PDA

View Full Version : Soda on the chopping block




paulbot24
05-31-2012, 10:00 AM
Ban the soda! Maybe the wake up call people need to join the revolution.....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47625714

asurfaholic
05-31-2012, 10:08 AM
Wow.. it wont end will it? Why did I ever wake up from my blissful ignorance...

angelatc
05-31-2012, 10:12 AM
Wow.. it wont end will it? Why did I ever wake up from my blissful ignorance...

That's it, isn't it? It's freaking painful to watch.

Southron
05-31-2012, 10:29 AM
King Bloomberg is at it again. Thankfully, his kingdom only extends so far.

Brian4Liberty
05-31-2012, 10:29 AM
The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.

Lol! Artificial sweeteners or a Milkshake with 60 grams of fat are better choices?

"Oh, you want the large soda? It has to be Diet."

aGameOfThrones
05-31-2012, 10:55 AM
A restaurant or fast food place need to make a deal with the local grocery store to setup a "soda cart" near their establishments to sell non ban sodas before each person goes inside the store.

Xhin
05-31-2012, 11:05 AM
At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed.

This isn't even internally consistent..

Xhin
05-31-2012, 11:06 AM
A restaurant or fast food place need to make a deal with the local grocery store to setup a "soda cart" near their establishments to sell non ban sodas before each person goes inside the store.

Hahaha, the free market at work.

oyarde
05-31-2012, 11:19 AM
This is one of the most stupid things I have read all month , and , as much as I read , THAT is saying something .

Xhin
05-31-2012, 11:22 AM
Don't forget about Obama's wife trying to get king-sized candy bars banned:

http://www.businessinsider.com/michelle-obama-mars-candy-bars-smaller-twitter-2012-2

heavenlyboy34
05-31-2012, 11:28 AM
Soda heads are just going to buy more small sodas and mix them together in big containers. This attempt at tyranny is pretty weak.

July
05-31-2012, 11:32 AM
You would be horrified if you lived in or near Massachusetts. I swear every morning I wake up, the local fox news station is reporting about an effort to ban something new....soda, salt, sugar, vending machines, bath salts, water bottles, etc....it's really frightening. I'm really horrified in the not too distant future they are going to start talking about whether the state should be taking children away from their parents for obesity. Heck, they already are talking about that.

moostraks
05-31-2012, 11:35 AM
You would be horrified if you lived in or near Massachusetts. I swear every morning I wake up, the local fox news station is reporting about an effort to ban something new....soda, salt, sugar, vending machines, bath salts, water bottles, etc....it's really frightening. I'm really horrified in the not too distant future they are going to start talking about whether the state should be taking children away from their parents for obesity. Heck, they already are talking about that.

Like this?
"An obese 8-year-old boy from Cleveland Heights, Ohio, has been removed from his parents' home for medical neglect, according to The Cleveland Plain Dealer. The child weighs more than 200 pounds; his mother has been charged with endangering her son's health. This is Ohio's first case of child protective services removing a child for being overweight."
http://news.yahoo.com/obese-ohio-child-taken-parents-placed-foster-care-180816812.html

RickyJ
05-31-2012, 11:35 AM
Bloomberg is too stupid to even work at a fast food restaurant, how the heck is he the mayor of New York City?

moostraks
05-31-2012, 11:40 AM
Even more depressing imo was this:
Is New York Going Too Far In Banning Big Sugary Drinks?

74% Yes
24% No
2% Don't know
Total Votes: 2028
So approximately a quarter of the people responding think this invasive nannying is a)effective and/or b)necessary. Grrr.....

July
05-31-2012, 11:47 AM
Like this?
"An obese 8-year-old boy from Cleveland Heights, Ohio, has been removed from his parents' home for medical neglect, according to The Cleveland Plain Dealer. The child weighs more than 200 pounds; his mother has been charged with endangering her son's health. This is Ohio's first case of child protective services removing a child for being overweight."
http://news.yahoo.com/obese-ohio-child-taken-parents-placed-foster-care-180816812.html

Yes.... Like that. But of course they won't ever report in these stories how the state is actually promoting and contributing to the obesity problem with subsidies and unhealthy dietary guidelines.

Xhin
05-31-2012, 11:54 AM
So approximately a quarter of the people responding think this invasive nannying is a)effective and/or b)necessary. Grrr.....

Well, clearly it's a case of people wanting to get rid of obesity but having no problem with the government doing so rather than individuals. There is a term for people who support government solutions to problems they could fix themselves, and it rhymes with "sheep".

Okay, it is sheep.

RickyJ
05-31-2012, 12:04 PM
“Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a sarcastic tone. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

In your face tyranny! Insane! This guy is making fun of the people that have to go by his draconian proposals. Will New Yorkers tolerate this insane mad man, or will they throw his ass to the curb where it belongs! Based on what they do will determine if I ever step foot in New York City in my lifetime.

John F Kennedy III
05-31-2012, 12:15 PM
Are you serious?

Thanks socialism, you always know what's best!


The voice from the telescreen was still pouring forth its tale of prisoners and booty and slaughter, but the shouting outside had died down a little. The waiters were turning back to their work. One of them approached with the gin bottle. Winston, sitting in a blissful dream, paid no attention as his glass was filled up. He was not running or cheering any longer. He was back in the Ministry of Love, with everything forgiven, his soul white as snow. He was in the public dock, confessing everything, implicating everybody. He was walking down the white-tiled corridor, with the feeling of walking in sunlight, and an armed guard at his back. The longhoped-for bullet was entering his brain.

He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

Brian4Liberty
05-31-2012, 12:52 PM
Are you serious?

Thanks socialism, you always know what's best!

The first thing that came to mind...


The instructress had called them to attention again. 'And now let's see which of us can touch our toes!' she said enthusiastically. 'Right over from the hips, please, comrades. One-two! One- two! ...'

Winston loathed this exercise, which sent shooting pains all the way from his heels to his buttocks and often ended by bringing on another coughing fit. The half-pleasant quality went out of his meditations. The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had been actually destroyed. For how could you establish even the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside your own memory? He tried to remember in what year he had first heard mention of Big Brother. He thought it must have been at some time in the sixties, but it was impossible to be certain. In the Party histories, of course, Big Brother figured as the leader and guardian of the Revolution since its very earliest days. His exploits had been gradually pushed backwards in time until already they extended into the fabulous world of the forties and the thirties, when the capitalists in their strange cylindrical hats still rode through the streets of London in great gleaming motor-cars or horse carriages with glass sides. There was no knowing how much of this legend was true and how much invented. Winston could not even remember at what date the Party itself had come into existence. He did not believe he had ever heard the word Ingsoc before 1960, but it was possible that in its Oldspeak form -- 'English Socialism', that is to say -- it had been current earlier. Everything melted into mist. Sometimes, indeed, you could put your finger on a definite lie. It was not true, for example, as was claimed in the Party history books, that the Party had invented aeroplanes. He remembered aeroplanes since his earliest childhood. But you could prove nothing. There was never any evidence. Just once in his whole life he had held in his hands unmistakable documentary proof of the falsification of an historical fact. And on that occasion --

'Smith!' screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. '6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.'

A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston's body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her head and -- one could not say gracefully, but with remarkable neatness and efficiency -- bent over and tucked the first joint of her fingers under her toes.

'There, comrades! That's how I want to see you doing it. Watch me again. I'm thirty-nine and I've had four children. Now look.' She bent over again. 'You see my knees aren't bent. You can all do it if you want to,' she added as she straightened herself up. 'Anyone under forty-five is perfectly capable of touching his toes. We don't all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit. Remember our boys on the Malabar front! And the sailors in the Floating Fortresses! Just think what they have to put up with. Now try again. That's better, comrade, that's much better,' she added encouragingly as Winston, with a violent lunge, succeeded in touching his toes with knees unbent, for the first time in several years.

CaptainAmerica
05-31-2012, 12:55 PM
NYC laws are the worst.

LCG8928
05-31-2012, 01:35 PM
All this stuff about trans fats and unhealthy food is ridiculous. People should be aloud to eat whatever they want, if they get fat its not the governments problem.

heavenlyboy34
05-31-2012, 01:38 PM
Bloomberg is too stupid to even work at a fast food restaurant, how the heck is he the mayor of New York City? There's no intelligence or common sense requirement for any government office, sonny. ;)

heavenlyboy34
05-31-2012, 01:40 PM
All this stuff about trans fats and unhealthy food is ridiculous. People should be aloud to eat whatever they want, if they get fat its not the governments problem.
As long as health care and food (FDA, etc) are socialized, it is the government's problem. :(

Brian4Liberty
05-31-2012, 02:24 PM
All this stuff about trans fats and unhealthy food is ridiculous. People should be aloud to eat whatever they want, if they get fat its not the governments problem.

It's nice when they are truthfully labelled so that we know what we are eating. I prefer not to eat artificial sweeteners, artificial (hydrogenated) trans fats or Chinese melamine. Just my preference.

Anti Federalist
05-31-2012, 02:31 PM
Are you serious?

Thanks socialism, you always know what's best!


The first thing that came to mind...

1984 rep for you both.

As Angela said once, months ago, "The Future is Fail".

Kluge
05-31-2012, 02:32 PM
Stores/theaters will just do "buy one get one free" deals or something along those lines.

ctiger2
05-31-2012, 02:33 PM
They're not banning soda. It's banning of 16oz of larger cups. I just bought 2 x 12oz sodas and consumed 8oz more. Politicians are easily the stupidest fucking people on earth. EZ!

slamhead
05-31-2012, 02:42 PM
Meanwhile the corn industry is in every congressman's back pocket continuing to lobby for high tariffs on pure cane sugar so to protect their monopoly on poisonous sweeteners in the form of high fructose corn syrup. All along the FDA ignores the obesity and diabetic rates skyrocketed when HFCS came to be.

Anti Federalist
05-31-2012, 02:44 PM
They're not banning soda. It's banning of 16oz of larger cups. I just bought 2 x 12oz sodas and consumed 8oz more. Politicians are easily the stupidest fucking people on earth. EZ!

Please, folks, stop thinking like this, OK?

This has nothing to do with the stupidity of politicians, sure this can be "gotten around" easily enough.

That's not the point.

The point is to set the precedent that government has the right to micromanage you like this.

Once it has established that, then new, more draconian laws will come along that you cannot get around.

It's as pointless as trying to dodge TSA gropings by saying you won't fly, when TSA is setting up hardened checkpoints for all surface transportation as well.

You have to oppose the initial thrust, as foolish as it may appear, keeping in mind, that is one of the "powers that be" favorite tricks, floating absurd and trivial laws and edicts at first, to de-rail any meaningful opposition to it by simply saying "oh that law is so foolish, you can get around it easily".

pcosmar
05-31-2012, 02:51 PM
Bad Idea

http://i309.photobucket.com/albums/kk364/cafpowncis/A01.png

Working Poor
05-31-2012, 03:05 PM
Yes.... Like that. But of course they won't ever report in these stories how the state is actually promoting and contributing to the obesity problem with subsidies and unhealthy dietary guidelines.

Ban the FDA and the USDA while they are at it.

heavenlyboy34
05-31-2012, 03:33 PM
Please, folks, stop thinking like this, OK?

This has nothing to do with the stupidity of politicians, sure this can be "gotten around" easily enough.

That's not the point.

The point is to set the precedent that government has the right to micromanage you like this.

Once it has established that, then new, more draconian laws will come along that you cannot get around.

It's as pointless as trying to dodge TSA gropings by saying you won't fly, when TSA is setting up hardened checkpoints for all surface transportation as well.

You have to oppose the initial thrust, as foolish as it may appear, keeping in mind, that is one of the "powers that be" favorite tricks, floating absurd and trivial laws and edicts at first, to de-rail any meaningful opposition to it by simply saying "oh that law is so foolish, you can get around it easily".
Indeed. The point of my previous post was to point out how obviously stupid the whole idea is. I mean, how do they know one person is going to drink the whole mega-gulp? Some people share them. I used to when I was a soda person. It's all a bunch of nanny-state stupidity.

ctiger2
05-31-2012, 09:10 PM
Please, folks, stop thinking like this, OK?

This has nothing to do with the stupidity of politicians, sure this can be "gotten around" easily enough.

That's not the point.

I was assuming folks on RPF understood this already. I was just pointing out how idiotic they are in trying to do it. : )

heavenlyboy34
05-31-2012, 09:18 PM
Bloomberg is too stupid to even work at a fast food restaurant, how the heck is he the mayor of New York City?
One of the big reasons why electoral politics is an epic failure-no competence required at all and no accountability. ;)

libertarian4321
05-31-2012, 11:44 PM
I've seen a lot of stupid ideas come out of government at all levels, but this has to be the worst.

Bloomberg is a braying jackass.

oyarde
05-31-2012, 11:54 PM
It's nice when they are truthfully labelled so that we know what we are eating. I prefer not to eat artificial sweeteners, artificial (hydrogenated) trans fats or Chinese melamine. Just my preference.

What ? No Chinese melamine ? :)

oyarde
05-31-2012, 11:57 PM
Stores/theaters will just do "buy one get one free" deals or something along those lines. That is what I would do , and throw in a pack of red licorice ;) it is all made of things approved for school lunches :) , truth.

farreri
05-31-2012, 11:58 PM
I would rate soda as one of the worst foods or drinks to consume, so this brings up an interesting philosophical question.

I think soda is one of the biggest contributors to not only obesity, but bad health in general. There are so many foods and drinks, like soda, that our society consumes regularly.

What if that the rate our society is consuming products like soda will eventually sicken enough of the population so much that it will lead to the collapse of our society? Do we forgo liberty and pass laws to try to save our society from eating and drinking ourselves to death, or do we stand by our liberty principles knowing it will eventually lead to our collapse?

Remember, this is just a hypothetical question that can only have one of two answers.

oyarde
06-01-2012, 12:01 AM
I've seen a lot of stupid ideas come out of government at all levels, but this has to be the worst.

Bloomberg is a braying jackass. I believe you may have insulted a jackass ;)

wrestlingwes_8
06-01-2012, 12:02 AM
Lol! Artificial sweeteners or a Milkshake with 60 grams of fat are better choices?

"Oh, you want the large soda? It has to be Diet."

Of course, everything in the country is upside down and backwards. Sugar = terrible, aspartame = no worries. Same kind of bullshit where they have cannabis as a Schedule I drug and cocaine, morphine and meth as Schedule II. As Joe Rogan once said about the crazy classification, "So you're tellin' me marijuana is a gateway drug to less dangerous drugs?"

wrestlingwes_8
06-01-2012, 12:05 AM
I would rate soda as one of the worst foods or drinks to consume, so this brings up an interesting philosophical question.

I think soda is one of the biggest contributors to not only obesity, but bad health in general. There are so many foods and drinks, like soda, that our society consumes regularly.

What if that the rate our society is consuming products like soda will eventually sicken enough of the population so much that it will lead to the collapse of our society? Do we forgo liberty and pass laws to try to save our society from eating and drinking ourselves to death, or do we stand by our liberty principles knowing it will eventually lead to our collapse?

Remember, this is just a hypothetical question that can only have one of two answers.


Let it all come crashing down

jj-
06-01-2012, 12:06 AM
Of course, everything in the country is upside down and backwards. Sugar = terrible, aspartame = no worries. Same kind of bullshit where they have cannabis as a Schedule I drug and cocaine, morphine and meth as Schedule II. As Joe Rogan once said about the crazy classification, "So you're tellin' me marijuana is a gateway drug to less dangerous drugs?"

I often see people drink diet stuff with ASPARTAME as a health decision! Of my freakin g.

jj-
06-01-2012, 12:11 AM
What if that the rate our society is consuming products like soda will eventually sicken enough of the population so much that it will lead to the collapse of our society?

What a freaking ridiculous premise. HAHAHAHA!

Even if most of society drowns in soda, nothing prevents you from having your own little place with healthy fruits and other types of food.

What if people start reading the communist manifesto and act to impose it? We should BAN FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

farreri
06-01-2012, 12:18 AM
Funny how hypothetical questions for a fun philosophical question get some people so riled up.

moostraks
06-01-2012, 06:43 AM
Well, clearly it's a case of people wanting to get rid of obesity but having no problem with the government doing so rather than individuals. There is a term for people who support government solutions to problems they could fix themselves, and it rhymes with "sheep".

Okay, it is sheep.

First light program ran with this story this morning for their call in. Now of course the story was prefaced with the mainstream version with the soundbytes from supporters of this "necessary" ban to curb the healthcare issues we should all be concerned with (insert puke emoticon). Not one caller supported this and even the host was a bit surprised at the end of the segment that they did not get anyone who thought this was a legitimate step to be taken by government.

Now how many of the ones who called in can we suppose supported government intervention in healthcare? That I would like to know...Because those of us ritually called conspiracy theorists and doomsdayers because we sound off about slippery slopes, warned that the stupid healthcare bill would open the door for this type of invasive behavior being legit. I would say reap what you sow except they are dragging those of us who are kicking and screaming about it with them...

UtahApocalypse
06-01-2012, 06:59 AM
They're not banning soda. It's banning of 16oz of larger cups. I just bought 2 x 12oz sodas and consumed 8oz more. Politicians are easily the stupidest fucking people on earth. EZ!

^^^ This is exactly what I was going to say.

Acala
06-01-2012, 08:35 AM
I would rate soda as one of the worst foods or drinks to consume, so this brings up an interesting philosophical question.

I think soda is one of the biggest contributors to not only obesity, but bad health in general. There are so many foods and drinks, like soda, that our society consumes regularly.

What if that the rate our society is consuming products like soda will eventually sicken enough of the population so much that it will lead to the collapse of our society? Do we forgo liberty and pass laws to try to save our society from eating and drinking ourselves to death, or do we stand by our liberty principles knowing it will eventually lead to our collapse?

Remember, this is just a hypothetical question that can only have one of two answers.

I agree that drinking soda is one of the worst things you can do for your health. It is, essentially, slow poison.

But it is none of the government's business if I want to drink poison, or shoot heroin, or shoot myself in the face with a .45. It is MY life and MY body!!!! HANDS OFF DAMMIT!!!!! UGH!

You do not owe it to society to behave in a way that makes you a more useful slave to the hive.

Can you imagine what someone like Thomas Jefferson would think if he learned that our government now takes it upon itself to tell us what we can and cannot eat? What medicine we can and cannot take? And so on?

Anti Federalist
06-01-2012, 02:00 PM
NY mayor blasts sugar ban critics: "That's a lot of soda"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-usa-sugarban-newyork-idUSBRE85012N20120601

(Reuters) - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg offered a full-throated defense of his proposed ban on large-size sugary sodas on Friday, calling criticism of the proposal "ridiculous" and saying his city is again leading the way in taking on critical health issues.

"I look across this country, and people are obese, and everybody wrings their hands, and nobody's willing to do something about it," Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show.

"I would criticize the federal government for not doing anything," the health-conscious Bloomberg added on WOR radio's John Gambling show. "I would criticize the state governments for not doing anything, but in the end, it's the cities that do things."

On Wednesday, Bloomberg proposed a far-reaching ban on sugary sodas larger than 16 ounces (about half a liter) in most restaurants, theaters, delis and vending carts throughout the city. It could take effect as early as next March, city officials have said.

The move against soft drinks is the latest in a string of public health initiatives promoted by the mayor. During his three terms in office the city has banned smoking in bars, restaurants and public places, banned artificial trans fats in restaurant food, and required calorie counts to be posted at fast-food outlets. Bloomberg also leads a campaign to cut salt in restaurant meals and packaged foods.

Anti Federalist
06-01-2012, 02:01 PM
You're ridiculous.

So says Mikey Bloomberg.


I agree that drinking soda is one of the worst things you can do for your health. It is, essentially, slow poison.

But it is none of the government's business if I want to drink poison, or shoot heroin, or shoot myself in the face with a .45. It is MY life and MY body!!!! HANDS OFF DAMMIT!!!!! UGH!

You do not owe it to society to behave in a way that makes you a more useful slave to the hive.

Can you imagine what someone like Thomas Jefferson would think if he learned that our government now takes it upon itself to tell us what we can and cannot eat? What medicine we can and cannot take? And so on?

farreri
06-01-2012, 02:41 PM
I agree that drinking soda is one of the worst things you can do for your health. It is, essentially, slow poison.

But it is none of the government's business if I want to drink poison, or shoot heroin, or shoot myself in the face with a .45. It is MY life and MY body!!!! HANDS OFF DAMMIT!!!!! UGH!

You do not owe it to society to behave in a way that makes you a more useful slave to the hive.

Can you imagine what someone like Thomas Jefferson would think if he learned that our government now takes it upon itself to tell us what we can and cannot eat? What medicine we can and cannot take? And so on?
You didn't answer my hypothetical question.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 02:42 PM
I would rate soda as one of the worst foods or drinks to consume, so this brings up an interesting philosophical question.

I think soda is one of the biggest contributors to not only obesity, but bad health in general. There are so many foods and drinks, like soda, that our society consumes regularly.

What if that the rate our society is consuming products like soda will eventually sicken enough of the population so much that it will lead to the collapse of our society? Do we forgo liberty and pass laws to try to save our society from eating and drinking ourselves to death, or do we stand by our liberty principles knowing it will eventually lead to our collapse?

Remember, this is just a hypothetical question that can only have one of two answers.

I believe there should be a system in place that encourages restaurants and stores to sell healthy food. But placing a bunch of regulations on people is not the answer. It doesn't improve the problem and makes it more difficult to do business.

pcosmar
06-01-2012, 02:54 PM
Remember, this is just a hypothetical question that can only have one of two answers.

What???
I worked in Auto Body repair for years. A Big Gulp was common.. But sometimes it was just several large Cokes every day.
I also wet sanded cars in the Hot South Florida sun with no shirt on,, when I wasn't offshore fishing or swimming nude.
I am neither Obese nor do I have skin cancer.
I have a Coke open as I type.. And a cigarette.

Any other bullshit I should address? Oh,, I'm 54 and in excellent health.

Acala
06-01-2012, 02:56 PM
You didn't answer my hypothetical question.

I guess I wasn't clear. Nobody has the right to impose their values on anyone else by force, even if it truly means the human race is destroyed. So, no, government shouldn't be telling people what to eat no moatter what the consequences.

As a practical matter, government doesn't KNOW what people should eat. In fact it is wrong most of the time.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 03:06 PM
I guess I wasn't clear. Nobody has the right to impose their values on anyone else by force, even if it truly means the human race is destroyed. So, no, government shouldn't be telling people what to eat no moatter what the consequences.

As a practical matter, government doesn't KNOW what people should eat. In fact it is wrong most of the time.

The government should know what is good for you and what isn't. Its not rocket science. Its pretty well known what is good food and what isn't.

There should be system in place that encourages companies to sell good food. You may not see it, but when people pig out on bad food, that effects you too. Someone's paying for their medical care. Its not like there are no costs associated with bad food. Society pays a huge cost.

farreri
06-01-2012, 03:09 PM
What???
I worked in Auto Body repair for years. A Big Gulp was common.. But sometimes it was just several large Cokes every day.
I also wet sanded cars in the Hot South Florida sun with no shirt on,, when I wasn't offshore fishing or swimming nude.
I am neither Obese nor do I have skin cancer.
I have a Coke open as I type.. And a cigarette.

Any other bullshit I should address? Oh,, I'm 54 and in excellent health.
What's with people on here unable to answer a hypothetical question?!

farreri
06-01-2012, 03:11 PM
I guess I wasn't clear. Nobody has the right to impose their values on anyone else by force, even if it truly means the human race is destroyed. So, no, government shouldn't be telling people what to eat no moatter what the consequences.
So you would essentially vote for society to destroy itself in the name of "Liberty"?

pcosmar
06-01-2012, 03:13 PM
What's with people on here unable to answer a hypothetical question?!

Hypothetical Question is based on *false assumption and was ignored.

It is not the place of government to dictate anything.. at least not proper government.

*several false assumptions

pcosmar
06-01-2012, 03:14 PM
So you would essentially vote for society to destroy itself in the name of "Liberty"?

I vote for a FREE society.

angelatc
06-01-2012, 03:16 PM
I believe there should be a system in place that encourages restaurants and stores to sell healthy food. But placing a bunch of regulations on people is not the answer. It doesn't improve the problem and makes it more difficult to do business.

You mean, you think the restaurants should be "encouraged" by something other than maximizing sales? That's a road to bankruptcy.

pcosmar
06-01-2012, 03:18 PM
Society pays a huge cost.

Not always..
Not until Socialism.

Humanity has survived and grown and prospered without government controls on everything.

this dietary bullshit is rather new.

angelatc
06-01-2012, 03:18 PM
So you would essentially vote for society to destroy itself in the name of "Liberty"?

The alternative - deciding who is smarter than "society" and letting them dictate the menu - is far more dangerous, and likely.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 03:20 PM
You mean, you think the restaurants should be "encouraged" by something other than maximizing sales? That's a road to bankruptcy.

How is that a road to bankruptcy? Whats more troubling is companies selling products that have harmful effects to society that we end up having to pay after the fact. Its easier to do things right the first time than it is to clean up afterwards.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 03:23 PM
Not always..
Not until Socialism.

Humanity has survived and grown and prospered without government controls on everything.

this dietary bullshit is rather new.

At the very least, bad foods cause us to employ far more doctors than we would otherwise need. These people could be doing something productive for this country. Therefore there is a cost to everyone from bad food, regardless of whether we are socialist or capitalist.

pcosmar
06-01-2012, 03:23 PM
Its easier to do things right the first time than it is to clean up afterwards.

Elitist social engineering in a nutshell.

no thank you

tttppp
06-01-2012, 03:25 PM
Elitist social engineering in a nutshell.

no thank you

That makes no sense whatsoever. Its pretty much common sense that its cheaper to do things right the first time.

heavenlyboy34
06-01-2012, 03:28 PM
At the very least, bad foods cause us to employ far more doctors than we would otherwise need. These people could be doing something productive for this country. Therefore there is a cost to everyone from bad food, regardless of whether we are socialist or capitalist.
Yes, but the laissez-faire capitalist does not force others to accept the burden of his bad decisions. We have insurance and charity to cope with bad shit that happens to us.

pcosmar
06-01-2012, 03:28 PM
At the very least, bad foods cause us to employ far more doctors than we would otherwise need. These people could be doing something productive for this country. Therefore there is a cost to everyone from bad food, regardless of whether we are socialist or capitalist.

Bad foods??
Productive for society??

Forced labor?
How about euthanasia for the unproductive?
Get rid of all those useless old people that are just a drain on the system?

Where have I heard this shit before?

RickyJ
06-01-2012, 03:29 PM
That makes no sense whatsoever. Its pretty much common sense that its cheaper to do things right the first time.

Yes, but we all have different definitions of what "right" is.

Enforcing your definition of "right" by law, on someone who has a different definition of "right", is not right. :D

tttppp
06-01-2012, 03:34 PM
Yes, but the laissez-faire capitalist does not force others to accept the burden of his bad decisions. We have insurance and charity to cope with bad shit that happens to us.

I think you misunderstood my post. Lets say hypothetically that everyone in this country needed to be a doctor to combat out health problems. The country would be a disaster because the entire country would be doing an unproductive job and all the important jobs would be neglected.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 03:36 PM
Bad foods??
Productive for society??

Forced labor?
How about euthanasia for the unproductive?
Get rid of all those useless old people that are just a drain on the system?

Where have I heard this shit before?

Now you are just putting words in my mouth. I believe our medical system should focus on chinese traditional medicine, not western medicine. This will enable far more older people to still function in society without help.

I never said anything about euthanasia.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 03:40 PM
Yes, but we all have different definitions of what "right" is.

Enforcing your definition of "right" by law, on someone who has a different definition of "right", is not right. :D

I argued for using incentives as a way to replace regulations. I never said we should dictate what people can or can't eat. If you really want bad food, you are free to eat it. But we run into a problem when 99% of the food available is bad food. We should put a system in place that reverses the trend. The majority of food should be good food. In case you want to harm your body, bad food would still be available.

pcosmar
06-01-2012, 03:45 PM
I argued for using incentives as a way to replace regulations. I never said we should dictate what people can or can't eat. If you really want bad food, you are free to eat it. But we run into a problem when 99% of the food available is bad food. We should put a system in place that reverses the trend. The majority of food should be good food. In case you want to harm your body, bad food would still be available.

There are only two ways to deal with that.
Education
Government Force

I personally reject the whole "bad food" concept. Short of poisoned food supplies.
I am a carbon based life form and as such can survive and thrive on any other carbon based life forms as food.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 03:53 PM
There are only two ways to deal with that.
Education
Government Force

I personally reject the whole "bad food" concept. Short of poisoned food supplies.
I am a carbon based life form and as such can survive and thrive on any other carbon based life forms as food.

Do you want government regulations instead?

pcosmar
06-01-2012, 03:57 PM
Do you want government regulations instead?

No, and that was my point throughout this thread. And the original subject of the thread.
Government dictating what is or is not "good" for people.

It is none of the Governments business.

Acala
06-01-2012, 03:57 PM
So you would essentially vote for society to destroy itself in the name of "Liberty"?
I deny that YOU have the right, by vote or otherwise, to tell ME what I can and cannot eat. So I suppose if ALL the individuals in the country decided to poison themselves, they should be able to do that.

But let me be a little more forthcoming here. The problem with going in the other direction is that there is no end to the things government "needs" to do to save us from ourselves. We don't save for our future, so government is going to do that for us. We can't be trusted not to become addicts so we have a drug war. And on and on. And it NEVER works! Even if government truly were interested in the wellbeing of the people (rather than the power and money it gets from special interests) it would fail because government is inept and central command doesn't work.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 03:59 PM
No, and that was my point throughout this thread. And the original subject of the thread.
Government dictating what is or is not "good" for people.

It is none of the Governments business.

The point is you can reduce regulations even further if you place some incentives in its place. I thought you would be for the system that reduces regulations the most.

pcosmar
06-01-2012, 04:03 PM
The point is you can reduce regulations even further if you place some incentives in its place. I thought you would be for the system that reduces regulations the most.

Incentives in place??
Placed by who?

You know what,, If something tastes good,, I am more likely to eat that than chewing bark off trees.
That is all the incentive I need..
I get hungry I will eat something and will kill to do so.
That is the other incentive.

angelatc
06-01-2012, 04:06 PM
That makes no sense whatsoever. Its pretty much common sense that its cheaper to do things right the first time.

So you believe that all money essentially is public money.

angelatc
06-01-2012, 04:08 PM
How is that a road to bankruptcy? Whats more troubling is companies selling products that have harmful effects to society that we end up having to pay after the fact. Its easier to do things right the first time than it is to clean up afterwards.

The restaurant that succeeds serves things that the customers want to buy, not things that the restaurant / government thinks they ought to buy. That is why there isn't a health food restaurant on every corner. People do not want to eat it. Of course, in some cities there are niche restaurants that do manage to serve enough tofu and bean sprouts to stay in business, but for the most part they're an anomoly for one reason.

Business has an obligation to serve the customers what the customers want. As soon as they decide they want to serve the customers something else, the customers will leave.

pcosmar
06-01-2012, 04:09 PM
So you believe that all money essentially is public money.

In a socialist system,, it is.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 04:09 PM
So you believe that all money essentially is public money.

Go back and read my posts. I've already explained this. There is cost for everything. If the market has to spend trillions in cleaning up mistakes that never should have happened, there are costs to you too.

amonasro
06-01-2012, 04:11 PM
Anyone see the Daily Show bit on this last night?

It was freakin' hilarious.

angelatc
06-01-2012, 04:13 PM
I deny that YOU have the right, by vote or otherwise, to tell ME what I can and cannot eat. So I suppose if ALL the individuals in the country decided to poison themselves, they should be able to do that.


Nature has a way of working it all out. If 90% of the population drops dead because they were eating Big Macs every night, the other 10% will have really cheap housing costs, and the knowledge of what not to eat will be passed down to their offspring.

Sort of like birds not eating poison berries.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 04:15 PM
The restaurant that succeeds serves things that the customers want to buy, not things that the restaurant / government thinks they ought to buy. That is why there isn't a health food restaurant on every corner. People do not want to eat it.

Thats not true at all. People eat crap because the only option available is crap. Even if you are educated on health foods, its very difficult to find healthy food.

Customer who eat food also don't want to spend half their life in the doctor's office. Which is why, morally and because it works, companies who sell bad food should cover the costs that will be incurred from their customers going to the doctors office because of the bad food they ate.

Acala
06-01-2012, 04:16 PM
Nature has a way of working it all out. If 90% of the population drops dead because they were eating Big Macs every night, the other 10% will have really cheap housing costs, and the knowledge of what not to eat will be passed down to their offspring.

Sort of like birds not eating poison berries.

Yes. His hypothetical is silly.

pcosmar
06-01-2012, 04:16 PM
Anyone see the Daily Show bit on this last night?

It was freakin' hilarious.
nope
YTube?

angelatc
06-01-2012, 04:16 PM
Go back and read my posts. I've already explained this. There is cost for everything. If the market has to spend trillions in cleaning up mistakes that never should have happened, there are costs to you too.

Sure there is a cost for everything. But the cheapest cost isn't always the best value.

The problem you have with your position is that value is subjective.

Acala
06-01-2012, 04:17 PM
Thats not true at all. People eat crap because the only option available is crap. Even if you are educated on health foods, its very difficult to find healthy food.

Customer who eat food also don't want to spend half their life in the doctor's office. Which is why, morally and because it works, companies who sell bad food should cover the costs that will be incurred from their customers going to the doctors office because of the bad food they ate.

You bring this same thing up in thread after thread. I, and many others, think YOUR ideas about diet are bunk. But even if I agreed with your ideas I would not support using force to push them on people. It is not a proper function of government.

angelatc
06-01-2012, 04:20 PM
Thats not true at all. People eat crap because the only option available is crap. Even if you are educated on health foods, its very difficult to find healthy food.

Customer who eat food also don't want to spend half their life in the doctor's office. Which is why, morally and because it works, companies who sell bad food should cover the costs that will be incurred from their customers going to the doctors office because of the bad food they ate.

You're making us all out to be victims of some global restaurant conspiracy? I can assure you that if you believe in markets, you can't actually believe what you just wrote. Put a fast food restaurant next to an Iralian restaurant, and I promise you that the people here will choose fast food for speed, and Italian for taste. Put a "healthy choice!" in the middle, and they'll be gone in a year.

The reason those restaurants don't exist is because there is no demand.

What you're describing is a sort of communism - no actual choices in the markets. Trust me when I say the only thing that will create is a black market.

And lets face it - the "bad" food isn't as much of a problem as the lack of exercise is. My grandmother was married to a farmer, and I can assure you that they ate their corn slathered in butter and salt. Biscuits and gravy was a standard fare, and my mouth still waters when I think about her fried pork chops and the gravy that went along with it. There was nothing especially healthy about any of that, especially if you consider their chilled food storage systems were practically non-existent too.

Even her salads were slathered with fat.

ANd yet, they never gained weight, and stayed spry up until the end.

pcosmar
06-01-2012, 04:21 PM
Thats not true at all. People eat crap because the only option available is crap. Even if you are educated on health foods, its very difficult to find healthy food.


Bullshit again.
The human body uses Fats, Proteins, Sugars and Starches. And converts them back and forth as needed either as fuel or storage.
They are chemical compounds.

The taste buds however are a bit more picky.

Then there are other chemicals that can give Energy, Pain relief or Euphoria.. These are also a choice.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 04:23 PM
You bring this same thing up in thread after thread. I, and many others, think YOUR ideas about diet are bunk. But even if I agreed with your ideas I would not support using force to push them on people. It is not a proper function of government.

So its ok for a few evil corporations to force their fake food down my throat? Because thats basically what they do. Are you ok with this setup?

Why is it ok to force feed people crappy food, but not good food?

Keith and stuff
06-01-2012, 04:23 PM
It is bad enough that all but 5 states tax the sale of soda. It is bad enough that AR and WV have extra special soda taxes. It is bad enough that 11 states change an extra 5 or 10 cents per bottle or can of soda. But, outright ban? That's crazy. Bloomberg should tax it like cigarettes. Tax it $10 per soda :)

Mrs.Joe
06-01-2012, 04:28 PM
Yes God forbid that ANYONE say what they should or should not put into their own bodies. So glad we have the gubment to right these wrongs!

tttppp
06-01-2012, 04:28 PM
You're making us all out to be victims of some global restaurant conspiracy? I can assure you that if you believe in markets, you can't actually believe what you just wrote. Put a fast food restaurant next to an Iralian restaurant, and I promise you that the people here will choose fast food for speed, and Italian for taste. Put a "healthy choice!" in the middle, and they'll be gone in a year.

The reason those restaurants don't exist is because there is no demand.

What you're describing is a sort of communism - no choices in the markets. Trust me when I say the only thing that will create is a black market.

I disagree. At thats not the case in my town. If you put up an Italian restaurant in my town, you would have to compete with tons of other Italian restaurants. If I put up a healthy choice, there would be no competition. Anyone who wants healthy food and doesn't want to cook, would consider my restaurant.

angelatc
06-01-2012, 04:32 PM
So its ok for a few evil corporations to force their fake food down my throat? Because thats basically what they do. Are you ok with this setup?

Why is it ok to force feed people crappy food, but not good food?

Really? WHo is forcing you to eat unhealthy food? Last time I checked, the grocery stores sell food. All kinds of food. Potatoes, apples, turnips, avacados, flour, rice, etc etc. So just who is forcing you to walk past all that to the Kraft Mac-n-Cheese?

angelatc
06-01-2012, 04:34 PM
I disagree. At thats not the case in my town. If you put up an Italian restaurant in my town, you would have to compete with tons of other Italian restaurants. If I put up a healthy choice, there would be no competition. Anyone who wants healthy food and doesn't want to cook, would consider my restaurant.

Yes, but what I am saying is that in reality, there are not enough of those people to sustain a restaurant. If there were, those restaurants would exist in far greater numbers than they do now. As it stands, you have so many people that want Italian that the market supports multiple Italian restaurants.

Do you really think that the people who opened those restaurants didn't think about opening up something different? Assuming the answer is yes, why do you think they decided to open yet another Italian restaurant?

And when the health food restaurants started succeeding, the existing establishments would start expanding their menus, too. (Frozen yogurt became a popular healthier alternative to ice cream - so the ice cream stores added it to their selections when the FroYo stores started succeeding.)

But go ahead - open a restaurant that serves people what you think they should be eating. Nothing teaches like experience.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 04:35 PM
Really? WHo is forcing you to eat unhealthy food? Last time I checked, the grocery stores sell food. All kinds of food. Potatoes, apples, turnips, avacados, flour, rice, etc etc. So just who is forcing you to walk past all that to the Kraft Mac-n-Cheese?

Last time I checked, only about 1% of the fruit and vegetables they sell are organic. The vast majority of food they sell is garbage. You have to really know what you are doing to find good food there.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 04:40 PM
Yes, but what I am saying is that in reality, there are not enough of those people to sustain a restaurant. If there were, those restaurants would exist in far greater numbers than they do now. As it stands, you have so many people that want Italian that the market supports multiple Italian restaurants.

Do you really think that the people who opened those restaurants didn't think about opening up something different? Assuming the answer is yes, why do you think they decided to open yet another Italian restaurant?

And when the health food restaurants started succeeding, the existing establishments would start expanding their menus, too. (Frozen yogurt became a popular healthier alternative to ice cream - so the ice cream stores added it to their selections when the FroYo stores started succeeding.)

But go ahead - open a restaurant that serves people what you think they should be eating. Nothing teaches like experience.

The problem is, even if it becomes successful, the major chains will try to copy it and sell fake versions of real food, stealing my customers. If that doesn't work, they'll buy me out and turn it into crap.

angelatc
06-01-2012, 04:41 PM
Last time I checked, only about 1% of the fruit and vegetables they sell are organic. The vast majority of food they sell is garbage. You have to really know what you are doing to find good food there.

There is absolutely no evidence that organic food is any more nutritious than non-organic food.

angelatc
06-01-2012, 04:42 PM
The problem is, even if it becomes successful, the major chains will try to copy it and sell fake versions of real food, stealing my customers. If that doesn't work, they'll buy me out and turn it into crap.

Well, you don't have to sell, so that's a moot point. And if your food is superior, why would "your" customers settle for a cheap imitation?

tttppp
06-01-2012, 04:45 PM
There is absolutely no evidence that organic food is any more nutritious than non-organic food.

I disagree. For fruits and vegetables its not so bad, but with many items if its not organic, that means they threw a bunch of fake crap in it. There's a huge difference between organic food and non-organic. Organic food generally consists of a few organic ingredients. Non-organic food consists of every chemical they could possible fit in there. Just read the lists of ingredients and compare organic items versus non-organic items.

mad cow
06-01-2012, 04:47 PM
I disagree. At thats not the case in my town. If you put up an Italian restaurant in my town, you would have to compete with tons of other Italian restaurants. If I put up a healthy choice, there would be no competition. Anyone who wants healthy food and doesn't want to cook, would consider my restaurant.

Well I suggest you take your money and open a healthy restaurant in your town with maybe a traditional chinese herbalist and an acupuncture practitioner in back.That way,you could bankrupt the junk food joints AND the local hospital practicing western medicine without using
the club of government force and become rich in the process.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 04:48 PM
Well, you don't have to sell, so that's a moot point. And if your food is superior, why would "your" customers settle for a cheap imitation?

The same reason people vote for Romney or Obama over Ron Paul. They tell them the bs they want to hear and people are dumb enough to believe it. "Oh, McDonalds chicken is now made with real meat...I got to go there." Sound familiar?

pcosmar
06-01-2012, 04:50 PM
Jack Sprat could eat no fat,
His wife could eat no lean;
And so betwixt them both,
They lick'd the platter clean.

;)

specsaregood
06-01-2012, 04:50 PM
//

pcosmar
06-01-2012, 04:56 PM
Stolen from
Bestest Picture Thread EVARRR

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-EalToe7-488/Ts-GYGHctJI/AAAAAAAAQFQ/udLIDmSGDaI/s720/nigella.jpg

Pericles
06-01-2012, 04:59 PM
You're ridiculous.

So says Mikey Bloomberg.

I own a pile of firearms, too - so message to Bloomberg - Foxtrot Yankee.

Business opportunities

1. Manufacture incandescent light bulbs
2. Soda bottler
3. Manufacture ammunition
4. Manufacture firearms

That will really let my freedom community take off economically.

angelatc
06-01-2012, 05:00 PM
The same reason people vote for Romney or Obama over Ron Paul. They tell them the bs they want to hear and people are dumb enough to believe it. "Oh, McDonalds chicken is now made with real meat...I got to go there." Sound familiar?

It sounds liberal. Assuming that you're endlessly smarter than most other people. In reality, I doubt we could actually produce a single person that thinks McDonalds food is healthy. So that brings us back to value. If people don't believe that McDonalds is healthy, and most people also seem to think that the taste leaves a lot to be desired....why are they so amazingly successful?

angelatc
06-01-2012, 05:02 PM
I disagree. For fruits and vegetables its not so bad, but with many items if its not organic, that means they threw a bunch of fake crap in it. There's a huge difference between organic food and non-organic. Organic food generally consists of a few organic ingredients. Non-organic food consists of every chemical they could possible fit in there. Just read the lists of ingredients and compare organic items versus non-organic items.

You can disagree all you want to, but that doesn't change the validity my statement: there is absolutely no evidence that organic food is more nutritious than non-organic food.

Your opinion is not evidence.

MelissaWV
06-01-2012, 05:02 PM
My Grandpa is having his 97th birthday this month, still fairly spry and has been eating like that all these years. Also a farmer. Grandma is 94, and she's been without the use of her legs for over 65 of those years. And they have always eaten what modern day cranks say is unhealthy, never stopped them from getting up before the rooster.

I am under the distinct impression that there are precisely three big factors that cause people to die at a certain time:

1. Genetics
2. Luck (if something is going to fall out of the sky and clobber you, or your plan is going to crash, there's nothing in your lifestyle that's going to make a bit of difference).
3. Stress

The last one is the biggie. This could explain why my co-workers who obsess about their weight, the latest diet, how much exercise they're getting, whether their butt looks big, etc., never seen to be any healthier than I am, even though they are thinner lol. It seems like a dismal way to go through life. When you talk to people who have lived past 100 and are still able to express themselves well, they usually have a "don't give a damn" about them. I think there is definitely a reason for that.


I disagree. For fruits and vegetables its not so bad, but with many items if its not organic, that means they threw a bunch of fake crap in it. There's a huge difference between organic food and non-organic. Organic food generally consists of a few organic ingredients. Non-organic food consists of every chemical they could possible fit in there. Just read the lists of ingredients and compare organic items versus non-organic items.

The chicken at the local butcher here is not marked "organic." It came from down the street, is free-range, and I could pick out the person who owns the farm out of a lineup. The fruit marked "organic" at the grocery store has still been shipped and washed and handled and packaged and the "unpretty" ones have been needlessly discarded. I'm not sure where it came from. The fruit from the farm stand is largely local or direct-trucked, but it doesn't have those cute little stickers on it telling me it's organic.

Most things I buy do not have a "list of ingredients." The few that do, have ingredients I can pronounce and readily identify, yet none of them say they are organic.

I think you are putting far too much trust in a word and a label, and not enough emphasis on your own ability to prepare food and discern quality.

JK/SEA
06-01-2012, 05:02 PM
John Stewart: ''but if they ban the Big Gulp, what are homeless people gonna take a shit in''?

go to the DAILY SHOW site. The episode of his soda rant is up....frickin crazy stuff....

Pericles
06-01-2012, 05:04 PM
I deny that YOU have the right, by vote or otherwise, to tell ME what I can and cannot eat. So I suppose if ALL the individuals in the country decided to poison themselves, they should be able to do that.

But let me be a little more forthcoming here. The problem with going in the other direction is that there is no end to the things government "needs" to do to save us from ourselves. We don't save for our future, so government is going to do that for us. We can't be trusted not to become addicts so we have a drug war. And on and on. And it NEVER works! Even if government truly were interested in the wellbeing of the people (rather than the power and money it gets from special interests) it would fail because government is inept and central command doesn't work.


Or tell me what kind of car to drive,
or tell me how big of a hose I can have for my life,
or what bra size my girlfriend should have

angelatc
06-01-2012, 05:28 PM
Stolen from
Bestest Picture Thread EVARRR

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-EalToe7-488/Ts-GYGHctJI/AAAAAAAAQFQ/udLIDmSGDaI/s720/nigella.jpg


If I would hit the damned treadmill a couple of times, and I put some curl in my hair...I could probably pass for the brunette's younger sister. Damn you - now I have to go get on the treadmill.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 07:11 PM
I am under the distinct impression that there are precisely three big factors that cause people to die at a certain time:

1. Genetics
2. Luck (if something is going to fall out of the sky and clobber you, or your plan is going to crash, there's nothing in your lifestyle that's going to make a bit of difference).
3. Stress

The last one is the biggie. This could explain why my co-workers who obsess about their weight, the latest diet, how much exercise they're getting, whether their butt looks big, etc., never seen to be any healthier than I am, even though they are thinner lol. It seems like a dismal way to go through life. When you talk to people who have lived past 100 and are still able to express themselves well, they usually have a "don't give a damn" about them. I think there is definitely a reason for that.



The chicken at the local butcher here is not marked "organic." It came from down the street, is free-range, and I could pick out the person who owns the farm out of a lineup. The fruit marked "organic" at the grocery store has still been shipped and washed and handled and packaged and the "unpretty" ones have been needlessly discarded. I'm not sure where it came from. The fruit from the farm stand is largely local or direct-trucked, but it doesn't have those cute little stickers on it telling me it's organic.

Most things I buy do not have a "list of ingredients." The few that do, have ingredients I can pronounce and readily identify, yet none of them say they are organic.

I think you are putting far too much trust in a word and a label, and not enough emphasis on your own ability to prepare food and discern quality.

I obviously was not taking into consideration local farmers markets and butchers. And I've never lived near a local butcher outside of a supermarket, so its not easy for someone in my area to get good meat. The farmers markets in my area are only open once or twice a week. Its not real convenient. There should be stores around that make it easier to buy healthy food.

Anyone who has ever shopped for healthy food knows what I am talking about.

MelissaWV
06-01-2012, 07:15 PM
I obviously was not taking into consideration local farmers markets and butchers. And I've never lived near a local butcher outside of a supermarket, so its not easy for someone in my area to get good meat. The farmers markets in my area are only open once or twice a week. Its not real convenient. There should be stores around that make it easier to buy healthy food.

Anyone who has ever shopped for healthy food knows what I am talking about.

I have shopped for healthy foods, both in cities and in more rural areas. There is a butcher at your grocery store, hopefully; if there is not, you should immediately find a new store to spend your money at. The prepackaged meats with "organic" proudly stamped on the labels are utterly useless. Quality meat must be available to be viewed from all angles, and often requires some trimming or cutting or running through a variety of machines to get exactly what you want. A good butcher will also let you smell the meat, and some will allow you to touch a particularly expensive cut through a piece of plastic wrap. Again, if you trust a label, you are doing no one any favors. Know what your food should look like and taste like, and you will be much happier, regardless of where you shop.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 07:17 PM
You can disagree all you want to, but that doesn't change the validity my statement: there is absolutely no evidence that organic food is more nutritious than non-organic food.

Your opinion is not evidence.

Like I said, if you don't believe me, compare similar items in organic and non-organic form. Read the ingredients. The organic one will have just a couple of ingredients. The non-organic one will list tons of chemicals that have nothing to do with food.

Until you've done this, you don't know what you are talking about. I started shopping for healthy food 5 years ago. I've seen the difference between organic and non-organic. I've seen all the crap they put in non-organic food.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 07:20 PM
I have shopped for healthy foods, both in cities and in more rural areas. There is a butcher at your grocery store, hopefully; if there is not, you should immediately find a new store to spend your money at. The prepackaged meats with "organic" proudly stamped on the labels are utterly useless. Quality meat must be available to be viewed from all angles, and often requires some trimming or cutting or running through a variety of machines to get exactly what you want. A good butcher will also let you smell the meat, and some will allow you to touch a particularly expensive cut through a piece of plastic wrap. Again, if you trust a label, you are doing no one any favors. Know what your food should look like and taste like, and you will be much happier, regardless of where you shop.

I don't trust the meat you get at your butcher in the grocery store. If you can't trust packaged meats labeled organic, then where can you go for quality food? Certainly not anywhere in my area.

MelissaWV
06-01-2012, 07:23 PM
I don't trust the meat you get at your butcher in the grocery store. If you can't trust packaged meats labeled organic, then where can you go for quality food? Certainly not anywhere in my area.

Somehow there is a disconnect.

You can trust meat you get anywhere that looks, feels, and smells right. A butcher is going to be able to cut or grind your meat as needed to order. There's no "packaged" meat that is fully trustworthy, because you cannot see all of it, and you cannot smell it.

tttppp
06-01-2012, 07:26 PM
Somehow there is a disconnect.

You can trust meat you get anywhere that looks, feels, and smells right. A butcher is going to be able to cut or grind your meat as needed to order. There's no "packaged" meat that is fully trustworthy, because you cannot see all of it, and you cannot smell it.

Maybe I'm just crazy but the chicken and turkey from the grocery store looks like its been pumped up on steroids.

presence
06-01-2012, 07:50 PM
Thats not true at all. People eat crap because the only option available is crap. Even if you are educated on health foods, its very difficult to find healthy food.



I just ate a certified organic apple. Dinner was local grass raised beef, organic brown rice, and steamed home grown (freezer) veggies. Lunch was organic peanut butter and raisins and celery. Breakfast was 3 local eggs and organic brown rice. 'bout the same thing as every day: Something with local eggs for breakfast, something with local beef for dinner. A few low budget organic snacks in between and some form of cheap organic starch.

Nothing too difficult, or expensive really, and I live in the sticks... a long way off from a decent grocery. Not to say when I was living in town I ate much different.

presence

presence
06-01-2012, 08:09 PM
You can disagree all you want to, but that doesn't change the validity my statement: there is absolutely no evidence that organic food is more nutritious than non-organic food.

Your opinion is not evidence.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129629752


organic berries had significantly higher concentrations of antioxidant activity, they had more vitamin C and they had more phenolics. And phenolics are some of the main sources of antioxidants that we get

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86972.php


4-year EU study on the benefits of organic food suggest that some of them, such as fruit, vegetables and milk, are more nutritious than non-organically produced food and may contain higher concentrations of cancer (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/cancer-oncology/) fighting and heart beneficial antioxidants.

http://www.grocerylists.org/2009/09/19/study-finds-organic-foods-are-more-healthy/


According to the AFSSA study, organic foods are not only more nutritious, but they’re safer. Here are the study’s main findings:

Organic fruits and veggies contain more iron, magnesium, antioxidants and micronutrients.



"Absolutely no evidence" is a fallacy. I give you... for every study I bring forth you can bring forth a better funded, agro-business-shill study to refute it... but there is evidence.

presence

tttppp
06-01-2012, 09:00 PM
I just ate a certified organic apple. Dinner was local grass raised beef, organic brown rice, and steamed home grown (freezer) veggies. Lunch was organic peanut butter and raisins and celery. Breakfast was 3 local eggs and organic brown rice. 'bout the same thing as every day: Something with local eggs for breakfast, something with local beef for dinner. A few low budget organic snacks in between and some form of cheap organic starch.

Nothing too difficult, or expensive really, and I live in the sticks... a long way off from a decent grocery. Not to say when I was living in town I ate much different.

presence

Where did you shop for your food?

presence
06-01-2012, 09:34 PM
Where did you shop for your food?

I purchase (I actually barter for it) a cow per year from a local farmer, butchered and frozen; I keep her in a 14 cf freezer. I purchase my eggs from the lady up the street. Apples and potatoes I pick up at pricechopper (about the only organic produce worth a darn there), about 25 minutes away and most other organic stuff (pb, raisins, etc) I travel to a wegmans once a month about 50 minutes away in the other direction. I get my grain and spice through a local UNFI buying club twice a year. Pound for pound we eat mostly rice, beef, eggs, potatoes, beans... and whatever we can get a deal on for local/organic produce once or twice a month... selection is usually limited. We're sitting on about 100lb of brown rice and 350lb of freezer beef. We don't eat a very "varied" diet... but it is well balanced, nutritious, non-gmo, and mostly organic/local. When I have a friend coming to visit, I usually submit a grocery order for specialties. :) I also keep a garden over the summer that I try to freeze/can from.

I don't shop for food in the "aisles" of the grocery store; I stick to the perimeter. I (mostly) never eat meat unless I, or someone at the table, looked into its eyes while it was living.

Tomorrow is ribeye night... yeah!

presence

tttppp
06-01-2012, 09:39 PM
I purchase a cow per year from a local farmer, butchered and frozen; I keep her in a 14 cf freezer. I purchase my eggs from the lady up the street. Apples and potatoes I pick up at pricechopper (about the only organic produce worth a darn there), about 25 minutes away and most other organic stuff (pb, raisins, etc) I travel to a wegmans once a month about 50 minutes away in the other direction. I get my grain through a local UNFI buying club twice a year. Pound for pound we eat mostly rice, beef, eggs, potatoes... and whatever we can get a deal on for local/organic produce once or twice a month... selection is usually limited. We don't eat a very "varied" diet... but it is well balanced, nutritious, non-gmo, and mostly organic/local.

I don't shop for food in the "isles" of the grocery store; I stick to the perimeter. I never eat meat unless I looked into its eyes while it was living.

presence

A friend of mine told me he would get chickens from this place that butchers them there, but that place is at least an hour away from me. There's nothing like that anywhere near where I live.

It sounds like its not that easy to eat healthy where you live. It doesn't sound like you can go to the store and just pick anything you want off the aisles.

presence
06-01-2012, 09:53 PM
It sounds like its not that easy to eat healthy where you live. It doesn't sound like you can go to the store and just pick anything you want off the aisles.

Generally speaking... DON"T GO IN THE AISLES. That stuff is mostly not food, its profit. Don't get me wrong... I wonder in from time to time for salt, yeast, a bottle of olive oil.... but its a misconception to believe a healthy diet can come from the "aisles of the store"

When you have a bottomless supply of organic brown rice and pastured beef, with monthly shopping runs for fruit and veggie rations... Its really not that hard to eat right.

Just don't eat anything unhealthy. Its being in babylon away from home that kills you. No junk food (or gmo, not organic/local) makes it into our home pantries. We keep our pantries stocked with basics like "preppers". I leave for work each day w/ a wide mouth pint of leftovers from the day before. It keeps me out of trouble. I often heat it up on my dash in the sun.

UNFI clubs are everywhere.
I couldn't imagine not being able to buy a hung cow... check craigslist. Google map search your area for "farm" you'd be surprised what's within an hour.
99% of the "food" in any store I wouldn't feed to my family. That doesn't mean that I can't find an organic apple within 30 miles almost anywhere in the US.

You have to accept that stores stock what is profitable first, healthy second. I buy what is healthy first, cost effective second. In ten years of being dedicated to organic/local I haven't gone hungry and I haven't had to give up my values. The one thing I have had to give up is the shmorgusboard of unhealthy convenient delecacies presented in town; it wasn't that hard really.

presence

angelatc
06-01-2012, 10:15 PM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129629752
(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129629752)
I don't need a better funded study to discredit this. Your article discredited itself. From the article:
The organic berries did have lower concentrations of phosphorus and potassium. and


Dr. CLANCY: Well, the findings that John reports were really very nice in terms of one particular entity that - on which this debate - most of this debate about the difference between conventional and organic nutrition levels swings. And John did report the information about the nutrients on a basically preserving basis - on a fresh-weight, wet-weight basis - so that readers can actually see that the amount that he measured was - they could look at it on a preserving basis, and the amount that he measured that was different actually meets the criteria - comes close to meeting the criteria for being able to make a claim about whether there's more in the organic strawberry than there is in the conventional(ph)...

FLATOW: So are these strawberries more nutritional than the other (unintelligible)?

Dr. CLANCY: Well, for that - for vitamin C, they are. We don't really have a good definition of what's nutritious for a whole food. But the level of vitamin C is higher, and as he pointed out, the level of potassium is lower in the organic.

And this study wasn't even published. It seems to be a revenge study, done to "prove" that their product really is worth the extra cost, despite a government study that found no nutritional benefits.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86972.php

The results were released to the press but there is no mention of a of a journal publication as yet.

Leifert's findings contradict advice by the UK government's Food Standards Agency which states that organic produce is no healthier than non-organically produced food.

QualityLowInputFood (QLIF) is a European Union (EU) sponsored project that aims to "improve quality, ensure safety and reduce cost along the organic and 'low input' food supply chains through research, dissemination and training activities".

According to information on its website, QLIF focuses on "increasing value to both consumers and producers using a fork to farm approach".

The project was set up in March 2004 and has a grant of 18 million Euros (12.6 million pounds, or 25.8 million dollars) from the EU.




Yeah, no reason to think that special interests can produce studies that support their own interests. Except when those interests are your interests, I guess.



http://www.grocerylists.org/2009/09/19/study-finds-organic-foods-are-more-healthy/

And again, the blogger pointed to an orgni-shill's hastily thrown-together study specifically intended to discredit a much larger government study where :


...... researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine examined more than 50,000 studies on the nutritional value of foods going back to 1958. Of these, 55 met the criteria of the project. Dr Alan Dangour, the principal author, commented on the marginal differences found during the studies, “A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist … but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.”

Those marginal differences were that conventionally-produced fruit and vegetables had more nitrogen, while their organic counterparts had more phosphorus. But these differences were small compared to the similarities in nutritional content, including similar levels of vitamin C, calcium, iron and fatty acids in both kinds of food.
Source: Red Green & Blue (http://s.tt/12Bj1)




"Absolutely no evidence" is a fallacy. I give you... for every study I bring forth you can bring forth a better funded, agro-business-shill study to refute it... but there is evidence.



So studies that don't support your contentions are "agro-shills" while studies that do support your opinion are the truth, even when they themselves don't claim to say what you say they do.

Mayo Clinic: The researchers concluded that organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs are comparable in their nutrient content.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/07/organic-food-no-more-nutritious-than-conventionallyraised-study-finds.html) "Our review indicates there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organic over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority,

The New York Times seems to give you at least a little hope: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/weekinreview/22bittman.html?_r=1 "...he evidence is mixed on whether organic food is more nutritious"

So I stand by my original contention. There is no evidence that organic food is any more nutritious than non-organic food.

Which is why the government definitely shouldn't decide what we should and shouldn't be allowed to eat.

presence
06-01-2012, 10:34 PM
[/URL]

So I stand by my original contention. There is no evidence that organic food is any more nutritious than non-organic food.



You can stand where ever you want. There is evidence on both sides of the issue. I presented some on the "organic side" with 2 minutes of cursory research. To think otherwise (and contend "absolutely no evidence") is to stick your head in the sand. I do side with the "organic/local" movement, and for more reasons than nutrition. Is there conclusive evidence? Nope. I respect that you don't buy in; to each his own. I don't think the government should be deciding what we should and shouldn't eat any more so than you.

That said... I do think the industry is slanted towards supporting heavy synthetic input "conventional" producers. I do think the government has a role in requiring proper labeling of food, and I don't think they're doing a very good job of it. I take the perspective that someone selling an organic apple shouldn't have to "pay for organic certification", they should just label it such. USDA has a role in determining what the term "organic" means, but they should not be selling a certification program to those that comply. Producers should be able to sell organic food as such without USDA approval; and suffer lawsuits if they falsely advertise. I think the person selling the "conventional" apple should have to list the chemicals used in manufacture on the label. That's the role I'd like to see government take on food; require COMPLETE disclosure, define terms, and settle disputes. Not ban foods and sell pricey certifications to those doing things the old fashioned organic way.

Have you ever read the potato chapter of "The Botany of Desire"? It might change your outlook on organics.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1283872815/



presence

heavenlyboy34
06-01-2012, 10:46 PM
You can stand where ever you want. There is evidence on both sides of the issue. I presented some on the "organic side" with 2 minutes of cursory research. To think otherwise (and contend "absolutely no evidence") is to stick your head in the sand. I do side with the "organic/local" movement, and for more reasons than nutrition. I respect that you don't buy in; to each his own. I don't think the government should be deciding what we should and shouldn't eat any more so than you.

That said... I do think the industry is slanted towards supporting heavy synthetic input "conventional" producers. I do think the government has a role in requiring proper labeling of food, and I don't think they're doing a very good job of it. I take the perspective that someone selling an organic apple shouldn't have to "pay for organic certification". USDA has a role in determining what the term "organic" means, but they should not be selling a certification program to those that comply. Producers should be able to sell organic food as such without USDA approval; and suffer lawsuits if they falsely advertise. I think the person selling the "conventional" apple should have to list the chemicals used in manufacture on the label. That's the role I'd like to see government take on food; require disclosure, define terms, and settle disputes. Not ban foods and sell pricey certifications to those doing things the old fashioned organic way.
Where is that in the Constitution? ;)

presence
06-01-2012, 11:01 PM
Where is that in the Constitution? ;)

Its a matter of contracts and disputes. If I tell you I'm selling you an "apple", but I'm actually selling you a genetically modified pseudo-apple coated in pesticides and synthetic waxes... that's a contractual issue.

presence

heavenlyboy34
06-01-2012, 11:19 PM
Its a matter of contracts and disputes. If I tell you I'm selling you an "apple", but I'm actually selling you a genetically modified pseudo-apple coated in pesticides and synthetic waxes... that's a contractual issue.

presence
Fair enough. That doesn't require a government agency, though.

tttppp
06-02-2012, 01:05 AM
Where is that in the Constitution? ;)

I have no problem at all with requiring companies to provide disclosure on the products they sell. Not doing so is just bad business practices. My rule of thumb for regulations is that each regulation should provide a huge benefit and should have only a minimal, at worst, cost. This is an example of a good regulation.

Jingles
06-02-2012, 01:10 AM
I don't drink soda unless there is whiskey in it, but that is besides the point...

The state should have no control over what people put into their bodies.