First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Should the government regulate Fast Food?
20046 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 5/27/13 , edited 5/27/13
I see a lot of Americans talking about rights - and who's responsibility this is. I live in Northern Europe, Denmark to be exact and here it is illegal for big companies (like MC Donald's) to Systematically serve ridiculous amounts of food like the SuperSized meals.

Yes the government are regulating fast food, it also regulates the amount of sugar some soda can have (mountain dew was out for a few years).

But from the perspective of someone why has lived here my whole life, does this bother me? Not at all.

The people commenting around here seems to have lived an "okay" childhood, but remember that some people in this society doesn't care as much for health. They don't care if their children is overweight or maybe they care but doesn't know how to handle it. Making fast food more expensive or making it harder to purchase gigantic meals reaches out to these people - not the suburban family taking a trip to Wendy's once a month.

This is just a little step, but helping these people out of obesity is a important step for us all. Try goog'ling how much obesity cost's the United States.
dh90 
24100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Orange County, Ca...
Offline
Posted 5/27/13

Rasmusbh wrote:

I see a lot of Americans talking about rights - and who's responsibility this is. I live in Northern Europe, Denmark to be exact and here it is illegal for big companies (like MC Donald's) to Systematically serve ridiculous amounts of food like the SuperSized meals.

Yes the government are regulating fast food, it also regulates the amount of sugar some soda can have (mountain dew was out for a few years).

But from the perspective of someone why has lived here my whole life, does this bother me? Not at all.

The people commenting around here seems to have lived an "okay" childhood, but remember that some people in this society doesn't care as much for health. They don't care if their children is overweight or maybe they care but doesn't know how to handle it. Making fast food more expensive or making it harder to purchase gigantic meals reaches out to these people - not the suburban family taking a trip to Wendy's once a month.

This is just a little step, but helping these people out of obesity is a important step for us all. Try goog'ling how much obesity cost's the United States.


I have noticed it is very hard for people from other nations (especially people that have never visited the United States) to understand our views since there is no other nation in the world that the same rights we do. Not wants or needs, but specifically rights. Didn't you notice what happened in New York, which is probably the leading nanny state next to where I live (California), how they REJECTED the soda bans that were proposed? You might be ok with being told what you can and cannot do since that is what you have been told as you grew up. The only people that ask for the government to take care of them are the ones that are incapable of taking care of themselves. If they want help taking care of themselves, they should really look into support groups. This method is MUCH more effective and costs everyone much less. Another great example of good peer pressure at work.

The reason why more and more people are overweight in the US has many different views. There is more stress due to financial stress partly due to our constant roller coaster ride of the economy in the last two decades. Oddly enough the cause of all this is DIRECTLY related to the government's tampering with the economy. I am not blaming a side since it is both sides that like to stick their finger in the soup.

There is also a lack of responsibility from parents since they think instead of being directly responsible for their children they think the only way to make it better is to legislate their children into happiness.

TL;DR- Everything seems to be stemming from lazy parents from the last couple decades that refuse to accept responsibility for themselves and their children.
20046 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 5/27/13 , edited 5/27/13

dh90 wrote:


I have noticed it is very hard for people from other nations (especially people that have never visited the United States) to understand our views since there is no other nation in the world that the same rights we do.


Right, lets not talk about how other country's doesn't have the same rights as the united states. Last time i check Denmark and some of our Scandinavian neighbors was above the US in both Press/speech Rights and Economic Freedom!
dh90 
24100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Orange County, Ca...
Offline
Posted 5/27/13 , edited 5/27/13

Rasmusbh wrote:


dh90 wrote:


I have noticed it is very hard for people from other nations (especially people that have never visited the United States) to understand our views since there is no other nation in the world that the same rights we do.


Right, lets not talk about how other country's doesn't have the same rights as the united states. Last time i check Denmark and some of our Scandinavian neighbors was above the US in both Press/speech Rights and Economic Freedom!


Welcome to the corruption of the government. We have not had a true free and open economy for over a century thanks to government intervention and keeping us safe and knowing what is best for us. The same has been true for just about every single right we have. Precedence has been set in court and laws put in place that are just flat out unconstitutional but since there are not enough people complaining about it nothing happens. You will have a good seat to watch as we succumb to socialism or if we are "lucky" communism over the next 20 or maybe fewer years. In reality which ever form pops up will be irrelevant because it will just be a different skin on a totalitarian form of government. Example of government corruption would the latest scandals in the US Federal government including the IRS and DOJ. The DOJ didn't know where information was leaked from or who it went to so it broke the law (because the government is above the law) and confiscated phones and records of reporters. (Even though there is a court case from a couple decades ago, I believe during the Nixon administration about the leaking of information. It is the government's job to stay leak proof, not the presses job to not report what it finds)

What are your predictions for the US? Do you think I have a pretty good guess of what is to come? I am interested how the state of the US looks from outside our borders considering the press here keeps everyone in a happy land and keeps the important matters buried.

EDIT: New York Times v United States. Correction, it was not the Nixon Administration, but multiple administrations that the publication of classified documents damaged. All the way from Truman to Johnson and Nixon fought it to prevent precedence where he would not be able to hide his own secrets.
46659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / Southern Oregon
Offline
Posted 5/27/13

dh90 wrote:


eegah87 wrote:

Well I don't really see anything wrong with the government putting regulations in place that control how much salt, sugar, chemicals, ect. are added to foods. And I don't see anything wrong with them putting limits on portion size. I think there should be more regulation on processed foods in general not just with fast food.

A lot of people are saying that people should have the right to eat whatever they want, but the truth is that most people don't know what they are eating and don't bother to find out. That thought process will just end up costing everyone more money with all the medical problems that people will develop later in life due their unhealthy eating habits.


There is one problem with that train of thought. When you give the government aka a bureaucracy the power to control what you can and cannot eat of a certain type of food, you have NO CONTROL over what they will expand their limits on.

Also, I am 6'3" 162lbs and am a cross country runner and have been working on my upper body a bit more to even out my appearance. Should I told that I am not allowed to eat the amount of food I require to not be in a calorie deficit because of someones arbitrary numbers and ideas of what is good for everyone?

As far as people "not knowing" what is good for them is just a ridiculous assumption. Even the dumbest people have noticed by eating unhealthy food that they pay for it with their bodies by being overweight or in general not feeling very good. Between my parents and my own aggressive nature, I have noticed that I am very competitive. I must always be at the top. I found that as a kid I would stay outside and stay physically active instead of sitting inside playing video games eating garbage from dawn until dusk. I have noticed that the wonderful idea of "There are no winners or losers" has created an entire generation that does not seem to care because what is the point of trying harder if there is no advantage to it? Everyone seemed to think by removing competition you remove ridicule and that is just ignorant. Now the same people still get ridiculed but many others loose drive to do better because there is nothing to show for it. Just like when you were a kid and you got an A on a paper you would bring it home and show your parents. Wait, that could make other children feel sad that they did not do as well. So what we should do is make all the children get the same grade right? We do not want anyone to feel left out or be made fun of for not doing so well.

Peer pressure can be used for good and bad. When I train with my marine friend he uses peer pressure to keep me moving forward and not giving up. What needs to happen is a change in peer pressure to have people actually are about themselves. It will take time for it to happen but will be many times more powerful and successful government program that forces people to change instead of convincing people to change of their own will.


Ok so first the slippery slop argument is just ridiculous with any issue. If the government did try to expand their limits beyond what the majority of people found acceptable then people would be protesting/freaking out, and the government would back off.

Second don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say people didn't know what was not good for them to eat, I said that most people don't know what they are eating (I.e., what is in the food they eat) and they don't bother to research exactly what they are eating.

Third not everyone in the world is like you or wants to be. Also just because you are active and eat healthy doesn't guarantee that you will never have any health problems that over weight people have, a lot of it depends on genes.

Forth peer pressure can be used, but I think you are failing to see/notice that a lot of these people have an addiction to that type of food. With addictions peer pressure can only go so far, especially when many companies designed their food to be both addictive and unfulfilling leaving you still hungry and wanting more. I think the government should step in and put regulation in place to stop companies from doing such things. Even if they do, if someone wants to eat unhealthy then they will still find a way to like how drug addicts still find a way to get their drugs.
dh90 
24100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Orange County, Ca...
Offline
Posted 5/27/13

eegah87 wrote:

Ok so first the slippery slop argument is just ridiculous with any issue. If the government did try to expand their limits beyond what the majority of people found acceptable then people would be protesting/freaking out, and the government would back off.

Second don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say people didn't know what was not good for them to eat, I said that most people don't know what they are eating (I.e., what is in the food they eat) and they don't bother to research exactly what they are eating.

Third not everyone in the world is like you or wants to be. Also just because you are active and eat healthy doesn't guarantee that you will never have any health problems that over weight people have, a lot of it depends on genes.

Forth peer pressure can be used, but I think you are failing to see/notice that a lot of these people have an addiction to that type of food. With addictions peer pressure can only go so far, especially when many companies designed their food to be both addictive and unfulfilling leaving you still hungry and wanting more. I think the government should step in and put regulation in place to stop companies from doing such things. Even if they do, if someone wants to eat unhealthy then they will still find a way to like how drug addicts still find a way to get their drugs.


1. People are lazy, that is why regulation of fast food has become such a serious topic.

2. See number one.

3. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that just because I at healthy and am active that I would not have any health problems. I know most of it depends on genes. That is not a concern for me specifically most of my family members live past 105 if they did not smoke most of their lives. Then again they all have remained quite active all the way until the end.

4. We agree on this. Yes there is a limit to peer pressure since that is the problems with addictions. When their bodies become reliant on something they need to be taken off of it slowly. Just like I do not expect Alcoholics anonymous to be able to help everyone. People need to want something bad enough to change themselves. That is by far the most important part.

I think the hardest part about regulation is who is put in charge of regulations. Since this just about always falls into the hands of a bureaucracy it will always have unintended consequences. The same FDA that tries to make sure people do not get horrible diseases from contaminated food is also the same agency that makes it so ridiculously hard for healthy natural foods to be sold in the market because without being "processed" they cannot guarantee they are safe. Regulations are a double sided blade.
46659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / Southern Oregon
Offline
Posted 5/27/13

dh90 wrote:


eegah87 wrote:

Ok so first the slippery slop argument is just ridiculous with any issue. If the government did try to expand their limits beyond what the majority of people found acceptable then people would be protesting/freaking out, and the government would back off.

Second don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say people didn't know what was not good for them to eat, I said that most people don't know what they are eating (I.e., what is in the food they eat) and they don't bother to research exactly what they are eating.

Third not everyone in the world is like you or wants to be. Also just because you are active and eat healthy doesn't guarantee that you will never have any health problems that over weight people have, a lot of it depends on genes.

Forth peer pressure can be used, but I think you are failing to see/notice that a lot of these people have an addiction to that type of food. With addictions peer pressure can only go so far, especially when many companies designed their food to be both addictive and unfulfilling leaving you still hungry and wanting more. I think the government should step in and put regulation in place to stop companies from doing such things. Even if they do, if someone wants to eat unhealthy then they will still find a way to like how drug addicts still find a way to get their drugs.


1. People are lazy, that is why regulation of fast food has become such a serious topic.

2. See number one.

3. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that just because I at healthy and am active that I would not have any health problems. I know most of it depends on genes. That is not a concern for me specifically most of my family members live past 105 if they did not smoke most of their lives. Then again they all have remained quite active all the way until the end.

4. We agree on this. Yes there is a limit to peer pressure since that is the problems with addictions. When their bodies become reliant on something they need to be taken off of it slowly. Just like I do not expect Alcoholics anonymous to be able to help everyone. People need to want something bad enough to change themselves. That is by far the most important part.

I think the hardest part about regulation is who is put in charge of regulations. Since this just about always falls into the hands of a bureaucracy it will always have unintended consequences. The same FDA that tries to make sure people do not get horrible diseases from contaminated food is also the same agency that makes it so ridiculously hard for healthy natural foods to be sold in the market because without being "processed" they cannot guarantee they are safe. Regulations are a double sided blade.


1. Not everyone who is over weight is lazy or eats fast food/junk food on a regular basis.

2. No you didn't say that. But from your former post and your comment about people are fat because they are lazy and don't eat right I think I can safely assume that you do think it, even if you don't want to admit/analogue your prejudice.

3. Nice to see we agree on something and I also agree that regulations can be a double sided sward, but I still think the government should step in and put more regulations on processed food. I think it would help to make them healthier and less addictive, and it may even help to level the playing field by making the price gap between the two less. I don't think this is the one answered that will solve everything, but it is one important part of fixing the problem.

dh90 
24100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Orange County, Ca...
Offline
Posted 5/27/13

eegah87 wrote:

1. Not everyone who is over weight is lazy or eats fast food/junk food on a regular basis.

2. No you didn't say that. But from your former post and your comment about people are fat because they are lazy and don't eat right I think I can safely assume that you do think it, even if you don't want to admit/analogue your prejudice.

3. Nice to see we agree on something and I also agree that regulations can be a double sided sward, but I still think the government should step in and put more regulations on processed food. I think it would help to make them healthier and less addictive, and it may even help to level the playing field by making the price gap between the two less. I don't think this is the one answered that will solve everything, but it is one important part of fixing the problem.



1. I know this. My mom is 180lbs+ and my dad is 330lbs+. Both of them gained a lot of weight mainly due to stress. There is also quite a few of my extended family that are overweight by 10-20lbs.

2. For most people the leading cause of obesity or just being overweight directly relate to consuming more calories than they burn in conjunction with stress. It is that simple. I noticed that during finals I gained about 4lbs just from consuming too much soda and not exercising at all. I am not exempt from this either.

3. One of the main reasons why garbage food is addicting is because they are the cheapest pieces of food that can be purchased. To make up for the lack of flavor it is made delicious by the cheapest means necessary. The two easiest ways are by adding fat and salt.

There is one regulation that I think has helped here in California is adding the Calories of the product next to it on the menu and you can ask for a full nutritional chart. (at least at the larger restaurants) I think that would be about the only regulation that I really support. The listing of the ingredients gets a bit trickier but I think it can be done to some degree and I think would be a pretty good deterrent for a lot of people to maybe choose something healthier off the menu. By the way, I tried the Carl's Jr. turkey burger when they came out and they are quiet good for being a fast food turkey burger and not too bad if you do not get fries of a soft drink.
46659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / Southern Oregon
Offline
Posted 5/27/13

dh90 wrote:


eegah87 wrote:

1. Not everyone who is over weight is lazy or eats fast food/junk food on a regular basis.

2. No you didn't say that. But from your former post and your comment about people are fat because they are lazy and don't eat right I think I can safely assume that you do think it, even if you don't want to admit/analogue your prejudice.

3. Nice to see we agree on something and I also agree that regulations can be a double sided sward, but I still think the government should step in and put more regulations on processed food. I think it would help to make them healthier and less addictive, and it may even help to level the playing field by making the price gap between the two less. I don't think this is the one answered that will solve everything, but it is one important part of fixing the problem.



1. I know this. My mom is 180lbs+ and my dad is 330lbs+. Both of them gained a lot of weight mainly due to stress. There is also quite a few of my extended family that are overweight by 10-20lbs.

2. For most people the leading cause of obesity or just being overweight directly relate to consuming more calories than they burn in conjunction with stress. It is that simple. I noticed that during finals I gained about 4lbs just from consuming too much soda and not exercising at all. I am not exempt from this either.

3. One of the main reasons why garbage food is addicting is because they are the cheapest pieces of food that can be purchased. To make up for the lack of flavor it is made delicious by the cheapest means necessary. The two easiest ways are by adding fat and salt.

There is one regulation that I think has helped here in California is adding the Calories of the product next to it on the menu and you can ask for a full nutritional chart. (at least at the larger restaurants) I think that would be about the only regulation that I really support. The listing of the ingredients gets a bit trickier but I think it can be done to some degree and I think would be a pretty good deterrent for a lot of people to maybe choose something healthier off the menu. By the way, I tried the Carl's Jr. turkey burger when they came out and they are quiet good for being a fast food turkey burger and not too bad if you do not get fries of a soft drink.


Your #3 is exactly what I am talking about. I think the government should step in and limit how much salt, fat, sugar, chemicals, etc. companies can be add to process foods, and it that means that they have to use better ingredients and raise the price fine. To help compensate for the price change they could increasing the living wage or give more substances to low income households (this evening of the price difference could even encourage people to buy healthy natural foods). Also limiting portion sizes at all restaurants would also help people to cut down on calories. America's large sizes are way bigger than they are in other countries, and there have been numerous studies that have shown a strong correlation between how much food is placed in front of someone and how much they eat (i.e., most will eat until it is all gone not when they feel full).
2265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / only kami neko knows
Offline
Posted 5/27/13
Liberals, so open minded that their brains feel out.
12921 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
104 / M / The Milky Way Galaxy
Offline
Posted 5/27/13 , edited 5/27/13
Why should the government regulate fast food? Will they also regulate your grocery purchases and other junk like energy drinks? You're responsible for your own well being. Please educate yourself and take caution when purchasing or consuming products.
dh90 
24100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Orange County, Ca...
Offline
Posted 5/27/13 , edited 5/27/13

eegah87 wrote:

Your #3 is exactly what I am talking about. I think the government should step in and limit how much salt, fat, sugar, chemicals, etc. companies can be add to process foods, and it that means that they have to use better ingredients and raise the price fine. To help compensate for the price change they could increasing the living wage or give more substances to low income households (this evening of the price difference could even encourage people to buy healthy natural foods). Also limiting portion sizes at all restaurants would also help people to cut down on calories. America's large sizes are way bigger than they are in other countries, and there have been numerous studies that have shown a strong correlation between how much food is placed in front of someone and how much they eat (i.e., most will eat until it is all gone not when they feel full).


Now you are creating an economics problem. If you increase the minimum wage the cost of everything will go up. If as an employer you are forced to increase the costs of labor and are still making the same product for the same price, you will have less profit. To compensate for less profit, they will increase the cost of the item they are selling. But the whole point of increasing the minimum wage was to make those products more affordable. Are you going to raise the minimum wage again? It is a never ending loop. The price difference between healthy and heavily processed foods is not nearly as much of a gap when you purchase food in bulk at a warehouse store or if you have a very good supermarket chain that does not gouge you for fresh food. The only time that "healthy" food costs more is when you go out to eat. This is often because fresh food cannot be pre-processed, hence being fresh. What you are REALLY paying for is the increase in labor for preparation of the food and the increased cost of labor of hiring professionals who know how to cook the food properly so that it tastes good. This is something that is inevitable. You cannot avoid this. The whole point of having fast food is that it is actually fast, which usually means "prefab" food as I like to call it. Also fast food is very convenient being that the types of food purchased is able to be eaten on the road or takes little time to consume. This is why fast food is a favorite at lunch for a lot of Americans. Even with an hour for lunch by the time you leave work, get to the location, order and receive your food most of the time you have about 30 minutes to eat and get back to work. The only other option would be to prepare your own lunch in advance, which by the way would be much healthier and less expensive, but requires extra effort that most people are not willing to commit to. Getting back to the lazy part.

This is the true heart of the problem. I just didn't think I would have to type it all out. Phew.
18054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
U.S.
Offline
Posted 5/27/13 , edited 5/27/13
They might as well regulate how we flap our mouth if that fast food regulation happens.

Why stop there? Maybe next time they'll control how much pint of air we can suck in and blow off.

Our government already created a lot of taxes beyond the things we normally deal on a day.


Penn and Teller - Taxes are Bullshit
46659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / Southern Oregon
Offline
Posted 5/27/13

dh90 wrote:


eegah87 wrote:

Your #3 is exactly what I am talking about. I think the government should step in and limit how much salt, fat, sugar, chemicals, etc. companies can be add to process foods, and it that means that they have to use better ingredients and raise the price fine. To help compensate for the price change they could increasing the living wage or give more substances to low income households (this evening of the price difference could even encourage people to buy healthy natural foods). Also limiting portion sizes at all restaurants would also help people to cut down on calories. America's large sizes are way bigger than they are in other countries, and there have been numerous studies that have shown a strong correlation between how much food is placed in front of someone and how much they eat (i.e., most will eat until it is all gone not when they feel full).


Now you are creating an economics problem. If you increase the minimum wage the cost of everything will go up. If as an employer you are forced to increase the costs of labor and are still making the same product for the same price, you will have less profit. To compensate for less profit, they will increase the cost of the item they are selling. But the whole point of increasing the minimum wage was to make those products more affordable. Are you going to raise the minimum wage again? It is a never ending loop. The price difference between healthy and heavily processed foods is not nearly as much of a gap when you purchase food in bulk at a warehouse store or if you have a very good supermarket chain that does not gouge you for fresh food. The only time that "healthy" food costs more is when you go out to eat. This is often because fresh food cannot be pre-processed, hence being fresh. What you are REALLY paying for is the increase in labor for preparation of the food and the increased cost of labor of hiring professionals who know how to cook the food properly so that it tastes good. This is something that is inevitable. You cannot avoid this. The whole point of having fast food is that it is actually fast, which usually means "prefab" food as I like to call it. Also fast food is very convenient being that the types of food purchased is able to be eaten on the road or takes little time to consume. This is why fast food is a favorite at lunch for a lot of Americans. Even with an hour for lunch by the time you leave work, get to the location, order and receive your food most of the time you have about 30 minutes to eat and get back to work. The only other option would be to prepare your own lunch in advance, which by the way would be much healthier and less expensive, but requires extra effort that most people are not willing to commit to. Getting back to the lazy part.

This is the true heart of the problem. I just didn't think I would have to type it all out. Phew.


It was just one suggestion on how to help people who are already struggling to afford the higher prices of healthy natural foods. Plus I said living wage not minimum wage they are different:


"The living wage differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and can fail to meet the requirements of a living wage - or is so low that borrowing or application for top-up benefits is necessary. In public policy, a living wage or subsistence wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet basic needs (for an extended period of time or for a lifetime). These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition. In addition to this definition, living wage activists further define "living wage" as the wage equivalent to the poverty line for a family of four."


Also not everyone is lazy some are just exhausted from having to work multiple jobs only to barely make ends meet. The regulations I am in favor of are to help the ones that are most venerable, and least able to help themselves (i.e., the poor). There are other ways to help this group with out messing with the food, but all realistic methods require the government to step in.
1068 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Maryland
Offline
Posted 5/27/13
They should. But the government cares about profit too much because the corporations are keeping all the legislators pockets nice and stuffed as to not keep too much restrictions. If the government cared about the people , they would get rid of alcohol , tobacco products , processed food , and a list of many other thing's that are detrimental to your health. It's plan and obvious as to why they don't as opposed to if they should.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.