34 posts in this topic

I like fat and I have the right to have elevated cholesterol. FREEDOM !

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because MORE regulation is just what is needed here. Right. The gov's job is not to be a nanny, and as such doesn't need to be involved here. If people are going to do something, then they should live with the outcome of whatever is they choose to do, whatever that may be.

 

As long as the regulation is only to force the retailer to disclose all the nutrition information about the food, but not actually prevent its sale, then it's good regulation and something the government should be involved in.  Its job is, after all, to protect its citizens from all threats, both foreign and domestic.

 

That way, the consumer can actually make an informed choice, rather than just buying something based on sight alone and hoping it's not going to give them a coronary.  If people choose to eat this garbage despite seeing what's in it, then that's the point where it becomes their problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because MORE regulation is just what is needed here. Right. The gov's job is not to be a nanny, and as such doesn't need to be involved here. If people are going to do something, then they should live with the outcome of whatever is they choose to do, whatever that may be.

The problem is that people don't know what the consequences are. There should be a reasonable expectation that food being sold is safe for human consumption, which is exactly why the FDA exists. The food here is simply not safe. Restaurants aren't allowed to serve raw meat or prepare food in unsanitary conditions, so it's not like the government doesn't already have similar powers. There's a big difference between a nanny state and common sense legislation. Irresponsible behaviour by restaurants like this is leading to the early death of millions of Americans. If you think that's not something the government should get involved in then I think you need to re-evaluate your political beliefs.

 

As long as the regulation is only to force the retailer to disclose all the nutrition information about the food, but not actually prevent its sale, then it's good regulation and something the government should be involved in.  Its job is, after all, to protect its citizens from all threats, both foreign and domestic.

That should include taxing unhealthy products, as has been done with tobacco. Part of the problem is that unhealthy food like this is incredibly cheap and that only encourages consumption. If people were informed about how unhealthy it is and meals were punitively taxed based upon how dangerous they are then consumers would be considerably less likely to buy such meals and restaurants wouldn't have an incentive to create unhealthy meals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is more that they doesn't disclose openly how unhealthy it is, which should be required for a meal that is so unhealthy (in terms of calories, fats and salt). Consumers aren't able to make an informed decision.

 

 

Really?  I JUST SAID that, here in California, all nutrition info must be posted so you can see it when you order and you can request a pamphlet if you wanted to take it with you.  It's the ######ing law.   How is that keeping people in the dark and not informing them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha you have to laugh at these offerings. It is plain and simple natural selection...in a tasty dress =P

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?  I JUST SAID that, here in California, all nutrition info must be posted so you can see it when you order and you can request a pamphlet if you wanted to take it with you.  It's the ****ing law.   How is that keeping people in the dark and not informing them?

You shouldn't have to ask whether your food is fit for consumption - there should be an assumption that it is. This meal doesn't come with a health warning, which means that consumers are under the impression that it is safe to eat. You can't seriously be suggesting that because in some states you can ask for a pamphlet informing you of how dangerous a meal is that everything is okay?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's time to implement the "traffic light" system we use in the UK on prepackaged foods, in restaurants? You can the see, right there on the menu, immediate indicators of fat, sugar, sodium and calories, colour coded to their % of RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance).

 

It's an incredibly simple system to understand:

 

_63685888_food_labels_464.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that people don't know what the consequences are. There should be a reasonable expectation that food being sold is safe for human consumption, which is exactly why the FDA exists. The food here is simply not safe. Restaurants aren't allowed to serve raw meat or prepare food in unsanitary conditions, so it's not like the government doesn't already have similar powers. There's a big difference between a nanny state and common sense legislation. Irresponsible behaviour by restaurants like this is leading to the early death of millions of Americans. If you think that's not something the government should get involved in then I think you need to re-evaluate your political beliefs.

 

 

That should include taxing unhealthy products, as has been done with tobacco. Part of the problem is that unhealthy food like this is incredibly cheap and that only encourages consumption. If people were informed about how unhealthy it is and meals were punitively taxed based upon how dangerous they are then consumers would be considerably less likely to buy such meals and restaurants wouldn't have an incentive to create unhealthy meals.

So basically you want to the gov legislate away ignorance? Ha...thats like trying to fix stupid. Also when I think of something not "fit for human consumption" I think of things that would instantly kill you if you ingested them. This stuff doesn't do that, and if enjoyed in moderation (like a previous poster said but everyone ignored) its not going to kill you. I'm perfectly capable (as I'm sure many others as well) of deciding what I eat, and do not require the "assistance" of some gov. bureaucrat to do so. Serving raw meat or food prepared in an unclean environment is different, as either of those could fall under the "instantly kill you" part, and if not that, will surely make you incredibly sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically you want to the gov legislate away ignorance?

No, I want the government to stop businesses engaging in dangerous and reckless behaviour all for the sake of profit. The welfare of consumers should be considered more important than profits.

 

Also when I think of something not "fit for human consumption" I think of things that would instantly kill you if you ingested them. This stuff doesn't do that, and if enjoyed in moderation (like a previous poster said but everyone ignored) its not going to kill you.

But it's not in moderation if a single meal has dramatically more trans fat, saturated fat and salt than is recommended for daily consumption. We're not talking about slightly too high here; we're talking about insane levels.

 

I'm perfectly capable (as I'm sure many others as well) of deciding what I eat, and do not require the "assistance" of some gov. bureaucrat to do so.

Not if you're not given the relevant information.

 

Serving raw meat or food prepared in an unclean environment is different, as either of those could fall under the "instantly kill you" part, and if not that, will surely make you incredibly sick.

Why should there be a distinction between what kills you quickly and what takes slightly longer? I mean, eating raw meat might not kill you so why should the government be interfering? Once you accept that government has a role in protecting consumers then it becomes where do you draw the line. Personally I think businesses shouldn't be allowed to sell products that they know are harmful to consumers and such behaviour should either be banned outright or restricted (i.e. forcing companies to disclose that information up front or by heavily taxing such products). The problem is that some people let their paranoia about government get in the way of common sense.

 

Perhaps it's time to implement the "traffic light" system we use in the UK on prepackaged foods, in restaurants? You can the see, right there on the menu, immediate indicators of fat, sugar, sodium and calories, colour coded to their % of RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance).

 

It's an incredibly simple system to understand:

 

_63685888_food_labels_464.gif

 

Yeah, but you'd need a whole different category for meals like this. It would need to be labelled "insane" and be coloured black with a skull and crossbones next to it, warning you that it is dangerous to consume such a meal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.