Prince Charles: Ban the Big Mac (1 Viewer)

[TPS]

>>My point is when you let the government start deciding which food ingredients can or cannot be allowed it is a dangerous game.

Well at some point, they have to. Unlike maybe some of you who see it or whatever, I don't trust industry any more than I trust government. I usually trust them less because profit and consumption of their products trumps any advocacy for their consumers (see just about any sector you want). Government is gonig to make mistakes - they did in this case. But if they're trying to right it, then fine. The bottom line (I left it alone because I didn't feel like arguing any more yesterday) is the cost of obesity to society, rate payers and tax payers. TFA's don't really play a part in obesity. But at some level, someone's gotta do something. The fast food industry keeps on mega, super and collossal sizing their lunches (triple beef with triple bacon and triple slices of cheese, a package of 100 or more french fries and a half gallon of soft drink). Yeah, I'm all for individual liberties, but maybe at some point when people go to far or whatever, the government should mandate they lose some weight, start exercising or just flat out ban them from 7,500 calorie lunches. I don't have the answers, but neither does the fast food industry. And a libertarian approach will just mean a fatter, unhealthier and more expensive society even for those of us who are able to moderate our intake.

TPS

 

[TPS]

>>You can believe what you want. Your accusation that I am playing games is unfounded and unwarranted. I don't want the government deciding which ingredients and/or products that I can or cannot consume. In the example of trans fats, the government in New York has decided that it poses a health risk and is therefore unfit to serve the public and must be banned. Replace transfat with alcohol, tobacco, butter, sugar, etc. It is a slippery slope. It may be a "good" idea, but that doesn't make it right. We disagree, I get it.

Then you can believe what you want too. I don't recall saying that what New York (city or state) did was a good idea. I don't like the government telling me anything. But see my post above. If there's a substance that is known to hurt/maim or kill you, it should be banned outside the home. As Squeezebox said, he doesn't have a problem with you adding all the TFA's you want at home. And maybe if they disclose it at restaurants, you can have a choice. But neither of us lives in New York, so this doesn't affect us unless we happen to be visiting.

TPS

 

[Saint Mike]

Yeah, I'm all for individual liberties, but maybe at some point when people go to far or whatever, the government should mandate they lose some weight, start exercising or just flat out ban them from 7,500 calorie lunches..

TPS

You and I have a totally irreconcilable view of the scope and power of our government. The "cost to society" argument would give the government carte blanche to regulate any and all human activity and would let it decide what is good and what is bad. The thought of the government mandating someone lose weight or start exercising scares me to death.

 

[kevin from buffalo]

--why shouldn't they be allowed to return to using anti-freeze as a sweetner, or using anything they want as long as it tastes good?

What company/manufacturer did that? If you tell me it's Krispy Kreme or Dunkin Donuts... i won't be happy.

 

[Saint Mike]

If there's a substance that is known to hurt/maim or kill you, it should be banned outside the home.
TPS

Hope you enjoy walking everywhere and drinking at the house. Any, perhaps all products have the potential to hurt, maim or kill.

 

[TPS]

>>You and I have a totally irreconcilable view of the scope and power of our government. The "cost to society" argument would give the government carte blanche to regulate any and all human activity and would let it decide what is good and what is bad. The thought of the government mandating someone lose weight or start exercising scares me to death.

No we don't. I threw that stuff in for argument sake. See you might be a libertarian, but I'm mostly an anarchist. So obviously it's kind of just thrown out there (as in Winston Smith (Number whatever his was), get back to your exercises through the telescreen). And no, I wouldn't vote for it. But research a little on the effects of pre-HFCS additives and also the cost of obesity as it relates to the broader health care problems ($$$) we have.

>>Hope you enjoy walking everywhere and drinking at the house. Any, perhaps all products have the potential to hurt, maim or kill.

That's the playing games part. We were talking about food additives, not automobiles. But you knew that Mr. Attorney.

TPS

 

[TPS]

Here you go (some hard cold facts from obesityinamerica.org ). I'm not sure who they are or what they front for (skinny people most likely), but check it out:

http://www.obesityinamerica.org/economicimpact.html

 

[TPS]

Here's the 'trends' in obesity - 1991, 1996 and 2003.

It's amazing. So what would you do?

http://www.obesityinamerica.org/trends.html

TPS

 

[Saint Mike]

That's the playing games part. We were talking about food additives, not automobiles. But you knew that Mr. Attorney.

TPS

I object! You used the term "substance" which could mean just about anything.

 

[TPS]

LMAO. But check out that chart. In 1991, we didn't have a single state where 25% of the people were obese. In 2003, I can only count 14 states that are in the 15-19% range. There's gotta be more to it than meets the eye. I'm thinking high fructose corn syrup is the cause. Try fighting that in the midwestern states

TPS

 

[RebSaint]

Trans fats are used to keep ingredients fresh, for sure. But it's not just about adding shelf life--it's the reason that a Twinkie can sit in a warehouse for 7 years and still be fresh and edible. That stuff doesn't break down in a warehouse, and it doesn't break down in your body either. As mentioned, it doesn't add anything whatsoever to the quality or taste of the product--it just makes it cheaper, or more profitable for the manufacturer.

"Used to?" I'm not so sure. There's got to be some reason food companies are adding this stuff. Is it taste? Texture? Or is it to help preservation and keep food from spoiling? It makes food cheaper and profitable, but also so poorer people can afford it. I'm not convinced an outright ban would be beneficial to public health. If corporations can't put any TFAs in pre-packaged foods, what happens to the cost of foods and their succeptiblity to spoiling?

And is this stuff so dangerous as it warrants complete banning? What about booze? Cigarettes? If there's a lack of choice among food products, maybe the FDA can regulate the use of TFAs to give people more of a choice. I think government banning this stuff is a slippery slope.

There's a difference between putting something we know is harmful (dog poo, rat poison, anti-freeze), so these comparisions are silly. A more aprapos analogy would be something we know is harmful in large doses.

I don't know too much about this topic, but my reservation in banning TFAs stems from how much of a role they play in preserving food and keeping it from spoiling. I also think if the answer to that question is "a lot," it's indicative of this time-precious culture we live in. Americans work more hours than most Europeans, so they don't have time to purchase fresh stuff to cook; so they end up buying lots of pre-packaged stuff to prepare on the fly. It explains, Steve why Americans are more obese.

They work longer hours, and spend far too much down time sitting on their backside, at least that's my sense of things. Compare the work week, say in France compared to the U.S. It's not just the food, it's about how Americans spend their time and how they eat.

 

[Sandman]

If people don't think there should be any restrictions on any ingredients--because that's somehow a restriction of choice--why shouldn't they be allowed to return to using anti-freeze as a sweetner, or using anything they want as long as it tastes good?

And you are right to a certain extent. There is a place for government regulation on food. But, I don't think that the government should take every opportunity to "do what's best for us." Let's face it, there are a lot of foods out there that are not good for us, even without the additives. I don't like the idea of banning foods just because a case can be made that it is bad for you. If that were the case, we wouldn't have much of a selection for our meals.

I think there is a distinction between additives that are poisonous, and additives that, if you don't moderate your diet, will lead to bad health effects. You can eat some foods with these additives without ill health effects if they are in moderation. At some point, you have to trust the individual to do what is best for himself.

With that said, disclosure of the additives is very important. McD's needs to let people know what it cooks its food with so that people can make an informed choice of whether to have a Big Mac for the third time this week or maybe they should drop their transfat intake for a few more days.

 

[Saint Mike]

Here's the 'trends' in obesity - 1991, 1996 and 2003.

It's amazing. So what would you do?

http://www.obesityinamerica.org/trends.html

TPS

I think the trend of obesity stems more from lack of exercise than our diet. Parents need to turn off the t.v. and the computer and make their kids play outside like we all used to. P.E. in school should actually require "physical" education---not watching videos. In general people should get off their fat lazy tails and at least walk a few times a week. A kid's lunch in1960 probably consisted of a peanut butter and marshmallow cream sandwich, chips, cookies, and Tang. But those kids exercised in P.E. and played outside when they got home. What we need is a change of attitude in America. However, a government mandate isn't going to fix anything. It rarely, if ever, does.

 

[Squeezebox]

Of course things shouldn't be banned just because they can be harmful. However, when something is way more harmful than worthwhile (HFCS, trans fatty acids) then we need to look at them. Of course you can go on a "slippery slope" tangent, but that detracts from the argument. You can use the little slippery slope thing for any legislation. We aren't talking about banning alcohol, or sugar, or anything else. We're talking about these seriously harmful substances that are artificial, not needed, and put in there for the benefit of the food maker.

I don't know why anyone thinks that they are at all necessary. We are the only country that has them to this amount. Have you ever gone to a grocery store in a country outside of the US? Don't fall into the belief that we need these things in our food so that it is affordable. Bottom line is that the average American pays more for food now (percentage of income) than he ever has before.

 

[Sandman]

Of course things shouldn't be banned just because they can be harmful. However, when something is way more harmful than worthwhile (HFCS, trans fatty acids) then we need to look at them. Of course you can go on a "slippery slope" tangent, but that detracts from the argument. You can use the little slippery slope thing for any legislation. We aren't talking about banning alcohol, or sugar, or anything else. We're talking about these seriously harmful substances that are artificial, not needed, and put in there for the benefit of the food maker.

I don't know why anyone thinks that they are at all necessary. We are the only country that has them to this amount. Have you ever gone to a grocery store in a country outside of the US? Don't fall into the belief that we need these things in our food so that it is affordable. Bottom line is that the average American pays more for food now (percentage of income) than he ever has before.

I don't think it is fair to compare Europeans to Americans and blame everything on the transfat as to why were are overweight. Reb nailed it in an earlier post. Our lifestyle is what really gets us. We work...a lot.

Americans work much more than Europeans: according to the OECD a typical employed American put in 1,877 hours in 2000, compared to 1,562 for his or her French counterpart. One American in three works more than fifty hours a week. Americans take fewer paid holidays than Europeans. Whereas Swedes get more than thirty paid days off work per year and even the Brits get an average of twenty-three, Americans can hope for something between four and ten, depending on where they live.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17726

I get home after 7 at the earliest. I spend 2-3 hours per day in my car traveling to and from work. Because of this, I have little time for meal preparation or exercise. Nor do I have the luxury to shop at the grocery every day for the meal that evening. Although I have never been to Europe, it is my understanding from those who have lived there that the Europeans don't by large amounts of groceries at a time like we do. Because they have the time, they take walks and by food for their meals that night without the perservatives. The reliance upon preservatives is a direct reflection of our lifestyle as compared to the Europeans.

In short, it is my opinion that our weight is more a product of our lifestyle than the food we intake. Recently, I have picked up weight. The reason for my weight gain is my lifestyle right now...a lot of work, not much exercise.