Food Talk [D]

Last time the government stepped in to control foods, Britain was the healthiest it's ever been. That time was world war 2 and all food items was rationed or home grown.

 

Exactly. I get what they want to do, but taxation is not the way to do it.

 

Food has changed immensely in a short time.

 

Ppl must take ownership of their own well being in dietary health, Food has changed n we must do the necessary research to understand what we intake n its effects. Eg soft drinks r a high source of acids n destructive but u won't hear Coca Cola say that. Cereals r loaded in sugars
which is a root cause of many serious health issues but we still get accustomed to them.

2 General rules of thumb i use r:
1) if its not naturally white its unhealthy
Salt, sugar, bleached flour etc
2) any vegetable that grows close to the ground or just beneath is rich in vitamins n minerals

I don't hold fastidiously to those rules but its a guide i try to adhere to.
Carb intake intake as a fuel is best when going to exert physical activity n more protein instead when not. Natural intake of salts i use r broccoli n bananas to retain water n electrolytes. Gatorade in a pinch for hydration when playing sports. Nuts for snacking n a protein n good source of the good cholesterol. Also love n consume legumes as often as i can.

Thats my dietary roadmap but i'm not a conscientious health nut.
Eg i smoke say no more

 

That is an interesting point. There is some agreement that the government has a right to regulate for the health and safety of the populace, but some people believe that taxation is not the correct route.

I know taxation was the tool suggested in the OP. However, what do people think about the government increasing regulations on certain amounts of sugars or other manufactured chemicals in the foods?

(I recognize we have some reactionaries who say they are against any regulations, but they do not realize it is government regulations that removed chalk and arsenic as fillers and preservatives, as well as prevents manufacturers from using drugs to addict their customers.)

So I repeat the question:

Instead of taxation, what do people think about the government increasing regulations on certain amounts of sugars or other manufactured chemicals in the foods?

 

I don't think the government should do anything but educate about healthy foods. Nothing else.

 

Sugars can be considered a drug do to their addictive qualities. Also they can just do what they did for cigarettes and just put a surgeon generals warning on foods saying that in excess can cause health issues.

 

I'm with you there, but that's called Nutrition Facts.

 

Taxing food is stupid.


People need to be educated about it, not taxed.


Also, MODERATION IS KEY. No one is forcing people to over eat.

Ignorance is bliss. Not in America though 

 

To those who use Liberty as a reason to stop government intervention in the food and drinks you can consume. What's the alternative ? Companies adding plastics and water to milk to increase volume they could sell ? Hiding rancid meat under heavy spice then selling it on ? Selling horse meat as hamburgers ? Do you honestly believe that the food and water supply would remain safe if governments aren't involved ? Someone mentioned the British diet during WW2 and they are correct it was a time when the national health of the British was better.
Liberty means you can make choices but it's surely up to the government to ensure its populace is able to make better choices ?

 

Get - Gud - Scrublord

 

@Spentrio

If the government decides that they need to regulate unhealthy food for the good of the people, what will they regulate for the good of the people next? Google "The Slippery Slope of regulation," and you'll understand.And I do agree that there needs to be some monitoring and legal action if a company does something like you described, but I was mainly referring to McDonalds, etc.. But yeah, the government should be able to make sure that the companies aren't selling people poison.

 

 terrible analogy ...sugar, starches and any other "natural" occurring food substances that's referred to in this thread are only bad in excessive amounts. No amount of lead or mercury is good for you. Dangerous toxic levels of these and other dangerous substances should be govt. monitored/regulated . Eating habits shouldn't be.

 

Huge misconception that you cannot eat well on a budget. Where people go wrong is buying real food, still eating a lot of garbage and having to throw quality food away because it actually expires.

I would have no problem with a tax on crap food. A sin tax is a sin tax.

 

That is a good point ^^

In my neck of the woods, most of food is taxed 10% under the Goods and Services Tax. (Few exemptions on pantry staples, bread, baby formula, and green groceries.)

 

If this happens, i want to be shot.

 

The bigger problem is actually the govt putting small food companies (family farms) out of business. They get punished for producing quality food on sustainable, healthy land.

 

so ya think all the ingredients in fast foods are natural do ya (giggle) tbhq transfat highfructose corn syrup petrochemicals hydrogenated oils dimethylpolysiloxane silicone amonium sulfate azodicarbonamide and more its like amazing that some of these are still legal when some are more toxic even than mercury (wink)

 

"More" toxic then mercury?? lol ...you can't even say that with lead. I mean you actually need a minuscule amount of lead (why I don't know) but mercury is pretty toxic and barely more then a minuscule is lethal. Go ahead and break open an old school thermometer and eat the contents, see what happens (wink wink hehehe)

....brb I'm going to grab another Coke