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

[G.T.]

Neil Armstrong: "i dont trust these gubbamint scientists, im not going to no damn moon ill find my own experts."

Rest of the civilized world: head slap.

 

[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.

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

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

Well, from what I have seen so far, I, who has had no formal training whatsoever in nutrition, do read and evaluate what the convention wisdom is out there. And I believe I am a damn sight more qualified to know what is and is not healthy than what the government is pushing these days. Call me arrogant, but I have proved myself wrong a whole lot less than government guidelines have proved to be wrong.

The government should not be able to dictate that a perfectly healthy nutrition bar cannot be advertised as 'healthy'.

 

[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.

Well, from what I have seen so far, I, who has had no formal training whatsoever in nutrition, do read and evaluate what the convention wisdom is out there. And I believe I am a damn sight more qualified to know what is and is not healthy than what the government is pushing these days. Call me arrogant, but I have proved myself wrong a whole lot less than government guidelines have proved to be wrong.

The government should not be able to dictate that a perfectly healthy nutrition bar cannot be advertised as 'healthy'.

The food pyramid WAS the conventional wisdom of its time.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

 

[haissem123]

Of course we want the government to have the power to order that the food we buy meet reasonable standards of hygiene and be free of dangerous toxins and disease causing organisms. These are things we have no reasonable way to determine for ourselves so such protection is appreciated and necessary in the interest of the general welfare.

And most of us appreciate laws that require that a list of ingredients be provided on the processed products that we buy. This also is in the interest of the general welfare to inform people of salt, suger, fat, allergen, calorie etc. content that they otherwise would have no reasonable way to know.

And many of us appreciate government information on what the conventional wisdom is regarding nutrition and recommendations to achieve optimal nutrition.

BUT. . . .

Given the rapidly changing conventional wisdom, do we want the federal government to dictate what is and is not healthy? Do we want government at any level to control advertising or have power to mandate in that regard? Certainly the school board, school administration, and PTA can agree on basic content for school lunches. But do you want the state or federal government to dictate that? Or any other aspect of what is and is not healthy to eat?

For decades the government has issued opinion that no more than three whole eggs should be consumed in any given week due to the high cholesteral content.

But this February in Reuters (see link below):

For decades, health and government officials warned against consumption of high-cholesterol foods, such as red meat and eggs, saying they greatly increased the risk of heart disease and obesity. But many doctors and nutritionists now say there is no link between dietary cholesterol and dangerous levels of cholesterol in the blood that cause disease.​

For decades the government has issued opinion that saturated fat is a leading cause of coronary and other diseases.

Until last year in a NPR report (see link below):

The U.S. Dietary Guidelines urge us to limit consumption because of concerns that saturated fat raises the risk of heart disease. But after decades of research, a growing number of experts are questioning this link.

In fact, the authors of a new meta-analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine conclude that there’s insufficient evidence to support the long-standing recommendation to consume saturated fat in very low amounts.​

Should KIND Be Banned From Labelling Their Bars as Healthy

How many times has coffee been bad for us in one year only to be presented as good for us the following year? The expert opinion is all over the map on grains, sugar content, the amount of salt content that is acceptable, etc. etc. etc.

What prompted this discussion was an article by Katrina Trinko (linked above) who questioned the government telling a company that it couldn't advertise a nutritional bar as 'healthy' because it contained saturated fat. But if that bar is the only saturated fat the consumer eats that day, it is a relatively low amount. As the author asks, shouldn't what else a person consumes that day be a factor in whether that product is actually healthy for a person?

And then there was the infamous soft drink law in New York City restricting the size of soft drink a customer could buy. That one was way too 'big brotherish' for a lot of us.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

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

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

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


QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

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

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

we, the people/government, should have the power to heavily tax unhealthy food if they have the power to heavily tax smokes and alcohol as harmful. it affects us all to carry the weight of unhealthy people upon all our shoulders medically financially etc..

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Well, from what I have seen so far, I, who has had no formal training whatsoever in nutrition, do read and evaluate what the convention wisdom is out there. And I believe I am a damn sight more qualified to know what is and is not healthy than what the government is pushing these days. Call me arrogant, but I have proved myself wrong a whole lot less than government guidelines have proved to be wrong.

The government should not be able to dictate that a perfectly healthy nutrition bar cannot be advertised as 'healthy'.

The food pyramid WAS the conventional wisdom of its time.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

No I didn't. But you did. Remember, I read and EVALUATE. The 'conventional wisdom' was wrong. I knew that when that food pyramid first came out. Did you? Or because the government promoted it, did you just accept it hook, line, and sinker as the gospel truth of the way we should eat?

 

[Ravi]

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

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

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

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

That is not the latest food pyramid.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Well, from what I have seen so far, I, who has had no formal training whatsoever in nutrition, do read and evaluate what the convention wisdom is out there. And I believe I am a damn sight more qualified to know what is and is not healthy than what the government is pushing these days. Call me arrogant, but I have proved myself wrong a whole lot less than government guidelines have proved to be wrong.

The government should not be able to dictate that a perfectly healthy nutrition bar cannot be advertised as 'healthy'.

The food pyramid WAS the conventional wisdom of its time.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

No I didn't. But you did. Remember, I read and EVALUATE. The 'conventional wisdom' was wrong. I knew that when that food pyramid first came out. Did you? Or because the government promoted it, did you just accept it hook, line, and sinker as the gospel truth of the way we should eat?

No ad homs.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The government is the primary reason our food is unhealthy.
So what in the world would make anyone think they have the remotest concern about "healthy" food???
The government provides massive sugar and corn subsidies, as well as purposefully and knowingly deletes/modifies and misrepresents nutritional data that directly favors corn and sugar industries.
Look at the government nutrional data on products...notice something?
Sugar is listed, but the daily value is not there. It is blank. The sugar lobby successfully had that removed from Nutritional Fact Sheets years ago.
Sugar kills more people than cigarettes could have ever imagined. And the government knowingly removes and hides this from all of us thanks to generous campaign donations from both the corn and sugar groups. Very, very powerful lobbyist.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Well, from what I have seen so far, I, who has had no formal training whatsoever in nutrition, do read and evaluate what the convention wisdom is out there. And I believe I am a damn sight more qualified to know what is and is not healthy than what the government is pushing these days. Call me arrogant, but I have proved myself wrong a whole lot less than government guidelines have proved to be wrong.

The government should not be able to dictate that a perfectly healthy nutrition bar cannot be advertised as 'healthy'.

The food pyramid WAS the conventional wisdom of its time.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

No I didn't. But you did. Remember, I read and EVALUATE. The 'conventional wisdom' was wrong. I knew that when that food pyramid first came out. Did you? Or because the government promoted it, did you just accept it hook, line, and sinker as the gospel truth of the way we should eat?

The nutritional sciences of the whole country promoted it, not just "the government."

You conventional wisdom outwitted the professionals in the field? Good job, where did you study to make such determinations?

Sounds good in theory, but you admitted you werent qualified and had to EVALUATE, im wondering how you did so?

1970s google?

Wasnt the science you studied. That would have led you to the food pyramid.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

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

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

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[G.T.]

The government is the primary reason our food is unhealthy.
So what in the world would make anyone think they have the remotest concern about "healthy" food???
The government provides massive sugar and corn subsidies, as well as purposefully and knowingly deletes/modifies and misrepresents nutritional data that directly favors corn and sugar industries.
Look at the government nutrional data on products...notice something?
Sugar is listed, but the daily value is not there. It is blank. The sugar lobby successfully had that removed from Nutritional Fact Sheets years ago.
Sugar kills more people than cigarettes could have ever imagined. And the government knowingly removes and hides this from all of us thanks to generous campaign donations from both the corn and sugar groups. Very, very powerful lobbyist.

Except the new food guide matches what private, non government science says today.

So......that oddly doesnt feed the conspiracy wheel there.......unless all nutritional science is in on it!!!! All of um!!!!

No, truth is, the nutritional sciences have come a great deal way since the time where there were no black families on television and barely anyone still had televisions. Lol.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice try though.

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

Assumes facts not in evidence.

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

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

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

So what ?

You think that is why kids smoke today ?

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

CDC - Trends - Infographics - Smoking Tobacco Use

View attachment 40144

CDC - Trends in Current Cigarette Smoking - Smoking Tobacco Use

A. Your graph shows a peak in 1995....long after ads were banned.

B. 20% of High Schoolers smoke ???? Wow....that is terrible. Seems the government is falling down big time.

What was happening during that peak?

The Tobacco Industry was being forced to pay for all of the harm it had caused by lying about it's product so it needed a way to grow it's shrinking customer base. It did that by deliberately and maliciously targeting High Schoolers.

The trend reversed itself once the Tobacco Industry was forced by the government to pay for advertisements against smoking.

The government did not "fall down". It was simply facing a massively well organized and well funded special interest group that was prepared to buy up the entire government if that is what it took.

Thanks to Citizens United that is what we face again today. And yes, the end result of corporate ownership of government is an Idiocracy. Or if your prefer, Libertarianism in action. That is a distinction without a difference IMO.

So the evidence clearly shows that the reason why we need the Government OF the People to determine what is healthy and to regulate corporations from lying about their products is because we simply cannot trust corporations and there is no other feasible alternative.

Thank you for admitting that pulling the ads didn't work.

YOU may need the the government to protect you from yourself, but don't lump the rest of us in with you.

Disingenuous response.

Restricting advertising did result in a decline in smoking. The fact that the Tobacco industry deliberately tried to addict High School students is not a failure of government. The facts provided proved that the government was able to stop that criminal corporate activity too.

Oh, and this is the SDZ, try and refrain from the ad homs.

 

[G.T.]

America is fat because the food industry itself has come a long way yay capitalism.

Unhealthy food is faster, and relatively cheap. To most, it can taste better. Mmm...bacon.

Some of us can control ourselves, but theyre damn gluttons in the south. Thats tradition, not the government's "food guide."

Fried chicken was even known to be bad BACK THEN. Amazing. Potato chips.

Theyre literally frying sticks of butter and serving them at fairs. That is NOT made up and NOT recommended by the scary gubbamint either.

Who is telling people to eat like this?

Commercials. Billboards. Grocers. Etc etc

 

[Ravi]

The government shouldn't allow any processed food to be deemed healthy.

 

[G.T.]

The government shouldn't allow any processed food to be deemed healthy.

Exactly.

"Its healthy cuz saturated fat is ok in moderation."

Well, no. That doesnt make it healthy, it makes it not unhealthy. Lil bit of a difference, but a pretty meaningful one.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The government is the primary reason our food is unhealthy.
So what in the world would make anyone think they have the remotest concern about "healthy" food???
The government provides massive sugar and corn subsidies, as well as purposefully and knowingly deletes/modifies and misrepresents nutritional data that directly favors corn and sugar industries.
Look at the government nutrional data on products...notice something?
Sugar is listed, but the daily value is not there. It is blank. The sugar lobby successfully had that removed from Nutritional Fact Sheets years ago.
Sugar kills more people than cigarettes could have ever imagined. And the government knowingly removes and hides this from all of us thanks to generous campaign donations from both the corn and sugar groups. Very, very powerful lobbyist.

Except the new food guide matches what private, non government science says today.

So......that oddly doesnt feed the conspiracy wheel there.......unless all nutritional science is in on it!!!! All of um!!!!

No, truth is, the nutritional sciences have come a great deal way since the time where there were no black families on television and barely anyone still had televisions. Lol.

Private, non government studies provided by the food conglomerates. You wanna trust that? Really?
Sugar is the absolute most dangerous and deadly substances that people use. PERIOD. Far - far - far more dangerous than cigarettes/alcohol and even illegal drugs - combined.
You know how many child cases there were of Type 2 diabetes prior to 1950? That's easy - ZERO. None. Not one. Type 2 diabetes in children was unheard of.
Today? Millions.
And what about Diabetes generally?
Maybe this will help...

No problem here?
Did you know that dozens of times the FDA has wanted to issue warnings about Diabetes and America's unholy addiction to high sugar diets?
Did you know that Congress threatened to remove a quarter of the FDA's budget when Margeret Hamburg insisted on changing the governments sugar recommendations and reinstate the Daily % values on foods?

Our government is thoroughly in bed with food conglomerates.
It is a cruel joke to think they would honestly monitor foods when they are the ones that are gleefully providing subsidies for and ignoring the colossal and inarguable data about our high sugar diets...one more graph for you...

 

[G.T.]

The government is the primary reason our food is unhealthy.
So what in the world would make anyone think they have the remotest concern about "healthy" food???
The government provides massive sugar and corn subsidies, as well as purposefully and knowingly deletes/modifies and misrepresents nutritional data that directly favors corn and sugar industries.
Look at the government nutrional data on products...notice something?
Sugar is listed, but the daily value is not there. It is blank. The sugar lobby successfully had that removed from Nutritional Fact Sheets years ago.
Sugar kills more people than cigarettes could have ever imagined. And the government knowingly removes and hides this from all of us thanks to generous campaign donations from both the corn and sugar groups. Very, very powerful lobbyist.

Except the new food guide matches what private, non government science says today.

So......that oddly doesnt feed the conspiracy wheel there.......unless all nutritional science is in on it!!!! All of um!!!!

No, truth is, the nutritional sciences have come a great deal way since the time where there were no black families on television and barely anyone still had televisions. Lol.

Private, non government studies provided by the food conglomerates. You wanna trust that? Really?
Sugar is the absolute most dangerous and deadly substances that people use. PERIOD. Far - far - far more dangerous than cigarettes/alcohol and even illegal drugs - combined.
You know how many child cases there were of Type 2 diabetes prior to 1950? That's easy - ZERO. None. Not one. Type 2 diabetes in children was unheard of.
Today? Millions.
And what about Diabetes generally?
Maybe this will help...

No problem here?
Did you know that dozens of times the FDA has wanted to issue warnings about Diabetes and America's unholy addiction to high sugar diets?
Did you know that Congress threatened to remove a quarter of the FDA's budget when Margeret Hamburg insisted on changing the governments sugar recommendations and reinstate the Daily % values on foods?

Our government is thoroughly in bed with food conglomerates.
It is a cruel joke to think they would honestly monitor foods when they are the ones that are gleefully providing subsidies for and ignoring the colossal and inarguable data about our high sugar diets...one more graph for you...

Are you saying that the government recommends you eat processed sugar and has no literature on their very own websites citing its dangers?

We dont find the same, if so homey.

I hear ya though. Processed sugar is quite literally the devil for health.

I design diets and personal exercise plans as.my actual side job. Sugar is the #1 biggest bang for everyones respective buck, weight loss wise, to cut.

 

[Foxfyre]

The government shouldn't allow any processed food to be deemed healthy.

Exactly.

"Its healthy cuz saturated fat is ok in moderation."

Well, no. That doesnt make it healthy, it makes it not unhealthy. Lil bit of a difference, but a pretty meaningful one.

And yet the government designated certain processed foods as 'healthy' in school lunches as well as more saturated fat than is contained in that nutrition bar in question in this thread. Isn't there a disconnect there?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Americans are, generally speaking, sick 24 hours a day.
We are the only country in the world that accomplished something that seems impossible - millions of obese people that are actually malnourished.
We have also accomplishes something else that defies logic - "Fat skinny people".
Skinny people with extraordinary high body fat content, especially the dangerous "belly fat".
The food corporations could never have so grossly changed America's diets without government help. Financially and by ignoring how toxic processed foods are.