Warning Labels on Junk Food

Off Topic
81

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Fair point. I was surprised though once that an older person said they quit smoking after seeing those commercials on TV w/ people speaking through their neck… That said, I doubt the commercials work that much, but makes me wonder how much they actually do work.[/quote]

I smoked regularly in the past, but cut down to the occasional smoke/pack for the past couple years.

After seeing those commercials a few months back, I threw out what I had left and haven’t looked back.[/quote]

cool, thanks for sharing

82

"It also calls for higher taxes on sugary or fatty foods, lower taxes on healthy foods, and restrictions on sales of junk foods in sports venues and other recreational facilities used by children and teenagers. "

So Coke, Pepsi, Mars, Nestle and othe rmajory brands are barred from sports venues?

Hotdog vendors? Burger vendors? Corndog vendors? Nacho vendors?

All create massive tax funds for the government and all have huge legal teams. The food industry outweighs the smoking industry by a huge margin and it has the advantage of being, well, food.

People like food, they want to eat food they want, not food they need. Not all the time anyway so if I want junk food I want it because I like it.

This thought police way of life is becoming more and more ridiculous by the year.

83

Junk food is cheap, in part because of government subsidies help bring down the price of the ingredients put into them.

How about instead of adding more taxes on people, the existing subsidies are removed and the market is allowed to self correct?

84

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The problem is making it seem like food itself is the problem and not SELF FUCKING CONTROL.[/quote]

This is mostly correct.

What needs to be acknowledged is that these packaged junk foods, not unlike cigarettes, have been engineered precisely to fuck with self control.

[/quote]

exactly, many on here don’t seem to want to acknowledge this.

I think also a big culprit that reeally changed our nation is both parents working. Parents don’t often want to take the time to cook nutritious food, rather rely on processed stuff that saves time. [/quote]

Now you have obese parents on welfare with obese kids who apparently can’t afford to eat healthily (vs. the “can’t afford to eat” response), have all the time in the world to cook meals from scratch but have no clue about nutrition.

85

Frankly it’s in Canada so I don’t give a crap. If they want someone to wipe their asses for them then fair enough.

Now if some tard wants to do that here we will have issues.

86

Would diet soda be considered junk food? If they start taxing diet soda I will start randomly punching people in the face, Dr.Pepper is already damn near $6.00.

87

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No doubt a healthier population would benefit society. I just don’t think it’s wise to try and force it through regulation. [/quote]

Serious question, so what should be done? At what point is it completely out of control.[/quote]

I think we should change insurance so only certain things are covered. Gender specific (preventative) exams, catastrophic events, etc…(Basically things that can’t be avoid through proper diet and exercise)

We forget that it’s called INSURANCE for a reason. It’s not meant to cover every single health care cost.

This accomplishes a couple of things:

  1. Puts responsibility and cost in the consumers hand. It’s incentive to be healthy because the healthier you are the less you pay.

  2. Cost will go down because people aren’t going to pay thousands for services that aren’t covered.

  3. Creates competition among providers that will also reduce cost.

88

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think that’s retarded. If humans need to be spoonfed like that just to avoid morbid obesity, what are we saving them for?

Uh, no, I don’t need a warning sign on that bag of cookies. If I want cookies, I have enough sense to not eat them until I become obese.[/quote]

I clicked, this is the second post and it’s wrapped up in this. I agree completely.

89

Labels are deceiving anyway.

My wife and I picked up a particular product at the store, the front of the box said “0 Trans-Fats!”

But when I read the ingredients list on back, it included “Partially-Hydrogenated Soybean Oil”

Motherfuckers get around it anyway!

My lesson: Educate yourself about health and nutrition, avoid processed and packaged food items, buy local produce and meats when you can.

Thank you.

90

I support this move cause

  1. I don’t wanna pay more then my taxes for health care cause some fat fuck has a sugar and fat addiction
  2. Anything that makes healthier food less money is good
  3. We have a problem with people getting fat here. Its getting worst all the time.

It costs money to smoke here or to drink …why not bad food?
People get around it by buying illegal smokes and make there own booze …why not make your own cookies if that is what you like to do.

91

[quote]dirtman wrote:
I support this move cause

  1. I don’t wanna pay more then my taxes for health care cause some fat fuck has a sugar and fat addiction
  2. Anything that makes healthier food less money is good
  3. We have a problem with people getting fat here. Its getting worst all the time.

It costs money to smoke here or to drink …why not bad food?
People get around it by buying illegal smokes and make there own booze …why not make your own cookies if that is what you like to do.[/quote]

The problem is YOU aren’t the one deciding what is labeled healthy. The GOV is, which means protein powder, red meat, eggs, etc…could easily be labeled unhealthy and be taxed. So point 1 & 2 won’t likely happen.

Problems aren’t typically solved by the government and they are certainly not solved via tax. Point 3 won’t likely happen.

92

Dietary Guidelines
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans are jointly issued and updated every 5 years by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). They provide authoritative advice for Americans ages 2 and older about consuming fewer calories, making informed food choices, and being physically active to attain and maintain a healthy weight, reduce risk of chronic disease, and promote overall health.

.What is a “Healthy Diet”?

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans describe a healthy diet as one that:

? Emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products;
? Includes lean meats, poultry, fish, beans, eggs, and nuts; and
? Is low in saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, salt (sodium), and added sugars.

The recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines and in MyPlate are for the general public over 2 years of age. MyPlate is not a therapeutic diet for any specific health condition. Individuals with a chronic health condition should consult with a health care provider to determine what dietary pattern is appropriate for them.

http://www.choosemyplate.gov/dietary-guidelines.html

This is the current guidance, what food would be taxed per this guidance?

The biggest problem I see is the description is lacking so judgment will be used. For example what does “low” mean?

93

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The problem is YOU aren’t the one deciding what is labeled healthy. The GOV is, which means protein powder, red meat, eggs, etc…could easily be labeled unhealthy and be taxed. So point 1 & 2 won’t likely happen.

Problems aren’t typically solved by the government and they are certainly not solved via tax. Point 3 won’t likely happen. [/quote]

I don’t know about protein powder, but I can fucking promise you that red meat and eggs would be targets. They would be pushing lots of veggies and probably tons of carbs and whole grains and shit. These are the people that think low fat, high carb diets are the way to go and that red meat and eggs will basically explode your heart if you look at them the wrong way.

94

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I was surprised though once that an older person said they quit smoking after seeing those commercials on TV w/ people speaking through their neck… [/quote]

A lot of ex-smokers I know (well this one guy) quit when they saw someone die from lung cancer…not a fun way to die…

It’s bizarre though…smoking and eating like a fat ass isn’t something money or failing health is going to impact. I chewed tobacco for 10 years…I couldn’t breathe right, my lips were always chapped, breath was bad, dick wasn’t as hard and still I kept doing it…I always told myself that if I just would start jogging, use chap stick, eat more mints and do more kegels all would be well.

It wasn’t until I went into counseling and worked through some issues (not to sound ghey) that I could finally quit. It’s the same thing for these fat fuckers. Something has to click before they could possibly quit.

95

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think that’s retarded. If humans need to be spoonfed like that just to avoid morbid obesity, what are we saving them for?

Uh, no, I don’t need a warning sign on that bag of cookies. If I want cookies, I have enough sense to not eat them until I become obese.[/quote]

Concur.

Plus, taxes are for raising necessary money for the government, not controlling or rewarding behavior.[/quote]

But poor health in society is a cost we all end up bearing thanks to how our government spends the money.

A healthier society ultimately lowers the tax burden.[/quote]

That’s what the government are saying now that obesity is a problem. You need to weigh that (no pun intended) against the decades of revenue the government has gained from the fast food culture they’ve helped to nurture. It was pretty fucking convenient while it lasted, like smoking. [/quote]

Incidentally, since you used smoking as an example - some years ago when the government significantly raised taxes on cigarettes in Ontario under one of the guises of deterring people from smoking for health reasons, something else actually happened. The people became outraged and those people either started buying their cigarettes on the native reserves or they bought stolen cigarettes. Nobody quit smoking, they just tried to find way to still smoke and not pay as much. I wonder if people would be as pissed off about their twinkies and pepsi? [/quote]

I think so:

I added smoking b/c there are similarities. If they taxed sugar people would just seek out cheaper alternatives. That doesn’t mean less sugar but less of what is considered healthy in junk food.

Junk gets junkier. Asses are covered. Coffers and coffins keep on filling. [/quote]

That video is hilarious save for the fact that there are small children there.

There are many similarities with smoking. When I used to smoke, I bought cigarettes for $20 a carton. I wasn’t going to pay over $60. When ephedra was banned, I still got it. It was out of the secret stash in the health store that only a few knew about but I still got it. Look at The Boston Tea Party, for example. If you push people enough in one direction, they will push back and become defiant and find a way to get what they want anyhow.

With new guidelines in place courtesy of the government, nothing will change much except they have a new place to take money from.

96

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No doubt a healthier population would benefit society. I just don’t think it’s wise to try and force it through regulation. [/quote]

Serious question, so what should be done? At what point is it completely out of control.[/quote]

I think we should change insurance so only certain things are covered. Gender specific (preventative) exams, catastrophic events, etc…(Basically things that can’t be avoid through proper diet and exercise)

We forget that it’s called INSURANCE for a reason. It’s not meant to cover every single health care cost.

This accomplishes a couple of things:

  1. Puts responsibility and cost in the consumers hand. It’s incentive to be healthy because the healthier you are the less you pay.

  2. Cost will go down because people aren’t going to pay thousands for services that aren’t covered.

  3. Creates competition among providers that will also reduce cost.

[/quote]

IMO you have raised some of the best points in the thread. Insurance was initially meant for only catastrophic events and a few other things you had mentioned. Not for people that take no responsibility for their own health and want a pill to counter whatever bad behaviors they’ve accumulated over the years.

97

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think that’s retarded. If humans need to be spoonfed like that just to avoid morbid obesity, what are we saving them for?

Uh, no, I don’t need a warning sign on that bag of cookies. If I want cookies, I have enough sense to not eat them until I become obese.[/quote]

^This. People know meth will rot them from the inside and completely ruin and probably end their lives yet many still choose to use it. A warning label telling people they will get fat from eating junk food(and if anyone doesn’t know this by now, they deserve and should be required to stroke out so they cannot pass on their genetic material)will not do a damn bit of good.

98

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
IMO you have raised some of the best points in the thread. Insurance was initially meant for only catastrophic events and a few other things you had mentioned. Not for people that take no responsibility for their own health and want a pill to counter whatever bad behaviors they’ve accumulated over the years.[/quote]

Can someone confirm or deny that forcing the insurance companies to insure someone with a “pre-existing condition” is assinine? If you have just been diagnosed with cancer why would I insure you? Isn’t it the same fucking thing as if I just crashed my car and now I want you to insure it?

99

I watched a special on Utzi the Iceman Mummy last night and was surprised to learn that, despite only being in his 40’s and presumably eating “paleo”, he still had heart disease.

100

[quote]sen say wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
IMO you have raised some of the best points in the thread. Insurance was initially meant for only catastrophic events and a few other things you had mentioned. Not for people that take no responsibility for their own health and want a pill to counter whatever bad behaviors they’ve accumulated over the years.[/quote]

Can someone confirm or deny that forcing the insurance companies to insure someone with a “pre-existing condition” is assinine? If you have just been diagnosed with cancer why would I insure you? Isn’t it the same fucking thing as if I just crashed my car and now I want you to insure it?[/quote]

Can you imagine how expensive auto insurance would be if the government forced insurance companies to sell you full coverage insurance after you crashed your car?