Instead of a new "fat-pill", why not just legislation to cut out the

[SoCalDem]

extra fat & carbs from packaged/fast-food?

and eliminating nutritionless snack foods..

I know this will never happen due to agri-business/petro-fertilizer co/advertising industry, BUT.. instead of pushing unhealthful food that causes most of the obesity we struggle with, it seems to be a better idea to target the source, instead of the result..

They targeted cigarettes as the cause of health issues and went after it with a vengeance to cut down on medical costs...so why not use the same approach with food..

I know food is inherently different since we HAVE to eat, and we don;t have to smoke, but the food available these days is NOT all that healthy for us.

A few decades of eating what's widely available increases the likelihood that medical intervention will be necessary in one form or another...surgery..pills..therapy..

Could it be that the production of "crap-food", the marketing of it, preparing of it and serving of it just might be centered on the biggest employment group in the country, and they are afraid to tighten regulations?

[babylonsister]

1. "Eat shit and die." Isn't that was the ultimate goal is? Oh, and

cancel healthcare.
Your proposed legislation makes entirely too much sense!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. I almost agree

but it just doesn't square with my belief we should legalize all street drugs.

So I guess I believe we have the right to kills ourselves in any way we choose.

[KittyWampus]

9. Do Corporations have the right to manufacture food using stuff

that we know contributes to obesity and diabetes.
Can they add stuff that they know is addictive?
You know they add corn syrup to food now that they didn't used to?

Should they be allowed to employ psychological warfare methods on children?
You realise how much money and energy is spent advertising to kids?

It's not like they just show pictures of cookies on tv and say "buy our wonderful cookies".

[SoCalDem]

13. My son was reading the back of a cookie package one day at the store

and said.."Mom, do YOU put all this stuff in your cookies"? I told him no..and that those things are mostly preservatives so the cookies don;t spoil (I wasn't gonna buy them anyway)..and he said "Your cookies don;t last long enough to spoil"..:) smart kid, eh?

[KittyWampus]

16. Like Mother, like son. And I wish this thread would get more attention

I'd love to see an in depth discussion of whether the US should regulate marketing to kids... in Europe it is.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

19. I hear you

but if I want Washington out of my bedroom, I want it out of my kitchen, too. Caveat Emptor. (or however you spell it)

Besides, I can kill myself quite well on natural foods. I once went organic and gained 20 pounds. Obviously I made bad choices, but you see what I mean.

I see the wisdom in your words, but then we would need to extrapolate out banning cigarettes, liquor, etc. We tried that in the 20's. We just can't legislate good choices. Now THAT's facism. Or the Nanny State. To me, they are the same.

[KittyWampus]

26. How about requiring warning labels, like cigarettes? And banning ads

especially advertisements to kids?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

27. I have no problem with either of

those strategies.

[SoCalDem]

30. Unfortunately ads are here to stay..

:(

I just wish we had a real FDA..one that would play hardball with these food companies and make them PROVE that food NEEDS the alphabet-chemicals they put in them..

If it's canned or jarred, it has a stable shelf life..if it's frozen it's likely to be prepared and eaten right away, so no preservative issues there..dried..same..

Can we really tell the difference in taste? enhanced dried potato product or just dried potato slices..

canned soup with seasonings with xyzemulsifierprotoplasmicyumyum or just soup??

[XemaSab]

47. We already have government-mandated warning labels

You know that little area on the back of the package that tells you the ingredients, serving size, calories, and the grams of carbs, fiber, protein, and nutrients?

Read it.

Use it.

[KittyWampus]

52. Yes, but that tiny label doesn't say "eating this product is addictive &

may cause obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure."

[SoCalDem]

54. And I would guess that schools don;t have much time to teach health

When I was in school, we had HEALTH and Science..and of course we also had DAILY gym class and a real cafeteria where "lunch ladies" arrived at about 5 am and baked out rolls & breads and made homemade soups & our foods were fresh..


Schools have been de-funded and now have to scramble for money any way they can..and of course Pepsi & Coke are right there to "offer" money...in exchange for ...well we see what they want every day..kids walking around with a soda & a bag of chips in their hands 24/7

[XemaSab]

88. Name 5 foods other than fruits and vegetables

that WOULDN'T have said warning label.

[SoCalDem]

92. I was not the poster requesting labels.. I want the "extra" crap OUT

:hi:

[FlaGranny]

58. I don't believe in legislating choices either,

but I do believe in legislating the things that go into foods. Most food labels fill me with shock and awe. It's very difficult to find foods in the supermarket without transfats and high fructose corn syrup, both of which are proven to be unhealthy. It's very difficult for the average person out buying groceries for the famliy to NOT buy this stuff.

My husband has had heart disease in the past, and I have to watch him like a hawk in the store. He doesn't want to take the time to read the labels. He's always stopping in for a box of crackers or something and I can't get it through his head that if the box says low fat, it can still have transfats, and most likely the HFCS also.

I can't help remembering how we used to eat in the 1940s. We ate all we wanted and everything we wanted. I knew only one adult in my town back then who was grossly obese. I knew perhaps a half dozen kids in high school who were heavy. We ate deserts with every dinner, we ate bread, drank whole milk, ate eggs, steak, candy, real soda, butter, and even lard in pies and cooking. I remember my brother and I socked down about 3 quarts of whole milk a day between us.

I just looked at my high school yearbook (1957). We had a graduating class of 180. Out of 180, there were a total of 7 overweight kids and none were huge. We had 48 teachers, two of whom were a bit overweight. There is also a photo of the board of education, 10 mostly old guys. All of them were slim. Glancing through the photos of the underclassman, hardly an overweight kid to be found. In grammar school, I remember ONE overweight girl and no overweight teachers.

Something has changed DRASTICALLY. I didn't realize just how drastically until I looked at my yearbook to count the fat people and had trouble finding them. The changes in the last 50 years are shocking.

[Stephanie]

67. High Fructose Corn Syrup and Trans-Fats

I'm convinced that's 90% of the problem. You didn't have those additives in your foods in the 50's. Transfats are far worse for you than lard. HFCS is a zillion times worse than sugar. You were eating real food, whole foods, fresh foods.

[Stephanie]

70. More on transfats vs. animal fats >

This is from a great article on french fries by Malcolm Gladwell, who wrote The Tipping Point.

<snip>

This is the trouble with the French fry. The fact that it is cooked in fat makes it unhealthy. But the contrast that deep-frying creates between its interior and its exterior--between the golden shell and the pillowy whiteness beneath--is what makes it so irresistible. The average American now eats a staggering thirty pounds of French fries a year, up from four pounds when Ray Kroc was first figuring out how to mass-produce a crisp fry. Meanwhile, fries themselves have become less healthful. Ray Kroc, in the early days of McDonald's, was a fan of a hot-dog stand on the North Side of Chicago called Sam's, which used what was then called the Chicago method of cooking fries. Sam's cooked its fries in animal fat, and Kroc followed suit, prescribing for his franchises a specially formulated beef tallow called Formula 47 (in reference to the forty-seven-cent McDonald's "All-American meal" of the era: fifteen-cent hamburger, twelve-cent fries, twenty-cent shake). Among aficionados, there is general agreement that those early McDonald's fries were the finest mass-market fries ever made: the beef tallow gave them an unsurpassed rich, buttery taste. But in 1990, in the face of public concern about the health risks of cholesterol in animal-based cooking oil, McDonald's and the other major fast-food houses switched to vegetable oil. That wasn't an improvement, however. In the course of making vegetable oil suitable for deep frying, it is subjected to a chemical process called hydrogenation, which creates a new substance called a trans unsaturated fat. In the hierarchy of fats, polyunsaturated fats--the kind found in regular vegetable oils--are the good kind; they lower your cholesterol. Saturated fats are the bad kind. But trans fats are worse: they wreak havoc with the body's ability to regulate cholesterol.

According to a recent study involving some eighty thousand women, for every five-per-cent increase in the amount of saturated fats that a woman consumes, her risk of heart disease increases by seventeen per cent. But only a two-per-cent increase in trans fats will increase her heart-disease risk by ninety-three per cent. Walter Willett, an epidemiologist at Harvard--who helped design the study--estimates that the consumption of trans fats in the United States probably causes about thirty thousand premature deaths a year.

McDonald's and the other fast-food houses aren't the only purveyors of trans fats, of course; trans fats are in crackers and potato chips and cookies and any number of other processed foods. Still, a lot of us get a great deal of our trans fats from French fries, and to read the medical evidence on trans fats is to wonder at the odd selectivity of the outrage that consumers and the legal profession direct at corporate behavior. McDonald's and Burger King and Wendy's have switched to a product, without disclosing its risks, that may cost human lives. What is the difference between this and the kind of thing over which consumers sue companies every day?

http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_03_05_a_fries.htm

[KurtNYC]

79. I think you're onto something

Read a paper recently talking about how we are still eating the "food from WWII" meaning that during WWII europe's farms were devasted and american farmers were encouraged to emphasize output and shelf life (slow spoilage) over taste and nutrition. They hybridized plants creating things like the beefsteak tomato, iceberg lettuce (nutritionally worthless btw) and the modern watermelon (hybrid of pumpkin and round watermelons). People went from cooking to reheating things that had been cooked months or years prior. In order to make old food more appealing and avoid spoilage the amount of fat and salt in most items was increased. The 1950s saw the creation of the radar range (microwave oven) and an explosion of junk foods like Twinkies, chips, cookies, and candy items.

And that trend has raged for 60 years -- high fructose corn syrup, palm oil, etc. People are eating the same diet that is used to fatten beef cattle: high fructose corn, a complex carbohyrate that stays in the bloodstream far longer than sugar (sucrose).

[XemaSab]

46. Do they have the RIGHT?

Yes, they do.

And we have the right not to buy that stuff.

I think that prohibiting addition of sugar and fat to foods would be an example of nanny-statism gone amok.

I don't eat a lot of snack food, but when I do, I love it. I also LOVE coffee with cream and a half packet of raw sugar... yummah.

Everything in moderation. :shrug:

[rpannier]

3. I disagree

I don't want them legislating the quality of my life. If I want to eat high calorie, low nutrition food then I should be able to do it. There is way too much "save you from yourself" legislative ideas out there -- Everything from outlawing bungee jumpring to this.

[SoCalDem]

6. People could always fry up their own stuff and bake to their heart's

content, but it's fairly recent that so MUCH extra stuff is added to our foods, and other than tasting sweeter and having a millennium-long shelf life, have they really "improved" the food?

If there were true alternatives it would be one thing, but unless you grow your own stuff or pay thru the nose at "health-food" places, the grocery shelves are LOADED with high calorie, chemical-laden ingredients..and that's about all there is to buy.

[SmokingJacket]

20. Not totally true...

You can shop at my local grocery store and avoid processed food. I also grow my own, but get irritated whenever I go to the health food store, so I manage with the normal store.

You have to read labels when you venture into the box/can/frozen aisles. I have two kids, and it's been work to feed them healthily -- but it's possible.

I just think it's incorrect to say that you MUST buy the crap they advertise on teevee, because really, you don't.

[SoCalDem]

21. and there have been warnings on ciggies for decades too

I don;t buy junk, but my health insurance rates end up being affected by others who don;t read them or understand them.

Grocery shopping didn;t used to be a minefield :(

[SmokingJacket]

31. Nevertheless... I think it's tricky territory when you start wanting

to say what OTHER people can eat/smoke/etc.

Know what you're saying about insurance, but in many cases smokers and the obese are already penalized.

I do believe in good education and good labeling. And if science shows that high-fructose corn syrup truly does harm (which, incidentally, I believe it does, just from observation) it should be regulated like any other harmful substance.

Ultimately, though, I do think people should be free to choose their poison.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. I agree that about

80 percent in the grocery store is crap. But if you shop carefully you can surely buy a lot of good stuff without the additives. I have gotten to the place where I can taste the additives and prefer, for example, something like Triscuits, oatmeal, etc. I fancy them up myself.

But you have to run that gauntlet of soda and cookies to get to the good stuff. And I guess that's a lot like the rest of life.

[SoCalDem]

25. Even triscuits have extra stuff in them.. I used to really like them

but these days I only buy soda crackers..gave up snack crackers

[TallahasseeGrannie]

28. Do they really?

I thought they were just wheat. I haven't read the package lately. Oh well....

I love to squeeze that cheese stuff on them. So healthy.


LOL


nah, I hate that stuff. Never have eaten it.

[Stephanie]

69. Only shop the perimeter of the store

Stay out of the aisles. Meat, chicken, fish, produce, dairy, whole grains. Skip the packaged foods and you're in good shape.

[KittyWampus]

11. So you were okay with tobacco co.s marketing to kids?

How about tobacco adding nicotine to make stuff even more addictive?

Oh, and the chemicals to keep the cigarettes burning.

Cause junk food is addictive and known to cause disease. Why should we allow
co's to advertise to kids?

[rpannier]

36. To start with

Your opening line is irrelevant as marketing to kids is illegal because kids are not allowed to smoke.
As to your other part, junk food being addictive and "can" cause disease. 1) Anything is addictive. Sex is addictive, using the computer is addictive, as are millions of other things. So if we ban everything that is addictive we would ban essentially everything. @) I have daughters. They do eat candy, eat at Mc Donalds, etc and none of them are overweight. Why should my children be punished for the lack of control by others? 3)I can come up with a lot of ideas that would make you and me safer, but are they good ideas? How about creating a car that is chipped so you can never speed? Or, one that monitors whether you may be too tired to drive? No more parachuting, no more river rafting (My daughters also know how to river raft -- maybe that should be outlawed because they could drown). Limit the time you spend on the beach and pass a law that says you must wear at least a 15 sunblock in very hot sunny weather. I could go on.

Short answer on the advertising -- Yes, they should be allowed to advertise to kids.

[KittyWampus]

56. But corporations aren't marketing sex in a package & computer use

in and of itself doesn't cause obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure.

And you fail to grasp the fact that corporations now put corn syrup in food they didn't used to because it is addictive. They WANT consumers to become addicted. Just like tobacco.

You also fail to grasp the fact that corporations also know that corn syrup consumption leads to obesity and diabetes. Just like tobacco leads to cancer.

And you don't seem to know that corporations get their crap into school systems.

Apparently, it's more important to you to feel superior (MY kids don't get fat eating crap) then it is to hold corporations responsible for what they put in food and the means they use to sell it.

So it's okay to dump toxic waster into our water supply? Even if corporations spend money to tell us it's actually good for us?

It's not a matter of kids being able to "control" themselves when what they eat is ADDICTIVE and bad for their health.

People don't know that junk food is addictive and bad for their health now anymore then they did about tobacco 50 years ago. And what little awareness they do have about junk food is drowned out by the psychological warfare they are subjected to by advertising.

And in both cases, corporations used advertising to project an image that was 180 degrees to the truth of the matter.

Kudos for you and your kids for having self control. But along with personal reponsibility is CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY>

[Ciggies and coffee]

66. If you want chemical free, organic cigs

Go with American Spirits or roll your own with loose that has nothing added. I agree that adding chemicals to a natural product sucks though. Maybe we should tax the chemicals rather than the tobacco.

[CarlosNH]

4. Great idea, but

it will never fly because there is too much money involved in medications to combat the effects of eating junk food. Big Pharma would never allow it.

[SoCalDem]

57. Amazing how Big Pharma has the answers to all our "problems"

I am NOT negating their truly lifesaving medicines, but more and more they are into very expensive stuuf that has so many side effects, and seem to have a very short "testing" phase..

Of course if you weigh a BUNCH and there's a pill that "could" help you, you are more likely to overlook the side effect part..

It just seems all so "connected" to me.. :tinfoilhat:-ish

Get kids on that "bulk-up" diet early on...
take away exercise from schools (that coincidentally are in the pocket of the people selling some of the stuff)...
see to it that it takes Dad AND Mom to both work 60 hrs a week, so homemade now means rap a can against a counter-edge and microwave contents....

but never fear..fast food to the rescue too..drive thru anywhere and feed the family for cheap..

It's not hard to see how years of this can pack on the pounds...kids and adults..

Media has scared the bejebus out of parents so kids can;t play outside and run wild like we older folks did as kids..

Who knows what's IN those chemicals that are slipped into all these foods?..Is the ADD explosion somehow related?? who knows?...but Big Pharma can medicate those kids so they might be able to pass those tests..:(

Take a look at "rich people".. There don't seem to be as many obese rich folks. I knwo they have "personal trainers" (some do)..but they also have TIME.... time that THEY control..they have money to see doctors BEFORE problems get out of hand..and their money gives them access to real foods, cooked "just so"..

[Beaverhausen]

5. Being overweight sometimes has little to do with food

It is an emotional thing for a lot of people...some people drink, some smoke, and some reach for a chocolate cake when they are stressed, sad, depressed, etc.

I have had weight issues nearly my whole life. When I am in a good place mentally I am able to lose weight.

When I'm not, I can barely get enough food in my mouth. (The last few days have been bad- what with Alito and all the rest! I have been pigging out!)

This is just my opinion but I think there is no quick or easy answer to our nation's weight problems.

YMMV

[SoCalDem]

7. I agree.. I often eat from boredom & stress, BUT

the food itself does not have to have as much junk in it..It was not always that way.. there was a time when you bought canned veggies and the ingredient list said ..corn,water,salt...potato chips contained potatoes, oil, salt...

I think the advent of tv dinners is what started to change everything.. They were inherently so BAD, the foodies started experimenting with "flavor enhancements"..

and when you get right down to it, the whole issue of "shelf life and preservatives" is all about transporting the stuff and warehousing it..Most of us live fairly close to stores these days, and do not buy in bulk that much..

[KittyWampus]

8. I Want Lawsuits Against Garbage Food Co.s To Proceed

I want to find out what they knew about the corn syrup and sodium they were adding into the food.

I especially want advertising to kids to be so heavily regulated as to be outlawed.

[SmokingJacket]

23. The wallet is more powerful than a lawsuit.

Don't buy it, and they won't make it.

And it's easy enough to say NO to a kid -- until they're sixteen they can't drive to the store and buy the crap themselves. That's sixteen years to teach them to eat right. After that, it's up to them.

Unless you want to control what OTHER people eat...

[KittyWampus]

33. The crap food is in the schools, though. And kids will get their hands

on stuff.

There surely is a role for parenting and personal responsibility.

But let's consider the onslaught of advertisins and the effect of food additives that are, in fact, addicting.

[SmokingJacket]

35. Well, I have to agree about the schools -- schools should know better

I work my buns off to provide healthy box lunches for my kids, though I'd love it if they could have hot lunch once in while so I didn't have to pack it: but the hot lunch is crap, fried crap and pizza-flavored crap, not a whole grain in sight, plus my kids won't eat it.

Then the other parents send in snacks every day, Oreos or Little Debbie or whatever. Come on!! When I was in school we didn't need a Little Debbie break! Maybe that has something to do with the mystery why kids are so fat? That and the lack of recess. :grr:

[KittyWampus]

53. Schools have slashed budgets & Junk Food Co's Bribe Them With

sports equipment for putting vending machines etc in the schools.

[XemaSab]

48. What's wrong with sodium?

It's an element (Na) and it's usually paired with Chlorine (Cl) as Sodium Chloride (NaCl).

It's yummy and necessary for a healthy body.

What's more, I have low blood pressure and my doctor told me to eat more salt. :shrug:

[FlaGranny]

59. A good percentage of the population is sodium sensitive

and it DOES cause high blood pressure in them. This is not an argument for or against salt in food, just a factoid.

[HereSince1628]

10. Geez, cooking just DOESN'T take that long and nor does clean-up

Fresh vegetables, fresh bakery products, fresh meats it's all available.

[SoCalDem]

12. That's what I do, but millions don;t and THEIR health problems

affect us all..just like second hand smoke.. you might label it second-hand fat.. It hurts our wallets, dontchaknow?

[pitohui]

40. it doesn't hurt your wallet

c'mon, i think you know this is untrue

the campaign AGAINST smoking hurts yr wallet, people who don't smoke live longer, they draw more social security and medicare, they screw up the accounting

people who quietly slip away in their 50s put in all their lives from working but take nothing out

it is the health nuts who should be criminalized for picking my pocket, they are the ones causing all the harm to our budgets, tee hee

a funeral is damn cheap next to 9 extra years of living expenses in old age

let's keep the hating on the fat folks down to a dull roar, it is cruel, it is untrue that they are harming you, and plenty of them are prob. reading this thread right now

[SoCalDem]

42. I am not a skinny-minnie and I also smoke, BUT

that does not make me blind to the fact (okay I also have vision problems, but I digress) that there's a lot of unecessary stuff put into our food because an agri-industry needs to get rid of it..

regarding the "hating fat folks", I am not into self-hate...but the arguemnt is similar when you look at diseases..obesity leads to many of the same diseases that smoking does..and a few extra to boot.

and everywhere you look, you see so many fat kids..That's the saddest part.. I KNOW it's not ONLY the food, but the FDA had been asleep at the wheel for ages and I'd just like some oversight..that's all

[XemaSab]

49. Not to turn this into a fat kid thread

but I strongly suspect that it's animal hormones in the meat that make kids fat.

When I took range, the class was OUTRAGED to learn that cows are "finished" to add more fat to the meat. "Finishing" involves taking the cows off the range and confinining them in feed lots, where they are dosed with hormones and antibiotics, and fed corn instead of grass. If they were left on the range, the meat would be lean and gamy.

But it's what consumers want. :shrug:

[Stephanie]

72. I'm looking for that NY Times Magazine article about early maturation

it was about little girls reaching puberty at nine or ten, likely due to the added hormones they are consuming in beef and milk.

[SoCalDem]

74. Lakes, rivers and reservoirs are showing elevated levels of estrogen

..sewage treatments apparently don;t remove estrogens.. Maybe that's a factor in so many men becoming obese too :shrug:..

who knows anymore??

We are bombarded by so many "Unnatural" things these days..

I just know that when food companies started ADDING all these compounds TO food, they had to have permission or a complicit knowledge that it would "be ok" to do it.. For all we know, the stuff they add is stuff they are too cheap to pay to dispose of, and if it's not DEADLY, they just liquify it and spray it on everything they produce..(to get rid of it).:tinfoilhat:

[KurtNYC]

84. High fructose corn - the same stuff that is in soda

and other processed foods. The antibiotics are because the conditions in feed lots are very conducive to spreading disease.

[Imajika]

14. No thanks...

...thats just the kind of busy body legislation I detest.

I don't want to be told what I can and can not eat. I like to eat really fattening food sometimes. I also like to smoke and drink on occassion. You can eat your health chow, I prefer to eat a mix of things - some very healthy and some extremely unhealthy. Leave me alone to eat whatever the hell I want.

[SoCalDem]

15. You probably know then, that there were laws passed

(probably in the wee hours) to allow that crap INTO our food, in the first place.. Of course we were not asked first if we WANTED extra high fructose corn syrup sprayed on every food item they could find.

[Imajika]

24. If it keeps it tasting delicious...

...that's just fine with me.

I respect those that eat healthy and encourage others to do the same. I also recognize that I eat too much junk and it is infact unhealthy. I should eat better........... but I just don't want to. I also still like to drink and smoke cigarrettes every so often. Leave me alone to eat what I enjoy eating, drink what I enjoy drinking and to smoke whatever the hell I want. Those who want to eat rabbit food all the time are welcome to do that. I will continue to eat and drink the things I enjoy - even if it leads to an early grave.

Government out of the Kitchen is my new rallying cry ;)

[Selatius]

17. If people want to be stupid and eat shit, what the hell can I do?

Pass a law to stop them from eating shit and running up health care costs nationwide? And how well will that go over with the eating public? Think they like the notion of the federal government legislating what they can eat or not eat? You're gonna lose, and you're going to lose badly on such a notion.

[SoCalDem]

18. ADM/Cargil etc have NO problem "going to the govt"

so they can ADD stuff to their frankenfood..Could be it's a byproduct they don't want to PAY to dispose of..so they hire some scientists to determine that it's not harmful, and BLAM..they have a fantastic new and improved additive.. Surely their scientists can come up with a reason they can add it to foods..

[Selatius]

29. What does that have to do with what I said?

I would think people now are fully aware of the crap food that's around. You'd think they would CHOOSE to buy something else, but they keep coming back for more. What they do with their bodies is, frankly, none of my business.

If you want to fight Cargil or ADM, then you expose the scientific work they used to justify pumping unknown chemicals and junk into food as a scientific fraud and report it loud and clear. Then let the people decide what they want to eat.

[SoCalDem]

32. "...federal government legislating..."

the feds are supposed to be involved in food..hence the FDA..of course it ain't what it used to be :hi:

[Selatius]

34. I reorganized my previous post.

Anyway, the federal government is supposed to make sure food is safe to eat, not choose food you can or cannot eat. As it stands, that food is unsafe for eating, in my own opinion, unless those chemicals are removed, but even then, that won't stop people from choosing to make beef instead of fruits, grains, and vegetables, etc. as the stable of their diets. That's just one example off the top of my head. There are most likely others. There's a difference between ensuring the safety of the food supply and dictating what one can or cannot eat.

[XemaSab]

50. Totally

I'm vegetarian, but I have friends who would rather eat bacon than a scone for breakfast, and they claim they're eating healthier. Everyone has different ideas about what's healthy.

[Nikia]

71. The government can and does regulate food

They could ban certain chemicals into going into food. As far as naturual food, any naturual food, normally sold in grocery stores, in moderation is not unhealthy.

[flvegan]

37. We need legislation to determine what we eat?

If folks spent an ounce of time researching what they were eating, they might not. If it weren't so easy, and so many folks so lazy, they might not.

Target the source? The source is the desire of the individual in the drive through, and the buying in of the consumption of crap (for whatever reason) not the Board of Directors behind the curtain.

Tobacco is addictive, and folks were lied to. Fast food is garbage in a wrapper and folks know it, yet, KFC is still making billions.

[rpannier]

38. I agree with you

Let's be honest...if people didn't want McDonalds and Taco Bell, they'd have gone out of business ages ago.
My biggest concern with this idea is...What's next? Legislating how often we shower, legislating if some recreational activity because someone could get hurt? I think it's a dangerous proposition.

[KurtNYC]

86. Unpaid overtime for legal workers and underpaid illegal farm

labor help keep them afloat also:
if people didn't want McDonalds and Taco Bell, they'd have gone out of business ages ago.

Taco Bell has closed all of their stores in Manhattan. Burger King was recently sold by a british firm and McDonald's profits are off. So I think many people ARE starting to eat differently.

The drinks firm Diageo has finally sold its Burger King fast-food chain, but for a much lower price than originally sought.

The chain has been bought for $1.5bn (£950m) by a consortium of US venture capitalist firms. The price is about a third less than the amount Diageo had previously agreed with the consortium.

http://www.newbusiness.co.uk/cgi-bin/newsdesk.pl?criteria=article&id=808

[Selatius]

44. That's the crux of the problem:

Fast food is garbage. I know it. You know it, and everybody else knows it, but people still continue to eat billions of dollars worth of the junk.

[pitohui]

39. they have targeted trans fats and that's a big step

don't give up hope just yet

the field of nutrition is young

[The Governor]

41. Legislation...? So you want the government to tell you what you

can and cannot eat?

[SoCalDem]

43. not at all.. I just want them to exercise oversight regarding

the unnecessary stuff IN our food.

[Lars39]

45. I think a lot of the folks objecting to your OP do not realize

how bad the problem is.
My eye-opener was saltines containing corn syrup. Crackers normally don't have any sweetener in them.

[XemaSab]

51. Saltines are made by Nabisco

which is the same company as Kraft and Philip Morris.

I wouldn't look to them for healthy food.

[FlaGranny]

61. Saltines have been around for more than 50

years. People ate them back then, when they didn't have corn syrup and a host of other uncessary ingredients in them. They just kept eating Saltines over the years, but somewhere in there the manufacturer started adding ingredients that have no business even being in food. Most people have no idea that so much junk goes into their food. There's only one reason for it - profit. Manufacturers are using cheap ingredients to take the place of the real food that they once used in their products. Even some supposed "health foods" - for instance Nature Valley have high fructose corn syrup in them.

My husband gets very annoyed with my label reading in the store. It sometimes doubles shopping time. You can't just trust that something you ate last year is the same this year, either. Some items I've bought regularly without reading the label after the first time I've suddenly discovered to now be laced with HFCS.

[Nikia]

68. More junk is allowed in food now

My company makes processed American cheese. There are guidlines about what can be in American cheese. American cheese is a legal definition and cheese that does not meet the guidlines cannot be sold. Recently, regulations were changed to allow a greater percent of emulsifiers in American cheese. Emulsifiers make American cheese a uniform product and melt well. American cheese was doing everything it was supposed to do withoout those extra emulsifiers. Companies are now adding emulsifying chemicals to their cheese that have no other purpose than to be filler, a cheaper ingredient than cheese. Other products were probably allowed changes as well.

[SoCalDem]

77. EXACTAMUNDO... over the decades, food-co has been ALLOWED

to adulterate our food, and all the public has said is.. YUMMY..give me MORE yummy! make it BIGGER!..Make it FLUFFIER!..Make it REDDER!

People who misinterpreted what I tried to say, are upset about big gubbmint tellin' us what to eat..SO AM I!!!

This nasty stuff got INTO our food because the FDA either cut a deal on the sly or looked the other way as they started "fixing" food that was perfectly OK before..

As nasty as it sounds, I would take a few more rodent hairs over some of the alphabet-chemicals they put in it these days:)

[DanCa]

64. Just don't classify "Red Dye no. 5" as unnecessary :D

I've been sucking that stuff down so much I think my colon now thrives on it. :D

[theboss]

55. You can have my Twinkie...

When you pry it from my dead, chubby fingers.

Seriously, this idea smacks of facism. The government now dictating what we can eat? What's next? Soylent Green?

[DanCa]

65. Did you know that if you take a can of whip cream and a twinkie

That you can insert it into a twinkie hole and get the twinkie to grow twice it's size before it explodes? The things we learn after a bong hit. :D JK.

[Ciggies and coffee]

60. I cannot think of any industries...

Let alone of size equal/greater than the food/ag industry, that stand to increase their profits through such regulation, and proceed to buy it from our "representatives."

I do not see anything happening, other than some type of window dressing that doesn't empty anyones pockets, (possibly the opposite) except for the public at large.

[Fleshdancer]

62. the fat-blocking anal leakage pill won't help anything

obesity isn't the problem, it's the symptom of the problem which is often extremely poor eating habits and a lack of physical activity. Getting healthier doesn't mean hiding the symptoms, it means fixing what is wrong. This pill won't do a damn thing other than make people poop their pants.

The food marketed to us and our children is worse than crap. It's poison and it's keeping a lot of industries profitible...like the company making the very fat-blocking pills we're discussing right now. Sick.

[Yollam]

63. People want "crap food"

I'm speaking as a person who was 100 lbs overweight, and I still have over 50 lbs to go before being at an optimal weight. I finally decided to cut the crap out of my diet, and it worked. I don't resent the fact that half the junk on sale in the supermarket is junk food. I just think it's sad that Americans are so quick to pick it up and buy it with no thought to their health.

And it's not just the poor quality of food we're eating. We've become accustomed to eating portions that would choke people in most countries, and most of us have a daily calorie intake of 3000 calories for men and 2500 calories for women, when we should be taking in about 1800 for women and 2200~2500 for men for longevity and optimal health.

There is an argument for labeling of items with trans fats etc. But there already is a label on the back of the package. When you see that the item has 220% of the US RDA for sodium, or 22 g of saturated fat, DON'T BUY IT. That is not FOOD.

[FlaGranny]

73. People have always wanted junk food -

meaning sweet, crunchy, salty, or soothing foods and always ate them when they could get them. Read my post 58. I was shocked when I checked out that yearbook.

My mother used to make pie and cake. When I ate a piece of that pie or cake, it satisfied me - it was junk food and I loved it. Just compare a piece of homemade cake to a Twinky. A Twinky has as many calories, but it is like eating air - you always want more. In my family, one of our favorite meals was a huge homemade strawberry shortcake with real whipped cream. It had substance. It filled us up. We didn't get fat. My all time favorite meal was as much fresh corn on the cob as we could eat with real butter, and sliced fresh tomatoes, and a (smaller) strawberry shortcake for desert all from my mother's kitchen and local farms.

You are completely right, of course, we have to stay away from most of this modern prepacked food. I'm starting to be of the opinion, though, that overeating has more to do with the kind of food we're eating, rather than any innate propensity to overeat. With real, nourishing, and natural foods in out diets as we had up until the middle of the 20th century, I don't believe you'd see such a problem. We have been programmed to overeat by eating junk. Many overweight people are actually malnourished and eat more and more junk food because their bodies tell them they are still hungry.

[Yollam]

76. I think it's some of both.

Yes, the processed foods manage to pack in more calories and less nutrition than homemade "junk foods"

However, the fitness propaganda over the last decade or so has gone from "You can eat all you want as long as it's non-fat" to "You can eat all you want as long as it's low carb" to "You can eat all you want as long as you bust your ass working out." with this myth being propagated that if you reduce your calorie intake, your metabolism will shut down and you will get fat, so you have to eat more to lose weight (?!).

Of course this is true, in that if you eat next to nothing, skip meals, or go on crash diets you may screw with your metabolism. However, cutting calories to a balanced diet of 1500~1800 cal. will not stop your metabolism if you eat three meals and veggie snacks to keep full, and simply take a 30 min. brisk walk every day. To me, this is much healthier than the typical American routine of eating 2500 or more calories, with junky, unnecessary "protein bars" (most Americans already get way more protein than they need) and countless hours in the gym, jogging, etc. to burn off all the excess calories they are eating.

Americans who are "in shape" today look grotesque to me - the men are all pumped up, but still a bit puffy from the excess calories, and the women look funny too. Slender Europeans look much more natural and healthy, IMO.

I agree with you in principle that wee need to eat more real food and less prepackaged, but the vast majority of us are eating too much, period.

When I started my weight loss regime, it was a big adjustment. My stomach rumbled for the first several weeks from eating only 1500 cal. per day. I had to eat a lot of carrot sticks, etc. to shut it up! But after a while, I got used to it, and not only did the hunger pangs go away, as the weight came off, I had more and more energy. All I do is light calisthenics and a 30 min. walk, and I've lost 40+ lbs. in 2 months and I feel great. The gas, belching, acid reflux, foot pain, etc. that plagued me have all disappeared. Now the rate of weight loss has started to slow down, as expected, but that's okay. I plan to stay on this regime until I'm at my goal weight, then raise the calorie count to about 1800~2000, adjusting slightly until I find a count that will keep me at an equilibrium. I know that calorie counting is not for everyone, but for me, it's way easier than eating a ton of food then trying to exercise it all off. I'm 37, I'm not an athlete, and don't care to be. Low calorie diets have been shown in all kinds of studies to improve longevity, and that's what I'm aiming for.

Sorry for rambling off-subject

[FlaGranny]

85. Metabolisms do get

screwed up with crash dieting and I'm willing to bet that crash dieting is the cause of rebound weight gain. I've also had a problem with my weight. I've dieted and regained the lost weight numerous times. Then I just gave up and decided to never go on a diet that deprived me again. I concentrate on avoiding the junk and eating healthy but always food that I like to eat. I finally managed to stop gaining weight and have even lost about 20 pounds or so and I eat just as much as I want to eat. If you eat well, you don't have to worry too much, because your appetite will come under control eventually. And that does mean avoiding empty calories. LOL. I lost that 20 pounds without so much as a thought given to losing weight.

Counting calories is helpful at first so that people get an idea of what they're eating and how much. It is useful for many people to continue counting, but not me. I guess I'm just too contrary to even want to know. I did, once, for curiosity and with a computer program, document everything I ate for an entire month, and it averaged out to about 1800 calories a day.

[Yollam]

87. It's shocking...

You say you eat 1800 calories, sounds good for a woman of a certain age.

But if you go and eat at Chili's - some of their meals have that many calories in ONE SERVING!

It's really shocking. It's only gotten more insane over the years. While I was living in Japan, this joint called "Cinn-a-bon" apparently grew up into a big chain. When I came back here and first saw those monstrosities they pass off "cinnamon rolls" I was pretty shocked. We had to try one, and we split it between the four of us. A more nauseatingly sweet and cloying thing, I have never eaten. :puke:

Sometimes I wonder if they don't put some kind of drugs in those foods to get people addicted to them, because if you're not accustomed to them, they are nauseating.

[FlaGranny]

91. High fructose corn syrup probably.

I understand that it doesn't chemically clue in your brain to the fact that you have taken in the calories. It is extremely sweet - much more so than sugar.

I know what you mean about things being too sweet. People have gradually become accustomed to the sweetness and don't realize that things are much sweeter than they should be. They don't realize it doesn't register as food in the brain (if it is HFCS). Therefore, you want to eat more and more of it because it never fills you up, except, of course, if you're not used to the sweetness and it makes you sick. I'm the same way about sweet stuff - most everything ready made is too sweet for me. I enjoy occasional chocolate, but most of it is way too sweet, so I prefer semi-sweet.

[SoCalDem]

93. They smell good, but they taste NASTY

My boys insisted I buy some when our mall first got a Cinnabon place. The cinnamony stuff was SLIMY..looked like brown saliva:(
I;ll take my scratch cinnamon rolls anyday..and since I don't much anymore, I can;t overindulge:)

[MadHound]

75. Rather than relying on government and the courts to do this

Instead, take your own fate into your own hands, and start buying good, organic, hormone free food from your local farmers. The food that you get here is not only better tasting, but better for you also, in addition to being easier on the enviroment. Yes, it will cost you a bit more, but it is well worth it. And many foods are indeed competitive with prices found in the grocery stores.

Part of the problem though is that people want instant food, and don't have any desire to prepare food. Therefore we have microwave food, which is nutritional shit, with a bunch of chemical additives. Or fast food, which is even worse.

And then there is food preservation. People want to go shopping once a week, or less. To accomodate this, food companies have flooded our foods with chemicals and additives in order to lengthen shelf life. This attitude needs to change also. Buy your produce fresh, every day, every other day. European cultures seem to have the knack of this, we used to, we need to get it again.

People, we have the power to change this paradigm, if we would just use it. Stop buying your food at the big box grocery, and start patronizing your local farmers and farmer markets. You will love it, and never go back.

[classics]

78. Another fat hater thread from the west cost elitests.

BORING.

One day your going to have to get over the notion that all people are born thin and then corrupt thier perfect bodies with sloth and gluttony.

[Stephanie]

81. Nobody is talking about sloth and gluttony we are talking about dangerous

dangerous additives that are put into packaged foods - transfats, high fructose corn syrup, additives that most people don't realize are in there and harmful to your health, and the food companies don't want to tell you. And I didn't know being concerned about health was elitist. I think everybody wants to be healthy. Don't you?

[Vinca]

80. It's no wonder people are fat . . . really. Oranges cost $1 each

at our local store. If you're on a tight budget and trying to feed a family will it be 1 orange or 3 boxes of instant mac and cheese? Veggies are also very expensive. I grow my own in the summer and see a huge difference in my winter food bill.

[mattclearing]

82. Don't we bear responsibility for what we eat? n/t

[SoCalDem]

83. Yes we do, but we do not control what goes INTO our food before we get it

That's all I'm sayin'.:)

unless we grow our own or can shop at farmer's markets and get our kids to NOT buy junk at school or on the way home or..or..or..or

[KurtNYC]

90. Some nutritional mechanisms are counter-intuitive

Items labeled "low-fat" can be extremely fattening, etc. And now there are studies showing that diet sodas 1) make people crave real sweets and 2) delay the body's satiation response to sweet foods. In other words when the clown sells you that 1800 calorie value meal with a diet soda, the diet soda may be helping the clown get you ready to buy dessert.

My point is that the consumer is frequently mis-informed and therefore makes poor choices even when they are trying to do the right thing.

[BlackVelvet04]

89. Anything else you want the government butting into? gheesh...

....aren't you all tired of government intervention in our lives?

[SoCalDem]

94. Govt intervened when they gave permission to the food companies

to adulterate our food..No one asked the public if they wanted a bunch of chemicals added to their foods.