71–80 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where does one draw the line? Hard drugs?
> Where does one draw the line? Hard drugs? Not bellow junk food.
The food is designed to be a hyperstimulus, moreish beyond anything humans would find to eat in the wild.
How is the food not the problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And people wonder why there's an anti-globalisation backlash.
Last time I've tried to argue for the French ban of unlimited soda refills, I was called a "Stalinist" so I probably won't say much on this one. I hope it will help to reduce their obesity rates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Eliminate a policy designed for the betterment of the population! Depends who you ask. Some people understand the risks of junk food but still want it (same as with alcohol and tobacco). Junk food also tends to be cheaper per calorie.
Where does one draw the line? Hard drugs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Where does one draw the line? Hard drugs? Not bellow junk food.
Have you ever known anyone to overeat on cauliflower until they get obese and diabetic? Let alone a population of three million people doing it? The food is designed to be a hyperstimulus, moreish beyond anything humans would find to eat in the wild. How is the food not the problem?
but bananas? Yes, some people get fat eating too many fruits
“Can anyone seriously say that Vanuatu doesn’t have the right to exercise its health sovereignty in every way possible to protect its population from an epidemic of that scale?” I would usually say exactly that. It's up to individuals to make decisions about what they do and do not eat and live with the consequences. Foods that accurately state their nutritional content and contain only ingredients that can be safely…
“Can anyone seriously say that Vanuatu doesn’t have the right to exercise its health sovereignty in every way possible to protect its population from an epidemic of that scale?” I would usually say exactly that. It's up to individuals to make decisions about what they do and do not eat and live with the consequences. Foods that accurately state their nutritional content and contain only ingredients that can be safely…
It's up to individuals to make decisions about what they do and do not eat and live with the consequences. True, but when that level of individual freedom has negative repercussions on the community, the government has to step in. Else the society will cease to be. Imagine if our (USA) govt allowed us to buy gas (fuel, petrol) with lead in it, ignoring the long term impact of lead in the environment. Individual freed…
Good, then I guess the government should tell everyone to exercise too? I mean, people not exercising has negative repercussions on the community, so the government has to step in. Mandatory exercise for everyone.
I guess the same logic applies to limiting gaming/Internet time too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that definition there is literally nothing the government can't, and arguably shouldn't, regulate. That won't end badly I'm sure!
That seems like the logical conclusion. Where's the dividing line between what the government should and shouldn't regulate, if they judge it to be in the best interests of the people (and the government's will being theoretically derived from the collective will of the governed)?
Moving on, the people should by default be free to make decisions that are not in their best interests. Just because you can't control yourself from eating candy doesn't mean my Right to Candy should be taken away as well.
Taking away liberty must be very, very carefully considered. What is the harm being prevented? What price is being paid to remove it? Seatbelts are a low cost to implement, a low cost to wear, and offer a high return of value in lives and health saved.
Banning imported food at tourist established is a much less obvious win. If I can't indulge in a sugary treat on vacation then when can I? That sounds like something the local agriculture industry is lobbying for more than anything. Who benefits the most from this change? Follow the money and I bet (heh) you'll find the big winners aren't the obese population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever known anyone to overeat on cauliflower until they get obese and diabetic? Let alone a population of three million people doing it? The food is designed to be a hyperstimulus, moreish beyond anything humans would find to eat in the wild. How is the food not the problem?
cauliflower is low in calories, so it would just be physically difficult to eat that much cauliflower but bananas? Yes, some people get fat eating too many fruits
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If only few people buy healthy food, supermarkets have no incentive to offer it at all. Then how come most grocery stores have healthy food? If it truly was a minority group that wanted to eat healthy food, what right do they have to force the majority to buy what they want to make it more economical? Although the premise is flawed, because the real reason 'healthy food' is expensive is because the foods considered…
> Then how come most grocery stores have healthy food? All over America there are many areas known as "food deserts" because stores do not stock fresh foods and produce. In those areas the only food readily available is shelf-stable, highly processed, very high caloric density junk food. Now think about being on a Pacific island where leaving your food desert is not just a matter of a long drive or bus ride down the…
“Can anyone seriously say that Vanuatu doesn’t have the right to exercise its health sovereignty in every way possible to protect its population from an epidemic of that scale?” I would usually say exactly that. It's up to individuals to make decisions about what they do and do not eat and live with the consequences. Foods that accurately state their nutritional content and contain only ingredients that can be safely…
McDonalds is actively making people less healthy, and profiting from it. Why should they not be banned? Where's the downside to banning them?