On Food Purveyors

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM265446.pdf

132 page guideline on what has to be on a food label. I think 132 pages pretty much covers it. [/quote]

you act as though every one has your aptitude , they don’t .

Some people have no concept of what is a good diet , how to count calories or how to balance a diet .

You read it here people maintained a good weight eating shit and they think every one can .

Exercise is important but most figures I hear (and agree with) say it is %70 diet

[/quote]

I agree with you to an extent Pitt; however, the information is spoon feed to everyone
[/quote]

if you agree with me why would you not want to mitigate the waste of money , you and I are throwing down the black hole of these people’s health care ? The information is in a very hard to understand format . Information will not cost us anything and could save billions or even trillions if taken to heart .

IMO the Reason the Republicans are not in favor of this is because of political contributions and no I am not going to even try and justify it . But an answer that cost $0 and could save big money and no one wants to try it

162

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
if you agree with me why would you not want to mitigate the waste of money , you and I are throwing down the black hole of these people’s health care ?
[/quote]

I agreed with part of your post, regardless, to manipulate in a manner that would actually create change would end freedom of choice.

No thank you.

100% disagree. It’s written in plan English, there are government guidelines, percentage of daily intake recommend (basic math here), every ingredient is listed, and there are even quick nutritional fact areas on most packaged goods (see box top of the picture above Cena’s head).

Honestly what more do you want companies to add? Everything is on the box already.

You don’t honestly think if we add more information (what I don’t know) to a box of pop tarts or Pepsi people will stop over consumption of shit food?

It won’t save anything and it will cost consumers money.

No ones is talking about political parties or politics at all here. I don’t really care what party thinks about what in this context.

Try what? More information, information is so easily and readily accessible in this country it’s not even funny. Ignorance is not an excuse.

163

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Really? Show me one package that details the manipulation of food ingredients to spur on food addiction.
[/quote]

Lol

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Even though most of the public does not know of the manipulation by subterfuge?
[/quote]

Lol

164

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

And I would hate for companies to be forced to tell the consumer what is going on with their product. That would be just awful.
[/quote]

THEY DO. IT’s RIGHT ON THE PACKAGE[/quote]

Prefect example. I’m pro the regulation that requires food labeling to show ingredients and macro (or is it micro) breakdowns.

I don’t think that is tyrannical, and I don’t think it places a burden on manufacturers in excess.

But, I think those labels are sufficient to allow consumers to makes informed choices. [/quote]

Even though most of the public does not know of the manipulation by subterfuge?
[/quote]

It is listed, in plain English, on the package what the product contains. And get this, what the mix of salt, sugar, etc is PER SERVING!

165

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

IMO the Reason the Republicans are not in favor of this is because of political contributions and no I am not going to even try and justify it . But an answer that cost $0 and could save big money and no one wants to try it
[/quote]

So… You can’t prove your “opinion” in any way and honestly think people don’t want to do something that costs zero yet will save “billions”?

That might be the dumbest thing I’ve heard all week… But it’s only Tuesday so I’ll reserve that label for now.

All the information a consumer needs is outlined on the package, clearly.

This isn’t complicated stuff. If the human race can make a vehicle that launches people to the moon, and get them home, the vast majority of the population can read a damn food label and determine, for themselves if they want to eat a damn cookie.

166

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM265446.pdf

132 page guideline on what has to be on a food label. I think 132 pages pretty much covers it. [/quote]

you act as though every one has your aptitude , they don’t .

Some people have no concept of what is a good diet , how to count calories or how to balance a diet .

You read it here people maintained a good weight eating shit and they think every one can .

Exercise is important but most figures I hear (and agree with) say it is %70 diet

[/quote]

So let’s just solve the entire problem and have the government give each citizen an approved diet.
[/quote]

Unless it comes rationed out in an amazon box delivered straight to our doors, that won’t work either.[/quote]

No no, much better than that. We’ll just get rid of markets in general and hove State run food stores. You’ll hand the stockperson (who makes $15 an hour) your “APPROVED CITIZEN FOODS LIST” for the month (get’s mailed to you on the 1st of every month) and that stockperson will put your weekly rations in your basket. You then take the basket up to the front counter and the Clearperson stamps your card, no need for cash as the government can just take that out of your pay in “FOOD TAXES”.

Then you can wait in line next Sunday morning and do the same thing.

Problem solved. No more evil Oreo Corporations.
[/quote]

Easier solution. Force companies to tell the truth of their food manipulation and then let the consumer decide.
[/quote]

They are forced to on the food labels that are on the package.

167

Apparently it is on the level of rocket science to understand if a food has a half life of 200 years it just might not be all that good for you. It really is pretty simple; if 90% or more of your food was once alive, it is highly unlikely any health issues will be food related(disregarding the rare food allergy). If the American public is too dumb to understand this without government intervention they deserve whatever maladies come their way. We all know how healthy the government approved food pyramid is.

168

700×417 90.7 KB

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Apparently it is on the level of rocket science to understand if a food has a half life of 200 years it just might not be all that good for you. It really is pretty simple; if 90% or more of your food was once alive, it is highly unlikely any health issues will be food related(disregarding the rare food allergy). If the American public is too dumb to understand this without government intervention they deserve whatever maladies come their way. We all know how healthy the government approved food pyramid is.[/quote]

Here is the thing, the government has already intervened, and has already made this information very simple to digest.

Just look at this label for Cocoa Pebbles:

Serving size_Check
Calories_Check
Fat_Check
Carbs_Check
Cholesterol_Check
Sodium_Check
Protein_Check
Ingredients_Check
Vitamins/minerals_Check
Government recommended amount you should eat daily_Check
*What the % is based on_Check

What else is there to add? A step by step process on how everything was mixed together? What kind of vats, pots, and pan were used during the process?

I’m mean it’s pretty ridiculous to claim the information isn’t out there for everyone to see.

The issue is and will always be over consumption and that goes for everything. If you over consume TV shows you’re probably gonna be a fat ass. Do we need a warning label on TV packages or before every TV show? No, that would be ludicrous.

169

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Apparently it is on the level of rocket science to understand if a food has a half life of 200 years it just might not be all that good for you. It really is pretty simple; if 90% or more of your food was once alive, it is highly unlikely any health issues will be food related(disregarding the rare food allergy). If the American public is too dumb to understand this without government intervention they deserve whatever maladies come their way. We all know how healthy the government approved food pyramid is.[/quote]

Here is the thing, the government has already intervened, and has already made this information very simple to digest.

Just look at this label for Cocoa Pebbles:

Serving size_Check
Calories_Check
Fat_Check
Carbs_Check
Cholesterol_Check
Sodium_Check
Protein_Check
Ingredients_Check
Vitamins/minerals_Check
Government recommended amount you should eat daily_Check
*What the % is based on_Check

What else is there to add? A step by step process on how everything was mixed together? What kind of vats, pots, and pan were used during the process?

I’m mean it’s pretty ridiculous to claim the information isn’t out there for everyone to see.

The issue is and will always be over consumption and that goes for everything. If you over consume TV shows you’re probably gonna be a fat ass. Do we need a warning label on TV packages or before every TV show? No, that would be ludicrous.

[/quote]

It’s fucking ludicrous that “something MUST be done” even though they have already done just what is being asked, lol.

That’s the problem with leftist and statist (but I repeat myself) once government steps in once and doesn’t solve the issue, their bag of tricks is only deep enough to hold one answer: have the government step in some more!

170

1 “previous government intervention and forced disclosure of ingredients and complete macro (micro?) breakdown wasn’t enough.”

2 “we should have a label on the food that tells the consumer just how the product is made”

3 “we already have that”

2 “people are too stupid to understand it”

1 “it needs to have more information”

3 “wouldn’t more information not solve the problem by virtue of person 2 saying ti was too complex already?”

1 & 2 “you’re a stupid republican therefore you can’t be correct about anything”

^this thread

171

Lol, pretty much.

Wtf being a Republican has to do with anything is beyond me.

172

I mean, serious question, what else do you want on the label?

173


WARNING! These cookies are highly addictive and have been manipulated by evil scientists to the bliss point in order to create a population of chubby helots entirely subservient to their corporate robber baron overlords! Abandon hope all who eat these!

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I mean, serious question, what else do you want on the label?[/quote]

174

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
WARNING! These cookies are highly addictive and have been manipulated by evil scientists to the bliss point in order to create a population of chubby helots entirely subservient to their corporate robber baron overlords! Abandon hope all who eat these!

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I mean, serious question, what else do you want on the label?[/quote]
[/quote]

Lol, it’ll be like the labels that were supposed to go on cigarette packages with the fucked up lungs and what not. Cause, you know, there’s no way anyone could possibly know cigarette’s are bad for you, no way.

175

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
WARNING! These cookies are highly addictive and have been manipulated by evil scientists to the bliss point in order to create a population of chubby helots entirely subservient to their corporate robber baron overlords! Abandon hope all who eat these!

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I mean, serious question, what else do you want on the label?[/quote]
[/quote]

Lol, it’ll be like the labels that were supposed to go on cigarette packages with the fucked up lungs and what not. Cause, you know, there’s no way anyone could possibly know cigarette’s are bad for you, no way.[/quote]

We have those labels in Australia. It’s really ridiculous. All cigarettes now have to come in a plain green package without any colours or the brand’s emblem. Because, you know colours make people smoke more. Front and back of package must contain a photograph of a bleeding eyeball, gangrenous foot, cancerous tumour or a little baby with an oxygen mask on. Gore photo must take up 2/3 of the front and back of package.

And this is the most ridiculous part of all: the level of tar and nicotine is no longer allowed to be displayed because the statist quacks decided that smoking strong cigarettes is no different from smoking mild cigarettes and telling people how much tar and nicotine is in a cigarette might lull them into a false sense of security. Additionally the names of cigarettes had to be changed with words like “mild” and “smooth” being banned. This crazy initiative cost the taxpayer literally hundreds of millions of dollars.

176

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
WARNING! These cookies are highly addictive and have been manipulated by evil scientists to the bliss point in order to create a population of chubby helots entirely subservient to their corporate robber baron overlords! Abandon hope all who eat these!

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I mean, serious question, what else do you want on the label?[/quote]
[/quote]

Lol, it’ll be like the labels that were supposed to go on cigarette packages with the fucked up lungs and what not. Cause, you know, there’s no way anyone could possibly know cigarette’s are bad for you, no way.[/quote]

We have those labels in Australia. It’s really ridiculous. All cigarettes now have to come in a plain green package without any colours or the brand’s emblem. Because, you know colours make people smoke more. Front and back of package must contain a photograph of a bleeding eyeball, gangrenous foot, cancerous tumour or a little baby with an oxygen mask on. Gore photo must take up 2/3 of the front and back of package.

And this is the most ridiculous part of all: the level of tar and nicotine is no longer allowed to be displayed because the statist quacks decided that smoking strong cigarettes is no different from smoking mild cigarettes and telling people how much tar and nicotine is in a cigarette might lull them into a false sense of security. Additionally the names of cigarettes had to be changed with words like “mild” and “smooth” being banned. This crazy initiative cost the taxpayer literally hundreds of millions of dollars.[/quote]

Ya, that’s pretty stupid. If I’m not mistaken this was shot down here, but I could be wrong.

177

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
1 “previous government intervention and forced disclosure of ingredients and complete macro (micro?) breakdown wasn’t enough.”

2 “we should have a label on the food that tells the consumer just how the product is made”

3 “we already have that”

2 “people are too stupid to understand it”

1 “it needs to have more information”

3 “wouldn’t more information not solve the problem by virtue of person 2 saying ti was too complex already?”

1 & 2 “you’re a stupid republican therefore you can’t be correct about anything”

^this thread[/quote]

1.) When corporations are manipulating food ingredients with the express purpose to improve their bottom line, damn any externalities, then yes the public has a right to know.

2.) What is wrong with full disclosure if the companies have nothing to hide?
Why do you think food corporations are fighting not to have GMO’s advertised on the label?

3.) We do not have full disclosure.

4.) People don’t have the information so how can they make an informed choice when companies hide their actions?

5.)It’s not that Reps are stupid it’s just that they do not have the public’s interest at heart, they have he corporations interest in mind. After all these are the people who donate to their campaigns.

178

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
How come I can understand that eating chips, candy, and fast food by the bagfuls and drinking soda by the buckets is bad for me but most other people can’t? I can do this without any sort of medical sciences degree too. I can even eat only 1 Lay’s chip. I have to eat at least 2 Doritos however. I did eat some caribou steak once like it was crack. Shit was gooood. I wonder what those furry bastards put in their own meat to make it taste so good? I would know this even if they took the freaking label off the product.

I believe it’s called self control. If you don’t have it or cultivate it and in turn harm your health, too damn bad.[/quote]

Do you think companies spend millions of dollars on food studies not to get a return?

Just because it doesn’t have an effect on you has nothing to do with informing the public of these actions.

179

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

You may have not called me a name but implied that people who want something done by these actions OR the people who came up with the studies as “statists”.

[/quote]

What else to call someone who wants the government to regulate what food we can eat or sell?

Well a socialist might consider it a privilege but I don’t live in a socialist country. Whether or not you do remains to be seen.

It’s not a question of “evidence” it’s a question of interpretation. You consider adding sugar, salt, fat and flavours to food a nefarious plot to turn consumers into addicts. I consider it “cooking.”

Depends what you mean. If by “manipulate” you mean “this stuff tastes like shit; maybe we should add more sugar” then yes, they do “manipulate” ingredients.
[/quote]
So informing the public of these corporate actions is somehow statist?

So selling a product is a right?

And the studies do not show that the addition of salt, sugar, fat are the problems. It’s the manipulation of those ingredients. Read the damn studies!

180

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Really? Show me one package that details the manipulation of food ingredients to spur on food addiction.
[/quote]

Lol

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Even though most of the public does not know of the manipulation by subterfuge?
[/quote]

Lol

[/quote]

The only thing funny here is that you have no viable answers.