Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
Tue Sep 16, 2014, 04:43 PM Sep 2014

Ban the sale and advertisement of high-sugar foods to minors?

People form their tastes and eating habits in childhood, so it's not much of a shock that people who grow up guzzling sugared soda and eating junk food tend to keep doing that in adulthood (at least until medical necessity stops them) while people who grow up eating better mostly don't develop bad habits later. So...how about banning the direct sale and advertisement of high-sugar foods and beverages to minors?

Parents would still have the right to buy it for their children as a treat or reward now and then, and degenerates who don't care at all about their kids would still have the "freedom" to screw them up out of laziness. But if kids couldn't buy it themselves, weren't brainwashed by ads during their TV shows to want it, and if parents were occasionally reminded to think about the subject by having to actively give consent, that could have a meaningful effect on typical diets and subsequent benefits for the cost of healthcare over time.

Plus it wouldn't really limit freedom - all you'd be doing is stopping corporations from exploiting the problem, not putting any major roadblock in the way of kids experiencing the joys of ice cream, cold soda on a hot day, etc. etc. So it wouldn't be a Prohibition with the attendant perverse incentives - kids could still possess sugared foods - it would just be a business regulation.


11 votes, 3 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Yes, but wouldn't go far enough.
0 (0%)
Yes, sounds on target.
1 (9%)
No, but less drastic regulations would be good.
10 (91%)
No. Business should not be regulated for public health reasons.
0 (0%)
Need more information to draw conclusions.
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
70 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ban the sale and advertisement of high-sugar foods to minors? (Original Post) True Blue Door Sep 2014 OP
I'm sorry Feral Child Sep 2014 #1
So you're against cigarette age limits and restaurant health codes too? True Blue Door Sep 2014 #4
You are equating a candy bar to cigarette sales and restaurant health codes? former9thward Sep 2014 #8
Either it's legitimate to regulate business for public health reasons or not. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #13
No the nanny state implies unreasonable regulation. former9thward Sep 2014 #27
But you haven't argued that it's unreasonable. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #33
I did argue that it was unreasonable. former9thward Sep 2014 #45
That's a "gotcha" argument Feral Child Sep 2014 #20
Will I need ID to buy Cocoa Puffs? LittleBlue Sep 2014 #2
"Nanny state" is a thought-terminating cliche. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #5
I don't need an impressive argument LittleBlue Sep 2014 #11
But I'm not talking to "the majority of Americans," or Congress, or food lobbyists. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #14
How many different ways can I put this? LittleBlue Sep 2014 #63
"Nanny state" Boreal Sep 2014 #47
we all bear the costs of the obesity epidemic grasswire Sep 2014 #3
Getting rid of the corn subsidies that led to HFC would be a start. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #6
^This^ jen63 Sep 2014 #9
What I've read is that natural cane sugar induces fewer pancreatic problems True Blue Door Sep 2014 #16
The older I get the more I crave veggies. jen63 Sep 2014 #29
Yep, it does pretty horrible things to people. Like cigarettes, people will eventually realize that. Chathamization Sep 2014 #32
What if we installed little cameras and sensors on everyone? Oktober Sep 2014 #7
Is there a Rand Paul convention going on here that no one warned me about? True Blue Door Sep 2014 #17
It's amazing that everyone who disagrees with your nanny state idea... Oktober Sep 2014 #19
It would be questionable enough to use "nanny-state" rhetoric at all. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #34
Add fox news viewer to the list... Oktober Sep 2014 #50
I'm fine with banning marketing to children ... surrealAmerican Sep 2014 #10
1st paragraph pulled from your ass. 2nd paragraph is elitist tripe. 3rd paragraph is just wrong. Throd Sep 2014 #12
That's an amazing impression of a Tea Party tweet. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #18
Are you always this obnoxious to others Boreal Sep 2014 #48
If you think it sounds extreme, you should watch this documentary: Marr Sep 2014 #15
so we raise children with the idea that breaking the law is bad dembotoz Sep 2014 #21
Not reading the OP before commenting on it: Stupid, stupid, stupid. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #35
We don't need a nanny state badtoworse Sep 2014 #22
We don't need right-wing sockpuppet trolls flooding a Democratic website either. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #36
You're getting your ass handed to you in this thread badtoworse Sep 2014 #55
Classy. IronGate Sep 2014 #67
No. IronGate Sep 2014 #23
Our gov't *SUBSIDIZES* the production of HFCS through our Agriculture policy. Look deeper. nt Romulox Sep 2014 #24
The American diet turned a corner about 7 years ago, without any such regulations. KurtNYC Sep 2014 #25
And a healthy, kickass First Family no doubt has an influence, too! randome Sep 2014 #30
The article's behind a paywall. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #39
it wasn't paywall yesterday but I see it is now KurtNYC Sep 2014 #54
I'd be fine with banning the advertising. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2014 #26
Why would it be going too far? True Blue Door Sep 2014 #38
Because 'high sugar foods' covers a hell of a lot of territory, and is 'fudgeable'. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2014 #70
Let's just rip out people's taste buds at birth. WinkyDink Sep 2014 #28
If parents were in the habit of giving kids jen63 Sep 2014 #31
Let's just legalize selling crystal meth to 5-year-olds. Since we don't want a Nanny State. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #37
Now that is one dumbass reply. IronGate Sep 2014 #68
A diabetic child might need that candy bar in an emergency. DebJ Sep 2014 #40
LOL. They might also need a cigarette in an emergency. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #42
Do you have children? I raised two children by myself for twenty years. DebJ Sep 2014 #43
Then by implication you think people whose kids do develop "substance" problems are negligent scum. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #44
You're usiang strawmans Boreal Sep 2014 #49
I'm a Type 1 diabetic who has had about 8 seizures from hypoglycemia LittleBlue Sep 2014 #65
This message was self-deleted by its author DebJ Sep 2014 #41
I say ban advertising not sales. alp227 Sep 2014 #46
It would be more effective to ban high-fructose corn syrup in all foods. Ken Burch Sep 2014 #51
Banning an addictive substance jambo101 Sep 2014 #52
While we are at it.. sendero Sep 2014 #56
I dont like the idea but jambo101 Sep 2014 #59
Anybody... sendero Sep 2014 #60
No. This is ridiculous. RedCappedBandit Sep 2014 #53
Maybe. LWolf Sep 2014 #57
I say yes only because bigwillq Sep 2014 #58
!!! linuxman Sep 2014 #61
Didn't you mean save me from Bloomberg? badtoworse Sep 2014 #62
. linuxman Sep 2014 #64
No. The punishment wouldn't fit the crime. ZombieHorde Sep 2014 #66
Interesting. Savannahmann Sep 2014 #69

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
1. I'm sorry
Tue Sep 16, 2014, 05:39 PM
Sep 2014

but this is the very definition of nanny-state.

Really, making the sale of a candy-bar to a child illegal is simply ridiculous. The enforcement problems alone are staggering.

Maybe we should just teach them proper nutrition in school, supplemented by pediatrician administered training to parents.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
4. So you're against cigarette age limits and restaurant health codes too?
Tue Sep 16, 2014, 07:53 PM
Sep 2014

Or only against common sense where previous generations didn't already do the political heavy lifting?

former9thward

(32,200 posts)
8. You are equating a candy bar to cigarette sales and restaurant health codes?
Tue Sep 16, 2014, 08:13 PM
Sep 2014

Talk about a lack of common sense....

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
13. Either it's legitimate to regulate business for public health reasons or not.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 01:16 AM
Sep 2014

The "nanny state" bullshit comment implied that it's not.

former9thward

(32,200 posts)
27. No the nanny state implies unreasonable regulation.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 10:44 AM
Sep 2014

You have a one size fits all mentality where no regulation can ever be improper. Regulating candy bars would be crazy.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
33. But you haven't argued that it's unreasonable.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 11:31 PM
Sep 2014

You're just arguing from conservatism that something that isn't current policy, and isn't currently being debated by powerful individuals or institutions, must be "radical." That is crazy and backward.

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
20. That's a "gotcha" argument
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 08:34 AM
Sep 2014

and I generally refuse to entertain such tactics.

In this case, I'll counter by asking what mechanism you propose to enforce your restrictions.

Are we going to have "sign-for" lists, like the silly requirements for the purchase of pseudophedrine? Those have proven to be totally ineffective in stemming the availability of methamphetamine and are only a politically show to hoodwink the public into thinking the War on Drugs has any validity.

Will we require purchasers to show identification to prove that a purchase of a Snickers bar is lawful?

Will parents who purchase candies legally and then pass them on to their children be prosecuted and lose their ID/licenses?

Are episodes of "Cops" to focus on the interdiction of sucrose-smugglers?

Should we increase police patrols during Halloween, Christmas and Easter to squelch the trade? Should the constabulary set up roadblocks and stop-and-frisk tactics be used?

Don't you think that perhaps the volume of sales of sugary treats might prove logistically that such laws are unenforcible? Aren't there enough behavior restrictions on the books to satisfy you?

Where is the revenue going to come from to pay for the investigations and prosecution of illicit treat vendors?

We have more important concerns facing us than chasing down candy-pushers.

I'm sorry, but this entire discussion is just silly.

Schools and pediatricians can educate the public on healthy eating habits. Schools and recreational facilities should attempt to provide sufficient exercise to counter indulgence.

Get a grip.

OK, I'm done with this. If the Overly-Concerned want to waste their time crusading for a sugar prohibition, have at it. I've indulged you enough and won't address the ridiculous any further.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
5. "Nanny state" is a thought-terminating cliche.
Tue Sep 16, 2014, 07:56 PM
Sep 2014

Used by people to describe any government measure they find personally inconvenient, regardless of common sense.

You can argue that it isn't justified in this case, but if your one and only basis is that you might be inconvenienced in some way...yeah, not an impressive argument.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
11. I don't need an impressive argument
Tue Sep 16, 2014, 08:57 PM
Sep 2014

I have what I want. You need the impressive argument to convince the majority of Americans to support something like this. And get it past lobbying groups from food corporations.

Don't hold your breath, this isn't Norway.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
14. But I'm not talking to "the majority of Americans," or Congress, or food lobbyists.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 01:17 AM
Sep 2014

I'm one person talking to a few others. You might think conversations among citizens are less important than things debated in Congress. I say what the people discuss and conclude is infinitely more important.

You've taken a position, now defend it. I've made my arguments, and you've done nothing to dispute them or offer your own. So your two options are to concede that I'm right (either explicitly or by refusing to offer substantive arguments), or to show me where I'm wrong.

"Nanny state" is some bullshit label made up by conservatives because they don't like any kind of government more rational than bloodline monarchies and military dictatorships. It has no place in progressive discussions.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
63. How many different ways can I put this?
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 10:31 AM
Sep 2014

I don't want it. It's too intrusive. I don't need to defend it because it's not a serious debate. Look at your poll results. You posted this question on the site most likely to be receptive to your beliefs, and even they don't want it.

Looks like I'm not the only one who finds it nanny state. It is big brother intrusion into something they have no business controlling, and for that reason I don't want it. I oppose a national ID system and DNA database for the same reason. Why does it need to be more complicated than that?

 

Boreal

(725 posts)
47. "Nanny state"
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 02:06 AM
Sep 2014

has nothing to do with convenient or inconvenient. It means control freaks make all of the decisions for your life from cradle to grave.

So, what are your control freak plans for Halloween?

lol

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
3. we all bear the costs of the obesity epidemic
Tue Sep 16, 2014, 07:51 PM
Sep 2014

It's about the same idea as our health systems bearing the costs of cigarette smoking.

I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps taxing high-sugar foods just like we tax tobacco and booze.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
6. Getting rid of the corn subsidies that led to HFC would be a start.
Tue Sep 16, 2014, 07:57 PM
Sep 2014

Or at least only leaving trade-related subsidies to counteract commodity dumping.

jen63

(813 posts)
9. ^This^
Tue Sep 16, 2014, 08:39 PM
Sep 2014

We've all been hoodwinked. It's in everything. My grandfather was a doctor and he used to call sugar and white flour "the white death". Bleach the wheat then try to add the vitamins back in. "Fortify it", when it was already fortified before they bleached it! Crazy. We're catching on though and that's a great thing. HFC syrups aren't recognized by the body like real sugar is, which leads to the vicious cycle of craving more and more. I've given it up before and once the initial withdrawal is done, I didn't miss it like I thought I would.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
16. What I've read is that natural cane sugar induces fewer pancreatic problems
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 01:39 AM
Sep 2014

but just as many liver problems, because the liver creates the same long-term toxic byproducts out of both.

Best policy is to avoid both in regular eating. And second-best is to eat a fuckton of vegetable fiber right after you do eat sugared treats.

jen63

(813 posts)
29. The older I get the more I crave veggies.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 12:19 PM
Sep 2014

I like a good steak, don't get me wrong and I do like sweets, but I can make a meal out of a baked sweet potato and a head of broccoli. Heaven!

Chathamization

(1,638 posts)
32. Yep, it does pretty horrible things to people. Like cigarettes, people will eventually realize that.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 01:13 PM
Sep 2014

A couple of decades ago people would never card you if you bought cigarettes, and you could still buy them from vending machines. Outlawing indoor smoking was seen as crazy. It always is difficult to get people to appreciate health risks when they aren’t used to paying attention to them. Once they do, however, it looks like recognizing the risks and taking action against them was the obvious choice.

 

Oktober

(1,488 posts)
7. What if we installed little cameras and sensors on everyone?
Tue Sep 16, 2014, 08:09 PM
Sep 2014

We could monitor intake of all food, drugs, alcohol etc...

Once you reach your allotment, the sensor can buzz and if you keep eating it moves onto shocks.

You could even fine the food companies and make them pay for it...

Think of how healthy everyone would be and how much money the government would save!

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
17. Is there a Rand Paul convention going on here that no one warned me about?
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 01:43 AM
Sep 2014

You sound like the people who mutter about "Big Gubmint" when told not to street race around elementary schools.

 

Oktober

(1,488 posts)
19. It's amazing that everyone who disagrees with your nanny state idea...
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 06:35 AM
Sep 2014

... Is an obvious Randite tea party member.

Even your poll questions are skewed to one side because you can't conceive that you might be wrong.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
34. It would be questionable enough to use "nanny-state" rhetoric at all.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 11:43 PM
Sep 2014

But to rely completely on it as the sum total of your thoughts on an idea that was supported with actual arguments - yeah, that's Fox News commentator behavior.

You still haven't made a single argument against the idea. You just say "nanny-state" like a magical incantation that should totally dispel any attempt to think about or discuss it.

So if you're not a conservative, you clearly spend too much time around them.

 

Oktober

(1,488 posts)
50. Add fox news viewer to the list...
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 04:47 AM
Sep 2014

The points are all there, you just can't seem to grasp the idea that anyone might disagree with you...

Subtlety and nuance obviously aren't for you. I'll be sure to put everything in a power point presentation with bullets and animation next time.

surrealAmerican

(11,372 posts)
10. I'm fine with banning marketing to children ...
Tue Sep 16, 2014, 08:53 PM
Sep 2014

... not just of unhealthy food, but of anything. Children could be spared the advertising. They are not adequately educated to understand the difference between information and coercion.

There's no need for sales restrictions. They would not only be ineffective (what percentage of food do children purchase for themselves vs. what their parents purchase?), but it would keep children from developing their own sense of value and ability to conduct their own commerce.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
18. That's an amazing impression of a Tea Party tweet.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 01:48 AM
Sep 2014

Now do "Democrat expressing intelligent thoughts."

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
15. If you think it sounds extreme, you should watch this documentary:
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 01:31 AM
Sep 2014


Marketing these calorie-dense, non-nutritious foods to kids is not unlike advertising cigarettes to them. Kids are incredibly susceptible to advertising.

I don't know about banning the sale of these products to kids, but I'd absolutely support a ban on advertising them to children.

dembotoz

(16,869 posts)
21. so we raise children with the idea that breaking the law is bad
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 08:50 AM
Sep 2014

and then we produce bull shit like this that will make so many kids into
habitual law breakers

stupid
stupid
stupid

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
55. You're getting your ass handed to you in this thread
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 08:02 AM
Sep 2014

Is everyone who disagrees with you a right wing sockpuppet?

 

IronGate

(2,186 posts)
67. Classy.
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 10:59 AM
Sep 2014

You're getting slammed for your ridiculous, nanny state OP, and you accuse those of us that take you to task of being RW sock puppet trolls?
Enjoy your stay.

 

IronGate

(2,186 posts)
23. No.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 09:47 AM
Sep 2014

That's the parents job to teach what's good for their kids, not the govts.

Screw this nanny state mentality.

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
25. The American diet turned a corner about 7 years ago, without any such regulations.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 10:04 AM
Sep 2014

I think part of your OP assumes that people are not making efforts to eat healthier but statistic don't show that:

The consumption of soda is declining steadily and is now lower than it was in the year 1980.

75%+ consumer report buying at least one organic food product in the last 60 days.

Working-age adults consumed an average of 118 fewer calories a day in the 2009-10 period than four years earlier. -USDA

Sales of cereal are way down.

The drivers appear to be:
- bad economy triggered less eating of fast food and restaurant meals
- more information for consumers on calories and options
- more emphasis on cooking and the quality of food
- more healthy options with the expansion of farmers markets, local food, and backyard gardens

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304149404579323092916490748

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
30. And a healthy, kickass First Family no doubt has an influence, too!
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 12:21 PM
Sep 2014

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
39. The article's behind a paywall.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 11:51 PM
Sep 2014

Anyway, I haven't seen evidence of childhood obesity declining, and I don't think you'd find many pediatricians who are satisfied that information campaigns are resolving the problem.

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
54. it wasn't paywall yesterday but I see it is now
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 07:59 AM
Sep 2014

Here are other sources on the changes Americans are making:

Soda sales decline to record lows:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-31/coca-cola-sales-decline-health-concerns-spur-relaunch

Sales of cereal declining -- replaced by yogurt, bagels, fruit and smoothies:
http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/cereal-sales-remain-soggy-posing-big-challenge-brands-160063

"McDonald’s Sees Biggest Sales Drop in a Decade"
http://time.com/3311608/mcdonalds-sales/

I've got ten more if you want them...

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
70. Because 'high sugar foods' covers a hell of a lot of territory, and is 'fudgeable'.
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 05:20 PM
Sep 2014

I think it would be a logistical nightmare to have every single place that sells 'high sugar foods' separate everything out, update their computer systems, and track what is and is not 'high' sugar. Right now, it's pretty simple - anything with alcohol is alcohol, regardless of percentage/proof. Anything with tobacco is tobacco.

But you try to define some arbitrary cut-off and you'll have every food manufacture in the country screaming at Congress, as well as pulling all sorts of tricks to get around it. Is it 'high' based on total amount of sugar per serving, or per sold item? Make the package smaller. Maybe your kids are eating twice the recommended 'serving size', at which point they're eating 'high' even though the product is 'low' and doesn't require an ID. Or maybe the manufacturer simply chops the 'serving size' to skate underneath the 'high' point. Or say you try to make it based on percentage calories from sugars. Fine, the manufacturer shoves in more fats, making it even more unhealthy, but dropping the percentage of calories from sugars.

jen63

(813 posts)
31. If parents were in the habit of giving kids
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 12:33 PM
Sep 2014

healthy food, their taste buds would be acclimated to them instead of chicken nuggets and mac and cheese. I'm for limiting marketing toward kids, but not for banning food. I know so many parents who fix two meals every evening; one for them and one for the kids who think that stuff is yucky. It's ridiculous. My nephew was over one weekend and I told him we were having spaghetti. He said, "I like spaghetti, I just don't like the sauce." Wtf?? What kid doesn't like spaghetti?

I also think this is what the push back of the First Lady's lunch program is about. Parents are mad that their kids don't like the food, because they've never fixed healthy food for their kids in the first place.

I put a plate of food in front of my kid when he was little and didn't say a word about "eating your veggies", he just knew I assumed he was going to eat them. As an adult, he'll try anything now. The last time he was home and I cooked for him he wanted fresh salmon, a baked sweet potato and asparagus.

DebJ

(7,699 posts)
40. A diabetic child might need that candy bar in an emergency.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 11:52 PM
Sep 2014

And are you saying that parents cannot successfully control their children's diet themselves? How absurd.

Better to be 'pro' fruits and vegetables in advertising; to change policies so as to make these things cheaper than junk food, etc.

Best way to get someone to do something is to make it illegal.

I don't think a war on sugar would work.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
42. LOL. They might also need a cigarette in an emergency.
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 11:57 PM
Sep 2014

No, really, it's physically possible - suppose their heart rate gets too low; nicotine could, conceivably, help. Ipso facto preventing children from having cigarettes is bad.

Are you saying parents can't successfully stop their children from having cigarettes? Pshaw!

In fact, parents should be able to stop their kids from having anything, including crystal meth. We don't need no stinkin' meth prohibition. Sell it in 7-11 right next to the Twix. Hell, put it in the Twix.

Dirty Nanny State! Dirty Big Gubmint! I want my tax cuts!

DebJ

(7,699 posts)
43. Do you have children? I raised two children by myself for twenty years.
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 12:11 AM
Sep 2014

They have great eating and health habits. No cigarettes, minimal junk food, daughter is an athlete and a DEA agent, no drug use.
And I had to work 12 hour shifts or two jobs for many of those years, with no family around to help and no helpful neighbors around.

My son has suffered terribly with bipolar disorder all his life, so believe me, there were behavioral issues.

But food? Drugs? Nope.

Wasn't difficult. Just took education and leading by example.

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
44. Then by implication you think people whose kids do develop "substance" problems are negligent scum.
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 12:35 AM
Sep 2014

And by further implication, that punishing those parents with the negative outcomes of their children's lives is more important than social action to prevent it.

This thread is literally being flooded with conservative psychology.

 

Boreal

(725 posts)
49. You're usiang strawmans
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 02:22 AM
Sep 2014

putting words in people's mouths, accusing people of being teabaggers because they don't agree with your control freak personality disorder, and arguing for the hell of it. That's called TROLLING.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
65. I'm a Type 1 diabetic who has had about 8 seizures from hypoglycemia
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 10:39 AM
Sep 2014

We rely on fast food places and convenience stores in emergencies. I did when I was a kid and do today. 1 in 20 of us still die from hypoglycemia even with this convenience.

Why are you LOLing at that?

Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

alp227

(32,089 posts)
46. I say ban advertising not sales.
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 02:00 AM
Sep 2014

While it shouldn't be illegal for parents to feed their kids candy or whatever, candy shouldn't be marketed to impressionable young minds.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
51. It would be more effective to ban high-fructose corn syrup in all foods.
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 04:56 AM
Sep 2014

IIRC, one of the main causes of the obesity epidemic has been the replacement of sugar by HFCS in soft drinks and other products.

jambo101

(797 posts)
52. Banning an addictive substance
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 06:41 AM
Sep 2014

If curbing a nations addiction to sugar is meant to decrease the medical costs of a nation of obese diabetics and all the tax dollars going to support the maladies that come with that condition, then it sounds reasonable to make efforts to curb the situation and starting with an effort to diminish the youngs dietary propensity to load up on sugary products would be a logical course of action.

sendero

(28,552 posts)
56. While we are at it..
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 08:08 AM
Sep 2014

.... let's ban bacon, hamburgers, hot dogs, fried chicken and on and on and on. These kinds of goofy ideas are what makes it easy for Repugs to paint "liberals" as mush brained morons. There is NOT a legislative solution to every damn problem.

NO. No one shred of good in this idea.

jambo101

(797 posts)
59. I dont like the idea but
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 09:30 AM
Sep 2014

This nation has a serious problem with its normal diet which is loaded with sugar,While I'm not for banning sugar i certainly would be in favor of curtailing its over use..
You can do nothing about it and have your tax dollars going to support the economic consequences of addiction to sugar or you can try to minimize the problem, through education and measures to reduce sugar in the American diet.?
As for banning bacon, hamburgers, hot dogs, fried chicken etc.For many this is the entirety of their dietary lifestyle,Fatty meat smothered in cheese wrapped in bread with a side of something deep fried and a bucket of fizzy sugar water,
Banning might be a step too far but Educating people on the nutritional negatives of these products would be a step in the right direction

sendero

(28,552 posts)
60. Anybody...
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 10:17 AM
Sep 2014

.... that wants to know does know that living on a diet of fats and refined carbs is not healthy.

It is not a matter of education it is a matter of will IMHO. And for the poorest among us, it is matter of economics, those foods provide the cheapest calories available.

"Bans" of anything, alcohol, cocaine, pot, anything at all that people want, have a long and clear history of failure anyway.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
57. Maybe.
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 08:18 AM
Sep 2014

Maybe one of several efforts.

First of all, return working kitchens to schools, where FRESH food is cooked on site daily. Ban pre-prepared, over-processed junk food from school menus and ban junk drinks and junk foods from vending machines at schools. Remove most of the sugar from the ingredient list...start with chocolate milk.

Some sort of stronger regulation about what sort of food can be offered at school outside of the cafeteria might be interesting to explore. Of course, that's just me wishing that parents would quit dropping off sugar for every birthday, and that colleagues would quit using candy for rewards.

Some public service announcements touting fresh, healthy food could be helpful.

It would be nice if we could simply ban over-processed "food" products altogether, but that's unrealistic. Maybe some sort of subsidy to encourage HEALTHY or healthier fast food restaurants, if that's not an oxymoron.

 

bigwillq

(72,790 posts)
58. I say yes only because
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 09:22 AM
Sep 2014

if they are going to control and tax other harmful products, then they need to control and tax them all.

I personally don't feel they should ban the sale and advertisement of high-sugar foods to minors, but think harmful products should be controlled and taxed equally.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
66. No. The punishment wouldn't fit the crime.
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 10:49 AM
Sep 2014

Every law is an excuse to hurt people. That is really all a law is, so I think we should be much more careful about the laws we make.

I didn't see that option in the poll.

 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
69. Interesting.
Thu Sep 18, 2014, 11:04 AM
Sep 2014

You assume that children wouldn't eat candy unless it was advertised. Apparently, you're unaware of any history. In the days of the Old West, when traveling to town for farmers or ranchers was something you might do once a week, in the summer, probably far less often, candy was still in demand by children. Here's the thing, it tastes good. Prior to the "old west" the children still would stare wantonly at the candy display in the stores along the streets of the cities. Children didn't need to be told that Candy tasted good. One taste was all they needed.

This goes back to the era of Columbus, when Christopher sent back Sugar Cane, which was the sweetest thing Europe had ever had. Before Sugar Cane, the only sweet they had was fruits, and honey. We humans are biologically predestined to like sweet.

Now, you can blame the advertisements for this biological fact. You can ignore the long history of sweet and how people just plain like it. You can ignore the mystery of taste and how people respond to it. Bitter, pungent, sweet, and sour. The acquired tastes, the tastes we're born with.

Blame the advertisers, pretend that if you stop advertising the products, the children will suddenly stop wanting sweets. Some would call it noble. I would call it a waste of time, energy, and resources, but it's your time, your energy, and your resources. Me? I say no.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ban the sale and advertis...