Quote :

"The plan is voluntary for food companies and involves no legislation."

Wake me when something important happens.

1/12/2010 11:06:35 AM

Quote :

"Putting too much food in your mouth is a behavior, not a disease."

Exactly.
And people who repeatedly behave to their own disadvantage should suffer the consequences. (Read: We should let people fail.)


People have a right to being unhealthy, and to behaving unhealthily.
We, not society, own our own bodies.

1/12/2010 11:22:38 AM

Who decides what is healthy / not healthy - how can you apply this to every person.

Let me walk you through my day yesterday...
Breakfast : 8oz of Cheerwine
Lunch: PB&J, Sourcream & onion Potato Chips, 12oz Mtn Dew
Dinner: 2 Cheese Burgers 8oz of Cheerwine
and another 2-3 glasses of Cheerwine that night.

This is not an atypical day for me.
I am 5'8 140lbs and was recently rated super prefered on a life policy.

So you can take your bullshit taxes somewhere else....I am not costing anyone anything.

1/12/2010 11:46:56 AM

^ Hear, hear!

Quote :

"Ah, the avoidance of personal responsibility. It tastes sooooo sweet. I grew up in the same era as you did, yet somehow I'm able to not be a fat fuck. Is it because by some miracle I missed all the god damned mcdonald's commercials or is because I have self respect and willpower?"

Kurtis636

This makes good points, too. But what about the generations prior to the most recent one? They experienced very little food regulation concerning sugar, fat, salt, and so on--why wasn't there an "obesity crisis" in these generations? Could it be that they didn't sit around on their fat asses as much just watching TV, playing videogames, and using the computer?

1/12/2010 12:44:06 PM

But who cares? If I can financially support it, I should be able to sit on my fat ass and play video games all day.

We don't need to change people, we need to stop supporting lazy assholes. If I didn't have a job you better believe I'd be skinny. Unless there was some support system that let me buy cheap fatty foods.

Oh, and fuck BMI. According to BMI I'm "overweight", but I sure don't feel overweight. Just because I don't look like a Calvin Klein model with my shirt off doesn't mean I need to lose weight.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 12:49 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 12:46:33 PM

^ I don't have a problem with that at all--but it's not going to happen. In fact, as I indicated, the situation is being marketed as an "obesity crisis" by the interested parties--legislation is being demanded. And "they" are getting it.

1/12/2010 12:52:22 PM

You know, I have no problem "hurting fatties" with any crazy ass thing you can propose. Want to fuck them up ever which way from sunday with respect to healthcare... sure... why not?

But I never understand why there is such love and loyalty towards companies.... why do you kneel down to what they want.

they're not people, they're institutions and can be controlled

are we going to be cool when the standard size of a soda in a vending machine is 28 ounces?

40 ounces?

you know they're already testing out a 24 ounce product for individual consumption.

will you still be convinced this is the will of the consumer... this is what they would want without marketing? or is it what they "want" because it is pushed on them?

To take the extreme analogy, I mean drug users want their drugs. If Coke put out crack rock vending machines, would you be cool with it, just because they have a serious market for it?

....

I mean, don't think about YOU when you think about the power of a company and their advertising and marketing departments.... think about THEM... the masses

do you think what the companies are doing is cool with respect to THEM and how their quality of life will eventually affect YOU in the long run.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 2:26:05 PM

Everyone draws the line somewhere. I don't have a problem with gov't regulating trans fats b/c it's artificial. Regulating salt seems a little ridiculous to me though. But if gov't just wants to encourage cutbacks in salt then I don't care.

1/12/2010 2:35:16 PM

regulating salt is kind of rediculous

there is mixed evidence that a high salt content, by itself, causes real health problems

...

then again, to be conspiratorial, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the null studies were done by agencies with an agenda... like selling salty foods

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 2:37:35 PM

Quote :

"are we going to be cool when the standard size of a soda in a vending machine is 28 ounces? 40 ounces? you know they're already testing out a 24 ounce product for individual consumption."

^^^ 1. The soda bottle has a screw-on cap--you don't have to put all of the soda down your throat in one sitting. I mean, goddammit, if they start selling soda to individuals by the barrel, will you drink it all?

2. Have cups been outlawed, too? Simply pour some of the "40 ounces" you seem to be fretting so much about into a standard-sized cup.

You see, it's about personal responsibility--and you don't trust that people have any. Yet, you trust the government to force personal responsibility on these people--I find your way of thinking to be absolutely frightening and intolerable.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 2:38:34 PM

why is it frightening?

we have a right to control they way products are distributed to use

I AM NOT TRYING TO CONTROL WHAT YOU CAN EAT

only how it is distributed to you

why is this a problem?

you still get all the shitty things you want... i'm just trying to hinder the ability of companies to make us all fatter

I'll agree with nearly any the other ideas on the demand side to curb fattiness

why can't we do something on the supply side as well?

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 2:41:58 PM

^ It's completely unnecessary legislation and intrusion. BTW, you equated a legal product containing water, sugar, flavoring, and caffeine to crack, which is illegal.

1/12/2010 2:44:54 PM

there's all kind of intrusive legislation as it is

and, before I'm called a communist... which I am most certainly not, regulating products and distributions for the common good is done all the time

I'm just trying to solve a problem

I don't know how much of a nutjob you are... I don't know if you believe in conspiracies

but the food industry CONSPIRES, every day, to get you to use more of their products

to make you fatter

they would have not problem if you ate 10000 calories of their shit every day

they would be THRILLED

it's their job... it's what they are made to do

I want to hurt their ability to do this.

...

btw crack cocaine doesn't HAVE to be illegal. there are lots of people... lots of libertarians who would argue that it should be legal

but, because of the awful damage this product does to people, we severely control the sale and distribution of this product.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 2:47:54 PM

Quote :

"But I never understand why there is such love and loyalty towards companies.... why do you kneel down to what they want."

It isn't companies I love, it is the motivation of the government that I am suspicious of. Bills like this are floated all the time in congress for the express purpose of scaring corporations into donating to their elections with the expectation that the legislation will be changed.

This wouldn't even be an issue if the politicians writing the law didn't see a way to profit from it. The United States Congress is possibly the most free of markets if for no other reason than they have the ability to exempt themselves from laws they find burdensome. With only minimal restrictions they doggedly pursue their own self-interest -- that being their own reelection -- free of the constraints the rest of society must bear. Companies are forced to respond to consumer preference (which, yes, they attempt to shape), costs, economic pressures, and legislative restrictions. The government simply prints money or confiscates it upon penalty of imprisonment.

So it is not the companies that I support, it is the concept of liberty. I would be equally as vocal if cooperation like Pepsico attempted to block criticism of their product. Oh, wait, Monsatno has already done so with the help of the very government you are appealing to.



Legislation isn't the answer, education such as this is:




Remove the supports, quit turning the consequences of a poor diet into externalities. I reject the idea of a paternalistic state guiding my life through a bureaucratically pre-determined series of choices without regard to my personal life, liberty, or happiness.

1/12/2010 2:54:16 PM

^^

Quote :

"there's all kind of intrusive legislation as it is"

Yeah--too much. I don't support adding to it.

Quote :

"I'm just trying to solve a problem"

Yeah, by adding even more intrusive legislation.

Quote :

"I don't know how much of a nutjob you are..."

I'm not at all, but why do you care? You "hate" me, right?

Quote :

"they would be TRILLED"

I sure wouldn't want the food industry to be "TRILLED."

Quote :

"I want to hurt their ability to do this."

Again, by adding even more intrusive legislation. Why can't we work to educate people to voluntarily practice self-discipline, exercise, and make healthy food choices?

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 2:57 PM. Reason : ^ Well put.]

1/12/2010 2:54:19 PM

It should be legal. People end up getting it anyway, and the violence and crime that goes on as the result of it being prohibited causes more harm than legalizing it.

There's just a difference in philosophy, here. Some people believe that laws should actually punish crimes. Other people that laws should exist to manipulate the behavior of people. I reject the latter, because I think it's a violation of personal freedom. If we were in the business of making everything that was harmful against the law, we'd have to ban almost everything.

1/12/2010 2:55:36 PM

^^

why just quote bomb me?

again I do think we should "work to educate people to voluntarily practice self-discipline, exercise, and make healthy food choices?"

why can we not work on the distribution side as well

what makes the distributors more sacrosanct than the consumers?

...

^^^

what supports are you all talking about... do you mean welfare?

but fatness affect all levels of society? there are a lot of middle class people, I MEAN A LOT who are fat as hell

what kind of "supports" can we take away?

...

and I'm suspicious of the government as well

but you're not suspicious of companies...

you have hate for the government but not for the distributors of fattiness?

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 3:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 2:57:32 PM

Check out ~4:40:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeCjFiZOtdE

Some of you will undoubtedly think this post is stupid--but this is where we're headed.

Snob: What would you say if I called you a brutish fossil symbolic of a decayed era gratefully forgotten?

John Spartan hooksaw: I don't know, "Thanks?"

1/12/2010 3:03:58 PM

for the end, all of your opinions boil down to

DO NOTHING

ok, we'll do nothing and the problems will continue on

you'll still complain about fatties, we'll live in a fatty world and that's the end of it

right?

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 3:06 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 3:05:18 PM

^ When have you ever seen me complaining about "fatties"? And what's wrong with this approach?

Quote :

"Why can't we work to educate people to voluntarily practice self-discipline, exercise, and make healthy food choices?"

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 3:08 PM. Reason : If we can educate people in other areas, why can't we simply do the same concerning food?]

1/12/2010 3:07:01 PM

because we already do it

the government and... even the market... pushes that solution already

and we're all still getting fatter

you can argue about certain sectors stirring up panic or not

but the facts still remain that, as a nation, we're fat as hell

and none of you offer any real solutions

maybe we'll get a magic pill... that would be cool, i guess

1/12/2010 3:10:05 PM

^ Can you prove that individual container sizes and product ingredients are the primary problem, rather than a lack of physical activity?

1/12/2010 3:19:02 PM

^ Watch the video I put up, there are problems beyond physical activity and amount consumed. nastoute has a point when he says that more information is needed by the public about what we're consuming, we simply disagree about how to go about it.

1/12/2010 3:24:27 PM

^^

you seem to think that I am not blaming the fat people for being fat

that's farther from the truth.. certainly people need to eat WAY better and exercise WAY more, but that's only the problem from the consumer side and it's already being worked on as best as it can

can you think of better solutions from this side?

"container sizes and product ingredients" don't have to be the primary problem, they just have to be a part of the problem... and I'm saying they are a significant part

and it's a part we CAN directly do something about with regulation

you can't regulate people to exercise (actually you can, but I would hope that the cry from you all would be ever louder... but hey they're fatties, so fuck them right?) but you CAN regulate companies and how they go about doing buisiness

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 3:34 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 3:33:50 PM

If these companies make health information readily available about the products they provide I see no way you can blame them for producing what their consumers want.

The focus should be on educating the consumer, not restricting the companies that sell what the consumer demands. Once the consumer demands healthier, companies will sell healthier.

1/12/2010 3:36:09 PM

... actually, you know the resistance that comes from the food industry when you do try to fully educate the consumer on the products they sell

every time they push back hard

but. we already work very hard to educate the consumer and the problem still remains and becomes worse

what then?

1/12/2010 3:39:14 PM

There should be no option to push back from the food industry. That should be regulated.

Who works very hard?

1/12/2010 3:42:36 PM

very hard is a particular thing to say

but the government is constantly trying new schemes to "educate" the people

and the market constantly tries to sell us shit to exercise and diet

who else can educate?

I mean, lets fall back on blaming the parents... ALL OF SOCIETY SUCKS.

every time, calling for education translates really to "do nothing"

it sucks

...

Quote :

"There should be no option to push back from the food industry. That should be regulated."

oh, and I promise you that plenty of people here will complain about even this... didn't hooksaw complain about the new york thing, where they were pushing calorie numbers on chain restaurants menus...

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 3:48 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 3:46:24 PM

Quote :

"but. we already work very hard to educate the consumer and the problem still remains and becomes worse what then?"

Why? Because the government has a vested interest in keeping these companies happy. They're in each others pocket for each others benefit and happily so. Has no one else noticed a correlation between excessive government involvement (health care, defense, agriculture) and inefficiency.


Consumer electronics, a relatively un-regulated industry has seen massive power and innovation gains with reduced cost. Granted, there are a lot of other items in play here, elasticity of demand and whatnot, but expecting the government to regulate against it's own interests is ridiculous.

1/12/2010 3:48:14 PM

so, do nothing?

1/12/2010 3:49:52 PM

incentives for companies to produce healthy products?

tougher penalties for being un-healthy?

required courses in public schools?

licenses to pro-create?

1/12/2010 3:50:14 PM

Quote :

"so, do nothing?"

Why do you think anything really needs to be done? I mean, of all the problems in the world we could waste our energy on solving, death by over abundance and gluttony seems like it would be pretty low on the list.

1/12/2010 3:53:19 PM

^^yeah, I think they do most of that already

except for the last one...

I'm convinced that the primary reason people put back against regulating the food industry is because they hate fatties more than they love companies. I wish I could find a way to decouple the two. To allow people to still hate fatties and hate the bullshit that companies do as well...

...

^ because I care about my country... I don't like living in fatty central of the world

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 3:54 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 3:53:22 PM

Quote :

"so, do nothing?"

You know, there's a difference between "do nothing" and "have the government force citizens to bend to its will." Government is not always the answer. This is a situation where government picks the winners and losers, so maybe by letting the free market work, we could have healthy and affordable ford being produced, rather than processed corn products that lack nutrition.

1/12/2010 3:55:18 PM

Quote :

"You know, there's a difference between "do nothing" and "have the government force citizens to bend to its will.""

again... not citizens... COMPANIES

and don't break out the legal definition

companies are not people... you don't have to give a shit about them

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 3:56:54 PM

Quote :

"death by over abundance and gluttony seems like it would be pretty low on the list"

Not if its the death of the country.

The country IS its people. If the people are too stupid to keep themselves healthy, what does that say about its future?

1/12/2010 3:57:39 PM

so, "screw our country", that's what you're saying?

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 3:58:39 PM

are you asking me that? I don't see how you come to that conclusion from my posts.

1/12/2010 4:04:59 PM

Quote :

"companies are not people... you don't have to give a shit about them"

Actually, yes, companies are made up of people. It's not just some lifeless monolith that can be punished and no one suffers the consequence.

Here's the bottom line. You want to force companies to stop making things that are unhealthy. I value liberty, but I also value junk food, and so do a lot of other healthy individuals.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 4:08 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2010 4:06:24 PM

^^

no... I don't know

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 4:07 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 4:07:40 PM

^^

there are lots of groups of people that we punish

how do you feel about war and actions against other nations for the bullshit they pull?

those are actions against groups of people with consequences...

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT SACRED... stop treating them like they're fucking special

1/12/2010 4:10:15 PM

Quote :

"how do you feel about war and actions against other nations for the bullshit they pull?"

I'm against it, unless they were the aggressor.

Corporations are....corporations. They're not stuffing the food down people's throat. They create a product. People buy and consume that product. They're not infringing upon anyone's rights. They're not using force. They've done nothing wrong, except make food that is high in calories and low in nutrition, but if that were against the law, we'd shut down every candy store and bakery in the United States.

1/12/2010 4:17:33 PM

Quote :

"so, do nothing?"

if nothing were what we were doing, I suspect we'd be better off. nastoute needs to decouple is preconceived perception of personal preference prior to pertinent progress proceeding upon this precise topic

1/12/2010 4:23:55 PM

so what do you think we need to do less of?

if you point to farm subsidies, I agree...

but what else?

1/12/2010 4:37:27 PM

Quote :

"Phillip Morris USA -- which supports the federal ban on flavored cigarettes -- is unlikely to get behind a ban on menthol"

wouldn't that be racist if they did support a ban on menthol? I'm sure Al Sharpton and his gang would be knocking on their door if they even thought of it.

1/12/2010 4:37:31 PM

Quote :

"if you point to farm subsidies"

This would go a looonnngggg way to halting the current over-production of processed foods. Read into Monsanto's lawsuits against soybean farmers who don't use their soybeans, or their pursuit of anyone who speaks up against them. Yes they're a corporation, making them an easy boogyman, but they're also a corporation with extensive ties to the regulatory infrastructure you propose to use against them. That is what happens when you have a proto-fascist state apparatus involved in production. (This isn't a Godwin's law reference, and has nothing to do with antisemitism, more accurately the joining of state and private production for the "good of the national interest".)

1/12/2010 4:42:24 PM

Quote :

"and the market constantly tries to sell us shit to exercise and diet"

nastoute

And what's wrong with this? If people simply exercised and watched their diets--you know, practiced some self-discipline--there wouldn't be a "problem." (If there even is a problem that everyone needs to get so worked up about.)

1/12/2010 7:02:03 PM

Quote :

"^^yeah, I think they do most of that already"

The problem is, we're so damn schizophrenic about this crap as a nation. NY wants to stop unhealthy foods that people choose to buy, yet this very same state allows and even seeks contracts with soda companies to provide funding for schools in exchange for having vending machines placed throughout the school. What good does it do the mandate nutrition classes if you're going to put a Pepsi machine outside the class room?

They talk about allowing insurance companies to charge more for fat people (I think this was in NC for gov employees) yet here we are talking about providing subsidies and free healthcare to people who can't afford it.

As for incentives to provide healthy foods, here we're trying to force companies to change their products, yet we still have massive subsidies for corn and other products that make processed food so lucrative for companies.

Instead of subsidizing fat people and their foods, and then trying to eliminate all of their foods, why don't we just stop subsidizing being fat.

Quote :

"The country IS its people. If the people are too stupid to keep themselves healthy, what does that say about its future?"

That the country is doomed to self imposed extinction? The question is, if you have a country full of people too stupid to live, why do you want them to keep living?

Quote :

"so, "screw our country", that's what you're saying?"

More like screw the people who screw themselves. Despite what you may hear on TV, our county is not simply made up of fat people.

1/12/2010 7:22:46 PM

Quote :

"More like screw the people who screw themselves. Despite what you may hear on TV, our county is not simply made up of fat people."

ding ding ding

Also: many successful and productive people that run this society and contribute to our great advances are "overweight".

1/13/2010 11:45:42 AM

Quote :

"so, do nothing?"

....because whenever there's a problem, the government should do something.

How's this for doing something:
1) People and businesses remain free from paternalistic legislation
2) Some choose to eat unhealthily and many of them die decades too early
3) Others see this happen and it motivates them to learn about healthy eating
4) Still others see this happen, but don't care -- choosing to eat unhealthily despite the risk
5) In the end, some will always choose to be unhealthy, but we'll all have the educated choice
[6) Crazies on the left will forever claim that people are incapable of making choices in the face of advertising ]



This deserves repeating:

Quote :

"so, 'screw our country', that's what you're saying?"

Quote :

"More like screw the people who screw themselves."

1/13/2010 12:26:52 PM