Food police. Do you want them?

[Strong Atheist]

Poll question: Food police. Do you want them?

They can bite me.

x(

Based on recent threads, though, it seems that we are machines with no free will and no will power, unable to make our own decisions; programmed to slavishly do whatever food corporations program us to do.



http://www.nowpublic.com/food-police-no-doughnuts-seniors-not

http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/09/cupcake-crackdown-have-the-food-police-gone-t.html

http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/09/the-cupcake-controversy-lives-on.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/what_will_they_ban_next.html


Cupcakes, doughnuts, trans fat, splenda, the hits for "food police" are myriad. Which of your favorite foods will be outlawed next?


Do you want the government (federal, state, local, whatever) telling you that you can't eat things you have been eating all your life? I don't, I like to be able to CHOOSE what I eat (thought we were the party of 'choice'; silly me). It is MY body; what I eat does not directly impact the health of others (like secondhand smoke does). However, It seems that not everyone wants me (and you) to be able to choose what they eat. They would prefer that that power be legislated by rotating, whimsical bureaucracies. What say you?

[dhpgetsit]

1. Are you advocating against the FDA or something?

[Strong Atheist]

4. Nah, against food choices being taken away from us by legislation based on what some

busybody thinks; because they know better than I do what I should be eating. Do a search on "Kessler" in here in GD for more on that...

[MissMarple]

130. Perhaps "nudges" could provide a better approach.

I'm listening to the audio version of the book "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness". Right now we are nudged by the major food corporations and restaurant chains, a little strategic nudging in the other direction could be appropriate.

http://nudges.wordpress.com/

http://www.nudges.org/

[Strong Atheist]

158. "Nudging" would be ok if it did not take choices away. That is the point

of the OP; I want my choices kept intact...

[MissMarple]

179. That's what nudging is all about. And improving the quality of the "choices" is a good thing.

You are nudged every day, and not always toward choices that are in your best interest. McDonald's doesn't care about you, it just wants you to buy it's "food" for their profitability and not for your health. Hamburgers and french fries are not "evil", it's just that many of them are of highly questionable nutrition and can actually be very bad for you. Do you really have a choice there? IMHO Twinkies are dreck, but whipped cream frosting on and egg enriched yellow cake with lemon curd between the layers is not. I promise. :)

So eat the occasional Twinkie or the the chicken fried in lard. Personally, I'd go with the chicken, organic free range, with a light layer of organic bread crumbs seasoned with grey sea salt and freshly ground pepper. But that is not usually a choice I am allowed at KFC. I'd probably have to do the frying myself.

If food were of generally good quality and healthy for the most part, this would be an entirely different world. And there would be no need for "food police".

[TxRider]

299. Ohh the givernment will dictate our food... It's all about rights.

Your rights end where they start affecting me.

If I have to pay for your health care, I should rightfully have a say in your health, and bad eating habits are a very big aspect of health care costs...

This is the right wings #1 argument against government health care.

That if a person pays for your health care that person then should have a say in your lifestyle.

[Strong Atheist]

313. Well, something in that equation is wrong, don'tcha think? nt.

[omega minimo]

348. Don't be a baby. Government has always made health recommendations. Say what you're talking about

without telling people to go figure it out for you. It's your OP.

You may be talking about things -- like trans fats -- that health conscious professionals have been warning about for decades. Or not. Who knows? You won't say.

"Food police." :eyes: This sort of cliche post suggests another cliche which is people who have no concern for the health consequences of what they eat and act like spoiled brats when they are forced to even be AWARE.

You're probably not like that. Who knows :shrug:

[Strong Atheist]

365. Actually. I have been clear. People just assume that there is more to what I have said than

what I actually did say. It is even a simple idea. I do not want governments legislating what I am and am not allowed to eat.

Clear enough?

[omega minimo]

371. No. What are you talking about?

Who's legislating what? The government already legislates food safety like how many rat turds are allowed in your candy bar and toxic solvents are generally left out of pudding pops.

[Usrename]

375. Maybe he wants to eat heroin, I don't have a clue either.

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

377. Some people LIKE MTBE in their water.

:shrug:

[Strong Atheist]

396. This post was inspired by other posts here that want to take various foods away from

people.

Still not simple enough?


I am getting to the point where it is getting hard to put it into smaller words...

[NeedleCast]

8. I can't speak for the OP but I doubt it

There have been quite a few posts recently, many by a single OP, regarding eating in this country and how she thinks that the government needs to step in to regulate things like portion size in restaurants because poor, dumb 'Murkins can't be left to their own devices to eat healthy. I'm guessing from comments by the OP in those threads that this is what prompted this post.

I tend to agree that asking the government to create PSAs and to impose portion size control on restaurants is more than a little ridiculous.

[Lorien]

311. Seems like it. Good ol' free market Libertarianism!

:puke:

Talk about a Push Poll!

[Strong Atheist]

314. Eh, I am speaking for myself, alone. Don't like to be ordered on what I

can and can not eat.


Talk about :puke:

[HopeHoops]

2. They need to outlaw fig newtons.

I can eat a whole damn sleeve of those things in one sitting and MAN does that play hell with "regularity". SAVE ME - SOMEBODY! AAAAARRRGGHHH!!!!

"Honey, can you bring me another roll of toilet paper?"
:hurts:

[Strong Atheist]

6. Save you? From yourself?

Ya can't idiot-proof the world.

Not directed at you, my friend, just an observation...

:hug:

[HopeHoops]

14. Idiot-proof just means proof that there are idiots.

Now that I think about it, they need to outlaw roasted pumpkin seeds too. Aw fuck. I thought about them again and I'm out. Shit, damn, piss. ROAD TRIP!

Edit:

Actually, "Idiot-Proof" also means there is proof that there are idiots who watch FOX.

[Strong Atheist]

20. Roasted pumpkin seed. Obviously evil incarnate. Buying them MUST

get the death penalty...

:sarcasm:

[HopeHoops]

24. It is a far greater thing that I do than ever I have done before.

Actually, the twelve boxes of Little Debbie pumpkin face treats might be greater. Tough call. GAH! Pumpkins again! PUMPKINS ARE EVIL - AAAAAAHHHH!!!!

[Strong Atheist]

51. !

:rofl:


:yourock:

[ejpoeta]

15. for me, the consequences of that would be enough to stop me from eating a whole sleeve. LOL!

Once in awhile I will go to mcdonalds or burger king.... but after I have eaten my grilled chicken with french fries (which are usually too salty and gross)... when my stomach gets sick then I remember why I never go there.... I know there is a reason why I don't go to these places. LOL!

[HopeHoops]

21. I've been vegetarian for 20 years.

But even when I ate meat, Burger King always smelled like it was cremating horses - which is probably fairly accurate. I could never stomach the place. Gross shit, that. It is still the worst of the fast food joints to drive past. Makes me gag.

At least when you went to Jack In The Box you KNEW you were getting kangaroo roadkill. I'm sure they threw in the wallabies too, and probably the rabbits.

[Strong Atheist]

57. Australia has or had a real rabbit problem. That would be one

solution; hasenpfeffer...

[HopeHoops]

68. My late father-in-law recounted taking the train through Austrailia during WW-II

There were so many rabbits the track would get slippery from their blood and the train was essentially spinning its wheels.

[Strong Atheist]

71. Yes, I teach, and saw a science video on the whole thing, with

rabbits stuck at a great fence across Australia. Millions of rabbits, as far as the eye could see...

[HopeHoops]

94. That's about how he described it.

The troops wanted to get out and roast them, but they were forbidden. They were stuck with their C-rations (which he always said with one lip curled up in disgust).

[Strong Atheist]

224. They would not have put a dent into the population. The video described

how the rabbit mess came about, and the many attempts to fix it (which often made the situation worse). As of the 90's (the date of the film), they were using a virus that either killed most of the rabbits or rendered them sterile; I don't remember which...

[HopeHoops]

257. Screw the population - they just wanted to eath teh damn rabbits!

The poor guys had been living on crappy WW-II army C-rations for months!

[Strong Atheist]

260. ... and they should have been able to, imo. I would have authorized

it...

[HopeHoops]

270. There were sure as shit ENOUGH of them!

That's what HE thought!

Damn I miss him. He was a mean old son of a bitch. My role model.

[Strong Atheist]

288. !

:hug:

[Cid_B]

236. Right now... as I sit in the middle of Afghanistan...

I have been craving a proper double whopper for at least two months...

[Strong Atheist]

258. Man, I am sorry about that. You have my sympathy. Hope you can come

home safe, and have those whoppers soon (as long as the food police have not banned them).

:hug:

[endarkenment]

279. goat burgers getting old?

sorry about your situation. Hopefully we will get you out of there soon.

[Strong Atheist]

289. Actually, while I agree with you for the first time in this thread (on the hope for the future

we disagree on other future hopes here), it is not looking good for a fast turn around of that situation, unfortunately...

[Strong Atheist]

55. You mean you are able to *GASP*

MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS on what to eat and what not to eat, instead of having it legislated for you?

How... unamerican...

:sarcasm:

[ejpoeta]

354. and i even know how to say NO to the kids too.... they always want to go to burger king

or mcdonalds... i limit our eating out in general.... but if i do take them somewhere it's generally subway. but i can sure say NO to them.

[Strong Atheist]

366. That is all very sensible. Imagine that! nt.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

337. Oh come on now

Fig Newtons are some of the best carbo-load food if one is an athelete. They're less costly than Power Bars as well.

The never made me shit any more than usual either.

[Strong Atheist]

340. Some here would probably disagree with you, but I don't.

Edited: That is the point...

[LWolf]

3. Other.

I have free will, and will make my own food choices. I want the government to regulate what substances are allowed to be used in food that is produced and/or sold in the U.S.. Banning transfats, for example, would be a good step. Regulating amounts of sugar, and what kinds of sweeteners are used, would also be good.

I also suppor making gmo crops and frankenstein chickens and other modified livestock illegal.

People can choose what to eat. The food suppliers should be held accountable for what goes into the food they supply.

[Strong Atheist]

11. "modified livestock" You realize that pretty much all livestock and many agricultural

products such as corn and wheat have been "genetically modified" over the last 12,000 years, right?

[NeedleCast]

19. It's funny...in a way

For (roughly) the past 20,000 years humans have been modifying food animals and crops to achieve maximum output. Its only in the last few decades that we've achieved the technology needed to actually manipulate plants and animals at a more scientific level, but we've been conducting "genetic" experiments on plants and animals for a LONG, LONG time.

If someone doesn't want to eat genetically modified food they're pretty much going to have to stop eating.

[Strong Atheist]

22. Thank you, that was the thought I was attempting to get across... well

said!

:yourock:

[Xicano]

162. I think the two of you don't realize the difference

between natural and artificial selection vs. laboratory gene modification. Study the issue and then you'll see the ignorance in your sarcasm.

Genetic engineering is completely different from traditional breeding and carries dangerous risks. The problem/danger in genetically modified foods is the "process" which is used to splice genes.

I would encourage you to review this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4147551008386395793

[Strong Atheist]

170. On the contrary, I understand there is no real difference. Ok, one difference, the old way

sucked, it was hit-and-miss, and took thousands of years. The new ways accomplish the same things faster and more accurately.

Talk about ignorance.



:eyes:

[Xicano]

211. Your response is only verifying you don't understand what you're talking about

Here's some info for you, but, I am sure you won't review it. You just know because........well just because.

:eyes:




But for those interested in knowing what the health dangers are with GMO's, here's a few links for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyzu5NEWCTE#t=2m0s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggtAzd8HMj0#t=8m11s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=710tmYMxsyY#t=4m8s

[Strong Atheist]

216. Got a 5 on my bio AP, LOVE genetics, understand it well enough.

They are the same, except the old way is worse (longer, more hit-and-miss, less controlled).

Can't see youtube, you are right there (don't do flash/cookies/javascript), but doubt it had anything over my bio courses in high school and college.

[ThomCat]

438. A high school bio course obviously didn't teach you

that they shotgun genetic material into organisms, and can't really control what else happens inside that organism because of the methods they use. There is a lot of evidence that a lot of changes take place in addition to just adding the one gene, but there has been very little research into the safety because agribusiness tells government that they don't want/need that research. When wealthy agribusiness talks, government salutes.

Anyone who thinks that genetic modification is simple, precise, clean and safe obviously knows very little, and is basically operating purely on faith in the benevolence of the corporations.

Do you really trust corporations that much?

[LWolf]

32. Selective breeding

is not the same thing, and it's disingenuous to pretend that it is.

Even selective breeding can be unethical, of course. Modern production turkeys, for example, who cannot breed on their own.

Genetically modifying corn, soybeans, or wheat to include resistance to commercial herbicides, or to include pesticide compounds within the plant itself, though, is not done through selective breeding.

[NeedleCast]

46. I don't see much difference beyond the available technology

I'm not discounting what you're saying, I guess I can understand why you feel that way. I certainly don't trust most corporations either.

Still, I don't see much difference between the realization that by breeding tomatoe A to tomatoe B you get a bigger, more flavorful tomatoe and realizing that by insertinge a specific gene into tomatoe C you get a big, flavorful tomatoe that is also more frost resistant. As I said, to me, its simply a matter of what the technology at the time would allow. Agri-science has been around a long time, even before early farmers and breeders knew they were conducting agri-science.

[LWolf]

408. One is something that can happen naturally.

The other cannot. Breeding plants with the characteristics you want to make those characteristics stronger is simply a kind of directed evolution. Inserting the genes of bt, which is a bacterium, into plants to make them insect resistant is not the same thing; those genes would not cross with plant genes by themselves.

Bt crops help create resistant strains of insects. Then there are the issues with cross pollination, both from an environmental standpoint, and a legal standpoint.

"What technology will allow" is not always beneficial for the planet, for ecosystems, or for people.

[Strong Atheist]

62. Agreed it is not the same, It is slow, archaic, and hit-and-miss. Why do it the

slow/hard/hit-and-miss way when there are faster, and easier ways that tend to get controlled results?

Not disingenuous or pretending; genetic manipulation is genetic manipulation; it is just that now we have better ways of doing it than we did in the previous 12,000 years.

[LWolf]

410. Why? For a variety of reasons.

First of all, just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it should. Not everything that we CAN do benefits the planet, the ecosystem, or humanity.

Secondly, there are far-reaching consequences to the kind of gene manipulation that takes genes from, not just a different species, or even the same family, but from different kingdoms and domains, and splices them together to create an effect that impacts so many plants and animals outside the new plant itself.

That slow, archaic, hit-and-miss process you are criticizing is called evolution. It's something that happens anyway. Cross-breeding different varieties of the same plant or animal simply makes it less hit-and-miss.

It doesn't potentially destroy whole ecosystems.

[The River]

66. Exactly Right

Simply crossing your best parent plants "naturally" is far different
than modifying plant genes to do things that would never happen in nature.

I believe that most people think that just because a "food" product
is allowed to be sold in a grocery store means it must be OK to eat.
They would eat canned crap as long as it tasted good.

[NeedleCast]

87. Why?

You say that cross breeding your parents best plants is different than genetic modifiction but it's not...they're the same thing. One uses a much higher level of technology as the basis for making it happen, but its still pretty much the same natural selection process that Darwin theorized about.

[Strong Atheist]

96. Agreed. nt.

[Xicano]

183. No they're not the same thing

There's a major difference between the two. One of the main differences/problems is the "process" used.

Here's a bit of info for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=710tmYMxsyY#t=4m8s

[NeedleCast]

193. That's pretty much what I said

I said the process used is different. I'll grant you that its VERY different. The difference between inserting a chemical sequence into DNA and breeding your big chicken with your other big chicken to make more big chickens is night and day.

The youtube clip you've linked to plays on typical fears. At the 4:15(ish) mark the speaker is using a typical scare tactic thats way too common...using violent references to play on fears, specifically insinuating that a very complex technological process is akin to shooting something with a gun. Considering the "scientific" methods used in the past (i.e. we're going to breed this tomato to that tomato, cross our fingers, and see what happens), I'm not buying into the fear here.

[Strong Atheist]

208. Sure they, are, one just uses modern technology... and it is faster...

and more reliable... and more controlled....


I guess you are right, they are not the same! Modern genetic engineering is much better than the hit-or-miss slow old way!


:toast:

[Pangolin2]

321. You cannot predict what might 'happen in nature'. All selective breeding results in DNA

changes (evolution)...if it didn't there wouldn't be any point in DOING it. The only difference is in how fast it happens. I'm beginning to be shocked at how many Luddites there seem to be here on this 'progressive' site... :shrug:

[dhpgetsit]

372. GM and selective breeding are different.

Monsanto created a gene that can make a plant resistant to Roundup. This provides no nutritional benefit, does not help the taste, only allows Monsanto to sell more Roundup. Monsanto has a patent on the gene and is patenting crops that are modified to include the gene. This is leading to less genetic diversity, less choice at the supermarket, more pollution and more consumption of oil.

If Monsanto's gene cross-polinates and enters a neighbor's crop, Monsanto sues for patent rights, creating a hardship for small farmers.

Another common GM is making the crop actually toxic to insects or plant pathogens. This may be one reason the bees are vanishing.

Now I don't think the OP had any intention of bringing the GM argument into this thread, but it is apparent there are some misconceptions about GM crops and I thought it best to straighten thet out.

I like donuts and I don't want cops telling me I can't have what they are famous for enjoying themselves. :)

[Strong Atheist]

399. "Now I don't think the OP had any intention of bringing the GM argument into this thread"

I didn't intend a lot of things, but, the road to hell and all that...


:shrug:

[ThomCat]

439. Silly me, I LIKE the FDA banning dangerous substances in food

and legislating limits on potentially dangerous substances in food.

I LIKE the FDA being smart enough to recognize that when corporations have unlimited PR budgets and a huge profit to be made "free choice" is a myth. They manufacture people's desire and choice, especially among far too many children who aren't old enough or educated enough to know what choices they are making. So when the FDA mandates what food can be fed to kids, or what can be in the food marketed to kids they are doing something GOOD to counter corporations who will poison anyone for a buck.

Your idea that everyone should be able to chose to eat anything they want only works if everyone is an adult, every adult has a knowledge of nutrition, and nobody is surrounded by commercials lying and pushing junk that is marketed as healthy.

If you really MUST have your french fries cooked in transfats, you can fry some up yourself at home. Nobody is denying you any really unhealthy foods. You can certainly still find them if you look, or you can cook. The rules won't block you from getting anything, but they will help keep a lot of kids a little bit healthier by preventing companies strong-arming schools into serving pre-packaged junk for lunch.

[Echo In Light]

5. Counting calories is no way to live, & that's coming from a fairly thin person who can put it away!

Those midnight "munchies" get me every time :)

[Strong Atheist]

12. Agreed!

:toast:

[derby378]

7. I drink mostly diet sodas, but when I want sugar in my cola...

...I seek out Coca-Cola or Dr. Pepper that is made with sucrose and sucrose alone. No high-fructose corn syrup if I can avoid it.

I have nothing against corn syrup or fructose, but HFCS is another ball of wax. I know some DUers think I'm nuts to say that, but I still don't trust HFCS.

Down here in Texas, it's easy to find Mexican Coca-Cola or Dublin Dr. Pepper. Hand me that Medio Litro and a bottle opener and I'll toast your health.

[Strong Atheist]

17. Sounds like you think you can and want to make your own food

choices. You poor, deluded fool!

:sarcasm:


:toast:

[PVnRT]

9. Girl Scout Thin Mints = more addictive than crack

[Strong Atheist]

18. So, should they be outlawed? Are you unable to keep from ordering them? nt.

[PVnRT]

23. Hell no, I need my yearly fix

[pipi_k]

30. For me it's cake with lots of frosting, cream filled donuts, jelly beans, etc

As long as I stay away from those things I'm fine.

One taste and I'm off the wagon, so to speak. The cravings are intense. I keep finding opportunities and justifications for eating that shit.

It really is like a drug for me...

:(

[muffin1]

137. I haven't done this in a long time,

but there was a time when I could eat an entire container of frosting in one sitting.

Dieting and exercising now, 17 pounds lost, 35 to go. Maybe after it all comes off, I'll have ONE tub to celebrate.:)

[Strong Atheist]

157. Congrats to you! Am in a similar situation...

:toast:

[Cid_B]

380. Isn't that the same thing as...

celebrating a year of alcohol sobriety with a night at the bar? ;)

[Echo In Light]

39. Those pesky Keebler elves make a cookie that's identical to em (to my taste buds, anyhow)

[Strong Atheist]

64. So, do you want them outlawed by bureaucratic whim? nt.

[SOS]

10. Doughnuts and cupcakes have been outlawed?!

What am I gonna have for dinner now?

[Strong Atheist]

27. There are periodic attempts to ban doughnuts, especially in schools.

It happened recently in my area; an attempt that is. Bad idea; EPIC fail.

DON"T ever mess with the cupcake brigade...

:scared:

[endarkenment]

31. On a related subject, public schools should serve healthy food

instead of crap, and there shouldn't be soda machines, or any commercial vending machines. It should be a matter of policy at the school, not law.

[Strong Atheist]

67. Got a news flash for you (I am a teacher), the food police have ALREADY

removed soda from schools; at least in the machines (though NOT in the teachers lounge...)


http://www.edutopia.org/will-banning-sale-soft-drinks-schools-significantly-decrease-childhood-obesity-and-related-health-pr

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032101966.html

[endarkenment]

69. Not my schools. Still there.

Never were there when I was a kid though. And I don't care whats in the teachers lounge. When did we let Pepsi get a franchise?

[Strong Atheist]

76. Hmmm, thought it was nationwide. It was supposed to be. Glad it is not; just here, in

one of the biggest school systems in the country...

[endarkenment]

149. How would it be nationwide?

And why do you want pepsi selling shit to children in school?

[Strong Atheist]

165. You don't like pepsi? Fine, don't drink it. Now, that was not so

hard, was it?


:shrug:

[endarkenment]

169. I don't want Pepsi Macd etc selling shit to children in public schools

What happens outside of schools under parental control is not my problem. What happens inside public schools, where the community is acting in loco parentis is my problem. The decision to allow pepsi (etc) into the schools was a decision made by the community through its democratic processes, an equivalent decision to not allow commercial vendors inside public schools selling shit directly to children would be fine by me and would be the right thing to do.

How difficult is that?

[Strong Atheist]

172. Which is why I was conflicted below. Kids do not have the legal protections

that adults do; this is well established. I just don't want this leading to restrictions on what adults can eat, and feel conflicted for the kids...

[endarkenment]

188. I know it is terribly difficult for you, but try separating these issues.

There is no conflict. Pepsi and McD need to get the heck out of our schools. You want fries with that? Go for it. I don't even care if as a consequence you might a bit more health care than I get.

But are you also opposed to the concept of the FDA, to the very first progressive reform this nation 'suffered'?

If particular manufacturing processes for food are in fact injurious, why the heck shouldn't the FDA ban them? They ban rat shit (or more than a certain amount of it) are you against that too?

[cwydro]

266. We never had soda machines in schools when I was a kid

and I don't think they should be there now. THAT is something I would support, taking those out.

[closeupready]

283. Remember Diane Sawyer's 20/20 piece about Appalachian kids with rotten teeth,

and, it was implied, the acids in the sodas helped destroy their teeth. I guess Strong Atheist wants kids to be free to choose rotten teeth.

[cwydro]

319. No. I really don't think that is what he wants.

[Hippo_Tron]

214. I agree about vending machines in the elementary in middle schools

But 15-18 year olds are old enough to buy snacks and if you can't trust them to buy snacks at that age then they certainly aren't going to be ready to live on their own at age 18. Quite frankly no matter how much sleep I got, I sometimes needed a diet coke in the morning to keep me awake through English class because I'm simply not a morning person. I don't think I developed a caffeine addiction and my grades were better because I could stay awake.

The cafeteria also sold bagels, fruit, juice, etc. during the mornings and generally if I wanted a snack I would go there.

[redqueen]

327. +1

[Sebastian Doyle]

161. Who the hell would endorse such a law?

Cops against donuts? Yeah, that's about as likely as Limbaughs against Oxycontin.

[Strong Atheist]

168. See the links in the OP. Could find more, if you want... nt.

[Motown_Johnny]

13. Other also... I have free will but should not need to pay higher health care costs

because other people do not take reasonable care of themselves.

This is exactly the same as smokers. They have the right to endanger themselves but my costs should not go up because of their attitude toward their own health


Now if you will excuse me I am in the mood for a big mac, fries and a coke

[endarkenment]

28. Your tax costs go down from smokers.

1) they die relatively young and relatively quickly.
2) they pay huge taxes on their addiction.

But I am intrigued as to how exactly you think your attitude that "I have free will but should not need to pay higher health care costs because other people do not take reasonable care of themselves" ought to be put into policy. Please explain.

[Motown_Johnny]

33. i doubt very much that I pay lower HEALTH CARE COSTS due to smokers

I never said taxes


please don't misquote me when attacking me.

[endarkenment]

58. Here, let me google that for you.

Results Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.

Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052

[Motown_Johnny]

73. but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate

nice editing

[SoCalDem]

164. how unique.. people live longer, they use more health care in the extra years they got

:rofl:..

the anti smoking people do not think past the "make-'em-quit" stage..

a smoker who may have died from a rather acute illness, at 60 (spanning a few months), may end up living to age 80, and therefore "use" 20 more years of end-of-life health care for other ailments..chronic ailments that require a LOT more intervention..

and once they have quit the "habit", the extraordinary "sin-taxes" they would have paid are gone as well..

utopia, isn't always what it's cracked up to be..

[endarkenment]

196. It is ethically challenged to think this way.

Even if the public cost is marginally higher, going down that road leads one to supporting promotion of unhealthy behaviors in order to 'reduce costs for the rest of us'. That is just short of outright killing people.

But it is interesting.

[Strong Atheist]

34. That is a libertarian argument that we should not be paying for the

health care of others, period.

A separate issue, as it applies to everything health related (ie: the same argument can be made based on exercise amount, risk taking in other ways, and why should you pay for the health care of anyone else based on the many ways they can live their life).


Not an issue that I am discussing in this thread; though an interesting topic to have a flame war on...

[Motown_Johnny]

42. Fine, I am against paying for the irresponsible behavior of others, Isn't this what brought

no fault insurance into the car insurance industry?

people with good driving records should not have the same costs as people with terrible driving records


people with a health life style should not have the same costs ad people with unhealthy life styles



subsidizing unhealthy choices isn't good for anyone

[Strong Atheist]

70. Who decides whose life style is healthy? Vegetarians (and the sub flavors, Vegans etc.)

Guess you are not HEALTHY if you eat ANY meat.

Weight lifters?

Guess you are not HEALTHY if you don't look like ahnold..

Triatheletes?

Guess you are not HEALTHY if you can't do iron man...


WHO decides?????

[Motown_Johnny]

91. there are already guidelines in place for healthy body mass, cholesterol levels etc etc etc

medical professionals would decide, and already have

[Strong Atheist]

98. An interesting argument. I am going to withdraw, as that is really

a topic for a different OP. Maybe you should post it, in fact. Could be interesting...


Cheers.


SA

[Motown_Johnny]

100. wasn't looking for an argument. I did choose other and then said I was in the mood for

a big mac fries and a coke


I am not an extremist on this issue even if some of my statements make me look as if I am



I sincerely hope there are no hard feelings


have a good day

[Strong Atheist]

105. No hard feelings. Post this if you want to, I just don't feel like getting into this

subject at this time...


:toast:

[redqueen]

142. ... not so fast there...

http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/06/cx_lrlh_0406fitfat.html

[Motown_Johnny]

187. definitions can be modified to reflect any increased knowledge

nothing is ever perfect

[GoCubsGo]

412. And, may I add that even if one CAN do the Ironman...

How much is being spent to repair the injuries people get during their training, or even during a general workout? I know lots of athletic people who have had one or both knees rebuilt numerous times. Injuries happen, even during "healthy" activites, and they require medical care. I can't tell you how many times I have sprained my ankle while out walking. Walking is supposedly a "healthy" activity. Will there be a "Klutz Police" out there deciding? And, as I recall, the famed runner and fitness guru, Jim Fixx, died of a heart attack. In his case, he apparently had genetics working against him. Who decides who gets treated in those cases?

[Strong Atheist]

419. Very good points.

:toast:

[madmom]

124. Re car insurance..I missed a payment once when I was having financial troubles, my rates went up. I

asked my agent if that meant I can have a pocket full of traffic violations and pay on time, my rates would be lower? He said unfortunately (for me) yes!:shrug: yep that's fair!

[Motown_Johnny]

195. my point is still valid, sorry your insurance company is a blood sucking corporation

not much I can do about that though, so is mine

[madmom]

256. My point is I have a very good driving record and still paid a high premium, so as long

as insurance companies are involved, we're all screwed!

[supernova]

16. Where's "I have free will and need better info"?

Sure we all have free will. But I would really like it if restaurants published the nutritional info on their offerings. Some restaurants do, but not all. If it takes the Gov't to mandate that to be so, then fine. I'm happy with that. You can't make a good decision without proper information.

As for NYC mandating that eateries cook without transfats, that's a no brainer. TFs are carcinogens. and there are readily available alternatives.

Schools eschewing cupcakes? ... meh. That's a little bit far for me. Junk food for little celebrations is fine, IMO.

I think the one about taking doughnuts away from senior centers is just silly, though. As long as they have sensible stuff on offer too.

[Strong Atheist]

38. See, though, where is the line drawn, and by WHOM? You think it is

great to get rid of trans fats, but NOT cupcakes and doughnuts. Others disagree with you. WHO is going to tell us what we may, pretty please, be ALLOWED to eat?

[supernova]

40. You can cook any of this

at home any time you like. Cupcakes, doughnuts, fudge,

Have at it, man!


No one is depriving you of your right to stuff your gills with junk.

[SPedigrees]

207. I do, when I have time. Not everyone has the time. I'm already spending many hours cooking dogfood

thanks to lack of monitoring of our nation's food supply. Melamine, HFCS, etc... Time was when conveniences like commercial petfood and bakery goods were not only convenient but also safe.

[pipi_k]

25. I didn't vote, but I do have this to say

I have free will, but I often have no willpower.

that means I often eat stuff that's not good for me. I know it and yet I do it anyway.

I don't want anyone telling me what I can and can't eat, yet if there were some outrageous tax or a law against some foods, I wouldn't really care. The more help I can get, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

I do know that not everyone shares my opinion, though, and that's OK.

:)

[NeedleCast]

37. That's a slippery slope

[Forkboy]

26. They can have my meatballs when they pry them from my cold dead fork.

[endarkenment]

29. They can have corn when they pry the kernels out of my

... oh never mind.

[Strong Atheist]

48. Agreed! You

rock!

:yourock:

[Ron Green]

35. This poll and the tone of this OP are not very useful

other than to open up the debate to lots of anecdotes, libertarian posts and trivialization of a serious public health problem.

Of course people have the right and the responsibility to choose what and how they eat, but the missed point is that our government, who could and should enact policies to move U.S. residents toward better health, has acquiesced in the food industry's demands that their manipulation of not only the propaganda about food and locations of food vendors but even the addictive chemical composition of food be protected and supported.

Watch out for anecdotes: Right-wing talking points may be hidden therein.

[Strong Atheist]

41. I very carefully picked the tone of this OP. Time to pick sides. The

food police can bite me.

x(

I don't want ANY faceless busybody TELLING me what I MAY and MAY NOT eat, by law.

Is that what YOU want?

Pick your side.

x(

[Ron Green]

OK, I'll go with the Food Police. They can't bite me.

[ConnorMarc]

36. No Food Police, Per Se

But food needs to be given more attention.

Americans are killing themselves, and the rest of the world with their fast food addiction and culture.

And they are loving it one bite at a time, even during heart disease, diabetes, stroke, dementia, Alzheimer, colon cancer and heart attacks et al.

And they blame everyone but themselves and their toxic diets.

This is not sustainable.

[Strong Atheist]

43. So, is the answer to LEGISLATE what we (I, you)

MAY or MAY NOT eat?

I think not.

The food police can bite me.

x(

[ConnorMarc]

83. Nowhere In My Statements Did You See That

I didn't suggest any food police or legislation.

I simply said it needs to be given more attention, nationally and from the top.

At the very least we need to be given the facts about what we put into our bodies, meaning calorie counts, ingredients, warnings to our health, etc. much more-so and more clearly that its done today.

Contrary to popular belief...your food can kill you, it already is and we're seeing it happening right before our eyes.

Being as you don't have any respect for God, I don't expect you to have any respect, or much respect, for yourself or your fellow man, so I can understand where you're coming from with that ideology.

[Strong Atheist]

85. Nothing against facts about food. Just wanted to know what your proposal was ( it was short on

specifics).

As for the other, you are ALMOST right. We can argue about that in R&T, not here.

[Junkdrawer]

152. Self delete. Posted Wrong Spot.

[Strong Atheist]

173. It happens. nt.

[Bonobo]

44. I've got a great link for you!

http://thisiswhyyourefat.com/

[Strong Atheist]

49. So, you want someone else to decide what you may and may not eat? nt

[Bonobo]

52. Yes, that's EXACTLY what I said! nt

[ThomCat]

440. Nobody is deciding any such thing.

Go out and eat lead if you want. Nobody is stopping you. :eyes:

This tantrum you are throwing about "food police" is really juvenile.

The "food police" keep poisons out of our foods, and make sure labels are accurate, and make RECOMMENDATIONS about how to eat healthy for the vast majority of people who aren't educated in nutrition and need some basic recommendations.

The few times they have tried to ban individual ingredients it was because those ingredients were linked to deadly health problems in a lot of people so it simply wasn't safe for most people. You might want to eat those poisons, but young children, the elderly, and people with illnesses and disabilities that make them vulnerable DON'T, and the FDA exists to protect EVERYONE from food that might kill them. That hardly rises to the level of anyone dictating your diet, and it should be something that any progressive should be in favor of.

Do you really want corporations being able to sell food that would harm or kill people? Do you think corporations should market that stuff to kids, exactly the people who should not being eating it? Or do you think the FDA is doing their job?

[xchrom]

45. large food producing corporations already police what you eat. nt

[cwydro]

276. I'm sorry, but that is bull.

I eat very little processed food.

[xchrom]

353. it's not bull -- and it's documented.

you can go many different places now to find -- i won't do your work for you.

you don't wanna believe it that's fine.

[The Straight Story]

47. Why not - we tell adults they cannot smoke together, some companies tell us we cannot smoke at all

And all the while folks cheer such things on because they don't believe people have a choice of where to work or drink.

Some here love restrictions on freedoms because we are all sinners....err broken machines that need someone to force us to make right decisions.

[Strong Atheist]

50. I take it you are on my side, based on the

(bitter?) tone of your post...

[The Straight Story]

63. on your side but it is a losing side - people will find reasons to control our lives (like puritans)

Because they want to 'save' us and america from punishment.

All those people bitching about Christians preaching to them, going door to door, trying to control their lives are doing the exact same thing just without the term 'god'.

Freedom seems to really scare some people.

[Strong Atheist]

72. Sadly, you may be right... nt.

[NeedleCast]

89. In this case though, the left is often as dangerous as the right

[Strong Atheist]

97. Agreed, unfortunately... food police are everywhere, wanting to take away my

CHOICES...

[NeedleCast]

141. I think a lot of people don't look at the big picture here

It's the classic case of "give them an inch..."

Even on DU you find plenty of people who are all about banning (insert thing here...food, cigarettes, booze, et. al.) People get into their little crusades to ban smoking or ban cola (or tax it to the point of creating a cost-based ban). What they don't look at is the fact that - once we start doing these things - "they" are eventually going to come for YOUR "thing." All done in the name of saving us from ourselves. There's already a very demonstrable tracked record of it. Look at organizations like MADD for example. Their objective was a noble one...increase awareness and penalties on drunk driving and, by in large, they were very successful at meeting their initial goals. DUI and associated crimes went from a slap on the wrist in many cases to a much more serious punishment. However, after MADD met it's initial goals they were faced with three choices...continue to maintain, disban having met their goal, or keep pushing. They chose keep pushing and are now at the point where they essentially want people who have a glass of wine with a meal prosecuted at a felony level. They push a gray area of statistic keeping (for example, confusing the issue of number of traffic accidents that involved alcohol vs number of traffic accidents caused by alcohol) and have really become the new voice of prohibition.

So at least we'll get to have the last laugh, because while we're being forced to enjoy another brocolli gruel protien shake for dinner, the ban brigade is going to be facing the removal of their choices as well.

[The Straight Story]

160. Freedom and diversity seem to bother some people on both sides for some reason

Everyone seems to say 'My body, My choice' but then go and do the exact opposite on things they don't like and think people should refrain from.

Common sense boundaries and a line that should not be moved (ie, some regulation) is one thing, but folks keep wanting to move that line thus shrinking personal freedom.

[NeedleCast]

174. You and I usually agree on this issue I think

I have to admit that I love the irony of seeing a poster make an OP about how bad the conservatives suck for wanting to (for example) remove Harry Potter books from school libraries, then watching them post a screed a few days later about how soda machines should be banned from schools.

[The Straight Story]

192. Indeed - because they don't think some people CAN make choices

Example: Don't want kids reading Harry Potter, tell your kids they can't.
Don't want them drinking soda...well that is not practical they will anyway, etc and so on.

Reminds me of fundies believing we are all sinners and lured to sin so we have to remove temptation (sinners always make the 'wrong' choices).

original sin is not a fundie invention, seems a lot of folks use that tool to control us mere mortals.

[Common Sense Party]

245. I can't get my kids to drink a soda.

They only drink water or milk. One of -em still likes her apple juice.

I like my Gallon of Mt. Dew on long car trips, but my kids won't even touch Sprite or root beer.

(My wife only drinks water. I guess they get it from her.)

[Strong Atheist]

253. You drink Mountain dew? YOU are what is wrong with

health care, you know, and that choice should be taken away from you.

:sarcasm:

I like it too, but I also drink milk, and water, and OJ, so I also agree with your wife...


:toast:

[Common Sense Party]

273. Out of my cold, plump hands!!!

[Strong Atheist]

290. !

:rofl:

:yourock:

[Strong Atheist]

175. Exactly! This is why I put the MY BODY part in the OP, to make that

subtle connection to other choice issues...


:yourock:

[Junkdrawer]

53. I want my tax dollars to subsidize High Fructose Corn Syrup...

And hide it in my food, especially restaurant food. The last thing I want is effective labeling laws...

:sarcasm:

[Strong Atheist]

77. Labeling is fine, I just don't want legislation on what I MAY and MAY NOT

eat.

Agreed?

[RedCappedBandit]

54. They outlaw drugs, why not outlaw disgusting food items

(not really serious)

[Ron Green]

59. +1

Why not serious? It's a great point. Some food is just as harmful as drugs, although usually slower-acting.


Would these libertarians want to again allow the eating of lead by small children?

[Strong Atheist]

80. WHO gets to decide what I MAY and MAY NOT

eat?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6402537&mesg_id=6403008

[Ron Green]

129. Scientists (real ones, not Bush-Cheney ones) decide what's OK or not, and

laws tell us what's legal and not.

[Strong Atheist]

150. Glad you said that. That is EXACTLY what is wrong, and why I made the OP in the

first place. Finally, someone on the dark side comes out and directly says that what we eat should be controlled by some elite "others"...

Sacry, scary stuff...


:scared:

[Ron Green]

291. Don't be scared. You can still eat all the crap you want in secrecy.

:-)

[Strong Atheist]

295. !

:scared:

[redqueen]

120. You just made me imagine black market Ding Dongs.

[Strong Atheist]

126. You laugh... I fear the food police... nt.

[redqueen]

132. Not me...

let them repeat the mistakes of prohibition.

I'll make a mint on black market fried chicken!

[Strong Atheist]

135. Again you laugh... I

don't...


:scared:

[pipi_k]

222. hahahaha....and the man in the overcoat standing on a corner

says, "Psst...c'mere! You wanna see my Twinkies?"


:7

[Strong Atheist]

228. !

:rofl:

YOU! You made me laugh, and I shouldn't, because what some in this thread want is so scary; and they don't even see it...


:scared:

[Bonobo]

56. I don't think kids need soda vending machines in schools, do you?

[SPedigrees]

65. We drank milk and juice when I was in school.

The food in the cafeteria consisted of healthy balanced hot lunches (fruits/ vegetables, dairy, meat, and grains - remember the four food groups?)

Of course moms used to cook nutritious homemade meals for their families every night too.

Kids used to walk and ride bikes and run and play. Phys. ed. was a required part of the curriculum in schools too back then, along with recess for grade schoolers.

Those were the days.

(Not surprising that today's kids have vitamin D and calcium deficiencies, and obesity problems.)

[Bonobo]

79. And disguising this as an issue of "freedom of choice" is disingenuous at best. nt

[Strong Atheist]

81. Already gotten rid of by the food police in my school system; one of the largest in the

country:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6402537&mesg_id=6402988

[Bonobo]

86. And what is your problem with that? Is it just a generalized "food police" issue...

that makes no distinctions between gradients?

Is this just an unthoughtful rant that I should ignore or are you willing to discuss your reasons?

So my question is "why do you want there to be soda vending machines available to students?"

Just the whole blah, blah freedom thing?

It doesn't bother you that school systems sell out their children's brain so they can be bombarded with advertising while a captive audience?

[Critters2]

122. Hmmm...crickets. nt

[Bonobo]

123. Weird! The OP is still talking to other people... Do I smell bad? nt

[Critters2]

127. Must be something you ate. nt

[Strong Atheist]

128. "why do you want there to be soda vending machines available to students?"

Have conflicted feelings, but if a gun was held to my head, and I HAD to make a choice, I would say let them have soda machines.

[endarkenment]

171. Since when is a public school a market for commercial exploitation?

[NeedleCast]

176. Pretty much since the inception of public schooling?

You think non-profits are providing those books that are educating your children? Think schools are getting free supplies from the "generosity" of Staples? Think kids are being fed at school free of charge to the tax payers? Come on...commerical companies have been part of public (and private) schools since the beginning of school. The ONLY margin in this argument is that one could say that books are essential and soda isn't but lets not pretend we're talking about anything other than symantics here. Selling things to schools is a multi-million job generator globally. My high school (17 years ago) had soda and snack machines but didn't allow companies to "push" products on school grounds, which seemed like a fairly reasonable balance.

[endarkenment]

181. That is different. I have no problem with vendors selling to schooll administrators

I have a huge problem with commercial exploitation of children in public schools. It wasn't there when I was a kid, but it has creeped in since the Reagan counter revolution and the acceptance of this crap is widespread, even here on DU.

[NeedleCast]

I just don't see it as commercial explotiation of children

By that argument, anything marketed to children could be considered commercial explotation and you might as well take the "shcool" part out of the equation. Now, if alternative for machine vended sodas and snacks wasn't being provided as an option, I might agree with you, but I know of no cases where this is true.

Its not like schools are giving kids the choice between Coke and Pepsi (and nothing else) or between Lays chips and snickers bars.

[endarkenment]

219. Parents are free to keep their kids off TV

and I know many who have done just that, and done so to avoid the appalling direct marketing being done to them. The issue here is why the public schools, acting in loco parentis, have basically declared open season on our children, and why shouldn't we put things back where they were 30 years ago?

[NeedleCast]

418. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree

Placing a soda machine in a school is hardly declaring open season on marketing to children.

Why can't we put things back the way they were 30 years ago? Because that would be regressive, and there's no reason to do so.

[Strong Atheist]

177. Before I answer that, I gotta ask: are you in the education field, particaularly TEACHING in a

public school?


It is relevant...

[endarkenment]

184. No it isn't relevant. It is none of your business.

And I am talking about commercial exploitation of children in public schools.

[Strong Atheist]

186. In that case; you have NO clue. EOM.

[endarkenment]

190. i.e. you have no answer and have taken the chicken shit way out.

[Strong Atheist]

197. People who don't actually teach have no fucking clue what they are talking about, when it comes to

the public schools.

[endarkenment]

200. Right. Or you have no argument and are reduced to nonsense.

[Strong Atheist]

203. "Since when is a public school a market for commercial exploitation?"

Since forever, but you would have no fucking clue about that.

[endarkenment]

218. As I clearly explained subsequently

we are discussing the direct commercial exploitation of children in public schools. My mistake for not making that explicit within a subthread discussing the direct commercial exploitation of children in public schools.

Context, is it really is so difficult?

So, Mr. Stoessel, should we abolish the FDA?

[Strong Atheist]

223. Choice, is it really so difficult? Apparently,

many people seem to hate and fear it...

sad, really, but VERY scary...


:scared:

[endarkenment]

235. So you are in favor of abolishing the FDA?

[Strong Atheist]

241. Goalpost moving? Ok, I will bite.

I think the FDA itself should be TIGHTLY regulated/monitored, with real, REGULAR in-depth scrutiny by congress. It has done some things in the past that it should not have. On the whole, it is a positive force, but I am truly afraid of what it would be like if many in THIS thread had their way...


:scared:

My main point, which many are ignoring (hint, hint) is: choice. Many seem to hate and fear it, and want it abolished, not just for themselves (which I could sign up for), but for the rest of us as well.

:scared:

If it comes to that, I think they will have a fight on their hands from average americans, and would lose in a way that would make prohibition look like a war won...


At least, I hope so...


:scared:

[endarkenment]

272. If I had my way pepsi wouldn't be selling soda to kids in schools.

Horrors!

So you don't want the FDA abolished, you just want it "TIGHTLY regulated/monitored" whatever that means. It already is. As are all government agencies except ones like the CIA etc., the ones that are actually directly harming people. It seems you think the FDA has gone rogue and is busy reducing your choices with their FOOD POLICE, the very thought of which causes you the shudders.

If the FDA discovers that a particular food manufacturing process results in demonstrable harm to people, for example excessive levels of rat shit, should the FDA 'police' prevent that food from being sold to the public?

[Strong Atheist]

300. Goalpost moving again, with a never-ending list of hypothetical/SPECIFICS. Lets go

for the general, to get this nonsense out of the way, ok? I like both of these answers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6402537&mesg_id=6404865


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6402537&mesg_id=6404984


Fair enough?

[endarkenment]

304. Goal posts? This is what the 'food police' do.

You don't want the nazi food police getting in the way of your sacred choice and I want to know if you are ok with excessive levels of rat shit in your food. That is the goal post. Right up top on your OP. You just don't understand the game.

You've been stoesselized. He's an idiot.

[Ignis]

242. Do only teachers understand logical fallacies?

Because the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy doesn't hold a lot of weight for most critical thinkers.

[MissMarple]

166. I agree with you. They can still have choices, just healthier choices.

And if they eat healthier foods, they won't have their palates trained to want fatty, overly salted foods containing way too many empty calories. Right now too many schools are doing just that because of the "that's what the kids want" rationale.

Some schools are even starting to let the kids have noon recess first, and then send them to lunch. That is a sensible strategy and a first step in improving the cafeteria environment. And I don't think serving 100% whole wheat pizza with tomato sauce mixed with a little pumpkin and low fat cheese is being too controlling. And you can't even taste the pumpkin. ;)

Good nutrition fundamental academic success.

[gblady]

60. while I do not want.....

anyone to dictate my free will of what I choose to do with my body....

I do believe that probably 80-90% of what is called food is extremely destructive
to the human body and that lifestyle choices account for the vast majority of illnesses.

I also believe it is part of what keeps the medical/insurance complex alive and thriving.
Feed um the crap that makes them sick and then treat them with artificial drugs.
Quite a little racket they've got going on.

[Strong Atheist]

82. So, you seem to be on the fence. Not taking a side? nt.

[SPedigrees]

61. I wouldn't mind HFCS and splenda going the way of tobacco and asbestos.

When I have to scour the food shelves reading every label in small print on every item to avoid these ever more present artificial sweeteners, I feel that my right to eat what I like is being infringed upon.

If there is a sweetener, I want it to be plain old sugar. And most foods, like ketchup, frozen and canned vegetables, bread, etc, do not need any sweetener. But just try buying foods that meet that criterium. I shouldn't have to jump through the hoops I do to eat what I want.

And since it is too late to bar commerce with China (since Congress unwisely granted PNTR status to that nation) any and all food products from China should be thoroughly inspected at the point of entry into the US, just as is done in Japan.

[Strong Atheist]

84. You want sugar, my step-father won't use anything except splenda;

that is the point; who MANDATES what we ALL can and can not eat, by force of law?

Who?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6402537#6403008

[SPedigrees]

163. The point is that foods traditionally sweetened with sugar or not sweetened at all

now contain this crap. If your stepfather wants to consume this poison then fine, let him add it himself.

Foods containing HFCS and splenda should be relegated to a separate section of the store. (Let's not call it the "diet section," because it is well documented that these sweeteners cause more weight gain than sugar.) These additives should not be in every mainstream food item in a store, from ketchup to soup to sliced bread.

Also your stepfather is an adult. Feeding this garbage to children is another matter altogether. They don't have the right to choose, so it is our responsibility to make healthy choices for them, until they are old enough to choose.

[Strong Atheist]

180. ... and if the parents don't agree with you on how to raise their kids, are

the food police going to come to their door?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127371/Food-police-come-knocking-kitchen-door--tell-leftovers.html

Maybe, arrest them, throw them in jail?

Or is CPS going to take the kids away, add to that wonderful foster care system?


Scary, scary stuff...


:scared:

[SPedigrees]

198. Yeah about as scarey as the govt banning lead paint from their toys. nt

[Strong Atheist]

209. That way leads to fascism. nt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

374. You know why that is happening in the UK?

food prices and a fear of what happens when this abundance of food goes away. heard of global climate change?

You might be shocked but during that war most muricans don't know a whit, beyond Hollywood that is. our own government, oh the horrors, not only rationed food, but did similar things.

Oh the horrors.

Of course the clean up your plate for uncle sam goes to WW I, but I am proof positive you did NOT know that.

In the coming years I expect that to happen since food will become something not as plentiful as we have today...

Some people should start by opening a history book or two.

[Strong Atheist]

407. You seem to relish the thought of the food police like the ones mentioned

here breaking your door down...

I fear that...

Enjoy your dark s&m fantasy...

[Javaman]

74. They will have to pry my organic carrot out of my cold dead hands!!

I want regulation of our foods:

1) organic means organic and not some watered down version that big agra needs to sell their crap

2) I want food miles printed on all labels.

3) I want the CO2 costs printed on all labels.

4) Farmers Markets should be promoted and encouraged nation wide

5) thorough inspection of all our meats. Like in Japan.

6) adequate funding and staffing for the USDA and the FDA

7) Remove the very unconstitutional law that living organisms can be patented.

8) Require big ag to publish their oil and natural gas needs for all their produce.

9) break the trust of seed monopolies.

10) clearly label all packaged foods that contain oil based ingredients.

11) The heads of both the dept of ag and interior should never be former execs of big ag.

12) hormone and antibiotic free meat production.

13) no more grain based cattle, pig or chicken feed.

14) promote the use of natural fertilizers and insecticides. No more oil/natural gas or coal based products.

15) teach children where our food comes from. How we get our meet and vegetables.

[Strong Atheist]

90. Hhhmmm, agree with SOME of that. You do NOT seem to be

advocating legislating what we CAN and CAN NOT eat; so we agree on that...

[Javaman]

106. exactly. I don't care what people eat, just as long as

we know where it comes from, it was produced via clean methods, inspected, we are made aware of it's real costs and we are told what is in it.

People should always be allowed to make their own food choices, but a choice without proper information, is like having no choice at all.

It's ironic that the people that scream the most about not being told what to eat, are the same ones not being given the information about what they are ingesting and told that it's perfectly okay to eat. That's not a choice, that's willful ignorance and blind compliance.

[varelse]

75. The Federal government should regulate what is put into food

Things like lead, antibiotics, and hormones should be kept out of it, imo. The government shouldn't ever be telling us what to eat, only regulating what is sold to us as "food".

[Strong Atheist]

95. Agree up to a point. The problem is where to draw the lines on regulation.

Should splenda, and sugar, and salt, and HFCS, and other things be banned, as some are advocating in this very thread?

WHO, specifically, gets to decide what is allowed, and how much?

[SPedigrees]

148. Only splenda and HFCS.

There was no obesity epidemic back when foods were sweetened with sugar. It began in the 1980s when our food supply was poisoned with HFCS.

Salt is an essential mineral without which no mammal or bird can survive. If you stay away from McDonalds you won't get too much sodium in your diet.

[Strong Atheist]

182. For you, it is those two ingredients, but others

(on this thread, even) advocate more, and where does it stop, and who draws those lines?

[SPedigrees]

191. The line should be drawn at foods that are proven harmful. nt

[Strong Atheist]

199. All foods are harmful.

Seriously. They will all get us in the end. Cancer, oxidation, cell aging...

Everything you can posibly eat damages you...

[SPedigrees]

210. Now I realize I'm conversing with an idiot. I'm done. nt

[Codeine]

395. I have to take issue with part of that.

Obesity levels are rising in nations that don't use HFCS. The difference between then and now is portion size and the increased consumption of food across the board. People eat all fucking day, in disgusting, repulsive quantities.

[varelse]

262. Splenda, HFCS might need to be banned *if* and only if

a sound scientific case is made at some point that "normal consumption" of either of these substances causes severe medical problems.

In the absence of such a case, it's best just to push for honest and detailed labeling and then let consumers inform themselves and make their own decisions about what to buy.

We already know that sugar and salt (and fat, and protein, and alcohol) cause health problems if consumed in excess, particularly over long periods of time. If consumed moderately, these substances do very little to no harm, except to individuals with existing health conditions or genetic predisposition for sensitivity to salt or simple carbohydrates.

Suggesting we ban or legally restrict use of these substances is somewhat like saying we should ban all peanuts (and stop growing them) because there are individuals who will die minutes after exposure, OR because there are people who will consume peanuts to excess, and develop weight or other health problems by so doing.

However, I do agree that we should put pressure on the Federal government to change the way it subsidizes food production in order to help us shift from less healthy food to more healthful food choices. As things stand now, our goverment heavily subsidizes corn production, for example, and doesn't do much to make fresh vegetables, beans, and healthy grains affordable.

[Strong Atheist]

296. I think I can agree with all that was here!

:toast:

[dysfunctional press]

78. people need to be better educated/informed as to the ramifications of their dietary choices.

if it takes a little bit of food-policing to get us there in the first place, then so be it- it's better than having a society full of obese diabetics on medicare.

[Strong Atheist]

99. That way lies...

...a lot of bad stuff, imo.


eom.

[dysfunctional press]

251. an ignorant and uninformed society leads to even worse things.

if people aren't willing to take responsibility for educating themselves about their choces, then something has to be done in other ways to modify behaviour. for example- some of the foods that do the most damage could/SHOULD be substantially 'sin-taxed' in the same way that alcohol and tobacco products are.

[Lex]

88. No I think Corporations are perfectly fine to push whatever they want at us.

nt

[Strong Atheist]

101. ... and you are free to choose something else, are you not? Or, are you

just a machine, without free will, with no willpower, and no other choices, FORCED to do what the corporations want you to?

I happen to know that there are plenty of choices out there, for those who care to bother to look...

[Lex]

104. yes, I'll choose whatever the Corporations have put on the market

because their choices are my choices . . . they make sure I have "plenty of choices" that they choose

[Strong Atheist]

107. Sigh. For instance, my sister is a vegetarian (I am not, nor will I ever be, unless forced

to in coming years by the food police).

She regularly gets HUGE farm fresh organically produced packages of vegetables/fruits through the mail; I have not figured out the specifics because I was never that interested, but I know it can be done. Similarly, there was a woman that I worked with who was a vegan. She knew where to shop to get what her strict diet demanded.



I live right near D.C., but there are farmers markets around. I am sure it is the same with all the other major urban areas, to say nothing of the rural areas.



Choice exists, if one is not too lazy.

Or, maybe it is easier to blame someone else, and claim there is no choice, without looking...

[Lex]

109. Of course, who wouldn't support the choice of more organic fruits and veggies?

Is someone on DU saying we SHOULDN'T be able to choose more healthy food? Of course not.

[Strong Atheist]

111. You seem to be saying in post #104 above my response that you

have no such choices...

:shrug:

[Lex]

119. You seem to be saying in your OP that any food we choose should be okay

because we chose it with our own free will.

:shrug:

[Strong Atheist]

121. I am. nt.

[Lex]

133. Enjoy then.

I think we need reasonable regulations in food industry because I think most of our food is corporate-driven crap and they'd hide poison in it (unbeknownst to us) if it could make them a good profit. Because they know that plenty of people would "choose" it.

People who think otherwise are the ones PT Barnum was talking about.

[Lex]

125. self - delete

[LanternWaste]

92. After having read Sinclair's The Jungle some years back...

After having read Sinclair's The Jungle some years back, I found out that I'm rarely presented with, or have the opportunity to make thoughtful consumer decisions based on a relevant truth(s) that is denied me.

I imagine that in the long run, the only difference between the cries of nanny-statism and common-sense regulations are simply our own perspectives.

[Critters2]

93. Oops! Looks like I accidentally wandered into Libertarian Underground. nt

[Strong Atheist]

103. As opposed to gov control of what you may and may not be

ALLOWED to eat?

[Critters2]

113. As opposed to corporate control of what I may and may not be

allowed to eat.

[Strong Atheist]

116. So, you are a machine, with no control over what you eat. Cool. My philosophy

profs would have been intrigued by the idea that free will/determinism was not an either one or the other proposition, but that some people could have free will while others do not.

You do not have free will; I do. I am cool with that.

:toast:

[Lex]

134. Dishonest misrepresentation of what that poster said.

nt

[Strong Atheist]

138. The whole point of the OP is that we

can CHOOSE and control what we eat, as long as it is not made illegal by government fiat.

It would seem that many disagree with that, however, and I can only conlude that they think they are machines/have no free will/have no self control. What other conclusion is possible?

:shrug:

[Paladin]

428. Typical Libertarian Flamebait. Really Tiresome. (n/t)

[Strong Atheist]

429. Ya know, its funny. When you are for reproductive choice, which I have been for

all my life, it is Democratic, and good, but when you are for food choice (you caught the MY body, MY choice in the OP, right?) it is somehow Libertarian, and therefore bad.

I would like someone, preferably you since you brought it up, to explain the difference to me without sounding completely hypocritical.

I'm waiting.

[Strong Atheist]

388. Ya know, its funny. When you are for reproductive choice, which I have been for

all my life, it is Democratic, and good, but when you are for food choice (you caught the MY body, MY choice in the OP, right?) it is somehow Libertarian, and therefore bad.

I would like someone, preferably you since you brought it up, to explain the difference to me without sounding completely hypocritical.

I'm waiting.

[jenerize]

102. Pointing fingers

:bounce:I don't care who makes our food supply healthy!! Who
do you really need to point fingers at: the "where's the
beef" industry and all of their friends, the corporations
who lobby and pay our bureaucrats to pass laws allowing
poisons and toxins in our food or the US Government We have a
critical correlation between our food supply, and this
country's health!! Our foods are tainted from the farm to
store. And it has been perfectly legal for years! Food
corporations are profiting from making us sick with
preservatives and chemicals in their foods, and the health
care industry including drug companies, hospitals and doctors
are profiting from us being sick. We are even surrounded by
additives made to make us addicted to fast foods! Paul Zane
Pilnzer's book "The Wellness Revolution" will shed
some disturbing light on the situation we are facing in the
country for those who don't realize how deep this problem
goes!   

[Strong Atheist]

108. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[jenerize]

230. Thanks for the welcome!!

[Strong Atheist]

232. Glad to do it! Enjoy! Oh, and watch out. Things can get hairy...

...like in this thread, for instance...


:hide:

[DJ13]

110. I dont want to live in a nanny state

That includes taxation to modify ANY behavior frowned upon by a few people who believe they have the right to impose their personal morality on others.

[Strong Atheist]

112. Heartily agreed!

:yourock:

[Hekate]

114. You fool--they already have something called a "filth allowance" regulating the amount of rat drop-

... rat droppings, rodent hair, insect parts and general dirt CAN be allowed in your processed foods. They already have regulations about how much mercury CAN be allowed in your food.

I suppose you are aware that such things can make you sick in sufficient (yet still undectable to the naked eye) quantities. Really, really sick. But wait! you say. Rodents and insects are part of the natural world! Silly -- they'll still make you sick.

Now let us proceed to things that are not part of the natural world, like artificial sweeteners and High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Follow the logic.

YES, I want the FDA to do its job. When reasonable scientists, whose salaries are paid for by my taxes and not by Con-Agra, let on that HFCS inserted into everything we eat is giving millions of people diabetes -- YES I would like that ingredient stiffly regulated.

Diabetes does not run in my family -- strange how two of my siblings now have it and now my blood sugar is rising, rising.

Hekate

[Strong Atheist]

117. See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6402537&mesg_id=6403183

[rucky]

115. I want accurate information - clearly labeled

so I can make an informed decision.

[Strong Atheist]

118. Fine. No problems with that. nt.

[Edweird]

131. I want my cupcakes and doughnuts, I just don't want HFCS or Hydrogenated crap in them.

I would be happy with a minimum of poly-butyl-ethyl-god-knows-what in my food. Give me FOOD not FOODSTUFF. I'm ok with sugar and lard and flour and what-have-you.

[Strong Atheist]

140. We agree up to a point, but who decides, who controls, and are foods

to be denied you by legislation?

[Edweird]

178. I nominate Paula Deen. She reminds me of my paternal grandmother and

keeps it real (as far as I can tell).



NOT this guy:


My concern isn't what FOODS are available, but what COMPONENTS they are comprised of.

[Strong Atheist]

185. Many IN THIS THREAD

would take away what foods are available; that was the point of the OP...

[Edweird]

201. Of course. There are MANY authoritarians that claim to be Liberals.

Based on what I've read they would make * look downright permissive, and cheney positively friendly. The word 'ban' gets tossed about like it's going out of style. I'm not remotely interested in dictating what others eat, I just want it to be much less synthetic.

[Strong Atheist]

205. Then we can agree on much.

:toast:

[SPedigrees]

167. Same here. nt

[flvegan]

136. I'm only posting a response

so that I can get shouted at too.

[Lex]

139. Here, let me: you are a machine, with no control over what you eat!!11eleventy

I'm smarter and will always make good decisions! But I'm cool with you being not as smart.

There.

[Strong Atheist]

144. Funny you should talk about smarter, since it is YOUR side that

wants to tell ME what I can and can not eat through force of legislation/penalty of law...

Talk about twisting the arguement 180 degrees backwards...


:eyes:

[Lex]

145. You are amusing.

I'll have to give you that much.

[Strong Atheist]

147. And accurate. Managed to nail that one right...

;)

[Ignis]

328. Say, Lex, what exactly is "your side," anyway?

I saw a reference to it in the post above, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter!

;)

[Arugula Latte]

153. This is like going to Sam Wo's in Chinatown in San Francisco

I hope I get yelled at too! :bounce:

[Strong Atheist]

156. Nothing against vegans; you get to eat what you want, I get to eat what I

want, withou someone telling one/both of us that we can't. That is what choice is about, though a distressing number here want to take that away from me, because they know better than I what I should be eating...


It is really frightening...


:scared:

[Ignis]

333. Sorry, you can't post in this thread unless you got a 5 in AP Biology.

...Because that's apparently now the accepted credential for an in-depth understanding of nutrition.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6402537#6404392

It came as a shock to me, too! :shrug: But them's the rules!

[izzybeans]

143. Whose taking what away?

Calm down and eat your ding-dong.

[Strong Atheist]

146. CSPI and localities like those mentioned in the OP here,

others elsewhere:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/4214024/Dont-throw-away-leftovers-warn-food-police.html


... and I am calm, dammit!

x(

[izzybeans]

159. "I am from Hostess and I'm here to help."

In Chicago, food waste is a huge public health concern. We can't keep giant rats out of our garden because of the crap that gets thrown in the alleys.

I applaud that program.

[SoCalDem]

151. dupe

[SoCalDem]

154. What we have NOW, is worse than the "food police".

We have powerful food "lobbyists", and "look-away" legislators who have profited from the inclusion of HFCS and an abundance of other "additives", to almost every "food" we can buy.

Apparently , once in, these "additives" are pretty much there forever. unless one is willing to pay EXTRA to buy food without them.

and for those who claim that eating junk food is not like 2nd-hand smoke, and harms no one but themselves.. the diseases that manifest themselves after decades of pizza, donuts, burgers, & big-gulps are remarkably similar to many that bedevil smokers (minus the obvious biggie for smokers)..

diabetes
atherosclerosis
obesity-related ailments
stroke
heart attack


The treatment of these chronic ailments drives up costs for everyone else too, and precipitates increases in insurance costs , across the board.

The issue is "unnecessary" additives & ingredients in foods, and perhaps the feedlot-sizing of foods that are inherently "not good for us".

I don't think anyone would deny someone the occasional burger & fries, but there are many people in the US (and other places as well) who have totally substituted these fast foods & junk foods for "real" foods, and who are raising their kids on it as well.

Items that were once "occasional treats", are now called breakfast-lunch-dinner 24-7-365.

[Strong Atheist]

189. Health care issue sub thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6402537&mesg_id=6402799

[Junkdrawer]

155. John Stossel??? You support John Stossel???

Really?

[Strong Atheist]

194. You think the fights over taking away guns got nasty in America?

Just wait for the fights over taking away foods people have been eating their whole lives. It will make the gun battle seem like a picnic ( :rofl: double pun ). Even here on DU, the food police are losing in the poll, badly...


:shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

225. The Food Industry will fight at least as hard as the Gun Industry...

(or the Tobacco Industry for that matter) to maintain their profitable base of addicts.

Nasty indeed.

[Strong Atheist]

229. Ain't just the food industry. Average people will fight having their

food choices legislated away...

[anigbrowl]

202. Fuck your idiot poll

And no, I don't work for a food company or for a regulatory agency.

[Strong Atheist]

212. There are conflicting messages here, but I take it you want

someone else to be telling us what we can and can not eat, with the force and penalties of law. Hopefully, that will always be opposed en mass in this country...


At least, I hope so...


:scared:

[anigbrowl]

298. More nonsensical BS

If you want to rant about what you consider to be excessive regulation - fine. What I object to is your framing it as a poll, falsely creating the impression that you're interested in hearing other people's views rather than just stroking yourself. Enjoy your tinfoil hat.

[endarkenment]

305. Enjoy your tinfoil hat.

Insulting to tin foil hats. Take it back or I will rat you out to the Fashion Police.

[Strong Atheist]

306. Wow. Funny how differently people view things, and what they

get really upset about (making it a poll upsets you?).

:shrug:

Oh, well, eom.

[anigbrowl]

386. Let me explain why making a poll upsets me

Suppose I was religious and made a poll like this (specially constructed to offend your secular sensibilities):

Do you believe in the belief police?

* No, we should be free to worship the Lord Jesus Christ rapture me now lamb of God
* Yes, I have no morals and want to be dominated by an evil communist state
* Yes, I have no morals and think serial killing is perfectly OK
* Yes, I am a mindless drone incapable of appreciating reality


A poll suggests you want to solicit information from other DUers. If you use it instead to just push your point of view and insult everyone who disagrees with it then you're doing the same kind of thing as Fox and people like that.

[Strong Atheist]

400. Well, my first two choices covered that. This was all started by other threads that

suggest we have no choice in what we do, and was a response to those threads.

FWIIW, the second choice is reasonable, but one I don't agree with.

Far from being unbalanced, I covered all four possibilities in a simple
Punnett square


free will/determinism


vs.

choice/no choice.



Completely balanced.



Why the first part? As I said, this is in response to some posts that STRONGLY argued we are DETERMINED to eat certain things.

Don't like the determination thing? Neither do I. Vote the second one, it balances the fourth one; or better yet, complain to the one whose posts provoked this response.

[anigbrowl]

420. Oh dear

For one thing, two wrongs don't make a right. For another, there's a qualitative difference between 'what you're allowed to eat' and 'what people are allowed to sell as food'. You can go into the park and eat dirt if you want, but there are regulations to prevent people doing things like adding melamine to your milk. Think it over.

[Grinchie]

204. How pathetically uninformed you are... It is so sad, really

It's hard to get a grip on your views regarding adulterated, toxic, and non nutrition. You seem to have bought into the myth that the "Cupcakes, doughnuts" that you buy today are anything like what your granny made in the Kitchen during the 60's. Although, I do have to commend you on adding a big clue as to why, "Trans-Fats".

In th past, we relied on Animal Fats, such as Chicken Fat, Beef Fat, Suet, Olive Oils, etc tosupply the essential fatty acids that our Brain and body needs to rebuild. Over the years, in order to create more profit, the Food "INDUSTRY", developed Trans Fats to make the highly reactive Fat's less reactive. This prolonged shelf life, increased the fat's abilitiy to be used in INDUSTRIAL equipment without gumming up the works, and generally, behave more like a chemical component. Since the reactive nature of the Fatty Acids was reduced, when ingested, the Fats no longer provide the energy that they once had. That is, natural fats Oxidize into smaller units and building blocks that are then used by the cells of the body for other processes. When they see transfats, the fat no longer Oxidizes into tiny building blocks, so it remains in the same state (In generally larger amounts) that the body encounters it. Those weak molecular bonds that the body takes advantage of to snip fats into usable molecules are no longer present, and take too much energy to snip using normal enzymes or catalysts.

Then of course, you have the Food Industry, lobbying very hard to propagandize us into believing that ALL FATS are bad, when the truth of the matter is that they are only trying to protect themselves from dealing with Natural Fats, that Oxidize readily, and that cost more to store, have a tendency to spoil in the machinery, and if they do spoil in the machine, leave a really nasty aftertaste, which would force the Food Makers to clean more thouroughly. Can't have that can we? They might have to hire more workers, and allocate more downtime for the Machines to be cleaned, thus reducing output and profits.

As far as Splenda goes.. Good lord. Sucralose found to persist in the environment Since I don't watch TV anymore, I can't remark on the current slew of Splenda commercial other than the ones I saw a few years ago. What I did see was a bunch of happy kids, Hearts, Puppies, etc.. I didn't see that Splenda was manufactured in an industrial refinery, but was led to believe "It's just like Sugar!". Sure thing. I know, I know, how dare I tell you not to eat this crap? Well, if it pollutes the groundwater, and survives wastewater treatment, I don't think that you have a choice in the matter.

Thirdly, in regards to your silly "My choice to kill myself" rant, this is exactly why the Health Care Industry is fighting Universal Healthcare so viciously. They know that diet is killing people, whether people like you know it or not. They also know that the food today is the shadow of food. The number of adulterants, the lack of nutrition, and the amount of sugars, salt, "Spices" (read chemical compounds) overwhelming outnumber the available natural product.

You eat animals that have been force fed GMO feedstock, chicken shit, antibiotics, which have concentrated all the toxins into their bodys for the short pathetic lives they have existed on this planet. They no longer scratch in the soil, eating cockroaches, centipedes, grasshoppers, seeds, fruits, mice, voles, etc... They creatures pass on the miserable lives they lead in the CAFO's straight to you in the food you eat.

If you want freedom to kill yourself, join the Military. They will give you all the High Caloric food you need for quick bursts of energy in between bouts of exhaustion, give you the freedom to be injected with untested, highly questionable Vaccinations against your will, and allow you to smoke all the cigarrettes you want.

This is not about "Freedom" to choose what to eat. It about the freedom of the Corporations to continue to use toxic compounds in the food supply, while ignoring and causing the natural alternative to disappear.

I choose to not eat GMO. Well guess what, GMO is everywhere, unlabeled, insinuated into 80% of all processed foods containing more than 8 ingredients. I choose to be able to eat 2000 differnet varieties of Apples, but hey, we have watched as 1800 of those species have gone extinct.

You need to do a little research on Food, Nutrition, and the Big Ag Food Industry. It will scare the hell out of you, and you will most likely not be posting such nonsense like your original Post ever again.

Continue on your indestrucible me path, and you'll be just like all the other drones, suffering from Brain Atrophy and a me first complex.

[Strong Atheist]

215. You get to eat what you want, I get to eat what I want. Simple enough, till

one side tries to force the other by taking away choices. The choices are out there...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6402537&mesg_id=6403315

[Grinchie]

297. Unfortunately, we end up all paying for unregulated, adulterated food

While you blithely throw your life away in the long run.

Regardless of what you think, and predominance of Fat, Unhealthy, largely unproductive fellow citizens isn't particularly appealing.

As far as you are concerned, it appears that you have made up your mind on this matter, so I'm not going to make any attempt to convince you. You will need to take responsibility for becoming informed on your own. Nobody is going to do it for you other than the Propagandists that feed you just enough information to make you feel comfortable on your self destructive path, as long as they keep their markets, profits, and legal protections.

[LanternWaste]

355. Allow them their martyrdom... it's not just for the religious anymore.

I imagine a lot of people would like to see rancid meat sold over the counter, and those who don't get the rather colorful sobriquet of 'food police' thrown at them.



But, allow them their martyrdom-- without the dogmas of melodrama and a sense of self-defined martyrdom, people simply become people-- and that's just not good enough for many of us. :P

[SPedigrees]

226. Thank you, Grinchie. Your post was a great read. The "shadow of food" describes it so well. nt

[NoPasaran]

206. When doughnuts are policed, only police will have doughnuts

Bwahahahaha

[Strong Atheist]

213. !

:rofl:

[City of Mills]

217. I have free will, but would like government to decide what foods I can eat

I hate shopping and deciding what to eat, so if we could reduce food down to one type of nutrition filled paste, I could get used to it. Then I could spend my time on more important things besides deciding what to shop for and eat.

[Strong Atheist]

220. Wow. I sorta understand, but that is tough on those of us who

don't feel that way...

:shrug:

[Spider Jerusalem]

221. Free will is mostly an illusion.

Fact: humans did not evolve to have ready and constant access to a diet of high-calorie, high-fat, high-sugar foodstuffs.

Fact: humans will eat more of these foodstuffs when they are available because of their higher caloric content, due to hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary programming in times of high food scarcity (first as hunter-gatherers, and then with pre-modern agriculture and frequent famine and crop failure).

Fact: the technological advances made in recent times have led to most people in most advanced societies leading a more or less sedentary lifestyle. Sedentary lifestyles and high-calorie diets are incompatible and lead to obesity on a wide scale (as can be seen in the US, in the UK, and increasingly in many parts of Europe).

Now, whether you think there should be restrictions on certain foods depends on whether you think that widespread obesity, type II diabetes, heart disease, etc constitute a public health issue or not. Pretty obviously 'good old American willpower' isn't working. Most fat people don't actually want to be fat. At the same time, various studies have shown that most diets do not work except in the short term. So what would your answer be? Personally I see it as not much different, as a public health matter, than regulating tobacco or alcohol.

[Strong Atheist]

227. My answer? Let people eat what they want to eat. Really and

truly...


No food police...


Really and truly...

[nadinbrzezinski]

234. But THERE IS A FOOD POLICY, it is called the AG Bill and it is passed

every five years by the Congress

This bill decides on silly shit like what to give subsidies to... CORN for example, that has led to a monoculture that is BAD for the land.

Are you that dense NOT to realize that the country DOES HAVE A FOOD POLICY?

Granted, most Americans do NOT understand that the AG bill is the FOOD policy of the US. and it subsidizes corn, wheat and another grain. It has led to land being left fallow for a good percentage of the year, to incredible use of pesticides (and dead zones for fish), as well as the cheap cost of PROCESSED food, instead of fresh food.

My god, you are that willfully ignorant?

Oh and the studies that have been done have shown that indeed, if you have hyper palatable foods et al, yes 85% of the population will over eat. It has a name, conditioned overeating..

But keep harping and living in your illusions. After all 50K years of evolution are nothing, and we should ignore it, And we should also ignore that WE HAVE A FOOD POLICY IN PLACE. By the way, smile, and thank Nixon on the way out.

[Strong Atheist]

239. You and I have gone round on this before. I can only conclude from your

other posts on this subject that you think you (and others) are a programmed machine, with no choice, no free will, and no self control. You (and they) have to do what you are told by the-powers-that-be.

It would merely be sad, if it wasn't so freaking scary that such people hate and fear choice so much that they want to take it away from the rest of us...


:scared:

[nadinbrzezinski]

240. And you are incapable of understandin that we have a food policy in place

it is called the AG BIll.

Too hard to understand? Brain cells not working? Must be all those additives...

On a serious note, some of those additives may be behind the increase in dementia, but that is I guess a cost you are willing to pay.

Neurons not firing properly though.

And no I am not a robot, but I am not out of nature either, and I am subject to that thing called instinct and evolutionary forces. So are my parrots by the way.

Now you think you are not an animal, living as part of nature and not subject to the forces that shaped our evolution... be my guest... I guess you are also one who does have no problem with monoculture, or industrial agriculture, and ruining the land.

Here is a free clue for you... the system you are defending is unsustainable for MANY reasons... so your "choices" will be gone anyway... for many reasons. You are unwilling to look into it... well then it will be a shock when it happens. Free clue... Americans will have to lower their consumption of meat one way or the other, sooner or later, probably sooner... and that will be a shock to Americans. After all Americans believe in this free will not realizing how much they are part of a SYSTEM.

By the way, for an Atheist, you are displaying a very old testament view of things... not only insofar as free will but the land was given to man (not woman) to work as he wishes by god.

By the way, that is part of the American culture...

[Strong Atheist]

244. I am am afraid you may be right about the future, which is why I am REALLY enjoying all

my food choices now...


I have thought on that much in the last year, and am really splurging on what I enjoy eating (while still losing weight), as it MAY be gone in the future. We will see, doom and gloom does not always come to pass, but in this case I fear you MAY, unfortunately, be right...


It will certainly be right for the wrong reasons if the food police have their way...


:scared:

[nadinbrzezinski]

250. It has nothing to do wiht the "food police" you dread

it has all to do with our agricultural policies.

Read a little on monoculture, which we have been practicing since 1973 in the Midwest and how it strips the land.

Also read a little on industrial agriculture and how that destroys the water supply as well.

Farmers know this, those who do not take care of the land, well the land does not take care of them.

Gosh darn it I grew up in a city and I KNOW that crop rotation is essential to keep the land healthy.

[TexasObserver]

387. Must ... have ... sugar ... cannot ... stop ... self ....

I
am
robot.

I
must
eat
sugar.

I
cannot
stop.

Who would have thought the Matrix is really General Foods?

There is no doubt that those who sell food want to sell more of theirs at the expense of other foods, and in doing so, capitalize on our innate need for certain things, such as salts and sugars. But we are not robotic. We have the ability to pick and choose, to educate ourselves and to make wise choices.

Food production runs on DEMAND, so if we want to alter the system, enhancing demand for healthier foods is the best way to increase the presence of those foods. We vote each time we eat, and I try to vote wisely.

Of course we want government controlling sanitation, hygiene, quality and safety. Of course we want government to mandate useful information to help us in our decision making, but it is OUR decision making.

[Strong Atheist]

397. Agreed. Thank you.

:pals:

[nadinbrzezinski]

231. Nah he is advocating against giving people true choices

taking away the FDA, since we don't need it, in this libertarian world

And NOT EDUCATING PEOPLE on what the industry has done, or holding them accountable

In his world we do not need no stinking regulations or for that matter no stinking PSAs or education of any sort

You sicken me, since you missed what these threads are about.

Don't worry, you were also not for regulating the cigarette industry either, free will and all... and we should have Joe Camel on the Cartoon Network or the Family Channel... (Guess what those adds for Mickey Ds are the equivalent of Joe)

[Strong Atheist]

237. Choice. People hate and fear it, and want to abolish it.

Sad and very scary at the same time...


:scared:

[nadinbrzezinski]

238. What part of your choices right now are truly an ilusion are you truly

and purposely missing?

[Strong Atheist]

246. Keep hitting that wall, and say it is an illusion. You may break through, one

day, and see the light...


:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

254. Or perhaps you will get how much of an illusion you live in

to use a movie reference, you chose the blue pill, I chose the red pill

You live in a fantasy where you think you have choice.

I have to make conscious decisions not pushed by marketeers on what to eat. That requires a level of work that you are not willing to do... instead you chose to live in an illusion.

I am also aware that people like you hate any consumer advocates that point out just how little real choice the food system is giving you.

[The Straight Story]

362. Key word is CHOOSE - you chose one why should others be forced to choose the same? (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

376. So you think we should get rid of FDA and other regulatory agencies

You may not understand this, but your choices right now, in labeling, come from idiots who fought the industry until they were forced to get them labels in food items

They argued that they had a RIGHT not to tell you what is in their food... because of corporate secrecy laws.

So who do you want to balance that?

Now you want cup cakes, by all means, donuts, sure... but you should be able to know if they have HFCS and transfat in them. My preference... transfats should go, not good for you. But you know why the industry is fighting this? Never mind it will not change the taste? Shelf life... if they are forced, oh the poor dears, to use natural fats, the shelf life of their crap goes down by orders of magnitude. They have to clean the equipment more often... and oh my... leads to lower profits. We can't have that.

Now if you want to put the corporations ahead for the sake of your freedom to chose, by all means... go ahead. I will not stop you. Perhaps next in your freedom project should be to get rid of all labeling laws... I mean the corporations need a free environment to sell you what they want without you knowing what is in the package...

[The Straight Story]

383. There is a difference between labeling and laws and choice

Force companies to label properly? OK with that.

limiting choice? Not ok with that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

384. Even if limiing that choice is taking out lead out of paint

or added preservatives and chemicals out of food?

Okie dockie

Because that is what the dreaded food police does. They look at science and go... you know what Transfats are not healthy... lets recommend they are removed. So far only one state has actually removed them. (The rest hopefully will folow)

So tell me how exactly removing transfats in NYC removed your choice to have french fries at Mickey Ds or Burger King or the local joint?

[LanternWaste]

356. That's about the most petulant, self-validating bit of crap I've ever read from you...

That's about the most petulant, self-validating bit of crap I've ever read from you...

[Strong Atheist]

364. !

:rofl:

[LanternWaste]

367. I imagine that's about par for the course...

I imagine that's about par for the course for the time being... (golf metaphor, btw)

[dorkulon]

233. I am a push poll. /nt

[Strong Atheist]

249. Actually, I a teacher that is so low in the pecking order you would not believe it. I am

therefore unaffiliated with any corporations, and do in fact work for my local government and ONLY for my local government (I am a slacker, one job is enough for me).

YOU may not believe that, but the admins have all my personal data, for reasons I won't go into.


The only thing I am pushing is: choice; my ability to keep it. Looks like many agree with me.


So there! nyah, nyah!

:rofl:

[dorkulon]

404. Corporations have nothing to do with it.

A push poll is a poll that pushes a certain choice by its premises and wording. This is one.

[Strong Atheist]

406. Yes, thank you I was getting up to speed on that in the early am. As far as this being a push poll,

you are all quite wrong. You see, the original threads that prompted this were VERY clear on STRONGLY emphasizing determinism; that we are all helpless and DETERMINED to eat certain things. There was no ambiguity, and as a philosophy major I thought about determinism/free will quite a lot.

Therefore, this was a response to those deterministic threads, and a quite fair one as explained here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6402537&mesg_id=6408795


You don't like determinism in the poll? Take it up with the ones pushing it so strongly in the earlier food threads; this is simply a response to their deterministic bullshit; and a rather fair one at that.

[Ignis]

243. You have a bright future as a GOP push-poller. (nt)

[cwydro]

278. What crap.

[Ignis]

320. I agree, this poll was complete crap. (nt)

[Critters2]

361. Yep. False dichotomy, slanted, a classic push poll. nt

[closeupready]

247. Other - I have free will, but the gov't. should legislate sensibly.

And these laws don't tell me I can't eat these things - they tell manufacturers and food processors that they can't use certain ingredients, and usually it's for health reasons, and what's wrong with that.

[Strong Atheist]

252. Did you look at the links?

I can provide more, to other types of food banned (veal, for instance, which I like).

Have you read some of the comments on this thread?

There are many here who would ban foods in a heartbeat...


:scared:

[closeupready]

277. I like veal - and foie gras. So no, I don't want food police

like that, no. But do I want the government prohibiting transfats, for example? We've been doing that here in NYC for a while, and it's worked out fine. When people frame things as has been done in the opening post, often it means something else, but the poll results are held to support not what was asked, but rather, that something else. So that's why I'm being a little cagey here.

[Strong Atheist]

293. I gotta admit, you completely lost

me; I have no clue what is going on...


:shrug:

[closeupready]

301. It's just weird that you offered a limited number of responses, and no "other"

Obviously, who's going to use a DU poll as evidence in support of a legal brief or a scientific study, lol, but you're not really getting useful information from this poll, IMHO.

i mean, it's like you're asking us, do you support freedom or fascism? When what you really should be asking is, should the government have the authority to regulate the food supply?

It's like asking, do you support freedom or fascism when the underlying issue is slave economies.

[Strong Atheist]

303. Ah, now I understand (I think). You did not like the way I constructed the OP. Sigh.

Well, I did it the way I wanted to, based on some previous food threads. In fact, they are what prompted this OP; I would have never come up with this topic on my own.

Now, you seem to be approaching the subject from a slightly different slant than I am, with different priorities, and that is fine. Maybe you should make it a separate OP, though I would wait a day or two till the mess from this one has died down, if I was in your shoes...


...just some ideas/suggestions...



:shrug:

[krispos42]

248. How about they make sure my food is clean and pure and germ-free...

...and properly labeled with content and nutritional information, then leave me alone?

[Strong Atheist]

255. We can agree on that! nt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

265. And how about legistlating to remove all the bad food additives

that we know are bad for you?

Will that be that bad for you?

Apparently so.

Anyhow, this looks like flame bait at this point to me.

[cwydro]

285. How is it flamebait to want the government

to keep its laws off my body? ALL of my body?

[nadinbrzezinski]

294. So you want to get rid of the FDA and the EPA?

So exactly how much rat poop is acceptable in your food? How about how much DDT do you want to consume?

Perhaps you would love to have plastics added to baby formula? I mean it is your right. Oh and since it is your right, perhaps we should get rid of ALL the labeling laws so they can hide all these things from you.

After all the US of the Corporations and for the Corporations is what you'd like to see.

There are days I wonder about people and what they think is freedom, and their actual knowledge of what is actually going on.

Personally I am glad the FDA keeps an eye for silly shit like oh Salmonella, and rat poop, and if they want to get rid of trans fats in the food supply or HFCS, I am all for it. These are BAD THINGS FOR YOU and ME.

[cwydro]

307. Of course not.

Don't get so overwrought.

Safety is one thing, though actually I have my doubts as to how much the FDA does in that respect.

I do agree with you that HCFS and transfats are no good for us. However, I do not ingest them as a matter of CHOICE.

You might be gratified that after one of your threads on the matter, I went browsing through my pantry just to see. I had nothing with HFCS in it. Today at the store I checked ingredients , which I regularly do, and found nothing on my list contained that.

So maybe I eat much differently than others, but I think that personal responsibility plays the largest part in our health. I don't want the government having ANY control over my body.

I think we can agree to disagee on this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

309. Then lets get rid of the FDA and the EPA

both are government agencies, and they have no place in your life.

As to HFCS there have been plenty of studies showing that you will be consuming them from time to time, whether you like it or not. Yes my dear, there are places where you do not have that choice.

On edit, you cannot have it both ways. You either accept some regulation in your life and the role of government in it, or you don't. Since you don't, well then lets get rid of those labeling laws that give you that LIMITED choice. Care to guess how fast the HFCS will be added to foods you like if the labels go away? You have the limited choice you have because of those laws industry fought and still fights every day of the week and twice on sunday.

[cwydro]

315. Sigh.

I said I thought the FDA had its place.

There are places that I will not have the choice of what is in my food, but I eat out so seldom that I don't think that is something I will waste a lot of time worrying about.

Choice is a big thing with me. That is why I rarely eat out and why I am careful with what I buy.

I work with all kinds of people, young and old, skinny and fat. They all have plenty of money, so they have the financial wherewithal to make good choices. However, I am regularly teased (good naturedly) about my fresh fruit that I bring to work, how I never want to chip in on the pizza and other deliveries, how I don't take advantage of the free meal I get as a supe with the restaurant on site (FULL of fried crap and no doubt TONS of the evil HFCS!).

Some people just like to eat junk. I just am lucky that I enjoy good wholesome food. Others don't. I am the ONLY one who DOESN'T preach at work, lol! The others are always on my case about my healthy habits.

Now, I gotta go get a drink.

[nadinbrzezinski]

318. But you do not want the gubmint to tell you what to eat

those agencies already do in many ways, from what has to be put in labels, all the way to what cannot be added to food.

THAT IS MY POINT

The labels are also part of that REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT.

You cannot have it both ways. THAT IS THE FUCKING POINT.

By the way, you are living in a country where your "choices" are driven by a national food policy, why chicken is so damn cheap... as well as corn... but hey, whatever... go have that drink.

[cwydro]

322. Ugh, I hate chicken.

My dad was an architect and built food plants for the corporations of which you speak.

It only took one trip inside one (he forced us to see what our food undergoes) to let me know I wanted NOTHING to do with processed chicken, etc.

I will have the drink though. I checked; there is no HFCS in the rum.

[Missy Vixen]

308. I just spent a week recovering from food poisoning obtained in a local restaurant

I'll take those health department laws, thanks. Anyone who says they won't evidently hasn't had food poisoning.

:scared:

[cwydro]

317. Of course, the FDA and Health Department have their place.

That is a far cry from saying we can't eat donuts!

[Odin2005]

259. The government has no right to tell me want I can and can't do with my body.

And that includes food.

[Strong Atheist]

261. Agreed! My point,

exactly!


:yourock:

[Odin2005]

264. Thank you!

I can't stand nanny-statists. They need to keep their noses out of other people's business.

[cwydro]

263. No need for food police.

I have free will and no one is "nudging" me. I see commercials all the time for Quiznos, MacDonalds, Burger King, Subway...but I cannot even remember the last time I ate at one of them.

Usually when I get a craving for fast food, which is rare, eating there just once will remind me why I so seldom do it.

[Strong Atheist]

267. Now see, this is sensible. You eat where and how you want, and I get to do the

same. Seems simple enough...


:shrug:

[cwydro]

271. Yep.

The government can keep its laws off ALL of my body, thank you very much.

I've never even tried a Twinkie, can you believe it? But if I wanted to eat a box of them, that would be my business.

[Strong Atheist]

274. Yes, agree. However, many here do not. It is

scary...


:scared:

[Grinchie]

312. Your shallow thinking precludes you from the big picture.

When the Fast Food Industry is the only choice that many people have, especially in urban areas of high density population, then you have just forced your "Free Market Choice" on everyone. You automatically assume that healthy food choices are always available, which is a Strawman Argument. When the McDonalds, Burger Kings, Jack in the Boxes, Applebee's, Quiznos, Subways, Taco Bells are the predominant vendor of food, which if driven primarily due to people on the Rat Race Treadmill, there is a distinct competitive pressure on Slow Food establishment that may or may not use higher quality ingredients.

All of the fast food joint use the same, highly industrialized supply chain, so they are all virtually equivalent in the aduterants and GMO and other noxious ingredients.

You also fail to acknowledge that people may not have a choice due to economic hardship, so they will migrate to cheap, fast food out of sheer necessity.

There are also many people, such as yourself, that appear to be highly uneducated in regards to the sweeping changes that have occurred in the Food Industry in the past 30 years. It's almost like you've been asleep, woke up with a nightmare about being arrested for eating a cupcake, and then start railing against your loss of freedom, without actually looking at why such regulations may or may not be necessary. You think doctors get in depth training in nutrition in Medical School these days? Hah Hah Hah! If they want to learn about Nutrition, they have to do Undergraduate studies, like that's a real issue when the Doctors are thousands of dollars in debt, and need to make that money back pronto.

You argument reminds me of the classic Chesterfield Cigarette campaign that broke through the barrier of Women not being allowed to smoke. Edward Bernays, hires a bunch of young women in a Suffragette Womens Vote Parade, and had them light up "Freedom Torches", which was used to created a new market of Millions of women smokers for Chesterfields. Oh the Freedom! Oh the Patriotism of linking a nasty, toxic, smelly habit to Freedom.

I hope that puts this into perspective for you. I have the freedom to eat Hemp Oil, don't I? Maybe I want to eat some Khat, don't I? Maybe I want to chew on some Coca Leaves? Where is my "Freedom" there? Why should I be forced to eat manmade fats or GMO foods, or chemicals made in some industrial process? Why should American be sold on the myth that Low Fat diets are best, and that Natural fats are all bad, but Manmade Fats good?

You are way out of your league trying to use a decades old Propagnada ploy to somehow convince people that you would be harmed somehow if the Big Food Corporations were actually held accountable for the mess that exists in our food supply.

You are using the fear tactic of "Food Police" and loss of "Free Choice" while the Food Industry continues to turn food into an industrial chemical process, with highly adverse side effects.

In the long run, it's all about education and not propaganda. Smart people know your argument is an Empty barrel with a single stone inside. Nothing would stop me from making a cupcake from scratch, alas if only the natural, unadultered, ingredients were available.

[nadinbrzezinski]

323. Very well said

this is why the illusion of freedom must be maintained.

[cwydro]

268. I recced this thread and cannot imagine who or why

is unreccing it.

[Strong Atheist]

275. Ah, well, there seems to be two camps on this issue. Obviously, it is the

other camp, which is ok; the rec/unrec system is as American as apple pie (at least, until it is banned by the food police). To be honest, I was much more interested in talking on this thread than seeing what recs/unrecs there were.

[cwydro]

281. Oh, I know, I don't care too much about the rec system myself

though I do use it.

Just can't figure out why someone unrecs a poll. That confuses me.

Do you know I went to the grocery store today and bought broccoli, cauliflower, zucchini, squash, onions, mushrooms, apples, grapefruit, olive oil, pesto and vinegar?

Then I came home and made a veggie samich.

I'm not sure which corporation made me buy those things. Perhaps one of the other posters could clue me in.

Oh yeah, I did buy Heineken and red wine too!

[Strong Atheist]

292. "Heineken and red wine"! You, you, you freeper/corporate tool/troll

you!


:sarcasm: for the innocent bystanders sake, cwydro and I are good

buddies...

edited for: :hug:

[cwydro]

329. I couldn't HELP myself!

There was a SALE PAPER as I entered the store and it fairly SCREAMED at me to BUY HEINEKEIN! It was on SALE!

I tried, I tried...I went to other aisles...but the magnets on the shopping carts (you just KNOW they have them! dragged me over to that beer section, sob!)

The wine, I'm not so sure, I think that was indoctrination at an early age...

[Strong Atheist]

330. !!!!

:rofl: MAO!!!!!


:yourock:

[Ignis]

331. Those who enjoy their polls without the push, perhaps?

Because this poll is ludicrously flawed, biased, and bait for flames.

But I presume that's what the OP intended, so MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

:patriot:

[pnwmom]

269. Do I want food safety? Yes. Do I want government oversight

of ingredients going into our foods? Absolutely.

The government won't be banning cupcakes or doughnuts. That's a paper tiger.

[Strong Atheist]

280. Not only has it been tried, not only has it been DONE:

http://www.slate.com/id/2196397/

but many on this thread want to do it on a greater scale.

Scary.

:scared:

[pnwmom]

284. I can see that argument both ways. When there's a limited amount of property

to develop in an urban area, then zoning laws come into play. If there is already a surfeit of fast food restaurants in an area, the city might decide the remaining land is better used for other purposes.

I'm not against zoning, either. The alternative is a city where someone could throw up a gas station next to your house.

[Strong Atheist]

286. "Not against zoning" - neither am I, but we both know that the reason can be good or

bad, and I don't like the reason in this case...

[endarkenment]

310. disingenuous.

"The war on fat has just crossed a major red line. The Los Angeles City Council has passed an ordinance prohibiting construction of new fast-food restaurants in a 32-square-mile area inhabited by 500,000 low-income people."

Nobody has banned burgers. The LA City Council put a one year moratorium on new construction of fast food restaurants. People are free to buy all the food that isn't directly contaminated with rat shit or salmonella they want. Meanwhile, for one year, supermarkets and non-drive in sit down restaurants are being encouraged to go back into areas they have largely abandoned so that people living there have more choice about what food they will eat.

The irony of this is I am sure, lost on you.

We have a diabetes epidemic in this country. It is thought to be largely diet and exercise related.

[Maru Kitteh]

282. I don't vote in push-polls, but I'm in the middle on this issue.

I have no problem with taxing unhealthy, nutrient poor foods at a higher rate just like alcohol and tobacco. I am however against making food ingredients not found to be poisonous or seriously detrimental, illegal. I don't think HFCS is the root of all fatness, or evil, just gross. I do favor transferring the subsidies paid to Big Corn and Monsanto to the production of fresh fruits and vegetables.

[Strong Atheist]

287. I agreed with MOST of what you said...

:toast:

[closeupready]

302. Read "The Jungle". Then get back to us.

Or ask the people who contracted Mad Cow Disease.

[Rebubula]

316. LOL WUT?

Did you even read the OP? It has nothing to do with food safety - I think that we ALL agree we need regulatory agencies involved in that aspect of food.

However, this is related to controlling what kinds of food (trans fats, doughnuts, Luther Burgers) we are allowed to eat.

[closeupready]

325. This is, as far as I know, a completely nonsense issue, made up by you

for purposes of this poll, and seems to be an utter waste of bandwidth. I'm sorry, don't take this personally, but really, what were you on when you posted this poll?

For example, specifically who is proposing legislation to ban doughnuts?

[Rebubula]

332. Again...LOL WUT?

I am not the OP. Of course, a quick check could have told you this.

Also, again...you were taking issue with something that was not related to the OP.

Thanks for playing.

[Strong Atheist]

334. You did not read the link, that is obvious. The seniors not getting their

doughnuts was a three day wonder back then; google it yourself and see. You don't have to take my word for it; there are hundreds of links other than mine (but I remember it from the news at the time)...

[nadinbrzezinski]

326. Tell me exactly why you should eat trnsfats?

Please show me the benefit of eating this type of fat in the human diet?

[Rebubula]

335. Why?

I never said that you should. I was just pointing out that the poster above me got the OP all wrong.

However, why should we eat Skittles; Ice Cream, Sausage Gravy etc? They offer no benefit that is NOT outweighed by the detriment...other than it tastes good.

[nadinbrzezinski]

341. Trans fats have a very specific effect on the human body

so try to keep up, why should we allow a product into your food that WE KNOW increases artery dieases leading to more strokes and heart attacks? You want to eat ice cream, sure, it does not need to have transfats. The only thing trans do is increase shelf life.

So once again, give me a good reason to allow a product WE KNOW has really bad effects on the human body into the food chain? By the way, this is exactly the role of the FDA, to remove things from the food chain that are bad for you and we know this through science. This means that oh the horror, your twinkies manufacturer will have to use fats that are not trans... reducing the shelf life of the product, but making it less bad for you.

Does this change the TASTE if that is what matters to you? No

Does it change the profit margin for the corporation? YES.

Why do you think they fight things like that? As they say, wake up and smell the coffee.

By the way, would you like some rat poo in your twinkies and skittles while we are at it? Perhaps some salmonella? That is what the food nazis do by the way, not tell you that you cannot have your skittles. Now due to what we are doing to the land and other issues we may not be able to produce skittles in the future but that is a whole different discussion, so enjoy them while you can.

[Rebubula]

344. My bad...

...I was not aware that this was your button issue. I was just using Trans fats to make a point.

I really have little knowledge or concern about them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

347. Food and what is put into it should be a hot button issue for all

And you are like most people, enjoy your ice cream. I will fight to remove the bad stuff from them... so you can have a snack that is better for you.

[endarkenment]

358. you bad bad food nazi you

how dare you impose like this!

Hands off my rat shit and insect parts!

[nadinbrzezinski]

363. Ok I will leave the pork parts in

the unmentionables... care for some spinal cord too? Full of prions you know... YUMMYYYYY!!!!!!!!

LOL

[endarkenment]

357. people understand why rat shit shouldn't be in food but get all

fuzzy and confused about other manufacturing process additives. I cannot get any of the 'oh no the food police' posters here to explain why the FDA should stop at rat shit and not concern itself with e.g. trans fat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

359. My only explanation is that they are really confused

at what freedom truly is, that that they do not realize that it is the hated "food nazis" and even worst "consumer advocates" that have given them silly shit like labels. That way they can know, more or less, what is in their food and ahem make those precious choices they claim we are trying to take away.

Stoessel and people like him, have been extremely effective in driving the discussion and convincing people that we really do not need the FDA and the EPA... because somehow they impinge on our freedom. Why Stoessel goes after horror stories like those donuts (and I have no problem in having donuts at the senior center, but given the emerging science on trans fats and Alzheimer, can we have them made with ahem REAL BUTTER?). The donuts are a way to say, see... these food nazis are after your donuts. No, the food nazis are after the HFCS and transfats and other additives in the donuts. Of course making those donuts with natural ingredients and fried in real animal or vegetable fats will drive the price up... but that is a whole different discussion.

But at a gut level, that one is EASY to understand... and has absolutely no nuance. It becomes a black and white issue, and for the food nazis are after my food crows easy to grasp. While the science is not...

Sorry for me going overboard. Also some of our food nazis are after my food are market libertarian in the old Ron Paul model, even if they don't know it yet.

[Strong Atheist]

336. You got my OP correct. Thank you.

:toast:

[Rebubula]

342. Toast Back at you

Life is short....Eat Hard

My main source of pleasure is eating. I relish nothing better than a tasty meal of anything good. A nice salmon with dill or a Big Mac produces the same feelings of physical euphoria for me.

As an atheist as well...I firmly believe that life is all there is..and then eternal nothingness. So...I might as well have that extra slice of Red Velvet Cheesecake from the Cheesecake Factory (pure fucking bliss on a plate there) and a plate of sausage gravy for breakfast.

:toast:

[Strong Atheist]

346. Heck yeah! We are on the same wavelength!

:toast:

[Prophet0621]

350. My thoughts exactly, only go around once and won't last forever

may as well enjoy it while I'm here.

[Strong Atheist]

351. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[Hugabear]

324. We absolutely should be taxing junk food

You want real health care reform? It's gotta be paid for somehow. We should tax junk food just like we tax tobacco and alcohol.

[Strong Atheist]

338. A separate issue, not the one I was ranting about. nt.

[kimmerspixelated]

339. Nobody wants their rights taken away, but the typical American diet

is horrible.

Look how long it took to get Trans-Fats taken away from most foods(possibly replaced with something worse, but we'll save that for later).

Look how long it took to come out with a different more healthy food pyramid. Remember that meat and dairy were near the top. Well the meat and dairy ind. helped pay for that primary pyramid.

It's all about the money. So rest assured, major corporations like Coca-Cola, Dunkin Donuts, blah,blah, will not go quietly into that dark night.

I stand behind the right to choose what to eat.

I stand behind the movement for healthier choices.

It all ties into healthcare bigtime. If you want to avoid getting heart disease, diabetes, blah,blah,blah, you will have to invest in yourself with good food choices.

Imagine a world where junk food is treated like the non-smoking section of a restaurant!

It can happen, but the truth is, with that kind of significant change, you won't care anymore. Your body will be hooked on eating better foods, by the time all that happens.

Folks, at least eat organic junk food.

[Strong Atheist]

345. I agree with almost all of what you

said...

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

343. I don't favor them telling you what to eat.

However I do support calorie count and nutritional information being made available for all foodstuffs purchased from a store or restaurant. Such helps one make an informed choice.

However what if I'm paying for ones healthcare and one is morbidly obese through poor eating habits. Or if I'm on a plane and said morbidly obese person is spilling over into my seat. These are situations where it's hardly only one person's business.

[Strong Atheist]

349. Agreed with your first three sentences.

As for the health care there is a sub thread on that exact theme:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6402537&mesg_id=6402799

[Strong Atheist]

352. Well gals and guys, gotta go for a while. Lost some more weight over the last couple days; time for

some yummy Five Guys cheeseburgers...:9

Um, umm!

Keep the home fries, I mean fires burning, see you later...


~SA

[bobbolink]

360. I'm so very tired of judgmental libertarians.

To use your OWN WORDs, bite me.

[Strong Atheist]

369. Hhhmm, well, I won't try to legislated any of YOUR preferred favorite foods away... nt.

[bobbolink]

378. I want MORE protection, not less.

I suppose you are also against any protection from tainted food, too, right?

It's your judgementalism that I object to. It's absolutely NO DIFFERENT from the RW... as a matter of fact, you use many of the RW talking points.

[Strong Atheist]

392. Ah, so being for freedom of choice on what I put into/do with my body is

rw.

Fascinating.

Explain to me the difference between this and reproductive choice, without sounding like a flaming hypocrite.


I'm waiting.

[bobbolink]

421. you know, I'm sick to death of being treated like shit by so-called "progressives"

Your fighting stance is sickening.

And I mean that in the best way. :puke:

Did you see that lovely thread on the proposal to ban high-fructose corn syrup?

If not, go look it up. Full of all that lovely libertarian judgmentalism that you seem to embody.

Don't think of banning something that is so harmful, and is causing so many problems for poor folk. Instead, proclaim your superiority on some idea of "freedom".

Yeah, now THAT doesn't reek of RW shit, does it? Not only ignoring poor folk, but blaming them and criticizing them while you preen yourself on your throne of elitism.

Come down off your high horse and recognize that others are at least as human as you are, dearie. That would be a fine step toward becoming a "progressive".

[Strong Atheist]

422. You did not answer my question. Guess it is because you can't. NOT

surprised...

[bobbolink]

423. The answer was right there....in kinder terms than YOU use. You CHOOSE not

to see it.

NOT surprised.

[Strong Atheist]

424. My body my choice is Democratic and good when it comes to reproduction

(which I agree with 100%), but "libertarian" and evil when it comes to my body my choice and food.

No government interfering with choice in reproduction, but government getting rid of food choices is hunky dory.

Oh, yeah, that makes sense.

NOT!

:eyes:

Massively hypocritical/inconsistent much?

[bobbolink]

425. It's hypocritical to JUDGE poor people because they eat what they can afford,

rather than banning the substances that cause illness while enriching the greedy.

So, protect your damned HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, and enjoy it all you want, while judging others.

Yup, that is DEMOCRATIC.

NOT.

[Strong Atheist]

426. Never did answer my question. That is three times now. Checkmate.

"enjoy it all you want"

I will if I can keep the food police from telling me what food I can and can not eat, which was indeed the point of the OP.


Cheers!



:toast:

[bobbolink]

427. Yes, you win. You get to judge poor folk all you want.

I'm sure that's a great feeling for you.

Cheers to you.

[Strong Atheist]

430. It must be TERRIBLY frustrating to be unable to answer a SIMPLE, childishly EASY question

with a STRAIGHT answer; because the answer proves your opponent to be COMPLETELY in the right, and you to be COMPLETELY in the wrong! I feel SO SORRY for your indefensible position!

NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl: MAO!!!

Question (not answered FOUR times now, :rofl: MAO!!!!!!! ):

Explain to me the difference between:

my body:my choice and the government not limiting such choices by legislation when it comes to reproductive choice, and
my body:my choice and the government not limiting such choices by legislation when it comes to food choice;

without sounding like a flaming hypocrite. (Notice how ONE, NON_CRITICAL word is changed; the rest is the same, yet somehow the first is "Democratic",
and "good", and the second is "libertarian", and "evil" :rofl: MAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)


I'm waiting.




Answer: ...

....

.....


Well, there is no possible defensible answer, of course, because there IS no difference, which shows the hypocrisy of those making the "libertarian" attacks in this thread.

Unless, you are against reproductive choice, which presents its own...

....


..... indefensible problems...

:rofl: MAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You can't answer a SIMPLE, childishly EASY question AT ALL, and instead try to change the subject to side issues
(which have their own GAPING flaws in logic where you could be easily pwnd, BTW)
that have NOTHING to do with the ORIGINAL "libertarian" issue first brought up by...

....

.....well, lookie, lookie, YOU :rofl: MAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ),




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6402537&mesg_id=6406406




because any answer would prove that you are wrong, and I am right; for the simple reason that you ARE completely and TOTALLY in the wrong
on this issue, and I AM completely and TOTALLY in the right on this matter...



:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
MAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





CHEERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:toast:

SA

PS: You have been completely and TOTALLY pwnd by my superior logic, so EOC!


:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:
:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:

[bobbolink]

433. You're the one who's looking not only the fool, but a totally heartless one,.

NOBODY was talking about "reproductive choice", so there is no need for me to address that.

My point was that refusing to ban harmful substances such as high fructose corn syrup because it
somehow infringes on your libertarian "CHOICE" leads to judgmental attitudes toward those who lack choice BECAUSE of economic limitations.

THAT is the answer to your "question", which was nothing more than a judgment itself.

That right wing term of "food police" right away gave it away that this was about libertarian, NOT "progressive" thinking.

You would do well to spend a bit more effort in understanding others, rather than being proud of your ability to laugh at others.

That kind of haughtiness should embarrass you, not make you feel superior.

If you can't respond in a human and compassionate manner, and insist on showing yourself to be the self-appointed judge of others, there is obviously no point to further "communication"--because this is NO communication.... just sandbox taunting.

Bye-bye now.

[ThatsMyBarack]

368. Don't we have enough POLICE as it is?

If I were told what to eat, I'd end up STARVING TO DEATH!

[Strong Atheist]

370. .

:toast:

[bobbolink]

379. You do realize that your subject line is straight out of the RW playbook, right?

[Critters2]

382. Yeah. He does. nt

[ThatsMyBarack]

405. Duh, I knew THAT!!!

:hi:

[gleaner]

373. I chose the last option....

I have free will and I don't want anyone tell me what to eat. I'm Diabetic and follow the exchange diet, so that is doubly true. I do it because I don't want to make myself sicker. But I sure do miss my chocolate. The sugar free is good, but still fattening, and it is harder to keep your weight down if you are Diabetic.

On the other hand I would like all of these people who are so concerned about telling us what to eat to start acting in a regulatory capacity to make sure that the food we do buy in supermarkets or restaurants is safe to eat. Since shortly after Bush was elected there were a series of recalls of food products for everything from e coli to botulism. I think we deserve to know that our food sources are protected and safe whatever they may be.

[Strong Atheist]

389. Agreed with all of that. nt.

[enki23]

381. This post is truly stupid.

That's all, really.

[Strong Atheist]

394. Well, shucks, it was inspired by

other posts, so I can't hog all the credit...

[TexasObserver]

385. I don't want the food police to tell me what I can eat.

"I will choose free will!"
--- RUSH

[eridani]

390. I sure would like it if more choices without HFCS were available

Telling people not to eat so much of it is useless--why not just quit subsidizing it?

[ZombieHorde]

391. If eating people is wrong, I don't want to be right. nt

[Strong Atheist]

393. Ah, a break in the war for a laugh!

:rofl:


Thanks, I needed that!

:pals:

[ZombieHorde]

401. You are welcome. I voted,

"I have free will, I dont want the food police to tell me what I can and can not eat."

Laws against food and drugs seem oppressive to me.

[Strong Atheist]

402. Drug! I did not think of that angle. Oooh, oooh! Thanks, can't wait to

use that one...


:yourock:

[defendandprotect]

398. We need to government to keep GE food off the market . . .

and filthy food -- especially animal-products easily contaminated with fecal matter!!!

[Strong Atheist]

403. RIP corn, wheat, and pretty much all farm animals. All

GE for the last 12,000 years...

[defendandprotect]

417. Well . . . agree, there is essentially no animal on the planet which hasn't been

changed by "breeding" interference from humans --

And, most of our plants have been systemically altered from chemicals/petroleum being

thrown on them to foster growth.

Also -- we've destroyed many plants before we've even understood what they could do for us.

However, GE food is, IMO, somewhat different -- it can travel from one farmer's crop to

another's -- and it is moving the genes from one species to another. That's not something

that has been done over 12,000 years as far as I'm aware.

Further, new heights of corruption have been made possible with Repug rule over the last

decades -- not that Monsanto has been restrained in any way either by their own lights or

by government regulation. Tho, our FDA is often called "Monsanto's FDA" --

I'm not someone who thinks that we haven't been hurt by the harm we have done to animals

and plants in the past -- so I'm certainly not someone who thinks this isn't even further

and more serious damage.

[blondeatlast]

409. I lost cyclamates--and I will never forgive the FPs for it. Insulin dependent since age 7

I was denied the joy of a decent can of diet pop over some overstuffed rat that died. Even some doctors acknowledge that I know maybe more than they do--but plenty of bizzyboddeez stick their schnozzles in my salad anyway.

If a normal amount kills that rat, I'm okay with putting a warning (as in cigarrette packs) on it--but otherwise. STFU, tyvm.

[Strong Atheist]

411. Agreed, warnings are good. nt.

[yearning_4_zion_IL]

413. Hydrogenated oils are gross and toxic to the body. The fact that you see them as yummy

is simply conditioning. And the vegetable oil alternatives they are using now are probably just as toxic. Saturated fat, or at least monounsaturated fat, is far better for deep-frying. Five Guys is the one place I will go for fries. They use peanut oil and it shows! Their fries taste fresh and don't have that icky greaziness of the other places.

[Strong Atheist]

414. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[yearning_4_zion_IL]

415. Know what's funny? It showed :toast: before the emoticon came on!

:hi:

[Strong Atheist]

416. See my Five guys post up above, 30 or so posts... I do not eat the fries,

though, two burgers and a drink is enough for me for the day...

[omega minimo]

431. Did you ever say what you were talking about?

[Strong Atheist]

432. Yep, multiple times including the original OP and this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6402537&mesg_id=6408691

Ain't my fault if you choose to misunderstand...


:shrug:

[omega minimo]

434. Choose not to sort through non-statements more like it

Maybe your link actually says something!!

[Strong Atheist]

435. Logic is hard for some, I know! eoc.

[omega minimo]

437. That is not a logical statement.

It's a fallacy, based on wishful thinking, a false accusation, based on erronenous assumptions and just plain nastiness.

[ThomCat]

443. You didn't present any.

You didn't back up your slogan about freedom of choice being so good. Where is your logical defense for food being available to everyone that will make lots of people unhealthy, disabled, or dead? Where is your logical argument showing why your desire eat anything you want somehow trumps society's need to protect children and the vulnerable? Why is your individual choice more important than the safety of so many other people?

When you finally present some logical arguments, THEN maybe you can criticize other people for not understanding logic.

[ThomCat]

442. No, you just repeated a slogan over and over and over again

and when ever anyone tried to get specific about what the "food police" do that is supposedly good or bad you complain about "moving the goal post" because all you want to do is keep this thread to a slogan level.

"Choice good. Limited choice bad." :eyes:

Sorry, but this entire thread reads as if you are a kid who really doesn't understand the issues beyond a very superficial level. If you can't get beyond slogans to really discuss the issues then why are you starting threads?

:shrug:

[baldguy]

436. You think we're NOt consuming machines programmed by advertisements?

Two words: Bottled Water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNGWn-aWn5g

[Strong Atheist]

451. If you say you are a machine, I will take your word for it. I have free will. nt.

[BlooInBloo]

441. I love it when bourgeois sanctimonious vegetarians try to tell me what to eat...

They're very fun to rip on.

[ThomCat]

444. Here you are attacking vegetarians again.

For all that you complain about sanctimonious vegetarians, you seem to be the sanctimonious one over and over and over again.

You have yet to see a thread about food where you haven't mentioned vegetarians in an insulting way.

You don't like Vegetarians. We get it already. We got it the first 50 times you said it. Get over it already. :eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

445. Not all vegetarians, as I clearly indicated.

[Greyhound]

446. What's your solution?

Your pretense of a poll aside, you strongly object to societal intrusion into your personal habits and I can understand and respect that, but what is your solution?

The reality is that we are a nation addicted to addiction, we are miserable and profoundly unsatisfied with the sham that we have been conditioned to call "American life". And so we try to fill the void by, in this case, consuming vast quantities of shit that rats won't eat and growing into disgusting blobs of unhealthy flesh. Left on our own, we apparently are completely happy to continuously eat while starving ourselves to death.

Our minds and bodies no longer function, due in large part, to this constant, massive, intake of empty calories (calories with no nutrition) and the longer we continue down this suicidal path, the worse it will get. We have children that have not hit puberty, tipping the scales at 200 lbs. Garment manufacturers have been expanding sizes to the point that inches mean nothing and there are no standards any longer. A man that wore 34 X 34 pants 10 years ago, and has maintained his weight, now has to buy 30 X 30 so they don't fall down. A size 6 dress is now a 0, so that the ever-expanding American waist/ass doesn't "feel bad" about being so enormous.

[Strong Atheist]

448. As far as my

pretense of a poll goes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6402537&mesg_id=6408795

As for my solution? Let me eat what I want to eat (and the same for everyone else).

[Greyhound]

447. Of course there is the ultimate question, how much do you weigh? n/t

[Strong Atheist]

449. 5'6", 145lbs, mid forties. Got a couple more to lose, but not much. nt.

[Silver Swan]

450. I believe free will is an illusion

But I want to use my illusionary free will to eat whatever I choose.

[Strong Atheist]

452. Well, we have a 50% agreement, which is very good in

life!

:toast: