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

[Foxfyre]

This thread however is not about all government regulation, either the pros or cons. To object to one aspect of government overreach and regulation is NOT saying that government should have no power to regulate or that there are no necessary regulations.

Let's focus on the simple concept of whether government should have the power to dictate something imprecise and arbitrary such as whether something is or is not healthy.

 

[G.T.]

I think that you're overplaying your hand on stating that its imprecise based on one study which Harvard clearly poked lots of holes in.

Pretty much all indicators show that increased saturated fat in your diet leads to heart disease.

The link is not arbitrary.

Heart disease I believe is the #1 killer in America.



Ipso facto - calling your bar healthy is calling McDonald's french fries healthy.

 

[G.T.]

Lets ask the leading experts in the field who have to monitor these things for an actual living:

Saturated Fats

 

[Foxfyre]

I think that you're overplaying your hand on stating that its imprecise based on one study which Harvard clearly poked lots of holes in.

Pretty much all indicators show that increased saturated fat in your diet leads to heart disease.

The link is not arbitrary.

Heart disease I believe is the #1 killer in America.

Ipso facto - calling your bar healthy is calling McDonald's french fries healthy.

There are degrees of healthy. Indulging in
McDonalds french fries every day may indeed be unhealthy, but enjoying a Big Mac and fries picked up on your once a year trip to Duluth is not going to hurt anybody.

And we have already posted on this thread evidence that government guidelines allow more saturated fat into a kid's school lunch than is contained in that nutrition bar.

The government was wrong to require the company to remove the word 'healthy' from its advertising for that nutrition bar.

 

[G.T.]

I think that you're overplaying your hand on stating that its imprecise based on one study which Harvard clearly poked lots of holes in.

Pretty much all indicators show that increased saturated fat in your diet leads to heart disease.

The link is not arbitrary.

Heart disease I believe is the #1 killer in America.

Ipso facto - calling your bar healthy is calling McDonald's french fries healthy.

There are degrees of healthy. Indulging in
McDonalds french fries every day may indeed be unhealthy, but enjoying a Big Mac and fries picked up on your once a year trip to Duluth is not going to hurt anybody.

And we have already posted on this thread evidence that government guidelines allow more saturated fat into a kid's school lunch than is contained in that nutrition bar.

The government was wrong to require the company to remove the word 'healthy' from its advertising for that nutrition bar.

No, they were right to do so because it's false advertising.

Same way you can eat mcdonalds fries in moderation like you said and be fine.....but that doesnt make them HEALTHY in turn.......they dont get the "opposite" label simply because you (correctly) limited their intake.

I cant call a package with 1 cigarette in it HEALTHY simply because "1" of them is moderate enough to not be "unhealthy."

Its not ipso facto a "healthy" product because im selling just one.

Cry when they cant sell the bar at all, then youd have a gripe.

For now, support the company and eat lotsa lotsa the bars, and take a big fat black sharpie and write "healthy" on the packages to sooth your thirst for them to be able to falsely advertise that it's healthy.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think that you're overplaying your hand on stating that its imprecise based on one study which Harvard clearly poked lots of holes in.

Pretty much all indicators show that increased saturated fat in your diet leads to heart disease.

The link is not arbitrary.

Heart disease I believe is the #1 killer in America.

Ipso facto - calling your bar healthy is calling McDonald's french fries healthy.

There are degrees of healthy. Indulging in
McDonalds french fries every day may indeed be unhealthy, but enjoying a Big Mac and fries picked up on your once a year trip to Duluth is not going to hurt anybody.

And we have already posted on this thread evidence that government guidelines allow more saturated fat into a kid's school lunch than is contained in that nutrition bar.

The government was wrong to require the company to remove the word 'healthy' from its advertising for that nutrition bar.

No, they were right to do so because it's false advertising.

Same way you can eat mcdonalds fries in moderation like you said and be fine.....but that doesnt make them HEALTHY in turn.......they dont get the "opposite" label simply because you (correctly) limited their intake.

I cant call a package with 1 cigarette in it HEALTHY simply because "1" of them is moderate enough to not be "unhealthy."

Its not ipso facto a "healthy" product because im selling just one.

Cry when they cant sell the bar at all, then youd have a gripe.

For now, support the company and eat lotsa lotsa the bars, and take a big fat black sharpie and write "healthy" on the packages to sooth your thirst for them to be able to falsely advertise that it's healthy.

Well I've made my argument. I trust a whole bunch of different sources and myself to determine what is and what is not healthy before I trust the government to do that.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. (But if that nutritional bar manufacturer can't use 'healthy' in its advertising for a product that clearly is healthy, then the government should be prohibited from claiming their dictates for school lunches are 'healthy' too.)

 

[G.T.]

The Government uses sources too, and actually require a lot more study in the field than you or I have before these conclusions are made. They are forced to have the backing of real science, real consensus, whereas any goon can read any internet story anytime and think it makes them Einstein.

 

[Zander]

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

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

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

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

 

[G.T.]

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

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

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

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

It wasnt the government that invented it. It was the current science at the time that was wrong.

And today - the nutritional sciences are 1, 000x more advanced than they were then. Its still not perfect, but its pretty as near as we will get. Molecular biology and the study of foods' effects on the cells today is a galaxy of information whereas when that food pyramid was provided to the government, it was a little tiny Pluto.

 

[G.T.]

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

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

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

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

The Nutritional Science at the time itself was wrong.

Unless you were some leading expert in the 70's and 80's and working a top secret experiment noone else was privy to, you would not have gotten the correct advice from anyone. No matter how smart you think you are, this more complete knowledge we have today was simply not known at the time.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Government uses sources too, and actually require a lot more study in the field than you or I have before these conclusions are made. They are forced to have the backing of real science, real consensus, whereas any goon can read any internet story anytime and think it makes them Einstein.

The governments sources are no better than sources available to the rest of us. People who happen to have government jobs probably have less incentive to CARE whether their sources are right or wrong, good or bad, honest or self-serving, than does the private sector. Government can't be sued for putting out bad information and those in government know darn well their constituents will defend them instead of holding them accountable when they are wrong.

So given how often the government gets it wrong, it should not be the prerogative of government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise a perfectly healthy nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

 

[Agit8r]

Should children be able to buy booze and porn at the corner market? Get real.

They don't need to go to the corner market to get porn.

In all our wisdom, the internet is rife with it.

I think you are the one who needs to look around.

You didn't answer my question.

My kids have friends who parents were loading them with booze and pot at age 12.

It's parents, not government that gets the job done.

That is all quite beside the point. I knew kids whose parents let them smoke openly in their house. It doesn't mean that kids whose parents are not failures should be able to go into any store and buy cigs on their own.

You brought up porn.

And it is quite to the point.

I don't disagree with your final statement.

I simply find the rest of the argument lacking.

I didn't address the porn there. But there are tools out there that parents can use to restrict access on their own computer or home network, including not having internet service at all, not buying their children wifi devises etc. Parents can also choose to not take any such precautions, and there is little that society can do about it.

When it comes to businesses or individuals providing porn to minors in person, there are more steps that society can take to stop it. The same applies with tobacco and alcohol. In fact if it were proposed to allow minor to purchase these items freely, there would be considerable animadversion against it. But of course obesity is more harmful than either of these:

The Health Risks of Obesity Worse Than Smoking Drinking or Poverty RAND

Yes, overweight kids is a far greater problem than is a few grams of saturated fat in a nutritional bar. Which goes to the heart of the incongruity and dishonesty of many government mandates that are sold as 'good for the the people' when in fact all they do is restrict our liberties and accomplish little otherwise.

Instead of forcing tasteless, unappealing food on school kids, why not feed them a reasonable lunch that they will enjoy and eat so that they can focus on their afternoon studies instead of their empty stomachs? Severely restricting calories on a one-size-fits-all basis is absurd on the face of it.

And then start a promotion of a voluntary--not mandatory--cultural shift toward fitness for kids that will encourage them to turn off their computer and Xboxes and television sets and smart phones and get out and move. That is far more likely to remedy child obesity than forcing meager food that they hate on them.

As far as that nutritional bar goes? As long as it is adequately labeled with the nutritional information on it, the people who buy it should decide whether it is or is not healthy for them. That should not be a government function to do.

Nothing prevents parents from sending a sack lunch, if they don't like the choices.

And what of those kids whose parents are too poor to do so? Well, they have already alienated food choices to the governing authority.

 

[G.T.]

The Government uses sources too, and actually require a lot more study in the field than you or I have before these conclusions are made. They are forced to have the backing of real science, real consensus, whereas any goon can read any internet story anytime and think it makes them Einstein.

The governments sources are no better than sources available to the rest of us. People who happen to have government jobs probably have less incentive to CARE whether their sources are right or wrong, good or bad, honest or self-serving, than does the private sector. Government can't be sued for putting out bad information and those in government know darn well their constituents will defend them instead of holding them accountable when they are wrong.

So given how often the government gets it wrong, it should not be the prerogative of government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise a perfectly healthy nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

Government contracts the scientists...the scientists arent government.

Oye

 

[G.T.]

The Government uses sources too, and actually require a lot more study in the field than you or I have before these conclusions are made. They are forced to have the backing of real science, real consensus, whereas any goon can read any internet story anytime and think it makes them Einstein.

The governments sources are no better than sources available to the rest of us. People who happen to have government jobs probably have less incentive to CARE whether their sources are right or wrong, good or bad, honest or self-serving, than does the private sector. Government can't be sued for putting out bad information and those in government know darn well their constituents will defend them instead of holding them accountable when they are wrong.

So given how often the government gets it wrong, it should not be the prerogative of government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise a perfectly healthy nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

And you keep saying "given how often the government gets it wrong."

Is wrong.

The science was wrong. Not the "Government."

I think that you mistake the government for some megalyth brain that controls itself in unison and is not literally millions of people as well as sub contracted private businesses.

Is it because the one word is all encompassing that confuses people into thinking its some tiny singular entity?

It is Millions. Of. People. And departments. And contracts with thousands of private businesses and universities.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

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

This is a really important argument and illustration for this topic.

On its website the USDA advertised itself like this:

The Food and Nutrition Information Center - a leader in food and human nutrition information dissemination since 1971 - provides credible, accurate, and practical resources for nutrition and health professionals, educators, government personnel and consumers.​

It was that same Food and Nurtrition Information Center who put out that horrendous food pyramid as how Americans should eat. And anybody who keeps up with nutrition at all knew then, as they know even better now, how completely wrong that pyramid was and is.

So should the government hold itself to the same standards as it pretends to hold itself in 'truth in advertising?' Or given how much false advertising the government has put out about so many things, can we agree that it is the pot calling the kettle black when government presumes to dictate that a nutrition bar can't be advertised as 'healthy'?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Government uses sources too, and actually require a lot more study in the field than you or I have before these conclusions are made. They are forced to have the backing of real science, real consensus, whereas any goon can read any internet story anytime and think it makes them Einstein.

The governments sources are no better than sources available to the rest of us. People who happen to have government jobs probably have less incentive to CARE whether their sources are right or wrong, good or bad, honest or self-serving, than does the private sector. Government can't be sued for putting out bad information and those in government know darn well their constituents will defend them instead of holding them accountable when they are wrong.

So given how often the government gets it wrong, it should not be the prerogative of government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise a perfectly healthy nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

And you keep saying "given how often the government gets it wrong."

Is wrong.

The science was wrong. Not the "Government."

I think that you mistake the government for some megalyth brain that controls itself in unison and is not literally millions of people as well as sub contracted private businesses.

Is it because the one word is all encompassing that confuses people into thinking its some tiny singular entity?

It is Millions. Of. People. And departments. And contracts with thousands of private businesses and universities.

But you keep defending a government who adopts wrong science and forces it onto the rest of us. Why?

 

[G.T.]

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

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

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

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

This is a really important argument and illustration for this topic.

On its website the USDA advertised itself like this:

The Food and Nutrition Information Center - a leader in food and human nutrition information dissemination since 1971 - provides credible, accurate, and practical resources for nutrition and health professionals, educators, government personnel and consumers.​

It was that same Food and Nurtrition Information Center who put out that horrendous food pyramid as how Americans should eat. And anybody who keeps up with nutrition at all knew then, as they know even better now, how completely wrong that pyramid was and is.

So should the government hold itself to the same standards as it pretends it holds itself in 'truth in advertising?' Or given how much false advertising the government has put out about so many things, can we agree that it is the pot calling the kettle black when government presume to dictate that a nutrition bar can't be advertised as 'healthy'?

The food pyramid was what the current scientific consensus was.

The failure was one of the science, not the government.

Geebus christmas

 

[Foxfyre]

The Government uses sources too, and actually require a lot more study in the field than you or I have before these conclusions are made. They are forced to have the backing of real science, real consensus, whereas any goon can read any internet story anytime and think it makes them Einstein.

The governments sources are no better than sources available to the rest of us. People who happen to have government jobs probably have less incentive to CARE whether their sources are right or wrong, good or bad, honest or self-serving, than does the private sector. Government can't be sued for putting out bad information and those in government know darn well their constituents will defend them instead of holding them accountable when they are wrong.

So given how often the government gets it wrong, it should not be the prerogative of government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise a perfectly healthy nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

Government contracts the scientists...the scientists arent government.

Oye

Given the arguments you have made, I believe I shall not trust a government much who chooses such bad scientists to trust.

 

[G.T.]

The Government uses sources too, and actually require a lot more study in the field than you or I have before these conclusions are made. They are forced to have the backing of real science, real consensus, whereas any goon can read any internet story anytime and think it makes them Einstein.

The governments sources are no better than sources available to the rest of us. People who happen to have government jobs probably have less incentive to CARE whether their sources are right or wrong, good or bad, honest or self-serving, than does the private sector. Government can't be sued for putting out bad information and those in government know darn well their constituents will defend them instead of holding them accountable when they are wrong.

So given how often the government gets it wrong, it should not be the prerogative of government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise a perfectly healthy nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

And you keep saying "given how often the government gets it wrong."

Is wrong.

The science was wrong. Not the "Government."

I think that you mistake the government for some megalyth brain that controls itself in unison and is not literally millions of people as well as sub contracted private businesses.

Is it because the one word is all encompassing that confuses people into thinking its some tiny singular entity?

It is Millions. Of. People. And departments. And contracts with thousands of private businesses and universities.

But you keep defending a government who adopts wrong science and forces it onto the rest of us. Why?

The science was quite literally adopted by the very community that studied this shit.

They were wrong.

That doesnt mean science is from this day now and forever always wrong put your fingers in your ears and go la la la and act oblivious to the modern day advancement in the field.

Thats just being hard headed and not pragmatic or smart at all.

 

[G.T.]

The Government uses sources too, and actually require a lot more study in the field than you or I have before these conclusions are made. They are forced to have the backing of real science, real consensus, whereas any goon can read any internet story anytime and think it makes them Einstein.

The governments sources are no better than sources available to the rest of us. People who happen to have government jobs probably have less incentive to CARE whether their sources are right or wrong, good or bad, honest or self-serving, than does the private sector. Government can't be sued for putting out bad information and those in government know darn well their constituents will defend them instead of holding them accountable when they are wrong.

So given how often the government gets it wrong, it should not be the prerogative of government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise a perfectly healthy nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

Government contracts the scientists...the scientists arent government.

Oye

Given the arguments you have made, I believe I shall not trust a government much who chooses such bad scientists to trust.

Which scientists would you have trusted in the 70 and where would you have gotten the information?

Oh..........ok then.