Warning Labels on Junk Food

Off Topic
41

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think that’s retarded. If humans need to be spoonfed like that just to avoid morbid obesity, what are we saving them for?

Uh, no, I don’t need a warning sign on that bag of cookies. If I want cookies, I have enough sense to not eat them until I become obese.[/quote]

Concur.

Plus, taxes are for raising necessary money for the government, not controlling or rewarding behavior.[/quote]

Yeah, sure.

Because if they do not need it in one area anymore they will give it riiiiiiiiight back to you.

O_O
But poor health in society is a cost we all end up bearing thanks to how our government spends the money.

A healthier society ultimately lowers the tax burden.[/quote]

42

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I think a “fat tax” on these products would really do more good. If someone wants to throw their cash away on cookies, and I get better roads to drive on, I’m all for it.[/quote]

Yeah, the crashing diabetic drinking orange juice or a coke to save their life owes you something.

Anyone who is for this is ignorant. There is no such thing as a healthy food and almost no such thing as an unhealthy one. What is very healthy for one person may be very unhealthy for another.

Not only could the most informed studied people not be able to correctly evaluate what is or isn’t healthy for someone, but if they could, you couldn’t do it on the bases of a type of food. Much less some bureaucratizes trying to do it

No, you stupid, thieving, ass hole, you don’t deserve any of my money if I drink a fucking coke at the end of a long workout.

Just another thing to add to the list of reasons I’m glad I don’t live there.[/quote]

Note the use of the comparative “more”.

I think it would be better than forcing companies to update their labeling and pass those costs to consumers.

I don’t think it’s really that good of an idea.[/quote]

I only think labeling should be enforced in cases where the packaging/advertising is deceitful.

If you are buying and eating EZ-cheese, you can’t be made if there is some crap in there that isn’t good for you. Unless they started putting bits of glass in that cut up your insides or something. Or if they listed incorrect nutrition or ingredient information.

43

I’m actually really really glad this site has such educated posters.

Because really, if those cookies meet your macronutrient needs for the day, I’m not actually going to say they’re unhealthy.

The only thing I would like to see… and I have no idea how it would or could be done… is while as long as government money is being spent treating late stages of preventable diseases, that there be some sort of incentivization early on (financially or otherwise), to “influence” people to make healthier choices.

Realistically though, the only way to verify that is with a slew of blood tests, and that opens up another can of worms in terms of administration, reliability, etc, nevermind labwork companies capitalizing on this testing being mandatory and driving prices sky-high.

It all gets really complicated really fast, but I, for one, would prefer to be surrounded by a lot more healthier people than I am wherever I go.

44

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’m actually really really glad this site has such educated posters.

Because really, if those cookies meet your macronutrient needs for the day, I’m not actually going to say they’re unhealthy.

The only thing I would like to see… and I have no idea how it would or could be done… is while as long as government money is being spent treating late stages of preventable diseases, that there be some sort of incentivization early on (financially or otherwise), to “influence” people to make healthier choices.

Realistically though, the only way to verify that is with a slew of blood tests, and that opens up another can of worms in terms of administration, reliability, etc, nevermind labwork companies capitalizing on this testing being mandatory and driving prices sky-high.

It all gets really complicated really fast, but I, for one, would prefer to be surrounded by a lot more healthier people than I am wherever I go.[/quote]

I think it’s really simple. Insurance covers catastophic events and certain things for gender specific issues. EVERYTHING else is paid for out of pocket.

Will I wash a daily bowl of ice cream down with a 7 Eleven Slurpee if I had to pay for every health issue that goes along with obesity, NO…

45

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’m actually really really glad this site has such educated posters.

Because really, if those cookies meet your macronutrient needs for the day, I’m not actually going to say they’re unhealthy.

The only thing I would like to see… and I have no idea how it would or could be done… is while as long as government money is being spent treating late stages of preventable diseases, that there be some sort of incentivization early on (financially or otherwise), to “influence” people to make healthier choices.

Realistically though, the only way to verify that is with a slew of blood tests, and that opens up another can of worms in terms of administration, reliability, etc, nevermind labwork companies capitalizing on this testing being mandatory and driving prices sky-high.

It all gets really complicated really fast, but I, for one, would prefer to be surrounded by a lot more healthier people than I am wherever I go.[/quote]

I agree with this post 100%, I guess it sums up what I was trying to say. Maybe this isn’t the right way to go about things but something has to be done, at least this is an attempt.

46

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’m actually really really glad this site has such educated posters.

Because really, if those cookies meet your macronutrient needs for the day, I’m not actually going to say they’re unhealthy.

The only thing I would like to see… and I have no idea how it would or could be done… is while as long as government money is being spent treating late stages of preventable diseases, that there be some sort of incentivization early on (financially or otherwise), to “influence” people to make healthier choices.

Realistically though, the only way to verify that is with a slew of blood tests, and that opens up another can of worms in terms of administration, reliability, etc, nevermind labwork companies capitalizing on this testing being mandatory and driving prices sky-high.

It all gets really complicated really fast, but I, for one, would prefer to be surrounded by a lot more healthier people than I am wherever I go.[/quote]

I agree with this post 100%, I guess it sums up what I was trying to say. Maybe this isn’t the right way to go about things but something has to be done, at least this is an attempt.[/quote]

If you want people to take responsibility for their choices you can’t hold their hand.

Would you have ever learned to ride a bike if your dad held the back everytime you rode it? You’ve got to let go at some point.

47

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’m actually really really glad this site has such educated posters.

Because really, if those cookies meet your macronutrient needs for the day, I’m not actually going to say they’re unhealthy.

The only thing I would like to see… and I have no idea how it would or could be done… is while as long as government money is being spent treating late stages of preventable diseases, that there be some sort of incentivization early on (financially or otherwise), to “influence” people to make healthier choices.

Realistically though, the only way to verify that is with a slew of blood tests, and that opens up another can of worms in terms of administration, reliability, etc, nevermind labwork companies capitalizing on this testing being mandatory and driving prices sky-high.

It all gets really complicated really fast, but I, for one, would prefer to be surrounded by a lot more healthier people than I am wherever I go.[/quote]

I think it’s really simple. Insurance covers catastophic events and certain things for gender specific issues. EVERYTHING else is paid for out of pocket.

Will I wash a daily bowl of ice cream down with a 7 Eleven Slurpee if I had to pay for every health issue that goes along with obesity, NO…[/quote]

But somewhere we need to bridge that disconnect between what you do now, and the health impact down the road.

Even if you DID have to pay for all those health issues down the road, you’re not saving up for them, because you’re stuck in some sort of denial about the impact it will really have on you.

Whereas if I were able to clearly see trendlines across every 3-6-12 months showing changes in blood pressure, resting heart rate, cortisol levels, cholesterol levels… and if those chnages start going negative, it actually costs me something… then I have reason to act on it because the consequences are immediate rather than delayed by 15-30 years.

48

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’m actually really really glad this site has such educated posters.

Because really, if those cookies meet your macronutrient needs for the day, I’m not actually going to say they’re unhealthy.

The only thing I would like to see… and I have no idea how it would or could be done… is while as long as government money is being spent treating late stages of preventable diseases, that there be some sort of incentivization early on (financially or otherwise), to “influence” people to make healthier choices.

Realistically though, the only way to verify that is with a slew of blood tests, and that opens up another can of worms in terms of administration, reliability, etc, nevermind labwork companies capitalizing on this testing being mandatory and driving prices sky-high.

It all gets really complicated really fast, but I, for one, would prefer to be surrounded by a lot more healthier people than I am wherever I go.[/quote]

I think it’s really simple. Insurance covers catastophic events and certain things for gender specific issues. EVERYTHING else is paid for out of pocket.

Will I wash a daily bowl of ice cream down with a 7 Eleven Slurpee if I had to pay for every health issue that goes along with obesity, NO…[/quote]

But somewhere we need to bridge that disconnect between what you do now, and the health impact down the road.

Even if you DID have to pay for all those health issues down the road, you’re not saving up for them, because you’re stuck in some sort of denial about the impact it will really have on you.

Whereas if I were able to clearly see trendlines across every 3-6-12 months showing changes in blood pressure, resting heart rate, cortisol levels, cholesterol levels… and if those chnages start going negative, it actually costs me something… then I have reason to act on it because the consequences are immediate rather than delayed by 15-30 years.[/quote]

It would be costly to analyses all of this data every 3 month, but if people made better choices there would be little need to do any of this accepts maybe once a year as a precaution.

My POV is that if people want to live recklessly and the consequences hit them in 15-30 years then so be it. They can use every penny they have to pay for it. I’m not sympathetic. Heath care is a service like anything else.

If you take care of your car it will last longer than if you don’t. If you don’t be prepared to buy a new one. Should we tax everyone a little so that we can “help” those that have to replace their care because they don’t replace their oil regularly?

49

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’m actually really really glad this site has such educated posters.

Because really, if those cookies meet your macronutrient needs for the day, I’m not actually going to say they’re unhealthy.

The only thing I would like to see… and I have no idea how it would or could be done… is while as long as government money is being spent treating late stages of preventable diseases, that there be some sort of incentivization early on (financially or otherwise), to “influence” people to make healthier choices.

Realistically though, the only way to verify that is with a slew of blood tests, and that opens up another can of worms in terms of administration, reliability, etc, nevermind labwork companies capitalizing on this testing being mandatory and driving prices sky-high.

It all gets really complicated really fast, but I, for one, would prefer to be surrounded by a lot more healthier people than I am wherever I go.[/quote]

I think it’s really simple. Insurance covers catastophic events and certain things for gender specific issues. EVERYTHING else is paid for out of pocket.

Will I wash a daily bowl of ice cream down with a 7 Eleven Slurpee if I had to pay for every health issue that goes along with obesity, NO…[/quote]

But somewhere we need to bridge that disconnect between what you do now, and the health impact down the road.

Even if you DID have to pay for all those health issues down the road, you’re not saving up for them, because you’re stuck in some sort of denial about the impact it will really have on you.

Whereas if I were able to clearly see trendlines across every 3-6-12 months showing changes in blood pressure, resting heart rate, cortisol levels, cholesterol levels… and if those chnages start going negative, it actually costs me something… then I have reason to act on it because the consequences are immediate rather than delayed by 15-30 years.[/quote]

It would be costly to analyses all of this data every 3 month, but if people made better choices there would be little need to do any of this accepts maybe once a year as a precaution.

My POV is that if people want to live recklessly and the consequences hit them in 15-30 years then so be it. They can use every penny they have to pay for it. I’m not sympathetic. Heath care is a service like anything else.

If you take care of your car it will last longer than if you don’t. If you don’t be prepared to buy a new one. Should we tax everyone a little so that we can “help” those that have to replace their care because they don’t replace their oil regularly?
[/quote]

I guess the healthcare system I’m used to doesn’t work like that so a similar system in the UK would benefit the population differently. I do think that a healthy lifestyle does benefit the economy in ways I have stated previously.

I guess we can all agree that how it’s working now is suboptimal, and that we are going to face a lot of problems down the line related to obesity.

50

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
A healthier society ultimately lowers the tax burden.[/quote]

Only if you have socialized health care.[/quote]

That’s the case in this instance

51

No doubt a healthier population would benefit society. I just don’t think it’s wise to try and force it through regulation.

52

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’m actually really really glad this site has such educated posters.

Because really, if those cookies meet your macronutrient needs for the day, I’m not actually going to say they’re unhealthy.

The only thing I would like to see… and I have no idea how it would or could be done… is while as long as government money is being spent treating late stages of preventable diseases, that there be some sort of incentivization early on (financially or otherwise), to “influence” people to make healthier choices.

Realistically though, the only way to verify that is with a slew of blood tests, and that opens up another can of worms in terms of administration, reliability, etc, nevermind labwork companies capitalizing on this testing being mandatory and driving prices sky-high.

It all gets really complicated really fast, but I, for one, would prefer to be surrounded by a lot more healthier people than I am wherever I go.[/quote]

I think it’s really simple. Insurance covers catastophic events and certain things for gender specific issues. EVERYTHING else is paid for out of pocket.

Will I wash a daily bowl of ice cream down with a 7 Eleven Slurpee if I had to pay for every health issue that goes along with obesity, NO…[/quote]

But somewhere we need to bridge that disconnect between what you do now, and the health impact down the road.

Even if you DID have to pay for all those health issues down the road, you’re not saving up for them, because you’re stuck in some sort of denial about the impact it will really have on you.

Whereas if I were able to clearly see trendlines across every 3-6-12 months showing changes in blood pressure, resting heart rate, cortisol levels, cholesterol levels… and if those chnages start going negative, it actually costs me something… then I have reason to act on it because the consequences are immediate rather than delayed by 15-30 years.[/quote]

It would be costly to analyses all of this data every 3 month, but if people made better choices there would be little need to do any of this accepts maybe once a year as a precaution.

My POV is that if people want to live recklessly and the consequences hit them in 15-30 years then so be it. They can use every penny they have to pay for it. I’m not sympathetic. Heath care is a service like anything else.

If you take care of your car it will last longer than if you don’t. If you don’t be prepared to buy a new one. Should we tax everyone a little so that we can “help” those that have to replace their care because they don’t replace their oil regularly?
[/quote]

But you realize you currently ARE paying for healthcare for people who made poor choices, right? They are being taken care of, and it IS on the taxpayers dollar.

So you have three options:

  1. don’t pay (and get wages garnished/go to jail)
  2. find some way to reduce the long-term healthcare cost (e.g., by better prevention)
  3. do nothing
53

People have made a fair point about how non fat people also buy junk food.

But the reality is, practically anything you implement in any instance there will be downsides and people who end up getting the short end of the stick undeservedly.

54

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’m actually really really glad this site has such educated posters.

Because really, if those cookies meet your macronutrient needs for the day, I’m not actually going to say they’re unhealthy.

The only thing I would like to see… and I have no idea how it would or could be done… is while as long as government money is being spent treating late stages of preventable diseases, that there be some sort of incentivization early on (financially or otherwise), to “influence” people to make healthier choices.

Realistically though, the only way to verify that is with a slew of blood tests, and that opens up another can of worms in terms of administration, reliability, etc, nevermind labwork companies capitalizing on this testing being mandatory and driving prices sky-high.

It all gets really complicated really fast, but I, for one, would prefer to be surrounded by a lot more healthier people than I am wherever I go.[/quote]

I think it’s really simple. Insurance covers catastophic events and certain things for gender specific issues. EVERYTHING else is paid for out of pocket.

Will I wash a daily bowl of ice cream down with a 7 Eleven Slurpee if I had to pay for every health issue that goes along with obesity, NO…[/quote]

But somewhere we need to bridge that disconnect between what you do now, and the health impact down the road.

Even if you DID have to pay for all those health issues down the road, you’re not saving up for them, because you’re stuck in some sort of denial about the impact it will really have on you.

Whereas if I were able to clearly see trendlines across every 3-6-12 months showing changes in blood pressure, resting heart rate, cortisol levels, cholesterol levels… and if those chnages start going negative, it actually costs me something… then I have reason to act on it because the consequences are immediate rather than delayed by 15-30 years.[/quote]

It would be costly to analyses all of this data every 3 month, but if people made better choices there would be little need to do any of this accepts maybe once a year as a precaution.

My POV is that if people want to live recklessly and the consequences hit them in 15-30 years then so be it. They can use every penny they have to pay for it. I’m not sympathetic. Heath care is a service like anything else.

If you take care of your car it will last longer than if you don’t. If you don’t be prepared to buy a new one. Should we tax everyone a little so that we can “help” those that have to replace their care because they don’t replace their oil regularly?
[/quote]

But you realize you currently ARE paying for healthcare for people who made poor choices, right? They are being taken care of, and it IS on the taxpayers dollar.

So you have three options:

  1. don’t pay (and get wages garnished/go to jail)
  2. find some way to reduce the long-term healthcare cost (e.g., by better prevention)
  3. do nothing[/quote]

Right, which is why I don’t want to pay MORE in taxes. Taxing what you or anyone arbitrarily calls unhealthy is not a long term preventative solution. Fat people will remain fat and will always find a way to be fat no matter what. I guarantee if you add a tax to “unhealthy food” obese people will not spend less on said food, but on something else, like gas or vacation or education. It will not change anything imo.

55

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Right, which is why I don’t want to pay MORE in taxes. Taxing what you or anyone arbitrarily calls unhealthy is not a long term preventative solution. Fat people will remain fat and will always find a way to be fat no matter what. I guarantee if you add a tax to “unhealthy food” obese people will not spend less on said food, but on something else, like gas or vacation or education. It will not change anything imo.

Edit:

Also a huge problem I have is with the Gov being the one deeming which foods are unhealthy. These are the same people that still think like 30 serving of grain a day is optimal, correct? [/quote]

Yeah, people suck.

Just take care of yourself, your friends and your family. Forget the rest.

56

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Right, which is why I don’t want to pay MORE in taxes. Taxing what you or anyone arbitrarily calls unhealthy is not a long term preventative solution. Fat people will remain fat and will always find a way to be fat no matter what. I guarantee if you add a tax to “unhealthy food” obese people will not spend less on said food, but on something else, like gas or vacation or education. It will not change anything imo.

Edit:

Also a huge problem I have is with the Gov being the one deeming which foods are unhealthy. These are the same people that still think like 30 serving of grain a day is optimal, correct? [/quote]

Yeah, people suck.

Just take care of yourself, your friends and your family. Forget the rest.[/quote]

If that’s meant to be condescending, which is how I take it, you’re way off. I am ALL FOR helping those that can’t help themselves. I am not; however, for helping people that REFUSE to help themselves when they are perfectly capable of it.

If that makes me cold hearted when then so be it.

57

As a matter of fact, if we stopped helping people that are capable of helping themselves we could help so many more people that actually NEED it.

58

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
As a matter of fact, if we stopped helping people that are capable of helping themselves we could help so many more people that actually NEED it. [/quote]

You anywhere near College Park?

59

[quote]LoRez wrote:

But you realize you currently ARE paying for healthcare for people who made poor choices, right? [/quote]

Ah, so this is how the forced morning exercise for citizens was started in “1984.”

Soon all us proles will all report to the telescreen at 6:00 am for our enforced training.

60

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Right, which is why I don’t want to pay MORE in taxes. Taxing what you or anyone arbitrarily calls unhealthy is not a long term preventative solution. Fat people will remain fat and will always find a way to be fat no matter what. I guarantee if you add a tax to “unhealthy food” obese people will not spend less on said food, but on something else, like gas or vacation or education. It will not change anything imo.

Edit:

Also a huge problem I have is with the Gov being the one deeming which foods are unhealthy. These are the same people that still think like 30 serving of grain a day is optimal, correct? [/quote]

Yeah, people suck.

Just take care of yourself, your friends and your family. Forget the rest.[/quote]

If that’s meant to be condescending, which is how I take it, you’re way off. I am ALL FOR helping those that can’t help themselves. I am not; however, for helping people that REFUSE to help themselves when they are perfectly capable of it.

If that makes me cold hearted when then so be it. [/quote]

No, it wasn’t meant as condescending at all. That’s pretty close to how I really feel about the issue. And I agree entirely with what you just said.

My real problem is being forced into this position where my tax dollars are going to be paying for healthcare for these people in the first place… people who have what were preventable diseases, but they chose not to heed the information. If I had any say in the matter, I’d start gradually reducing the money we put toward those programs.

If I’m going to have to pay for their healthcare, I’d prefer if there was some incentive in place to reduce the number of cases over time. Right now, I really think each generation picks up the previous generation’s eating habits and patterns, and things are just going to get worse.

If regular bloodwork with some sort of incentivization built into it can tell people earlier on “hey, things are going in the wrong direction, and you should do something about it NOW”… if that idea works at all, and ends up with subsequent generations become just a few percent healthier than the previous generations, I’m all for it.