Reply With Quote
Why, I am fat and live with my mother.
I know Boutons can get on your nerves, but in this thread you have claimed he is fat and lives with his mother. You don't need to stoop to his level.
Why, I am fat and live with my mother.
"TASTE BETTER"
the main advantage of hydrogenated fats for food suppliers is NOT "better" taste.
From the FDA link:
"Hydrogenation increases the shelf life and flavor stability of foods containing these fats."
You right-wingers never cease to amaze me. You are arguing against food safety as if it were in opposition to personal and business freedom.
Fair enough.
All I know is McDonalds fries taste better than Wendy's. I would assume increasing their shelf life also keeps prices lower; another thing I ought to have a right to.
Political views aside....
Trans fats have to be weeded out of foods period... whether the consumer chooses to eat them or not.... Many of them are not adequately informed on the dangers of transfats....
Again (think of the children
For an extreme example that paints the underlying need for regulation: Why doesn't McDonalds deliberately cook with arsenic, on lead pans, and with formaldehyde laden meats? Or why doesn't Coca Cola add cocaine to their product formula anymore? Right! Because these substances are all toxic to the human body... Some more than the others, but all toxic nonetheless...
Trans fats may not be as toxic in and of themselves, but they inherently cause damage to humans. The difference is that it takes longer for the effects of transfat foods to kill. But don't be mistaken, trans-fats will kill.
Who else besides McDonald's would need to be regulated...
Whataburger?
Burger King?
KFC?
Jack in the Box?
Carl's Jr?
Pizza Hut?
Arsenic, Cocaine, Transfats...okay, I get the pattern, but I also see a slippery slope.Political views aside....
Trans fats have to be weeded out of foods period... whether the consumer chooses to eat them or not.... Many of them are not adequately informed on the dangers of transfats....
Again (think of the children
For an extreme example that paints the underlying need for regulation: Why doesn't McDonalds deliberately cook with arsenic, on lead pans, and with formaldehyde laden meats? Or why doesn't Coca Cola add cocaine to their product formula anymore? Right! Because these substances are all toxic to the human body... Some more than the others, but all toxic nonetheless...
Trans fats may not be as toxic in and of themselves, but they inherently cause damage to humans. The difference is that it takes longer for the effects of transfat foods to kill. But don't be mistaken, trans-fats will kill.
Who else besides McDonald's would need to be regulated...
Whataburger?
Burger King?
KFC?
Jack in the Box?
Carl's Jr?
Pizza Hut?
Ultimately there are LOTS of foods that damage the human body, and we all OUGHT to eat broccolli and fish at every meal (small portions, mind you), so your argument, however eloquently you made it, can be made about food at Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC, etc...whether or not they have Trans Fats or not. Their food does, in fact, cause damage to humans.
Trans fats are not only in fast-food.
They are in packaged junk foods, and basically in all kinds of "dead" food.
As always, the straw man is that food regulations to protect consumers will infringe personal freedom (to eat unhealthy food for a few pennies cheaper), will destroy industry, willl cost jobs, and will render food unpalatable.
Because commercial food is so untrustworthy, we now have this insanity of labels. Of course, the food industry fought and still fights truth in labelling. The food industry doesn't want you to know the they put in food to increase their profits.
Also, I DO NOT take MY children to McDonalds.
I might agree with parents being held responsible for what their children eat; but that is not McDonalds fault; that fault lies directly with the parents. NONE of my children's friends who come to dinner at our house EVER eat the vegetables offered to them, "I don't eat vegetables" is the reply, and their parents allow that; bewilders me, frankly.
Of course they don't, humans, and groups of humans are self-interested - that's where the government must step in, and make sure the rest of us individuals, who are also self-interested, know what those others are doing.
Boutons, you always make corporations out to be greedy;
THIS JUST IN: ALL PEOPLE ARE GREEDY! That's why capitilism works, and ALL forms of socialism don't.
That greed must be harnessed, and controlled to work for the good of all; if you take away the greed, however, and make it so indivuduals and groups of individuals (corporations) can't reep the benefits of their work, there will be no work- and regardless of the altruism of your society, and the greatest of intentions, it WILL fail.
Corporations must look out for corporations, people must look out for themselves, the government must try to keep the field as open and level as possible while allowiing the most possible freedom.
Subway and for that matter Quiznos cook without transfats.... their food is still very tasty....
All I'm saying is that someone has to curb the practice of cooking with known poisons. If the restaurant owners themselves don't do it out of loss of profitability... would you buy that as a valid excuse?
You do realize that there are social-economic implications to this problem as well, right? Most healthy diets are expensive... the non-healthy ones are cheap. I certainly can't afford to eat healthy all the time, and my income is not what I would consider meager.
So should we allow the poorest people in society to poison themselves with transfats without regard to the fact that they will eventually become a medical burden on our government? I say 'big Businesses' like McDonalds should foot the bill themselves... that or stop cooking with transfats altogether. Clean their hands of the problem...
And yes the eating habits of people also need to change... just don't assume that they are all given an option to 'eat healthy'.... as this is out of the reach of many.
The cheapest meals I cook are the healthy ones. Beans, rice, fresh vegetables, chicken and fish are all cheaper than beef, breaded crap, etc....
Eating out at all is several factors more expensive than eating at home, also, so your rich vs. poor argument doesn't make alot of sense.
Also, this isn't about profit, necessarily. Often a business owner sets his profit margin; he's gonna make his regardless. Raising his costs often simply means it costs more for the consumer, doesn't change the corps. bottom line.
Claiming that making people fat and unhealthy costs money is not true.
Fat people die younger than skinny people, but skinny people, do, in fact, get sick and die. They die of the same things (cancer, heart disease, stroke, etc..) they just do it later in life and put up a better fight when it happens. That means that, yes, healthy people cost MORE than unhealthy people ultimately. They collect Social Security longer, they are on Medicare longer, and they can withstand more heroic treatments, and survive more medical treatments (read that as EXPESIVE).
A smoker that kicks of lung cancer at 59 is a of a lot less expensive than a cyclist who dies of colon cancer at 92.
Heart attacks are one of the cheapest ways to go (especially if the 1st one get you).
Last edited by 101A; 09-28-2006 at 09:40 AM.
No, you idiot, they're not Cirque du Francais.
Because both occur on private property where no one is compelled to enter.
Nice, I'm back in agreement with Yoni.
Okay, this could be done through a free market where the Phenomanuls and Yonivores refuse to buy products until they meet our demanding standards.
Then hold the parents responsible. I have no problem with yanking parental rights over food abuse just as you would physical abuse or sexual abuse. If you find a parent that is raising their child on Happy Meals and soft drinks, and that child is morbidly obese because of it, call in Child Protective Services.Again (think of the children
I don't care if it is because of ignorance. There's no excuse, with today's media, for any parent not to know that McDonalds is serving unhealthy food.
Of course, there is that old addage, "everything in moderation." I don't think anyone is harmed by eating the occassional Big Mac and fries if they maintain a healthy lifestyle, generally eat healthy food, exercise regularly, and keep the portions reasonable.
I see a lot of skinny, healthy-looking people picking up fast food to go. I suspect they don't make it their principal source of nutrition.
Apples and oranges...well, to an extent. To be just as extreme in showing how this could be done, so long as McDonald's advertised they were engaged in such a practice, It'd be stupid for people to consume their product. So, maybe they'd be getting what they deserve.
However, I will say that some regulation is in order so as to prevent the induction, into our foods, of harmful ingredients that are not advertised or that are so microscopic as to be undetectable. E. Coli., Salmonella, and other food-borne pathogens as an example. I think restaurants should be held to a standard of hygeine that precludes the unintentional introduction of harmful ingredients.
But, on the obverse, if they want to include legal ingredients -- even if unhealthy -- to their product, I don't have a problem with it so long as they disclose those ingredients.
Using this reasoning, just about every life activity should be outlawed. I suspect more people's health is ruined by the act of driving an automobile, every year, than that of consuming trans-fats. I think you'd have to outlaw most carbonated soft drinks altogether. I know of no nutritional value to them whatsoever. In fact, many are detrimental to your health.
Do you see where this is going? It's not about the ingredients. It's about the consumers personal responsibility to know what to consume and to do so in moderation.
Every one that sells food.
That someone is the consumer.
"Public Health" is just one of many civic concepts alien to believers in the absolute power of free markets to magically solve all of our problems, if only it had complete autonomy from government. An unhealthy population is a cost to all of us collectively, and I'm not talking about the hospital bill.
I don't know anybody that thinks a free market solves all of our problems. If you think that's what conservatives think, I believe that is the cruxt of the problem.
"Free" is the operative word, and the fact that many problems simply cannot be solved, and I am willing to admit that, and make the most of what is left IS the point.
Trying to create a better life for all of us "collectively" doesn't work. People are too myopic to be motivated by such goals. The collective, in turn, is not trustworthy enough for me to freely grant it the power to control what IT deems is in my best interest. You people need to be more cynical about your government.
Well, free markets combined with an informed and responsible public can solve most of our problems -- without magic.
And, I don't believe anyone is advocating complete autonomy from government. As I expressed earlier, restaurants should be required to reveal all the ingredients of their consumable products and further should be held to sanitary standards that prevent the introduction and formation of toxic pathogens in the food.
I don't believe governments have the responsibility to police my engaging in a purely voluntary and legal practice like sitting down at McDonald's and consuming two Super-sized #4's.
I do think you could make an argument that trans-fats are toxic and should be outlawed. Period. But, that wouldn't involve controlling the issue at the restaurant level -- it would mean banning the production and introduction of trans-fats in all products.
I'd be okay with that so long as you can demonstrate trans-fats are actually the culprit and not the proclivity of the average American to stuff their lard asses until they can't bend over to tie their shoes.
Just sayin'
Whatever... this is not an issue for me...
Keeping the 'bottom line' profitable at the expense of the public... well, I guess people here feel that restaurants can do whatever the they want to do.
, have at it then...
It does when you consider the fact that the healthiest diets should include food from all of the food groups.
Keeping a steady supply of fresh vegetables and fruit is not cheap....
Buying sufficient quan ies of fish, pastas and grains is not cheap either...
And what about those meats.... well, for one the ones with less fat and more quality are more expensive, not cheaper. The healthy cheeses are more expensive too. Higher quality products cost more --- what doesn't make sense about that?
The healthiest diet my father ever practiced had seven meals per day... he ended up losing about 30 pounds on that diet in a span of about 3 months. Guess what though, he was constantly in the kitchen, the grocery store, and it eventually wore him out. IT WAS EXPENSIVE and time consuming.
Yeah your examples of rice and beans is practical... but I wasn't trying to make peoples' diets heathly at the expense of tastebud bordom.
Government money is not private money...
The charge is the same, the funding source is different.
Most poor people can't pay for their own medical attention without subsidies; middle class people and rich people can -- but they are usually the ones who will have a much more diverse slate of diets to begin with.
That's a rather inhumane view of quality/span of life vs. medical costs. Whatever...
Until they try to regulate a legal practice in which you engage in moderation and to no self-detriment, unlike the idiots lacking self-control for whom they're trying to protect through that regulation.
You act as though the consumer has no ability to make a decision on what they will consume.
I know you didn't go to the ChumpDumper school of semantic absolutes so, I'm going to pretend you really don't believe this is what you heard in here.
Well, thanks for at least playing.
And, yet, all those options are less expensive than eating out every day.
It doesn't have to be. And, sounds like he may have lost weight from all the moving around as well.
Phenomanul, I like where your head's at in this one but I have to disagree. Yoni is correct, while healthy foods do cost more, preparing your own food is still less expensive, be it healthy or not. I suppose you could make the argument that one could go to McDonalds and order 1 item off the dollar menu and that would be cheaper, but how many McDonalds eaters only get 1 item?
Ultimately, it's up to the consumer. And guess what else, jogging, walking, sit-ups, pull-ups, push-ups........yep, all free.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions