FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Make the world healthy again.
Make the world healthy again.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Unfortunately, the dangerous man that he's enabling - Trump - doesn't help him and he's not especially a particularly trustworthy person, in my opinion. This doesn't help his cause as he'll be repellent to many people. Certainly he's stating some of the obvious. Is he looking for a bigger state, that would be able to rein in the practices of a largely unfettered food industry there?" Yes, he does state the obvious, which is a good reminder too  | |||
"Unfortunately, the dangerous man that he's enabling - Trump - doesn't help him and he's not especially a particularly trustworthy person, in my opinion. This doesn't help his cause as he'll be repellent to many people. Certainly he's stating some of the obvious. Is he looking for a bigger state, that would be able to rein in the practices of a largely unfettered food industry there?Yes, he does state the obvious, which is a good reminder too "What are his solutions Shag? Is he looking to get greater government enforcement of more legislation that limits the powerful food industry? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Are you also following robert kennedy juniors mission to make america healthy again? He only mentioned america, but I think that it is a global epidemic problem, so that is why I chose this title instead. In his speeches he is talking about the dangers of some of it like, seeds oils, how it is not good, food colourings, especially yellow food colours, natural flavours and he added that the the worst one is ultra proscessed foods where about 70% of the american diet is ultra processed, because these foods consists primarly of processed sugars. What is your view of it and what do you think of his mission, is it possible to make the world healthy again? I like how he is exposing the food industry and I think that when people like robert is talking about it on the world stage, people listen more and I think that people will change gradually too "It's a nice idea shag. A bit like being environmentally friendly or carbon neutral flights. It is just monetised. Why is it cheaper and easier to be unhealthy than to be healthy.? Why are poorer people fatter? The food industry, the oil companies, the car companies, the pharma companies... All too easy to make money the unhealthy way. Why do we have 1 in 2 people getting cancer now? Why are a third of all kids getting myopia? Until someone makes some unpopular decisions on how companies target people for money it's only heading on one direction. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The only way this will work is even people do it for themselves and stop buying the proccessed shit " But while it's cheaper for tray to get her 2 kg family bucket of beige food delivered to her settee than to go to the shop and buy some vegetables that have not been chemically altered and cook them and feed the family there's not much of a decision to made... Jam today. Not least how the fuck did a "family bucket" become a marketing term that sells food to humans? | |||
A fresh vegetable is almost unseen, all out of tins.
The other extreme is the fitness people.
The only thing I'd exchange is their fabulous farmers markets.
To change Americans relationship with food, it would be multi generational.
The first generation would have to help reduce the portions and relationship with food of the next and then the biggest trial would be to maintain it.
Like obesity in this country. Sadly, no quick fix. | |||
"Unfortunately, the dangerous man that he's enabling - Trump - doesn't help him and he's not especially a particularly trustworthy person, in my opinion. This doesn't help his cause as he'll be repellent to many people. Certainly he's stating some of the obvious. Is he looking for a bigger state, that would be able to rein in the practices of a largely unfettered food industry there?" As apposed to what? Supporting and endorsing kamala when she and Biden and the Democrats did everything they could to keep him off the ballots to run against Joe Biden. Then when all avenues was exhausted he had to become an independent to run for president then again the Democrats did everything they could to put road blocks in his way. Which meant he wasn't going to get even remotely a fair shot at the election, so he endorsed trump and as trump said they would work together on reforming the big food and pharma industries making the country sick. Why would he endorse kamala when they all shafted him. Same as tulsi gabbard (what an intelligent, inspiring woman she is, who I think will be anericas first woman president in 2028). She always had to move away from the Democrats as she has been in military service for 20 years and was appalled by their pro war rhetoric and lack of respect to the 13 gold medal family's who she never once called or reached out to in the 3 half years since their children was killed. Tulsi endosed trump and then became a victim of political retaliation against her and was put on the "quiet skies" possible terrorist list where she was followed and watched by air marshals, made to be body searched and checked luggage every time she got om or got of a plane. You speak of trump like he's the devil and is going to do evil things but never address what the Democrats do or stand for. They also made all social media platforms ignore the hunter Biden lap top during the 2020 election which may or may not have hindered Joe Biden but it's been proven that this happened and is clearly election interference from the dems. Rfk speaks so passionately about this health topic and if he's going to be involved in reforming these big company's ruining the health of everyone then I hope it trickles onto rest of the world. | |||
| |||
"Why do we need Nannying? If people choose to live a healthy lifestyle, they can. Nobody forces ultra-processed foods on anybody. American food is notoriously chemical-addled and processed, but the state should not be necessarily telling us what we are allowed to consume & eat. Sure, governments should ban dangerous chemicals and additives, but beyond that, it should be people's right to choose. We seem to be living in a world now where our politicians have become our nannies. They forget that we put them in power to do what WE want, not to tell us how to live. We can see that they are trying to shut down farms and are pushing the consumption of insects for the future. No thanks. I am not eating locusts. It's time that our governments stopped interfering in our lives and got on with enabling our freedoms instead of imposing restrictions and bans." Do you have private healthcare? | |||
"Why do we need Nannying? If people choose to live a healthy lifestyle, they can. Nobody forces ultra-processed foods on anybody. American food is notoriously chemical-addled and processed, but the state should not be necessarily telling us what we are allowed to consume & eat. Sure, governments should ban dangerous chemicals and additives, but beyond that, it should be people's right to choose. We seem to be living in a world now where our politicians have become our nannies. They forget that we put them in power to do what WE want, not to tell us how to live. We can see that they are trying to shut down farms and are pushing the consumption of insects for the future. No thanks. I am not eating locusts. It's time that our governments stopped interfering in our lives and got on with enabling our freedoms instead of imposing restrictions and bans." But, according to independent research (as opposed to food industry funded research where there is a well documented conflict of interests) some of the foods are carcinogenic, cause diabetes and obesity, etc., and aren't fit for human consumption. We expect the food that is on sale to be safe. Yes, it's our right to eat what we want but only after ALL of the foods have been passed as fit for consumption. All of the info is there. I'd urge everyone to research it themselves. | |||
"Why do we need Nannying? If people choose to live a healthy lifestyle, they can. Nobody forces ultra-processed foods on anybody. American food is notoriously chemical-addled and processed, but the state should not be necessarily telling us what we are allowed to consume & eat. Sure, governments should ban dangerous chemicals and additives, but beyond that, it should be people's right to choose. We seem to be living in a world now where our politicians have become our nannies. They forget that we put them in power to do what WE want, not to tell us how to live. We can see that they are trying to shut down farms and are pushing the consumption of insects for the future. No thanks. I am not eating locusts. It's time that our governments stopped interfering in our lives and got on with enabling our freedoms instead of imposing restrictions and bans." Because evidently most people can't be arsed to choose the health options. | |||
"Why do we need Nannying? If people choose to live a healthy lifestyle, they can. Nobody forces ultra-processed foods on anybody. American food is notoriously chemical-addled and processed, but the state should not be necessarily telling us what we are allowed to consume & eat. Sure, governments should ban dangerous chemicals and additives, but beyond that, it should be people's right to choose. We seem to be living in a world now where our politicians have become our nannies. They forget that we put them in power to do what WE want, not to tell us how to live. We can see that they are trying to shut down farms and are pushing the consumption of insects for the future. No thanks. I am not eating locusts. It's time that our governments stopped interfering in our lives and got on with enabling our freedoms instead of imposing restrictions and bans. Because evidently most people can't be arsed to choose the health options." so what if most people don't choose the healthy option, there body and there life let people shovel what they like down there throats,if they wana be fat fuckers that's there choice,as for the government getting involved in what we should be eating erm no thanks the less those people have to do with my life the better | |||
| |||
"Why do we need Nannying? If people choose to live a healthy lifestyle, they can. Nobody forces ultra-processed foods on anybody. American food is notoriously chemical-addled and processed, but the state should not be necessarily telling us what we are allowed to consume & eat. Sure, governments should ban dangerous chemicals and additives, but beyond that, it should be people's right to choose. We seem to be living in a world now where our politicians have become our nannies. They forget that we put them in power to do what WE want, not to tell us how to live. We can see that they are trying to shut down farms and are pushing the consumption of insects for the future. No thanks. I am not eating locusts. It's time that our governments stopped interfering in our lives and got on with enabling our freedoms instead of imposing restrictions and bans. Because evidently most people can't be arsed to choose the health options.so what if most people don't choose the healthy option, there body and there life let people shovel what they like down there throats,if they wana be fat fuckers that's there choice,as for the government getting involved in what we should be eating erm no thanks the less those people have to do with my life the better" Thing is the govt already has a huge impact on what you put in your body... With their taxation policies and support of the food industry. If they stopped pandering to the companies that produce the shite and started pandering to the healthier and it ethical choices... People's spending and eating choices could be influenced and changed. They are right now. Why not choose to give "better" companies the breaks they give to industrialised farming and food production and importation. | |||
"Why do we need Nannying? If people choose to live a healthy lifestyle, they can. Nobody forces ultra-processed foods on anybody. American food is notoriously chemical-addled and processed, but the state should not be necessarily telling us what we are allowed to consume & eat. Sure, governments should ban dangerous chemicals and additives, but beyond that, it should be people's right to choose. We seem to be living in a world now where our politicians have become our nannies. They forget that we put them in power to do what WE want, not to tell us how to live. We can see that they are trying to shut down farms and are pushing the consumption of insects for the future. No thanks. I am not eating locusts. It's time that our governments stopped interfering in our lives and got on with enabling our freedoms instead of imposing restrictions and bans." People's right to choose. Sure, if everyone is able to be fully aware of health, chemistry, biochemistry, nutrition etc, then the whole world could be a free utopia, as nothing untoward would ever happen to anyone  . Reality suggests otherwise. Seatbelts in cars were clamoured as the nanny state being too intrusive. Most people do accept that we have limited freedoms and also responsibilities. Similarly for corporate entities. Tobacco is a natural plant species but Big Tobacco exploited individuals' and governmental vulnerabilities for their own end. Forever chemicals are likely in your body, as well as the umbilical cords attached to babies plus our drinking water, after water companies have made profit, after processing and pumping it to us, with it and other impurities still in it. Sure, we're free to choose and do many things but it's reasonable to approach things at cause, rather than trying to deal with the effects and impacts of what's known to be wrong and may cause harm. Seeking to limit the development and sales of more harmful ingredients does facilitate preventative caution and elimination of needless risk. It would be a fairly long list of chemicals that we may encounter, that could be too overwhelming for a typical Joe Public to educate themselves upon, when assessing risks and choices in their life and amongst the many other things that they may be left to master, should we have full liberty, without caution and restraint, in our interest.
Which democratic or other system gets it right? The jury's out. | |||
| |||
"Unless people start realising that any industry is run merely for the sake of making its shareholders profits, nothing will ever change with regards to making the people of any country healthy again or healthier. The food industry is like any other - how can they make more money by investing as little as possible while keeping people coming back again and again. The fast food and processed food industry works on the basis that these foods are highly addictive. The combination of fats and sugar (and I don't mean the likes of avocado and raw honey) is more addictive than some of the most addictive dRugs. The food industry does plenty of research how particular foods work on the brain receptors which are responsible for the release of dopamine which is a neurotransmitter responsible for making us feel good. While at the same time maximising profits by using waste product within the industry to make other products which are then probably sold off as the next new healthy fad. Unless governments around the world start by regulating the food industry "properly" and promoting natural, unadulterated foods and heavily rewarding and incentivising the likes of our farmers and food growers while making these foods a hell of a lot more affordable than any processed foods and while banning additives which are known to be carcinogenic, neurotoxic etc, nothing will change much. In fact, it will only get worse." All very well, but obesity is as much to do with plain overeating as it is with processed foods. It's just easier to blame 'big business' that it is to take personal responsibility. | |||
"Unless people start realising that any industry is run merely for the sake of making its shareholders profits, nothing will ever change with regards to making the people of any country healthy again or healthier. The food industry is like any other - how can they make more money by investing as little as possible while keeping people coming back again and again. The fast food and processed food industry works on the basis that these foods are highly addictive. The combination of fats and sugar (and I don't mean the likes of avocado and raw honey) is more addictive than some of the most addictive dRugs. The food industry does plenty of research how particular foods work on the brain receptors which are responsible for the release of dopamine which is a neurotransmitter responsible for making us feel good. While at the same time maximising profits by using waste product within the industry to make other products which are then probably sold off as the next new healthy fad. Unless governments around the world start by regulating the food industry "properly" and promoting natural, unadulterated foods and heavily rewarding and incentivising the likes of our farmers and food growers while making these foods a hell of a lot more affordable than any processed foods and while banning additives which are known to be carcinogenic, neurotoxic etc, nothing will change much. In fact, it will only get worse. All very well, but obesity is as much to do with plain overeating as it is with processed foods. It's just easier to blame 'big business' that it is to take personal responsibility." I do absolutely agree, personal responsibility comes into the equation but how many people do you think are overeating on lettuce, spinach, organic chicken, eggs, apples and bananas, for example? | |||
"Unless people start realising that any industry is run merely for the sake of making its shareholders profits, nothing will ever change with regards to making the people of any country healthy again or healthier. The food industry is like any other - how can they make more money by investing as little as possible while keeping people coming back again and again. The fast food and processed food industry works on the basis that these foods are highly addictive. The combination of fats and sugar (and I don't mean the likes of avocado and raw honey) is more addictive than some of the most addictive dRugs. The food industry does plenty of research how particular foods work on the brain receptors which are responsible for the release of dopamine which is a neurotransmitter responsible for making us feel good. While at the same time maximising profits by using waste product within the industry to make other products which are then probably sold off as the next new healthy fad. Unless governments around the world start by regulating the food industry "properly" and promoting natural, unadulterated foods and heavily rewarding and incentivising the likes of our farmers and food growers while making these foods a hell of a lot more affordable than any processed foods and while banning additives which are known to be carcinogenic, neurotoxic etc, nothing will change much. In fact, it will only get worse. All very well, but obesity is as much to do with plain overeating as it is with processed foods. It's just easier to blame 'big business' that it is to take personal responsibility. I do absolutely agree, personal responsibility comes into the equation but how many people do you think are overeating on lettuce, spinach, organic chicken, eggs, apples and bananas, for example?" Very few I'd say. But overeating is a personal choice, as is the choice of diet. Yes, food companies fill processed food with sugar, salt and additives, but it's not compulsory to eat their products. Nor is it compulsory to use Diliveroo to deliver takeouts every night. The key is education, information and self-responsibility. | |||
"Unless people start realising that any industry is run merely for the sake of making its shareholders profits, nothing will ever change with regards to making the people of any country healthy again or healthier. The food industry is like any other - how can they make more money by investing as little as possible while keeping people coming back again and again. The fast food and processed food industry works on the basis that these foods are highly addictive. The combination of fats and sugar (and I don't mean the likes of avocado and raw honey) is more addictive than some of the most addictive dRugs. The food industry does plenty of research how particular foods work on the brain receptors which are responsible for the release of dopamine which is a neurotransmitter responsible for making us feel good. While at the same time maximising profits by using waste product within the industry to make other products which are then probably sold off as the next new healthy fad. Unless governments around the world start by regulating the food industry "properly" and promoting natural, unadulterated foods and heavily rewarding and incentivising the likes of our farmers and food growers while making these foods a hell of a lot more affordable than any processed foods and while banning additives which are known to be carcinogenic, neurotoxic etc, nothing will change much. In fact, it will only get worse. All very well, but obesity is as much to do with plain overeating as it is with processed foods. It's just easier to blame 'big business' that it is to take personal responsibility. I do absolutely agree, personal responsibility comes into the equation but how many people do you think are overeating on lettuce, spinach, organic chicken, eggs, apples and bananas, for example? Very few I'd say. But overeating is a personal choice, as is the choice of diet. Yes, food companies fill processed food with sugar, salt and additives, but it's not compulsory to eat their products. Nor is it compulsory to use Diliveroo to deliver takeouts every night. The key is education, information and self-responsibility. " The point I was trying to make is that these processed foods are highly addictive. I dare say, many know how addictive! Addiction stays with you for life unless treated. I suppose the question arising here is whether addiction is a choice or not - particularly if you grow up in a family as a child which for whatever reason feeds you on ultra processed food as a staple? Is overeating a choice for that child or has it become something that's normal? How likely is that child to pass the same bad foods and behaviours on to the next generation? Where do you suggest education on nutritional foods comes from and who should deliver it? Because the food industry sure doesn't - they're lying through their teeth every step of the way trying to sell you "healthy food", which is as I said addictive and/or laced with additives and toxins which are carcinogenic, neurotoxic etc. I'm in no means for a nanny state that tells you what you are allowed to eat or not, but I do believe there isn't half enough done for the health of the nation by our government where heavily promoting and subsidising natural, unadulterated, uncontaminated foods is concerned. | |||
| |||
| |||
"And this is where the problem lies! Anyone who thinks that it is the fault of the consumer is delusional. When we are bombarded with advertising for delicious, healthy food, we take their word for it because "they" wouldn't let us eat stuff which causes cancer or mental health issues or obesity...would they?!?! Yes, it's up to us to educate ourselves on which foods we should be eating but they don't put "may cause cancer" or "dangerous to health" on the packaging. Some people can't afford to buy foods with no UPF. Some people don't have the time to prepare healthy meals from scratch. It's the responsibility of the food manufacturers and governments of the world to protect us from stuff that harms us. They did it with smoking. They did it with asbestos. They should be doing it with our food too!" Quite. Agree with that. Doing nothing isn't really a great option when the suits know some things are bad for us... Why allow it to happen.? It's like saying you can choose to wear a crash helmet or seat belt. | |||
"If we want the government to start banning everything that's addictive, we should be banning alcohol and cigarettes. I would say we should ban porn too. It's one of the biggest addictions that hardly gets discussed about. I hope you aren't in favour of legalising . Maybe ban video games too? If you want to protect people from anything dangerous, should we ban mountaineering because it's a high risk activity? At the heart of this, there is a conflict between an individual's right to do whatever he wants and the common will to have a healthy population so that the NHS feels less pressure. I think regulations should be focused more on transparency so that the individuals making the choice have all the information they need about things they consume." I'm not even sure things need banning. But people make choices. They make them generally around price, convenience, taste, looks, smell and possibly also perceived "healthiness". Government can choose to encourage or discourage behaviours. Take for example the pandering to the motor trade and in particular the pushing of the electric cars. They want to encourage sales or electric cars so they taxed them and rebated them to do so. They wanted to discourage sales of diesel cars, so they taxed them and diesel accordingly. They wanted to discourage smoking and so they tax and legislate accordingly. Government can choose to do the same with foods and can also ensure labelling and colouring and advertising encourages hethier choices. If there was money in it they would do it. | |||
"If we want the government to start banning everything that's addictive, we should be banning alcohol and cigarettes. I would say we should ban porn too. It's one of the biggest addictions that hardly gets discussed about. I hope you aren't in favour of legalising . Maybe ban video games too? If you want to protect people from anything dangerous, should we ban mountaineering because it's a high risk activity? At the heart of this, there is a conflict between an individual's right to do whatever he wants and the common will to have a healthy population so that the NHS feels less pressure. I think regulations should be focused more on transparency so that the individuals making the choice have all the information they need about things they consume. I'm not even sure things need banning. But people make choices. They make them generally around price, convenience, taste, looks, smell and possibly also perceived "healthiness". Government can choose to encourage or discourage behaviours. Take for example the pandering to the motor trade and in particular the pushing of the electric cars. They want to encourage sales or electric cars so they taxed them and rebated them to do so. They wanted to discourage sales of diesel cars, so they taxed them and diesel accordingly. They wanted to discourage smoking and so they tax and legislate accordingly. Government can choose to do the same with foods and can also ensure labelling and colouring and advertising encourages hethier choices. If there was money in it they would do it. " Fair points. I would like to see an experiment where is highly taxed and see if it actually results in reduction of intake or if people just start to pay more for it. | |||
"If we want the government to start banning everything that's addictive, we should be banning alcohol and cigarettes. I would say we should ban porn too. It's one of the biggest addictions that hardly gets discussed about. I hope you aren't in favour of legalising . Maybe ban video games too? If you want to protect people from anything dangerous, should we ban mountaineering because it's a high risk activity? At the heart of this, there is a conflict between an individual's right to do whatever he wants and the common will to have a healthy population so that the NHS feels less pressure. I think regulations should be focused more on transparency so that the individuals making the choice have all the information they need about things they consume. I'm not even sure things need banning. But people make choices. They make them generally around price, convenience, taste, looks, smell and possibly also perceived "healthiness". Government can choose to encourage or discourage behaviours. Take for example the pandering to the motor trade and in particular the pushing of the electric cars. They want to encourage sales or electric cars so they taxed them and rebated them to do so. They wanted to discourage sales of diesel cars, so they taxed them and diesel accordingly. They wanted to discourage smoking and so they tax and legislate accordingly. Government can choose to do the same with foods and can also ensure labelling and colouring and advertising encourages hethier choices. If there was money in it they would do it. Fair points. I would like to see an experiment where is highly taxed and see if it actually results in reduction of intake or if people just start to pay more for it." Well exactly, something along those lines where foods that are known to be "unhealthy" are taxed more and "healthy" is taxed less. Help peoples decision making process to be healthier. At the moment the poorer are more likely to be obese which makes no sense whatsoever. | |||
"If we want the government to start banning everything that's addictive, we should be banning alcohol and cigarettes. I would say we should ban porn too. It's one of the biggest addictions that hardly gets discussed about. I hope you aren't in favour of legalising . Maybe ban video games too? If you want to protect people from anything dangerous, should we ban mountaineering because it's a high risk activity? At the heart of this, there is a conflict between an individual's right to do whatever he wants and the common will to have a healthy population so that the NHS feels less pressure. I think regulations should be focused more on transparency so that the individuals making the choice have all the information they need about things they consume. I'm not even sure things need banning. But people make choices. They make them generally around price, convenience, taste, looks, smell and possibly also perceived "healthiness". Government can choose to encourage or discourage behaviours. Take for example the pandering to the motor trade and in particular the pushing of the electric cars. They want to encourage sales or electric cars so they taxed them and rebated them to do so. They wanted to discourage sales of diesel cars, so they taxed them and diesel accordingly. They wanted to discourage smoking and so they tax and legislate accordingly. Government can choose to do the same with foods and can also ensure labelling and colouring and advertising encourages hethier choices. If there was money in it they would do it. Fair points. I would like to see an experiment where is highly taxed and see if it actually results in reduction of intake or if people just start to pay more for it." The Irish Times yesterday: "Consumption of sugar sweetened drinks has reduced by at least a quarter since the introduction of a tax on the products in the State in 2018. The Sugar Sweetened Drinks Tax (SSDT) was introduced as one of the measures intended to combat obesity." I'm sure you can find the article through Google. My gripe is why should the end consumer be the one to foot the tax bill, when the producer knows the damage caused to health? Should they not take some of the responsibility as the "enabler", never mind Coca Cola being a company producing a sickening 100 odd billion plastic bottles on an annual basis. | |||
"If we want the government to start banning everything that's addictive, we should be banning alcohol and cigarettes. I would say we should ban porn too. It's one of the biggest addictions that hardly gets discussed about. I hope you aren't in favour of legalising . Maybe ban video games too? If you want to protect people from anything dangerous, should we ban mountaineering because it's a high risk activity? At the heart of this, there is a conflict between an individual's right to do whatever he wants and the common will to have a healthy population so that the NHS feels less pressure. I think regulations should be focused more on transparency so that the individuals making the choice have all the information they need about things they consume. I'm not even sure things need banning. But people make choices. They make them generally around price, convenience, taste, looks, smell and possibly also perceived "healthiness". Government can choose to encourage or discourage behaviours. Take for example the pandering to the motor trade and in particular the pushing of the electric cars. They want to encourage sales or electric cars so they taxed them and rebated them to do so. They wanted to discourage sales of diesel cars, so they taxed them and diesel accordingly. They wanted to discourage smoking and so they tax and legislate accordingly. Government can choose to do the same with foods and can also ensure labelling and colouring and advertising encourages hethier choices. If there was money in it they would do it. Fair points. I would like to see an experiment where is highly taxed and see if it actually results in reduction of intake or if people just start to pay more for it. The Irish Times yesterday: "Consumption of sugar sweetened drinks has reduced by at least a quarter since the introduction of a tax on the products in the State in 2018. The Sugar Sweetened Drinks Tax (SSDT) was introduced as one of the measures intended to combat obesity." I'm sure you can find the article through Google. My gripe is why should the end consumer be the one to foot the tax bill, when the producer knows the damage caused to health? Should they not take some of the responsibility as the "enabler", never mind Coca Cola being a company producing a sickening 100 odd billion plastic bottles on an annual basis." Abso fucking lutely, back to the point about goverment being in the pocket of the "producers". They should be footing the bill definitely. Or better still not be allowed to sell certain products proven to be unhealthy. | |||
"If we want the government to start banning everything that's addictive, we should be banning alcohol and cigarettes. I would say we should ban porn too. It's one of the biggest addictions that hardly gets discussed about. I hope you aren't in favour of legalising . Maybe ban video games too? If you want to protect people from anything dangerous, should we ban mountaineering because it's a high risk activity? At the heart of this, there is a conflict between an individual's right to do whatever he wants and the common will to have a healthy population so that the NHS feels less pressure. I think regulations should be focused more on transparency so that the individuals making the choice have all the information they need about things they consume. I'm not even sure things need banning. But people make choices. They make them generally around price, convenience, taste, looks, smell and possibly also perceived "healthiness". Government can choose to encourage or discourage behaviours. Take for example the pandering to the motor trade and in particular the pushing of the electric cars. They want to encourage sales or electric cars so they taxed them and rebated them to do so. They wanted to discourage sales of diesel cars, so they taxed them and diesel accordingly. They wanted to discourage smoking and so they tax and legislate accordingly. Government can choose to do the same with foods and can also ensure labelling and colouring and advertising encourages hethier choices. If there was money in it they would do it. Fair points. I would like to see an experiment where is highly taxed and see if it actually results in reduction of intake or if people just start to pay more for it. The Irish Times yesterday: "Consumption of sugar sweetened drinks has reduced by at least a quarter since the introduction of a tax on the products in the State in 2018. The Sugar Sweetened Drinks Tax (SSDT) was introduced as one of the measures intended to combat obesity." I'm sure you can find the article through Google. My gripe is why should the end consumer be the one to foot the tax bill, when the producer knows the damage caused to health? Should they not take some of the responsibility as the "enabler", never mind Coca Cola being a company producing a sickening 100 odd billion plastic bottles on an annual basis." What exactly are you suggesting? An outright ban on what's unhealthy? As I told above, it opens a can of worms. How far do you want to go? Ban alcohol, cigarettes, porn and video games? If you want to use monetary penalty, no matter what you try, it will eventually end up with the customer paying for it. Why would anyone run a business for a loss? | |||
"If we want the government to start banning everything that's addictive, we should be banning alcohol and cigarettes. I would say we should ban porn too. It's one of the biggest addictions that hardly gets discussed about. I hope you aren't in favour of legalising . Maybe ban video games too? If you want to protect people from anything dangerous, should we ban mountaineering because it's a high risk activity? At the heart of this, there is a conflict between an individual's right to do whatever he wants and the common will to have a healthy population so that the NHS feels less pressure. I think regulations should be focused more on transparency so that the individuals making the choice have all the information they need about things they consume. I'm not even sure things need banning. But people make choices. They make them generally around price, convenience, taste, looks, smell and possibly also perceived "healthiness". Government can choose to encourage or discourage behaviours. Take for example the pandering to the motor trade and in particular the pushing of the electric cars. They want to encourage sales or electric cars so they taxed them and rebated them to do so. They wanted to discourage sales of diesel cars, so they taxed them and diesel accordingly. They wanted to discourage smoking and so they tax and legislate accordingly. Government can choose to do the same with foods and can also ensure labelling and colouring and advertising encourages hethier choices. If there was money in it they would do it. Fair points. I would like to see an experiment where is highly taxed and see if it actually results in reduction of intake or if people just start to pay more for it. The Irish Times yesterday: "Consumption of sugar sweetened drinks has reduced by at least a quarter since the introduction of a tax on the products in the State in 2018. The Sugar Sweetened Drinks Tax (SSDT) was introduced as one of the measures intended to combat obesity." I'm sure you can find the article through Google. My gripe is why should the end consumer be the one to foot the tax bill, when the producer knows the damage caused to health? Should they not take some of the responsibility as the "enabler", never mind Coca Cola being a company producing a sickening 100 odd billion plastic bottles on an annual basis. What exactly are you suggesting? An outright ban on what's unhealthy? As I told above, it opens a can of worms. How far do you want to go? Ban alcohol, cigarettes, porn and video games? If you want to use monetary penalty, no matter what you try, it will eventually end up with the customer paying for it. Why would anyone run a business for a loss?" It doesn't have to be a ban but it certainly could be. The world would still turn if KFC didn't exist. | |||
" Abso fucking lutely, back to the point about goverment being in the pocket of the "producers". They should be footing the bill definitely. Or better still not be allowed to sell certain products proven to be unhealthy. " Now you are back to impractical ideas. I thought you were more about taxing so that people can be directed towards better choices. Banning products? Would you be happy with banning cigarettes and alcohols. I don't understand what forcing businesses to "foot the bill" means. If a business that sells burgers for £5 is forced to pay 20% of the money for whatever "footing the bill" means, they will just sell the burgers for £6. How exactly are you going to stop that? | |||
" What exactly are you suggesting? An outright ban on what's unhealthy? As I told above, it opens a can of worms. How far do you want to go? Ban alcohol, cigarettes, porn and video games? If you want to use monetary penalty, no matter what you try, it will eventually end up with the customer paying for it. Why would anyone run a business for a loss? It doesn't have to be a ban but it certainly could be. The world would still turn if KFC didn't exist. " You have to be clear. Do you want to ban KFC or not? What's the solution you are suggesting? | |||
" Abso fucking lutely, back to the point about goverment being in the pocket of the "producers". They should be footing the bill definitely. Or better still not be allowed to sell certain products proven to be unhealthy. Now you are back to impractical ideas. I thought you were more about taxing so that people can be directed towards better choices. Banning products? Would you be happy with banning cigarettes and alcohols. I don't understand what forcing businesses to "foot the bill" means. If a business that sells burgers for £5 is forced to pay 20% of the money for whatever "footing the bill" means, they will just sell the burgers for £6. How exactly are you going to stop that?" I'm not in favour of banning anything. I don't want to live in a nanny state but frankly I personally wouldn't have a problem with shutting every KFC, Burger King, McDonald's and shutting down the production of fizzy drinks because I don't eat/drink them and they are a health hazard. But I'm not arrogant enough to take other people's choice to enjoy those on occasion. The problem is when it becomes a way of life. The problem is when the healthy stuff is not affordable and the junk is. And I do believe that needs to be fixed. And what I would like to see is natural, unadulterated whole foods to be subsidised and promoted - this needs to start with the farmers and food growers. And unhealthy, sugary, fatty foods need to inversely rise in price, preferably by implementing some form of tax which these multi billion food industries have to legally foot themselves without passing the additional cost on to the consumer. It's not as if Coca Cola and co can't afford to pay an extra few quid out of their staggering profits. | |||
" What exactly are you suggesting? An outright ban on what's unhealthy? As I told above, it opens a can of worms. How far do you want to go? Ban alcohol, cigarettes, porn and video games? If you want to use monetary penalty, no matter what you try, it will eventually end up with the customer paying for it. Why would anyone run a business for a loss? It doesn't have to be a ban but it certainly could be. The world would still turn if KFC didn't exist. You have to be clear. Do you want to ban KFC or not? What's the solution you are suggesting?" I'm not suggesting a solution. I don't think there is one solution. It's very complex isn't it? Not doing anything doesn't improve the situation. Trying to do something is better than not trying at all. We don't need to be exposed to all the unhealthy stuff. I'd like to see it harder and more expensive for companies harming the environment and or producing unhealthy stuff... I'd like to see end consumers being made more aware of the "bad stuff" in that food chain and consequences. I'd like also to see manufacturers and also retailers held to account for "implication and word drop marketing" the implication that low sugar low fat "healthy" "green" "organic" and so on are desirable and good for us when in many cases the opposite is true but because they use the sexy words in the labelling we consumers are cuddled into feeling we are doing something good. And I'd like to see end customers assisted in making better decisions for their health by making it easier and cheaper to do healthy things. As for KFC... Do the above and see how convenient and desirable and affordable it is in 10 years time. Other fast food chains are included. Make the companies accountable for the consequences of what they produce and how they market and sell it and to whom. It's too easy to say, we all know a KFC crammed with sugar and salt and trans fats is not as good for us as a salad au natural. We very clearly are not able to make good decisions, so let's help make better choices. | |||
" Abso fucking lutely, back to the point about goverment being in the pocket of the "producers". They should be footing the bill definitely. Or better still not be allowed to sell certain products proven to be unhealthy. Now you are back to impractical ideas. I thought you were more about taxing so that people can be directed towards better choices. Banning products? Would you be happy with banning cigarettes and alcohols. I don't understand what forcing businesses to "foot the bill" means. If a business that sells burgers for £5 is forced to pay 20% of the money for whatever "footing the bill" means, they will just sell the burgers for £6. How exactly are you going to stop that? I'm not in favour of banning anything. I don't want to live in a nanny state but frankly I personally wouldn't have a problem with shutting every KFC, Burger King, McDonald's and shutting down the production of fizzy drinks because I don't eat/drink them and they are a health hazard. But I'm not arrogant enough to take other people's choice to enjoy those on occasion. The problem is when it becomes a way of life. The problem is when the healthy stuff is not affordable and the junk is. And I do believe that needs to be fixed. And what I would like to see is natural, unadulterated whole foods to be subsidised and promoted - this needs to start with the farmers and food growers. And unhealthy, sugary, fatty foods need to inversely rise in price, preferably by implementing some form of tax which these multi billion food industries have to legally foot themselves without passing the additional cost on to the consumer. It's not as if Coca Cola and co can't afford to pay an extra few quid out of their staggering profits. " You say you don't want a nanny state. But everything you ask is exactly what a nanny state would do. Sure we could all want other people to eat salads everyday, stop drinking and smoking, do physical exercise everyday. But you need to draw a line between individual liberty and forcing people to do things using the government's power. What policy change are you exactly asking for? | |||
" I'm not suggesting a solution. I don't think there is one solution. It's very complex isn't it? Not doing anything doesn't improve the situation. Trying to do something is better than not trying at all. " What exactly is that something? We can't do something just for the sake of doing something. We need to look at the effects of it. " We don't need to be exposed to all the unhealthy stuff. I'd like to see it harder and more expensive for companies harming the environment and or producing unhealthy stuff... " Again, would you apply the same logic on every "unhealthy" stuff like porn, alcohol and video games? " I'd like also to see manufacturers and also retailers held to account for "implication and word drop marketing" the implication that low sugar low fat "healthy" "green" "organic" and so on are desirable and good for us when in many cases the opposite is true but because they use the sexy words in the labelling we consumers are cuddled into feeling we are doing something good. And I'd like to see end customers assisted in making better decisions for their health by making it easier and cheaper to do healthy things. " There are already numerous regulations around misleading customers. " As for KFC... Do the above and see how convenient and desirable and affordable it is in 10 years time. Other fast food chains are included. Make the companies accountable for the consequences of what they produce and how they market and sell it and to whom. It's too easy to say, we all know a KFC crammed with sugar and salt and trans fats is not as good for us as a salad au natural. We very clearly are not able to make good decisions, so let's help make better choices. " Do what? People already know how unhealthy KFC food is. So what else do you want to be done? | |||
" I'm not suggesting a solution. I don't think there is one solution. It's very complex isn't it? Not doing anything doesn't improve the situation. Trying to do something is better than not trying at all. What exactly is that something? We can't do something just for the sake of doing something. We need to look at the effects of it. We don't need to be exposed to all the unhealthy stuff. I'd like to see it harder and more expensive for companies harming the environment and or producing unhealthy stuff... Again, would you apply the same logic on every "unhealthy" stuff like porn, alcohol and video games? I'd like also to see manufacturers and also retailers held to account for "implication and word drop marketing" the implication that low sugar low fat "healthy" "green" "organic" and so on are desirable and good for us when in many cases the opposite is true but because they use the sexy words in the labelling we consumers are cuddled into feeling we are doing something good. And I'd like to see end customers assisted in making better decisions for their health by making it easier and cheaper to do healthy things. There are already numerous regulations around misleading customers. As for KFC... Do the above and see how convenient and desirable and affordable it is in 10 years time. Other fast food chains are included. Make the companies accountable for the consequences of what they produce and how they market and sell it and to whom. It's too easy to say, we all know a KFC crammed with sugar and salt and trans fats is not as good for us as a salad au natural. We very clearly are not able to make good decisions, so let's help make better choices. Do what? People already know how unhealthy KFC food is. So what else do you want to be done?" This has become circular. I've already written it twice. More, do you feel the trajectory is acceptable and do you thing any changes should be made? Or current levels of cancer as one example 1 in 2 or diabetes or other illnesses caused by diet and behaviour and environment should be left to continue their current path.? | |||
"Again, would you apply the same logic on every "unhealthy" stuff like porn, alcohol and video games?" Porn is unhealthy  | |||
"I lived in the US for a few years and to change the average Americans diet would be a hell of a mountain to climb. For many, not all, it's somehow instilled to have huge portion sizes makes you big and strong and somehow American. Before you even get into processed foods etc., the whole portion size issue would have to be addressed. The "cookout" or bbq as we would know them are a sight to behold. What these people can shovel down is incredible. I got asked if I was unwell as I had what I would class as a normal amount.
A fresh vegetable is almost unseen, all out of tins.
The other extreme is the fitness people.
The only thing I'd exchange is their fabulous farmers markets.
To change Americans relationship with food, it would be multi generational.
The first generation would have to help reduce the portions and relationship with food of the next and then the biggest trial would be to maintain it.
Like obesity in this country. Sadly, no quick fix."I lived in New York for 5 years. Grocery shopping was an eye-opener … fruit and veg were poor quality and very expensive. Ordering take-out from local restaurants was very cheap. And stuff like bread was more like cake, lapsed with sugar so it didn’t go off quickly. Had to go to bakeries to get normal bread. The loaves on shelves were loaded with high fructose corn syrup | |||
" Abso fucking lutely, back to the point about goverment being in the pocket of the "producers". They should be footing the bill definitely. Or better still not be allowed to sell certain products proven to be unhealthy. Now you are back to impractical ideas. I thought you were more about taxing so that people can be directed towards better choices. Banning products? Would you be happy with banning cigarettes and alcohols. I don't understand what forcing businesses to "foot the bill" means. If a business that sells burgers for £5 is forced to pay 20% of the money for whatever "footing the bill" means, they will just sell the burgers for £6. How exactly are you going to stop that? I'm not in favour of banning anything. I don't want to live in a nanny state but frankly I personally wouldn't have a problem with shutting every KFC, Burger King, McDonald's and shutting down the production of fizzy drinks because I don't eat/drink them and they are a health hazard. But I'm not arrogant enough to take other people's choice to enjoy those on occasion. The problem is when it becomes a way of life. The problem is when the healthy stuff is not affordable and the junk is. And I do believe that needs to be fixed. And what I would like to see is natural, unadulterated whole foods to be subsidised and promoted - this needs to start with the farmers and food growers. And unhealthy, sugary, fatty foods need to inversely rise in price, preferably by implementing some form of tax which these multi billion food industries have to legally foot themselves without passing the additional cost on to the consumer. It's not as if Coca Cola and co can't afford to pay an extra few quid out of their staggering profits. " The unhealthy foods you mention tend to be cheap. Heavily taxing them would be seen as a tax on being poor. | |||
| |||
"Unless people start realising that any industry is run merely for the sake of making its shareholders profits, nothing will ever change with regards to making the people of any country healthy again or healthier. The food industry is like any other - how can they make more money by investing as little as possible while keeping people coming back again and again. The fast food and processed food industry works on the basis that these foods are highly addictive. The combination of fats and sugar (and I don't mean the likes of avocado and raw honey) is more addictive than some of the most addictive dRugs. The food industry does plenty of research how particular foods work on the brain receptors which are responsible for the release of dopamine which is a neurotransmitter responsible for making us feel good. While at the same time maximising profits by using waste product within the industry to make other products which are then probably sold off as the next new healthy fad. Unless governments around the world start by regulating the food industry "properly" and promoting natural, unadulterated foods and heavily rewarding and incentivising the likes of our farmers and food growers while making these foods a hell of a lot more affordable than any processed foods and while banning additives which are known to be carcinogenic, neurotoxic etc, nothing will change much. In fact, it will only get worse. All very well, but obesity is as much to do with plain overeating as it is with processed foods. It's just easier to blame 'big business' that it is to take personal responsibility. I do absolutely agree, personal responsibility comes into the equation but how many people do you think are overeating on lettuce, spinach, organic chicken, eggs, apples and bananas, for example? Very few I'd say. But overeating is a personal choice, as is the choice of diet. Yes, food companies fill processed food with sugar, salt and additives, but it's not compulsory to eat their products. Nor is it compulsory to use Diliveroo to deliver takeouts every night. The key is education, information and self-responsibility. The point I was trying to make is that these processed foods are highly addictive. I dare say, many know how addictive! Addiction stays with you for life unless treated. I suppose the question arising here is whether addiction is a choice or not - particularly if you grow up in a family as a child which for whatever reason feeds you on ultra processed food as a staple? Is overeating a choice for that child or has it become something that's normal? How likely is that child to pass the same bad foods and behaviours on to the next generation? Where do you suggest education on nutritional foods comes from and who should deliver it? Because the food industry sure doesn't - they're lying through their teeth every step of the way trying to sell you "healthy food", which is as I said addictive and/or laced with additives and toxins which are carcinogenic, neurotoxic etc. I'm in no means for a nanny state that tells you what you are allowed to eat or not, but I do believe there isn't half enough done for the health of the nation by our government where heavily promoting and subsidising natural, unadulterated, uncontaminated foods is concerned. " I think 'highly desirable' is a more accurate term than 'highly addictive'. Everyday foods are not chemically addictive in the same way as e.g. opioids. But anyway, all these same foods are available in France, Spain, Italy, Denmark where it's unusual to see people who are grossly obese. So what's the difference? It has to be some social or cultural factor not food ingredients. | |||
" Abso fucking lutely, back to the point about goverment being in the pocket of the "producers". They should be footing the bill definitely. Or better still not be allowed to sell certain products proven to be unhealthy. Now you are back to impractical ideas. I thought you were more about taxing so that people can be directed towards better choices. Banning products? Would you be happy with banning cigarettes and alcohols. I don't understand what forcing businesses to "foot the bill" means. If a business that sells burgers for £5 is forced to pay 20% of the money for whatever "footing the bill" means, they will just sell the burgers for £6. How exactly are you going to stop that? I'm not in favour of banning anything. I don't want to live in a nanny state but frankly I personally wouldn't have a problem with shutting every KFC, Burger King, McDonald's and shutting down the production of fizzy drinks because I don't eat/drink them and they are a health hazard. But I'm not arrogant enough to take other people's choice to enjoy those on occasion. The problem is when it becomes a way of life. The problem is when the healthy stuff is not affordable and the junk is. And I do believe that needs to be fixed. And what I would like to see is natural, unadulterated whole foods to be subsidised and promoted - this needs to start with the farmers and food growers. And unhealthy, sugary, fatty foods need to inversely rise in price, preferably by implementing some form of tax which these multi billion food industries have to legally foot themselves without passing the additional cost on to the consumer. It's not as if Coca Cola and co can't afford to pay an extra few quid out of their staggering profits. The unhealthy foods you mention tend to be cheap. Heavily taxing them would be seen as a tax on being poor. " I think that's the whole point that has been mentioned multiple times. It's cheap because it's encouraged and allowed to be cheap. Cheap labour cheap production ghastly quality etc. And conversely healthier options are more expensive because they have 'healthy' associated or are genuinely more costly. The companies market buckets of *food* to poor people non stop. The govt can help people's decision making. They frequently do with other items mentioned already. | |||
" Abso fucking lutely, back to the point about goverment being in the pocket of the "producers". They should be footing the bill definitely. Or better still not be allowed to sell certain products proven to be unhealthy. Now you are back to impractical ideas. I thought you were more about taxing so that people can be directed towards better choices. Banning products? Would you be happy with banning cigarettes and alcohols. I don't understand what forcing businesses to "foot the bill" means. If a business that sells burgers for £5 is forced to pay 20% of the money for whatever "footing the bill" means, they will just sell the burgers for £6. How exactly are you going to stop that? I'm not in favour of banning anything. I don't want to live in a nanny state but frankly I personally wouldn't have a problem with shutting every KFC, Burger King, McDonald's and shutting down the production of fizzy drinks because I don't eat/drink them and they are a health hazard. But I'm not arrogant enough to take other people's choice to enjoy those on occasion. The problem is when it becomes a way of life. The problem is when the healthy stuff is not affordable and the junk is. And I do believe that needs to be fixed. And what I would like to see is natural, unadulterated whole foods to be subsidised and promoted - this needs to start with the farmers and food growers. And unhealthy, sugary, fatty foods need to inversely rise in price, preferably by implementing some form of tax which these multi billion food industries have to legally foot themselves without passing the additional cost on to the consumer. It's not as if Coca Cola and co can't afford to pay an extra few quid out of their staggering profits. The unhealthy foods you mention tend to be cheap. Heavily taxing them would be seen as a tax on being poor. I think that's the whole point that has been mentioned multiple times. It's cheap because it's encouraged and allowed to be cheap. Cheap labour cheap production ghastly quality etc. And conversely healthier options are more expensive because they have 'healthy' associated or are genuinely more costly. The companies market buckets of *food* to poor people non stop. The govt can help people's decision making. They frequently do with other items mentioned already. " Cheap ingredients cost less than quality ones. Manufacturers look for every way they can find to reduce costs, so use cheap ingredients, powerful flavourings, and lots of preservatives. Lots of salt and sugar to make the cheap base ingredients more palatable. | |||
"Unless people start realising that any industry is run merely for the sake of making its shareholders profits, nothing will ever change with regards to making the people of any country healthy again or healthier. The food industry is like any other - how can they make more money by investing as little as possible while keeping people coming back again and again. The fast food and processed food industry works on the basis that these foods are highly addictive. The combination of fats and sugar (and I don't mean the likes of avocado and raw honey) is more addictive than some of the most addictive dRugs. The food industry does plenty of research how particular foods work on the brain receptors which are responsible for the release of dopamine which is a neurotransmitter responsible for making us feel good. While at the same time maximising profits by using waste product within the industry to make other products which are then probably sold off as the next new healthy fad. Unless governments around the world start by regulating the food industry "properly" and promoting natural, unadulterated foods and heavily rewarding and incentivising the likes of our farmers and food growers while making these foods a hell of a lot more affordable than any processed foods and while banning additives which are known to be carcinogenic, neurotoxic etc, nothing will change much. In fact, it will only get worse. All very well, but obesity is as much to do with plain overeating as it is with processed foods. It's just easier to blame 'big business' that it is to take personal responsibility. I do absolutely agree, personal responsibility comes into the equation but how many people do you think are overeating on lettuce, spinach, organic chicken, eggs, apples and bananas, for example? Very few I'd say. But overeating is a personal choice, as is the choice of diet. Yes, food companies fill processed food with sugar, salt and additives, but it's not compulsory to eat their products. Nor is it compulsory to use Diliveroo to deliver takeouts every night. The key is education, information and self-responsibility. The point I was trying to make is that these processed foods are highly addictive. I dare say, many know how addictive! Addiction stays with you for life unless treated. I suppose the question arising here is whether addiction is a choice or not - particularly if you grow up in a family as a child which for whatever reason feeds you on ultra processed food as a staple? Is overeating a choice for that child or has it become something that's normal? How likely is that child to pass the same bad foods and behaviours on to the next generation? Where do you suggest education on nutritional foods comes from and who should deliver it? Because the food industry sure doesn't - they're lying through their teeth every step of the way trying to sell you "healthy food", which is as I said addictive and/or laced with additives and toxins which are carcinogenic, neurotoxic etc. I'm in no means for a nanny state that tells you what you are allowed to eat or not, but I do believe there isn't half enough done for the health of the nation by our government where heavily promoting and subsidising natural, unadulterated, uncontaminated foods is concerned. I think 'highly desirable' is a more accurate term than 'highly addictive'. Everyday foods are not chemically addictive in the same way as e.g. opioids. But anyway, all these same foods are available in France, Spain, Italy, Denmark where it's unusual to see people who are grossly obese. So what's the difference? It has to be some social or cultural factor not food ingredients." It's a good point but shouldn't really be another discussion about only obesity. Cancer rates, diabetes, inflammatory diseases, and so on are relavent to a debate about healthy choices. Quality of living and standard of living, quality of health provision, public transport, all the countries you mention fare better than us in those aspects as well | |||
"Wait a minute… Again, would you apply the same logic on every "unhealthy" stuff like porn, alcohol and video games? Porn is unhealthy "It's an addiction for many and has been responsible for problems in many relationships because of the unrealistic expectations it sets. | |||
" This has become circular. I've already written it twice. More, do you feel the trajectory is acceptable and do you thing any changes should be made? Or current levels of cancer as one example 1 in 2 or diabetes or other illnesses caused by diet and behaviour and environment should be left to continue their current path.? " No one denies the effect of these things on health. But if the person who eats this food doesn't mind, who are we to stop it? No matter what solution you use, you are eventually moving towards a nanny state. | |||
"Wait a minute… Again, would you apply the same logic on every "unhealthy" stuff like porn, alcohol and video games? Porn is unhealthy
It's an addiction for many and has been responsible for problems in many relationships because of the unrealistic expectations it sets."Wee bit ironic posting that on Fab though
Did you mean an addiction for SOME rather than MANY? | |||
| |||
" This has become circular. I've already written it twice. More, do you feel the trajectory is acceptable and do you thing any changes should be made? Or current levels of cancer as one example 1 in 2 or diabetes or other illnesses caused by diet and behaviour and environment should be left to continue their current path.? No one denies the effect of these things on health. But if the person who eats this food doesn't mind, who are we to stop it? No matter what solution you use, you are eventually moving towards a nanny state. " Of course there's merit in that. But I think the definition of "nanny" state needs clarity. If you mean one that cares for the health and wellbeing of all of its citizens it's tax payers then I'm all for it. | |||
" This has become circular. I've already written it twice. More, do you feel the trajectory is acceptable and do you thing any changes should be made? Or current levels of cancer as one example 1 in 2 or diabetes or other illnesses caused by diet and behaviour and environment should be left to continue their current path.? No one denies the effect of these things on health. But if the person who eats this food doesn't mind, who are we to stop it? No matter what solution you use, you are eventually moving towards a nanny state. Of course there's merit in that. But I think the definition of "nanny" state needs clarity. If you mean one that cares for the health and wellbeing of all of its citizens it's tax payers then I'm all for it. " Then admit that you want a nanny state. The problem with the whole debate is people trying to do mental and verbal gymnastics to hide the fact that everything you suggest is authoritarianism in one form or the other justified because it's "for the greater good". If you admit that you want a nanny state, we wouldn't be having this debate at all. | |||
"Wait a minute… Again, would you apply the same logic on every "unhealthy" stuff like porn, alcohol and video games? Porn is unhealthy
It's an addiction for many and has been responsible for problems in many relationships because of the unrealistic expectations it sets.
Wee bit ironic posting that on Fab though
Did you mean an addiction for SOME rather than MANY?"Porn and fab are not the same? Pretty much every addiction affects only some and not many. Not everyone who takes sugar, alcohol are addicted to them either. There are many people who take them in control. | |||
"Wait a minute… Again, would you apply the same logic on every "unhealthy" stuff like porn, alcohol and video games? Porn is unhealthy
It's an addiction for many and has been responsible for problems in many relationships because of the unrealistic expectations it sets.
Wee bit ironic posting that on Fab though
Did you mean an addiction for SOME rather than MANY?
Porn and fab are not the same?
Pretty much every addiction affects only some and not many. Not everyone who takes sugar, alcohol are addicted to them either. There are many people who take them in control. "I am not suggesting some people do not have an addiction to porn. But equally for “many” people it is just part of a healthy and adventurous sex life and they have the ability to separate fantasy from reality. I think if you showed Fab (and the pics and videos) to people in vanilla life, most would see Fab as a form of pornography (genuine amateur porn is very popular). | |||
" This has become circular. I've already written it twice. More, do you feel the trajectory is acceptable and do you thing any changes should be made? Or current levels of cancer as one example 1 in 2 or diabetes or other illnesses caused by diet and behaviour and environment should be left to continue their current path.? No one denies the effect of these things on health. But if the person who eats this food doesn't mind, who are we to stop it? No matter what solution you use, you are eventually moving towards a nanny state. Of course there's merit in that. But I think the definition of "nanny" state needs clarity. If you mean one that cares for the health and wellbeing of all of its citizens it's tax payers then I'm all for it. Then admit that you want a nanny state. The problem with the whole debate is people trying to do mental and verbal gymnastics to hide the fact that everything you suggest is authoritarianism in one form or the other justified because it's "for the greater good". If you admit that you want a nanny state, we wouldn't be having this debate at all. " You are missing the point totally. This thread is about RFK wanting to make america healthy again and if you've followed his 20 years of life dedication to this and read any of his work about the food industry. This isn't about removing things from the shelves in stores and only having healthy fruits and vegetables. You will still be able to eat all those breads, cakes, cereals and so on. This isn't so much about the sugars or the fats, the main thing in 99% of all our foods that is toxic and causing diseases and cancer is the oils that is added and the dyes, the vegetable oils like rapseed oil that's in almost everything. It's these oils that RFK talks a lot about and researched and made the connection it'd these toxic oils and food dyes making America so unhealthy (not just unhealthy as in fat, but unhealthy with cancers and autism in kids). Now if you've never read one of his books or know anything about his last 20 years of work then all this will go over your head. He wants to make reform the food industry so all that crap is taking out of the food and healthier options put in them, NOT have them removed from the shelfs. So no it's nothing to do with being a Nanny state what so ever. | |||
"Wait a minute… Again, would you apply the same logic on every "unhealthy" stuff like porn, alcohol and video games? Porn is unhealthy
It's an addiction for many and has been responsible for problems in many relationships because of the unrealistic expectations it sets.
Wee bit ironic posting that on Fab though
Did you mean an addiction for SOME rather than MANY?
Porn and fab are not the same?
Pretty much every addiction affects only some and not many. Not everyone who takes sugar, alcohol are addicted to them either. There are many people who take them in control.
I am not suggesting some people do not have an addiction to porn. But equally for “many” people it is just part of a healthy and adventurous sex life and they have the ability to separate fantasy from reality.
I think if you showed Fab (and the pics and videos) to people in vanilla life, most would see Fab as a form of pornography (genuine amateur porn is very popular)."Yeah fab could be used as porn too. But my point is that there are numerous things in the world which are addictive. Porn addiction affects 11% of world population based on some recent research. The question is if the government should go after everything that's addictive by punitive measures? Or should the government focus on educating people about the ill effects and let the individual make the choice at the end of the day? If we want to take punitive measures on food companies, we probably want to do it on porn industries too. | |||
" This has become circular. I've already written it twice. More, do you feel the trajectory is acceptable and do you thing any changes should be made? Or current levels of cancer as one example 1 in 2 or diabetes or other illnesses caused by diet and behaviour and environment should be left to continue their current path.? No one denies the effect of these things on health. But if the person who eats this food doesn't mind, who are we to stop it? No matter what solution you use, you are eventually moving towards a nanny state. Of course there's merit in that. But I think the definition of "nanny" state needs clarity. If you mean one that cares for the health and wellbeing of all of its citizens it's tax payers then I'm all for it. Then admit that you want a nanny state. The problem with the whole debate is people trying to do mental and verbal gymnastics to hide the fact that everything you suggest is authoritarianism in one form or the other justified because it's "for the greater good". If you admit that you want a nanny state, we wouldn't be having this debate at all. You are missing the point totally. This thread is about RFK wanting to make america healthy again and if you've followed his 20 years of life dedication to this and read any of his work about the food industry. This isn't about removing things from the shelves in stores and only having healthy fruits and vegetables. You will still be able to eat all those breads, cakes, cereals and so on. This isn't so much about the sugars or the fats, the main thing in 99% of all our foods that is toxic and causing diseases and cancer is the oils that is added and the dyes, the vegetable oils like rapseed oil that's in almost everything. It's these oils that RFK talks a lot about and researched and made the connection it'd these toxic oils and food dyes making America so unhealthy (not just unhealthy as in fat, but unhealthy with cancers and autism in kids). Now if you've never read one of his books or know anything about his last 20 years of work then all this will go over your head. He wants to make reform the food industry so all that crap is taking out of the food and healthier options put in them, NOT have them removed from the shelfs. So no it's nothing to do with being a Nanny state what so ever." Is r@peseed oil any more harmful than olive oil on a scientific basis? The latter is being promoted as a weight loss therapy. The bottom line is this : if you eat too much of anything, you get fat and eventually sick. | |||
" This has become circular. I've already written it twice. More, do you feel the trajectory is acceptable and do you thing any changes should be made? Or current levels of cancer as one example 1 in 2 or diabetes or other illnesses caused by diet and behaviour and environment should be left to continue their current path.? No one denies the effect of these things on health. But if the person who eats this food doesn't mind, who are we to stop it? No matter what solution you use, you are eventually moving towards a nanny state. Of course there's merit in that. But I think the definition of "nanny" state needs clarity. If you mean one that cares for the health and wellbeing of all of its citizens it's tax payers then I'm all for it. Then admit that you want a nanny state. The problem with the whole debate is people trying to do mental and verbal gymnastics to hide the fact that everything you suggest is authoritarianism in one form or the other justified because it's "for the greater good". If you admit that you want a nanny state, we wouldn't be having this debate at all. You are missing the point totally. This thread is about RFK wanting to make america healthy again and if you've followed his 20 years of life dedication to this and read any of his work about the food industry. This isn't about removing things from the shelves in stores and only having healthy fruits and vegetables. You will still be able to eat all those breads, cakes, cereals and so on. This isn't so much about the sugars or the fats, the main thing in 99% of all our foods that is toxic and causing diseases and cancer is the oils that is added and the dyes, the vegetable oils like rapseed oil that's in almost everything. It's these oils that RFK talks a lot about and researched and made the connection it'd these toxic oils and food dyes making America so unhealthy (not just unhealthy as in fat, but unhealthy with cancers and autism in kids). Now if you've never read one of his books or know anything about his last 20 years of work then all this will go over your head. He wants to make reform the food industry so all that crap is taking out of the food and healthier options put in them, NOT have them removed from the shelfs. So no it's nothing to do with being a Nanny state what so ever." Selling toxins as harmless food is bad and has to be banned. But the debate I was having with the other person was not just about that. You should probably read the posts before it. | |||
" This has become circular. I've already written it twice. More, do you feel the trajectory is acceptable and do you thing any changes should be made? Or current levels of cancer as one example 1 in 2 or diabetes or other illnesses caused by diet and behaviour and environment should be left to continue their current path.? No one denies the effect of these things on health. But if the person who eats this food doesn't mind, who are we to stop it? No matter what solution you use, you are eventually moving towards a nanny state. Of course there's merit in that. But I think the definition of "nanny" state needs clarity. If you mean one that cares for the health and wellbeing of all of its citizens it's tax payers then I'm all for it. Then admit that you want a nanny state. The problem with the whole debate is people trying to do mental and verbal gymnastics to hide the fact that everything you suggest is authoritarianism in one form or the other justified because it's "for the greater good". If you admit that you want a nanny state, we wouldn't be having this debate at all. You are missing the point totally. This thread is about RFK wanting to make america healthy again and if you've followed his 20 years of life dedication to this and read any of his work about the food industry. This isn't about removing things from the shelves in stores and only having healthy fruits and vegetables. You will still be able to eat all those breads, cakes, cereals and so on. This isn't so much about the sugars or the fats, the main thing in 99% of all our foods that is toxic and causing diseases and cancer is the oils that is added and the dyes, the vegetable oils like rapseed oil that's in almost everything. It's these oils that RFK talks a lot about and researched and made the connection it'd these toxic oils and food dyes making America so unhealthy (not just unhealthy as in fat, but unhealthy with cancers and autism in kids). Now if you've never read one of his books or know anything about his last 20 years of work then all this will go over your head. He wants to make reform the food industry so all that crap is taking out of the food and healthier options put in them, NOT have them removed from the shelfs. So no it's nothing to do with being a Nanny state what so ever. Selling toxins as harmless food is bad and has to be banned. But the debate I was having with the other person was not just about that. You should probably read the posts before it." That's fair enough, I didn't read all, just the first few then skipped to the end. | |||
" This has become circular. I've already written it twice. More, do you feel the trajectory is acceptable and do you thing any changes should be made? Or current levels of cancer as one example 1 in 2 or diabetes or other illnesses caused by diet and behaviour and environment should be left to continue their current path.? No one denies the effect of these things on health. But if the person who eats this food doesn't mind, who are we to stop it? No matter what solution you use, you are eventually moving towards a nanny state. Of course there's merit in that. But I think the definition of "nanny" state needs clarity. If you mean one that cares for the health and wellbeing of all of its citizens it's tax payers then I'm all for it. Then admit that you want a nanny state. The problem with the whole debate is people trying to do mental and verbal gymnastics to hide the fact that everything you suggest is authoritarianism in one form or the other justified because it's "for the greater good". If you admit that you want a nanny state, we wouldn't be having this debate at all. " Well before I admit to anything I think it's important to have clarity about what I'm admitting to. Nanny state is just a dumb expression and means anything or nothing. So if youd take the time to define what you mean by nanny state I can then respond meaningfully. However generally speaking in for Allowing people and helping people to make better informed decisions | |||
" This has become circular. I've already written it twice. More, do you feel the trajectory is acceptable and do you thing any changes should be made? Or current levels of cancer as one example 1 in 2 or diabetes or other illnesses caused by diet and behaviour and environment should be left to continue their current path.? No one denies the effect of these things on health. But if the person who eats this food doesn't mind, who are we to stop it? No matter what solution you use, you are eventually moving towards a nanny state. Of course there's merit in that. But I think the definition of "nanny" state needs clarity. If you mean one that cares for the health and wellbeing of all of its citizens it's tax payers then I'm all for it. Then admit that you want a nanny state. The problem with the whole debate is people trying to do mental and verbal gymnastics to hide the fact that everything you suggest is authoritarianism in one form or the other justified because it's "for the greater good". If you admit that you want a nanny state, we wouldn't be having this debate at all. Well before I admit to anything I think it's important to have clarity about what I'm admitting to. Nanny state is just a dumb expression and means anything or nothing. So if youd take the time to define what you mean by nanny state I can then respond meaningfully. However generally speaking in for Allowing people and helping people to make better informed decisions " Nanny state is one in which the state uses its force to get people to do things which it believes is good for the people. If a person makes a conscious choice to eat KFC chicken even after aware of the health risks, it's their choice. If the state just educates people about the risk, that's fair. If the state tries to bring down KFC by outright banning it or taxing it to the point where the business becomes unviable, it's a nanny state. That's why I have been asking you to be clear about the solution you are suggesting. | |||
"Wait a minute… Again, would you apply the same logic on every "unhealthy" stuff like porn, alcohol and video games? Porn is unhealthy
It's an addiction for many and has been responsible for problems in many relationships because of the unrealistic expectations it sets.
Wee bit ironic posting that on Fab though
Did you mean an addiction for SOME rather than MANY?
Porn and fab are not the same?
Pretty much every addiction affects only some and not many. Not everyone who takes sugar, alcohol are addicted to them either. There are many people who take them in control.
I am not suggesting some people do not have an addiction to porn. But equally for “many” people it is just part of a healthy and adventurous sex life and they have the ability to separate fantasy from reality.
I think if you showed Fab (and the pics and videos) to people in vanilla life, most would see Fab as a form of pornography (genuine amateur porn is very popular).
Yeah fab could be used as porn too. But my point is that there are numerous things in the world which are addictive. Porn addiction affects 11% of world population based on some recent research.
The question is if the government should go after everything that's addictive by punitive measures? Or should the government focus on educating people about the ill effects and let the individual make the choice at the end of the day?
If we want to take punitive measures on food companies, we probably want to do it on porn industries too."Not is disagreement and this is interesting. While agree re nanny state, is there a line after which the impact has an effect on the treasury and tax payers. Obesity is a health issue and does cost money to treat with ongoing ramifications including ability to work and disability benefits. Whereas porn may harm relationships but not sure we can really put that in the same bucket? | |||
" While agree re nanny state, is there a line after which the impact has an effect on the treasury and tax payers. " Unfortunately, that's the natural outcome of having public healthcare. If there is no public healthcare and the state tries to ban stuff "for your good health", people can tell the state to fuck off. With public healthcare, the state can use a different reason to force things - To sustain/protect the public healthcare system. That's exactly what the Tories were doing in their effort to curb smoking. It's still authoritarianism/nanny state. Only the justification is different . " Obesity is a health issue and does cost money to treat with ongoing ramifications including ability to work and disability benefits. Whereas porn may harm relationships but not sure we can really put that in the same bucket?" Agree with that. The scale of impact caused by porn addiction on health is lower than the impact of bad food. But I wouldn't say it doesn't exist. Porn addiction still causes mental health issues. Not to mention the loss of productivity of people. | |||
" This has become circular. I've already written it twice. More, do you feel the trajectory is acceptable and do you thing any changes should be made? Or current levels of cancer as one example 1 in 2 or diabetes or other illnesses caused by diet and behaviour and environment should be left to continue their current path.? No one denies the effect of these things on health. But if the person who eats this food doesn't mind, who are we to stop it? No matter what solution you use, you are eventually moving towards a nanny state. Of course there's merit in that. But I think the definition of "nanny" state needs clarity. If you mean one that cares for the health and wellbeing of all of its citizens it's tax payers then I'm all for it. Then admit that you want a nanny state. The problem with the whole debate is people trying to do mental and verbal gymnastics to hide the fact that everything you suggest is authoritarianism in one form or the other justified because it's "for the greater good". If you admit that you want a nanny state, we wouldn't be having this debate at all. Well before I admit to anything I think it's important to have clarity about what I'm admitting to. Nanny state is just a dumb expression and means anything or nothing. So if youd take the time to define what you mean by nanny state I can then respond meaningfully. However generally speaking in for Allowing people and helping people to make better informed decisions Nanny state is one in which the state uses its force to get people to do things which it believes is good for the people. If a person makes a conscious choice to eat KFC chicken even after aware of the health risks, it's their choice. If the state just educates people about the risk, that's fair. If the state tries to bring down KFC by outright banning it or taxing it to the point where the business becomes unviable, it's a nanny state. That's why I have been asking you to be clear about the solution you are suggesting." I've already clarified my thoughts many times. And again. Not a solution. It's way too complex. But just musings. The fact you are trying to place a two word label on them is your choice you are making. I personally think in a civilised society where there is knowledge that things are unhealthy and or dangerous, it is delinquent of any state to not ensure they are doing their best for the health and wellbeing of its citizens. As an example they choose to allow gm bleached chicken in from the states. Now if people choose to ignore that, having all of the information and paying the cost, and companies, having been forced to pay for the full consequences and costs of their choices to manufacture market and sell unhealthy, or environmentally damaging products and services. That's fair enough. The state chooses to intervene in many many ways with industry when there is money to be made. Sadly being healthy doesn't seem to be very rewarding for the state otherwise they would do something. | |||
" I've already clarified my thoughts many times. And again. Not a solution. It's way too complex. But just musings. The fact you are trying to place a two word label on them is your choice you are making. I personally think in a civilised society where there is knowledge that things are unhealthy and or dangerous, it is delinquent of any state to not ensure they are doing their best for the health and wellbeing of its citizens. As an example they choose to allow gm bleached chicken in from the states. Now if people choose to ignore that, having all of the information and paying the cost, and companies, having been forced to pay for the full consequences and costs of their choices to manufacture market and sell unhealthy, or environmentally damaging products and services. That's fair enough. " You are saying that the companies which are selling the bleached chicken must pay for the damages caused to people who choose to eat the chicken. The companies will then obviously increase the prices to pay for it. It's like saying a fire cracker company should pay the price for some dude throwing the crackers under a car. You are just finding indirect ways for the state to be a nanny state. | |||
| |||
