death or not.



Aye, there's the rub, isn't it?

But as I said, if that is a valid argument, then there is *NO REASON* why the government cannot (and should not) restrict the other behaviors that cost society *EVEN MORE*.

According to the CDC, the number one and two causes of death are:



> *Number of deaths for leading causes of   death*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Risk factors for heart disease:



> High cholesterol
> High blood pressure
> Diabetes
> Cigarette smoking
> ...



Using your logic and applying it directly, I can state clearly that if you behave in ways that cost others money, the government can and should restrict your behavior.

That means no extreme sports.  That means no hang-gliding or parachuting.  That means everyone has to lose weight.  That means everyone has to eat healthy food, like it or not.

That means no recreational drug use and no alcohol.  It means no smoking (anything) and no risky sex.

If the government has a duty to protect citizens from the financial costs of your bad decisions (and you just said they did), then the government can tell people to stop doing all the things I just listed above, and more.

As to _'opting out'_ of the insurance system, well, that's not an option under the US Obamacare system.  Everyone is required to have insurance, which means (using your logic) that they are required to behave as the government wants them to.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 22, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Here you can buy fresh fish from the fishmongers, no need for frozen.
> 
> Anyone wonder how much it costs the country to have people off work with illnesses caused by unhealthy eating and obesity? How much productivity is lost? At first glance it would seem the government is poking it's nose in but have a think of how much it could actually cost you in taxes etc if there is an obesity 'epidemic' and many man hours as well as revenue are lost to the country.



You talk about money, I talk about freedom.  The differences are fundamental.


----------



## granfire (Jun 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You talk about money, I talk about freedom.  The differences are fundamental.



nah, it's connected.
no money no freedom...

Or rather your freedom ends where mine 9and my money) is affected....


(@Tez: Sadly the retail structure has suffered greatly, there are hardly any specialty stores left. I know the cooking shows all talk about the butcher and the fishmonger...but around here at least, there aren't any)


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 22, 2011)

I fo buy fresh fish. And usually proceed to freeze it. That time it was just much cheaper. And that's sort of the point I was making. If I can buy fresh filets and freeze them with no salt, why can't the processing plants do the same?

I'd rather not regulate, but there comes a point where voluntary needs to be helped along.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 22, 2011)

granfire said:


> nah, it's connected.
> no money no freedom...



Not true.  One does not need money to be free.



> Or rather your freedom ends where mine 9and my money) is affected....



Disagree.  Again, if that is true, then I can demand you do things that affect my wallet also.  We will have to stop engaging in sports, drinking, etc.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 22, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> I'd rather not regulate, but there comes a point where voluntary needs to be helped along.



Again, that is the liberal mindset exemplified.  You say _'needs'_ like it is your right to do so.  It may be a _'need'_ but you haven't the *right*.  Not in a free society.

People_ 'need'_ to x, y, or z?  Well sir, people do NOT _'need'_ to do x, y, or z.  You **want** them to do x, y, or z, and your logic and science may be absolutely correct, but your authority in a free society is lacking.

Example: even knowing the dangers of smoking, many people continue to smoke.  You can say they _'need'_ to quit smoking and use that as your excuse to control their behavior against their will.  Others in this thread can cite the cost to society in terms of health insurance costs and use that as their reason to control the smoker's behavior.  But these are not the responses of a free society.  Smoking is and has been legal through most of the history of the USA.  As long as the majority of people want that to remain the law, then what people _'need'_ to do is not in your ability to control, nor should it be.  If you said that you think people ought to quit smoking, I'd agree with you.  If you said they should quit smoking, I'd agree with you.  If you said they cost us a fortune in medical insurance costs, I'd agree with you.  When you say that because of these things, society has a right to tell them what to do, I disagree completely.

I have to say that although I am sure you don't mean it in a bad way, when people tell me what I _'need'_ to do, it gets my back up in a big way.  What people _'need'_ to do is to stop telling me what I _'need'_ to do for my own good.   It's my life, I will live it as I see fit, and that's the end of it.  What others _'need'_ to do is mind their own business and leave me to mine.

I have never gotten over the anger I feel at liberals who tell me how I must run my life, while all the time expressing shock and dismay that I don't **want** to live my life the way they think I ought, and that they have a perfect right to demand.  When people tell me what I _'need'_ to do, I generally refuse to comply and dare them to make me.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You talk about money, I talk about freedom. The differences are fundamental.


 

No, you've missed my point. A government's responsiblity is not to cost you money so it's supposed to take measures that will save you money, it's up to you then to decide whether what it does also costs you your freedom, you vote them in. It sees a vast amount of unhealthy food being sold which people are buying and making themselves ill with so it tries to make that food healthy, there is a choice, you aren't forced to buy the new healthy food but the government does have an obligation to not put up taxes because it's losing money because of these people. Perhaps education would be a better way forward but again that would cost tax payers moneys so telling the manufacturers to sort their food out could well be a more practical way of trying to sort out this epidemic. If your money is being taken off you in taxes to pay for these people who have made themselves sick surely that is denying you the freedom to spend your money how you wish? If the companies you have shares in loses money because of these selfsame people and your dividends go down,  what are you going to do about it? Your money, for your family needs etc is being affected by this, your freedom to work could be affected by this. It's not as simple as money v freedom as you see it. If you were the govenment would you let these people eat themselves to death regardless of what it costs you? Is it denying you freedom when you can still choose what you eat? 

http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/08/obesity-health-economics-biz-health-cx_mh_1108obesity.html


----------



## billc (Jun 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks, well said.  I especially liked this point:

"If you said they should quit smoking, I'd agree with you. If you said they cost us a fortune in medical insurance costs, I'd agree with you. When you say that because of these things, society has a right to tell them what to do, I disagree completely."

Tez, on another post you warned me about being so blind I won't see people taking my freedom away.  You might want to re-read your own post.  

That is why the government should have less to do with healthcare.  If taxes aren't paying for it, there is no need to control peoples behavior to reduce medical costs.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, that is the liberal mindset exemplified. You say _'needs'_ like it is your right to do so. It may be a _'need'_ but you haven't the *right*. Not in a free society.
> 
> People_ 'need'_ to x, y, or z? Well sir, people do NOT _'need'_ to do x, y, or z. You **want** them to do x, y, or z, and your logic and science may be absolutely correct, but your authority in a free society is lacking.
> 
> ...


 

I'm not into telling people what they are to do or not to do, smoke yourself to death if you wish but don't blow the smoke in my face, don't spill the ash all over me or put cigarette burns on my clothes, fair one? Don't expect me to pay your medical bills either. 

If your government has decided that Americans should be given a choice between healthy food and non healthy food surely that is not a bad thing when so much of your processed food is full of salt and sugar? If a toy manufacturer was making toys with dangerous components, the government would be correct in doing something about it. These companies are selling food with dangerous components so they want to do something about it. It's not about taking away liberties or telling you what you can or can't eat, but you should have a choice and from my visits to the PX when in Germany, I've seen your food is seriously overloaded with stuff that's not in most countries food. Coca Cola used to contain cocaine would you advocate it still was, in the interests of freedom or that medicines sold over the counter still contains opium and morphine as it used to be? 

I'm sure people can still get as fat as they wish eating whatever they want but that a few foods should offer a healthier choice is not a bad thing. Freedom is about choice, there is no choice if all there is going to be is food containing dangerous levels of salt, sugar and additives. Making some companies clean up their food will give a choice, you don't have to eat the healthy stuff.

If you happy with paying more taxes and higher health premiums because other people choose to get obese therby curtailing your choices over how you spend your money that's up to you. There's no such thing as a perfect society so even conservative government have to make decisions that are unpopular. How would cut the costs involved in obesity while allowed people to eat themselves to death as is their right, it's not an easy thing to work out so everyone is content. It's not a case of taking away liberties or trying to be big brother but of reconciling peoples rights which are conflicting with each other.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Bill Mattocks, well said. I especially liked this point:
> 
> "If you said they should quit smoking, I'd agree with you. If you said they cost us a fortune in medical insurance costs, I'd agree with you. When you say that because of these things, society has a right to tell them what to do, I disagree completely."
> 
> ...


 

and you should wind your neck in because you simply haven't understood what I've said.

I'm not advocating anything just pointing out that you have a dilemma in your country over the obese costing you tax money, productivity and higher insurance. If people can't work because of obesity related diseases it costs the country as a whole lost man hours and taxes. You can cut the healthcare away from the government but these things are still going to cost you money, the government has a responsibilty to save you money. there lies your dilemma, it's nothing to do with being 'liberal' or wanting to take away your rights, how are you going to reconcile these obese peoples right to get ill with yours not to have to pay in higher taxes, less dividends and working harder to cover the jobs of those off sick?


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 22, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Childhood obesity is a parental problem not food. If parents would watch what their kids would eat (and watch what they eat themselves) then obesity would be a problem for people with glandular problems not gluttonous.




It's more than just what the kids eat, it's also their lack of activity that is causing problems.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 22, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> A government's responsiblity is not to cost you money so it's supposed to take measures that will save you money...



No, it's not.



> ...but the government does have an obligation to not put up taxes because it's losing money because of these people.



No it doesn't have any such obligation.



> If you were the govenment would you let these people eat themselves to death regardless of what it costs you?



Yes.



> Is it denying you freedom when you can still choose what you eat?



Yes.

You are confusing good science (people should eat healthier food and poor eating habits cost us all money) with good government (it is not the role of the government to tell people what to eat).  It is none of the government's business.  Does it cost money? Yes.  Not the point.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2011)

Damn! I wrote out a huge answer which I clicked on and was sure was there but it seems it's not! . 
Basically my point was that if you can afford to support others through welfare etc who eat themselves into illness that's fine but for those who work hard and struggle to make ends meet in this recession it's hard on them to have to support those who basically cause their own illness. Ideals are fine on paper and when you are well off but reconciling various peoples freedoms is difficult, that's what I'm trying to ask. How do you deal with those who's right it is to eat themselves to death with those rights of everyone else not to have to work extra to cover for them at work, to pay taxes when they don't, to support their children through schools, pay for policing, street cleaning and all the stuff your taxes pay for. Where is the freedom in that situation?
I also asked about cocaine in Coca Cola, morphine and opium in cough mixtures, tonics etc. That was made illegal, should they be legalised because it's peoples right to buy and consume bad things? Huge amounts of salt and sugar can be every bit as dangerous so surely the government in lieu of anyone else trying to doing anything ( is there anyone else who can do something about the obesity epidemic?) should be saying to the companies 'Oi, your food is dangerous, make it less so', no one has to buy so called healthy food but surely too food that is dangerous shouldn't be sold or if it is a bloody great label should be stuck on it.

People who are eating themselves into obesity are iimpinging on your rights already, if the government doesn't try to do something, who should and what? How do you keep all your rights, so they can carry on eating whatever they want and you don't have to work harder to allow them that freedom? How many think that paying welfare for obese people to eat themselves to death is giving everyone their rights and freedoms? I'm fine with people eating whatever they want but I'm not fine with paying for their care if they knowingly do it and I'm paying. It's on a par with paying for drug addicts to live on welfare and have their medical needs looked after by the State. Is that freedom for those who don't eat themselves stupid?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2011)

Bill M, I do understand where you are coming from, but looking at the problem from afar I can see there's a huge dilemma here. On one hand you want your freedom to do as you wish, quite rightly, no one likes being told what to do, on the other hand you have what is amounting to an epidemic of obesity where people are causing problems both monetary and medically for everyone else. So what is to be done? If nothing is done on the grounds it infringes peoples right to eat what they want medical services are going to get clogged up,( I believe many hospitals are having to buy bigger beds, wheelchairs etc and have special units just for the obese), sickness levels are rising, people not working and living off the state. On the other hand if you start bringing in legislation to control this epidemic you have the government stamping on peoples rights. So, what's the practical solution not the ideal on paper ?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not into telling people what they are to do or not to do, smoke yourself to death if you wish but don't blow the smoke in my face, don't spill the ash all over me or put cigarette burns on my clothes, fair one? Don't expect me to pay your medical bills either.



I belong to a group health insurance policy through my employer.  If you're part of that group, then yes, my medical costs affect you, and you have to pay for them.  Guess what?  Too bad for you.

On the other hand, I have to pay for the medical costs of those who drink and drive, drive too fast, hang-glide, engage in unsafe sex, and so on.  That's the nature of private insurance; we all pay into the pool and we accept the risk that the group accepts.

You have no right to refuse to pay my expenses if you wish to be a member of the group.  On the other hand, you can quit being a member of the group.

What you're saying is, you don't like the way insurance spreads risk.  Well, that's all it is for.  Like it or not.

On the other hand, if our insurance ends up being provided by the government and paid for by taxes, then it does become a different issue.  That's why I'm against the nationalization of health insurance.  As a taxpayer, I don't have the right to opt-out anymore.  Then it does become my business what you put into your body or what I put into mine - or to be honest (and controversial and disgusting) it becomes my business whom you sleep with and what kind of sex you engage in.  Yes, that's right.  STD is a big expense.  If you're in MY insurance pool and I cannot opt out, then you better not be sticking anything where it might result in disease.  I have the right to demand you not do it.



> If your government has decided that Americans should be given a choice between healthy food and non healthy food surely that is not a bad thing when so much of your processed food is full of salt and sugar?



Yes, it's a bad thing.  I keep saying that.  I don't know how many more times I need to say it.  BAD THING.



> If a toy manufacturer was making toys with dangerous components, the government would be correct in doing something about it. These companies are selling food with dangerous components so they want to do something about it. It's not about taking away liberties or telling you what you can or can't eat, but you should have a choice and from my visits to the PX when in Germany, I've seen your food is seriously overloaded with stuff that's not in most countries food. Coca Cola used to contain cocaine would you advocate it still was, in the interests of freedom or that medicines sold over the counter still contains opium and morphine as it used to be?



What makes you think I agree that 'salt' is dangerous?  Or how much 'salt' is too much?  Tell me how much is in it, and I'll decide for myself, thanks.  The argument I get in this thread is that YOU get to decide how much is too much, and I won't be permitted to buy food with that much in it.  You make a lot of statements about what is and is not dangerous and state them as if they were facts that no one disputed.  It want to know what it is my food.  I do not want to be told what I can and cannot buy - which is what happens if the government forbids foods to be sold with this or that in it.



> I'm sure people can still get as fat as they wish eating whatever they want but that a few foods should offer a healthier choice is not a bad thing.



YES IT IS.  When the government assumes the role of nanny, it is a very bad thing.



> Freedom is about choice, there is no choice if all there is going to be is food containing dangerous levels of salt, sugar and additives. Making some companies clean up their food will give a choice, you don't have to eat the healthy stuff.



Not if the government makes them stop producing it, which is what you're talking about.  And again - I do not agree with what YOU think is unhealthy.  That's YOUR opinion.  Stop making choices for MY life.  I don't make any such choices about yours.



> If you happy with paying more taxes and higher health premiums because other people choose to get obese therby curtailing your choices over how you spend your money that's up to you.



I'm happy with freedom.  That means I accept the consequences - positive and negative - that freedom brings.  People who want to throw away their freedom to be protected from making bad decisions mystify me.  I guess they like being slaves.



> There's no such thing as a perfect society so even conservative government have to make decisions that are unpopular. How would cut the costs involved in obesity while allowed people to eat themselves to death as is their right, it's not an easy thing to work out so everyone is content. It's not a case of taking away liberties or trying to be big brother but of reconciling peoples rights which are conflicting with each other.



What right is being conflicted by, for example, MSG being in canned food?  I'm a little unclear on what right of yours is being infringed by not being allowed to tell me how to live.

And stop saying you're not telling me how to live.  You say that, and then you proceed to tell me how to live.  If you really don't think you are, then I don't know what else we have to talk about.  Again, this is why no matter how much I disagree with the Republican Party and cannot be a Republican, I could never, never, be a Democrat.  They tend to think this way - they want to run everybody's life for them, in their own best interests of course.  I don't need or want to be taken care of, so f right off, sez I (in general, not meaning you personally).  Democrats.  Ugh.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Bill M, I do understand where you are coming from, but looking at the problem from afar I can see there's a huge dilemma here. On one hand you want your freedom to do as you wish, quite rightly, no one likes being told what to do, on the other hand you have what is amounting to an epidemic of obesity where people are causing problems both monetary and medically for everyone else. So what is to be done? If nothing is done on the grounds it infringes peoples right to eat what they want medical services are going to get clogged up,( I believe many hospitals are having to buy bigger beds, wheelchairs etc and have special units just for the obese), sickness levels are rising, people not working and living off the state. On the other hand if you start bringing in legislation to control this epidemic you have the government stamping on peoples rights. So, what's the practical solution not the ideal on paper ?



What we're doing now - provide information and educate.  That is the proper role of government with regard to public health.

The problem is always the same with liberals.  They say they want to modify behavior by informing and educating, and that's great.  But if it doesn't work, then they suggest incentives to do the healthy thing.  And if that doesn't work, they suggest disincentives to do the unhealthy thing.  And when people persist in doing something unhealthy, then they finally show their true colors - force them to do the 'healthy' thing whether they like it or not.

That's a liberal for you.  Persuade, educate, cajole, and if if you still won't do what they say you should, bring out a stick and force you to do it anyway.

Not playing.  Dislike liberal philosophy.  I especially dislike it because liberals lie about what their ultimate motives - live the way they tell you to or else.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jun 23, 2011)

Some points. Everyone lies.  It's about $$$$$$. it isn't personal, it is just business, i.e.  insurance and diet industries. We are way past Orwell. I mean like light years. 

Caught Dr. Oz on the TV debating health diet with some medical researcher. Dr. Oz showed what he ate as a healthy diet. So freaking unrealistic what he ate, a real diet minimalist with a flare for repetition. With a heavy dose of malnutrition and just enough to medical say your not starving yourself.  He was anti corn syrup and sugar.  The guy he was debating was pro saturated fat, pushing to debunk that LDL is bad, and what we believe know about it is a myth. He agreed corn syrup is evil and should be outlawed too.  It was great TV and sensationalism. 

There is too many "obese people" in this country according to someone, which is propagated through the media. And the "fat epidemic" is a great band wagon for many of the medical and nutrition and diet community to jump on, it is a medical tradition, see Dr. Kellogg. But the creme is the  insurance companies can charge higher premiums, and are probably behind it all.  If you have noticed in the 1970s or so the changed what a health total cholesterol level is, and they just re-calibrated the BMI, and redesigned the "Food Pyramid". All this translates to more $$$$ for health insurance companies by charging higher premiums. Doctors can be bought, just like politicians. 

My advise is stop eating out, stop buying pre-made foods, and make everything at home from scratch. That way no one call tell you squat.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> My advise is stop eating out, stop buying pre-made foods, and make everything at home from scratch. That way no one call tell you squat.



Wanna bet?  If you can't buy the ingredients, and you're not capable of growing it yourself, you're being told.

As to the _health nazis_, all I can say is that a carb is a carb, fat is fat, sugar is sugar, protein is protein.  If a candy bar has what my body needs in it, it's no more or less healthy for me that an egg or a teaspon of wheat germ, or a bowl of tofu -in my opinion.  My body doesn't even know the difference between a calorie that came from tofu or a calorie that came from creamy nougat.  It's only a problem if I eat too much of it or if my body can't process the things that come with it. And that's my business.  Give me the information and leave me the hell alone.  I don't want regulations on what I eat, I don't want people telling me what I 'need' to be doing, and I refuse to comply utterly, daring them to to impose the 'or else'.  Not now, not ever.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2011)

Bill, again you miss the point *I'm not telling you how to live*, you are over defensive and reading it wrongly *I'm asking you questions*. I want to know how people feel about other people who go on welfare, cost you money etc etc because they chose to live unhealthy life styles. I'm not saying they can't, I'm asking how you reconcile their freedoms with yours? is everyone happy with paying for those who chose to be obese with it's attendant health problems, are they happy to do extra work because that obese person has to have time off through illness?
You didn't answer my questions about morphine and opium being banned in food either. I'm sure the users of those cough medicines and tonics didn't agree with them being dangerous either.

I think you have more to worry about than just salt in your food btw.

http://www.fooducate.com/blog/2010/07/22/what-do-silly-putty-and-chicken-mcnuggets-have-in-common/

I just wondered if you thought I was asking rhetorical questions to make a point? I wasn't, I do actually want to know how people feel about this and how they reconcile people's freedoms, not just to eat what they want, when what they do impacts on other people. Your situation regarding healthcare etc is different from ours so I'm curious to know how it works when you have to pay higher insurance etc and taxes for others to live off welfare. We all pay NI when we are working so ours is not the same.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jun 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Wanna bet?  If you can't buy the ingredients, and you're not capable of growing it yourself, you're being told.
> 
> As to the _health nazis_, all I can say is that a carb is a carb, fat is fat, sugar is sugar, protein is protein.  If a candy bar has what my body needs in it, it's no more or less healthy for me that an egg or a teaspon of wheat germ, or a bowl of tofu -in my opinion.  My body doesn't even know the difference between a calorie that came from tofu or a calorie that came from creamy nougat.  It's only a problem if I eat too much of it or if my body can't process the things that come with it. And that's my business.  Give me the information and leave me the hell alone.  I don't want regulations on what I eat, I don't want people telling me what I 'need' to be doing, and I refuse to comply utterly, daring them to to impose the 'or else'.  Not now, not ever.



Sorry, I was being sarcastic - can't find that damn sarcasm button.  We are dependent upon other feeding us. Since the advent of the TV dinner generation, and instant cake mixes, if you are going to cut out carbs, corn syrup, everything else than make your food yourself from scratch, i.e. eat salad and fruit the rest of your life. The government or anyone else doesn't need to step in and tell us to any extreme what to eat. The government should be dealing with Con Agri, Yumi and those mega food companies to put out healthier food. But healthier food doesn't have the same profit margins than salt and sugar. The government should be informing us and not telling us about food. Sadly, the government is for the corporations by the corporations.  Let me say, I do agree with Doctors on the fat issue. More saturated fats the more patients the doctor sees. The priest was replaced by the business man when it comes to the medical health industry.  Not so much where the doctor is a pharmaceutical salesmen.  There is credibility to what doctors they say, and we do have allot of obese "100+ "over weight people in this country.  But the issue for me is the extremism, doctors who sell out, corporations and it's government. It is all the misinformation, propaganda, and fear speech out that.  I don't care what anyone says, no one has control over what you eat, expect you. Yes, there is crap food out there, but if that is the case where you can't find healthy food. Make it yourself, control your own diet. No matter how hard it seems to be.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Bill, again you miss the point *I'm not telling you how to live*, you are over defensive and reading it wrongly *I'm asking you questions*. I want to know how people feel about other people who go on welfare, cost you money etc etc because they chose to live unhealthy life styles. I'm not saying they can't, I'm asking how you reconcile their freedoms with yours? is everyone happy with paying for those who chose to be obese with it's attendant health problems, are they happy to do extra work because that obese person has to have time off through illness?



And I'm trying to answer by pointing out that these are invalid questions.  Kind of like saying _"Do you agree that you should drive an economy car, or do you prefer to rape the planet?" _ Uh, neither one, thanks.

However, let's try once more.  Then I'm off to the dojo.

_"is everyone happy with paying for those who chose to be obese with it's  attendant health problems, are they happy to do extra work because that  obese person has to have time off through illness?"_

I'm not 'happy' about it.  I also don't think I have the right to tell an obese person that they have to lose weight because their poor choices cost me money.  See what I'm saying?  You pose two answers and demand that I chose one or the other; but I don't like the choices you're giving me and I don't agree with either of them, so I cannot answer you.



> You didn't answer my questions about morphine and opium being banned in food either. I'm sure the users of those cough medicines and tonics didn't agree with them being dangerous either.



It's a good point, and I'm sorry I didn't answer you.  I'll say you have a valid position here.  However, I shudder to think that MSG poses the same risk to society as morphine.  Nor do I suspect that morphine was banned because it wasn't good for you, but rather because it was bad for society.



> I think you have more to worry about than just salt in your food btw.



Not the point.



> I just wondered if you thought I was asking rhetorical questions to make a point? I wasn't, I do actually want to know how people feel about this and how they reconcile people's freedoms, not just to eat what they want, when what they do impacts on other people. Your situation regarding healthcare etc is different from ours so I'm curious to know how it works when you have to pay higher insurance etc and taxes for others to live off welfare. We all pay NI when we are working so ours is not the same.



It's the way you ask the questions. _ "Do you like President Obama, or are you a hateful racist?"_  That's how you're asking.  I don't care for either answer.  I don't like him and I'm not a hateful racist.  So now what?

I believe people should be free to choose what food they eat.  I believe that advising people on what is in their food and the possible risks and consequences of poor food choices is within the proper role of government.  I do not believe that the government has the right to go any further, to the point of outlawing food that others think is unhealthy.

I understand the arguments that poor choices cost us all money.  I can't disagree, it's pure logic.  I point out that if that is the rationale for making certain foods illegal, then it is a poor one, because that logic - true logic - can be used to also proscribe any behavior that costs us money.  Risk sex costs us money.  Being obese costs us money. Extreme sports cost  us money.  Which of these are you willing to give up to save us money?  If you can demand one, why is it wrong to demand the others?

I also think that people who have strong opinions on what is healthy and what is not tend to have the opinion that because they have logic and science on their side, that is how society ought to be made to operate.  You personally may not be telling me what to do.  But anyone who thinks that it is OK to create laws whose purpose is _'for my own good'_ are indeed telling me what to do.  Period.  I find this to be a distinctly liberal trait, and it really gets up my sleeve at times.

I find that this viewpoint is often manifested by people using the term 'need'.  For example, a person says _"Well, people *need* to be made to understand that this is for their own health."_  OK, stop there.  I don't 'need' to be made to do anything.  You are welcome to try if you think you can.  The wording is a classist statement; you are my superior and you will decide what it is that I 'need'.  I reject that.  If my statements seem strong and often angry, it is in reaction to having people tell me what I _'need'_ to do according to them.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jun 24, 2011)

Here is another issue, all this diet control and policing targeted at society does effect the eating habits and perspectives of kids, tweens, and teenagers. When they hear things like low salt diets, no carbs, calorie reduction, they take far more seriously and intensely. For decades there was the anorexia problem, because the spot light was on being "thin" is pretty. Many think that is a problem of the past, but it still exists as strongly then when it was first exposed as it does today, but it is not focused on. Instead the focus is on obesity championed by the medical community is to reduce what they see,amplified by the media, as an epidemic of Biblical proportions of an obese population. 

The media ripe for such a crisis focuses on both adults and children fiercely creating an image of this evil fat epidemic. All cheerleaded and panic stricken schools, nutritionists, government, media and doctors propagating this idea, and where to stop this great evil is with our kids, who are allAugustus Gloops, and Rollie Pollies (the old song about a fat kid). That really effects kids adversely.  

The youth than becomes overly conscious hearing this barge of propaganda, where some stop eating because they are worried about high caloric intakes, too much fat, and all the other nutritional trends resulting in them being fat and in danger. So much so, it compounds the issue of anorexia. Now it is not just an issue of self image, it is about the evils of food, and coupled with the lower  BMI target. Now there is justification to purge or not eat because they are taking in too many calories, too much fat, too much.... food. 

If this hard trend of how and what to eat continues and is successful we will be a country suffering from a malnutrition, and being "too thin" crisis. Where we will be told to eat all the evil foods once again, base on "what scientists now believe." As the diet pendulum will swing back again.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 24, 2011)

Well you are going to have to excuse me for throwing my rattle out of the pram here but I've just been kicked in the teeth, there's me trying hard to undrstand how things are for you guys and I'm accused of quite a few things I can assure you I'm not guilty of. I'm sorry if anyone finds the way I write things 'wrong', I phrase things as I think them, if that's not to your likeing, I can't do anthing more. I'm sorry if you are reading more than curiosity into my posts, there is nothing more than that I assure you. I think there's a real communication problem and I can't think of a way to make it any better so all I can do is not post and I'll leave my questions unasked and unaswered as they obviously aren't being understood for what they are, a non political, non partisan noseyness on how other people cope with the things life and governments throw up. I don't even have a dog in this fight because your situation isn't the same as ours so I have no opinion on what you should do, yet the posts I get back are sharp and aggressive. So much for trying to understand each other.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jun 24, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And if they choose not to?  What's the _'or else'_?
> 
> That's why I can never call myself a liberal.  In my world, people _'should'_ take control of what they're feeding themselves.  But if they don't, they don't.  End of discussion.  I try not to tell people what they _'need'_ to do in general.
> 
> ...



I don't see why there should be an "or else" as you put it.

The consequences on why people "need" to as opposed to "should" is that when you poison the entire population health care costs skyrocket like what is happening in the US right now.

Clean water and healthy food is a NEED not a should last time I checked. Or what you end up with is a dysfunctional society that's falling apart.
I am not American or a liberal, but I am a realist. So I realize that if things keep going the way they are, (people turning a blind eye on the fact that the food supply is being nothing less than poisoned,) then we will run out of time to correct this.

The government should not be the one to force manufacturers of goods to comply with making healthy food. But it is illegal to serve alcohol to a child right? So why shouldn't it be illegal to serve them known and proven carcinogens?

Is it not the governments place to step in and say, hey, we should prevent children from being poisoned?
And then shouldn't they then step in and say hey, we should prevent our population from being poisoned?
Now granted not all junk food is the equivalent of poison, some can be reasonably consumed in moderation but, there has to be some accountability and rules put in place for honestly labeling what people are eating.

So yes the governnment does have the need and right to step in, I never said that they have the right to force anyone to eat anything, or manufacturers to be forced to make healthy food.
People should be able to choose to eat crap if they want to. But in order to be able to CHOOSE it, they need to know that it's crap and not be told they're eating "artificial flavor"...


----------



## shinbushi (Jun 24, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> I am not a liberal.



You post shows otherwise.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 25, 2011)

I think if someone says they aren't liberal we should take them at their word the same as  if they say they are conservative we should. To contradict someone when they tell you what their view is and say it's actually something else is somewhat rude and attacking.


----------



## granfire (Jun 25, 2011)

not to mention 'being liberal' is too commonly tossed around as insult...(in a country based on liberty...gawd almighty...)


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jun 25, 2011)

It's funny that even if someone has a "liberal" view on a topic, (not saying that I do) does that even make them a liberal?
That's what I hate about politics, people stop thinking for themselves.

If I was a conservative, does that mean that I have to agree 100% with every policy? Is that even possible?

Either way I am neither liberal nor republican, can't I be something else? lol

It's funny when someone tries to make such a claim or as Tez put it very well, an attack on a person based on one post.


----------



## billc (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, you could be a liberal republican, which is almost the same thing as being a democrat.  That covers three things right there.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jun 26, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well, you could be a liberal republican, which is almost the same thing as being a democrat.  That covers three things right there.




Does that make me a socialist too?


----------



## billc (Jun 26, 2011)

Definitely.


----------



## granfire (Jun 26, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> Does that make me a socialist too?



Fascist commy, actually!


----------

