What kind of limits on fast food - if any - would be reasonable?

It's been a mixed month for the titans of cheap eats. In February, The New York Times published an article from the author of "Salt Sugar Fat" about the negligence of the food industry and the way they use science to make people addicted to treats. But in the past week, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's ban on supersized sodas was overturned. The fact that the ban had existed at all spurred lawmakers in Mississippi to propose a new law that fans and critics alike have been referring to as "The Anti-Bloomberg Bill." If passed, counties and towns in the state would be banned from mandating that restaurants post calorie counts, restrict portion sizes, or remove toys from children's meals. Mississippi holds the dubious distinction of being America's fattest state.
Should there be restrictions on fast food? Is there be a reasonable way of curtailing how much junk someone can eat?
What kind of limits on fast food - if any - would be reasonable?
-
-
OlBlue
-
If you want to eat something that is larger than your head then no, you can't have it.
- 1 month ago
-
OlBlue
-
-
MSII
-
A very possible future for healthcare is one where if you take care of yourself no expense will be denied you by the "system" to take care of you, but if you don't - well that's your choice but you will NOT be -given- that healthcare. If you're rich and can buy it yourself, ok good for you, but if not, well that'll be your doom.
- 1 month ago
-
MSII
-
-
OlBlue
-
-
Looks like some in the government are giving up on us.........
- 2 months ago
-
OlBlue
-
-
MSII
-
OlBlue:
FDA is a joke, little more then a pr-outfit for big-pharma now.
- 1 month ago
-
MSII
-
-
mitekillem
-
I don't think we should limit the amount of junk food that people choose to purchase or put into their body, but I do believe that restaurants should be held accountable for the content and quality of the food they serve.
Some of us like the occasional burger when we're on the run and don't have time to cook; or are traveling and don't have a kitchen to use.
Those people deserve to have options available that will satisfy them without causing them cancer or diabetes.But you shouldn't limit how much a person eats. That's protecting them from their own stupidity and it goes against Darwinism.
If they wish to be gluttons, then they will become unattractive. Unattractive people are less likely to produce offspring, thus preventing them from passing on their genes to future generations.So, if the result is that future generations are leaner, healthier, smarter, etc...I'm quite happy with that outcome.
Legislate to protect the majority, but don't legislate stupidity.
- 2 months ago
-
mitekillem
-
-
bailey78
-
Just because they are selling the McPoison doesn't mean we have to buy it. I look at it just like Crack. I know it's bad for me and I stay away from it. Don't want it don't need it don't want to be around it. I understand some folks are strung out on the McPoison but they have a choice that only they can make. The Govenment has other shit to worry about if ya ask me.
we have choices folks.
- 2 months ago
-
bailey78
-
-
mrpuma2u
-
bailey78:
Too right, vote with your feet and they will stop selling garbage. I also think people should be aware of the calories and sodium content in fast food. If they saw exactly how scary those numbers are, I think a lot less people would eat it.
- 2 months ago
-
mrpuma2u
-
-
FoosMaster
-
mrpuma2u:
Yes! Give the people good information and they will usually make good, or at least better, decisions. Like the old saying goes: "Garbage in - Garbage out".
- 2 months ago
-
FoosMaster
-
-
jasonwajda
-
wooohooo, so that makes two things we're number one at obeisity and teen pregnancy. I don't think anyone should be able tell me what I can and can't do to or put into my body. Next thing bloomberg will be telling people is what kind of tattoos are safe. I don't have a stamp on my body that says property of U.S. Gov. .
- 2 months ago
-
jasonwajda
-
-
carretosp
-
Do not think possible!
- 2 months ago
-
carretosp
-
-
Culdee
-
*****they use science to make people addicted to treats*****
Excuses. You can only do so much to make the fast-food industry idiot-proof.
- 2 months ago
-
Culdee
-
-
Saladin
-
Culdee:
Thank you, Captain Obvious, for your brilliant insight into the complexities of national health issues.
No one ever thought of the idea that people get fat from eating too much bad food.
Obviously then, there is no larger trend that causes this problem, people just so happen to be more stupid now than they used to be, across all spectrums of society, and we should just let their fat asses clog our healthcare system since that's what we all deserve.
You've saved the day once again with your "common sense."
- 2 months ago
-
Saladin
-
-
Saladin
-
Fast food has been around forever, and people haven't changed much, so the question is, what's different?
Why are people getting so fat?
It's a serious health issue. And even if you don't have weight problems, it affects healthcare costs drastically.
Any limits on food itself is clearly a fucking waste of time. You're not going to be able to limit the amount of tasty treats people buy.
Instead, go right to the source. Ban the proliferation of these disgusting places. Why do we need a fast food restaurant every other fucking block?
Make it so that only a limited number of these things can be built in any given area per capita.
While you're at it, subsidize healthy food for lower income people and invest public dollars into fun exercise activities for adults.
In LA, near the Santa Monica beach, there's an excellent public area that has climbing ropes and gymnastics bars and bike paths and basketball courts, etc. etc.
Of course, we live in the age of the cult of Rand, so none of this will ever happen.
It's "your choice" to be fat and it's just too bad that we don't have a society that encourages or facilitates physical activity.
- 2 months ago
-
Saladin
-
-
Vortices [removed]
-
Part of what's wrong with our society, people aren't allowed make decisions for themselves...
Seems nobody wants to take issue with it, because it's not like we're arranging marriages, or forcing genital mutilations... Wait no, circumcision is genital mutilation.
Seriously, we live in about most regulated excuse for a "free" country there is. Unless you're working Wall Street, or some powerful corporation, it's regulations on everything, and allot of them are totally unneeded.
It's messed up, BP needs regulations, Monsanto needs regulations, all these corporate entities, banking institutions, they needed regulations but they don't have them and we continue to suffer.
For the average human to go through life with a short list of things she/he can do, and most none of those things are fulfilling considering they contribute to an artificial man-made system which they're in most cases are a victim of and can't change.
The main, and fair thing you could do with fast food.... Let's quit calling it food. Why are corporations allowed to mislabel everything, call man made chemicals "food", hide their practices, and serve people SHIT, when it would be considered fraudulent and downright illegal for any average person to do the same on a smaller scale?
Educate people, is about the best thing you can do, but to regulate the average person further. We're constantly limiting our fellow man, you take away all the free choice and life out of humanity, you'll continue to see people violently lash out and the emotional manifestation of their enslavement present itself in the form of mental illness....
- 2 months ago
-
Vortices [removed]
-
-
irishgirlforever
-
Fast Food companies should be forced to honestly disclose what's in the food they sell. Although ev
en if that were to happen, people would still eat it, and it will still be a problem. With all of the information about how bad fast food is for you available, people are still eating it, regardless of the fact that it's not healthy, regardless of the fact that they do not know what's in it. I've never passed an McD's that wasn't full. I don't know what the solution for this issue would be. I choose not to eat it, and for now that's enough for me. - 2 months ago
-
irishgirlforever
-
-
truth_accessor
-
No govt regulation needed here.
- 2 months ago
-
truth_accessor
-
-
freecrack
-
why bother.
those who bother to be informed about what they do in their lives and what they put in their body, already know food isnt supposed t be fast, and that stuff is complete garbage.
and the rest who dont care, with their capitalist vote, the dollar, have proved they are more than content eating garbage.
let the survival of the fittest do what it is supposed to do.let those who think fruity pebbles is a source of fruit take themselves out of the human gene pool, leaving behind those who have the ability to think like normal human beings.
why protect the stupid from themselves.
and as long as tobacco is legal, their is no basis for messing with anything less toxic.
- 2 months ago
-
freecrack
-
-
Swisher
-
freecrack:
Why bother? Because those of us who are the fittest end up paying for the medical costs of those slowly taking themselves out of the gene pool (and not until AFTER they've passed those genes and bad eating habits onto their children, thus nullifying evolutions effectiveness). You and I are paying for that expensive, oversized, motorized wheel chair for the obese burger eating, sloth.
- 2 months ago
-
Swisher
-
-
freecrack
-
Swisher:
same talking point from the right against socialized medicine, that why should anyone pay for anyone else.
whether you like it or not we share a society, and that is an unavoidable fact, unless you want to try an anarchist collective which would be a whole other stupid.
we can deal with the effects of that problem if and wen t arises.
but saying "fuck it" to the whole thing based on fatty not being able to pass up a big mac isnt the answer to anything.it is literally ignoring tha problem, ie ignorance.
- 2 months ago
-
freecrack
-
-
Swisher
-
freecrack:
I think I disagree that I'm coming from the same point of view as those against socialized medicine. I should have gone further to say that an incentive should be in place to encourage/discourage the public from good/bad behavior. I'm all for a junk food tax to subsidize the increased costs in healthcare. I think we've seen that work with cigarettes. Some of that money could be spent on educational programs in better eating, etc. What I'm against is a free-for-all without responsibility or repercussions. If people insist on drinking soda in place of water, there should be an increased cost for that desire to offset their future medical needs.
- 2 months ago
-
Swisher
-
-
freecrack
-
Swisher:
i dont think your against it, but you are using the same reasoning as those who are against it.
at present being that our tax dollars arent being spent on our collective health yet, i say let it be a free for all.it doesnt matter.they at present, are hurting themselves and themselves alone.if and when we share one anothers medical expenses then it will be a whole other thing.
as an ex-smoker, i can tell you the taxing bullshit is counter productive.the tax gets passed on to the consumer, and the more expensive it gets, the higher up a status symbol it becomes as a result.when a pack of smokes is a dollar, and any hobo on the street can be seen smoking as they are jerking off into a dumpster, it doesnt seem so alluring.
but when the average poor white trash cant afford a pack and has to buy loose ones at the bodega, and well off folks are the ones with the packs, it makes it a literal status symbol.
the taxing does that, and doesnt do shit to stop those who manufactur this crap, as they get to pass the burden on to the consumer.so they have no incentive to alter their product.
now if you create a manufacturers nicotine tax, that cannot be past on to ncrease the fair market value of that product, then you are actually fixing the problem.
that is the power that government has through regulation.
trying to change peoples minds to think they way they want to think through price fixing doesnt work.you cant dictate what anyone thinks, and hundreds of years of spanish inquasition tested and proved that simple fact.you cannot engineer thought that way.but if you hurt a business, on the terms a business has its values (the all mighty profit) then you change what they choose to offer the market.
- 2 months ago
-
freecrack
-
-
mrpuma2u
-
Swisher:
I agree, the same argument was made (why bother) with cigarettes, and we who don't smoke have payed for decades of higher costs in medicine due to the millions of smokers.
- 2 months ago
-
mrpuma2u
-
-
Swisher
-

-
freecrack:
You're mistaken if you think your insurance rates don't change based on the health of those around you. And although I agree that taxing may have some of the negative impact you state, you can't say it doesn't decrease rates overall, as shown in this chart.
- 2 months ago
-
Swisher
-
-
noxidereus
-
There should be absolutely no limits whatsoever on portion sizes, etc. What and how much is eaten should be up to the sole discretion of the individual. People should be allowed to make healthy or unhealthy diet choices for themselves. Restaurants shouldn't be allowed to crap on a plate and call it meatloaf, but other than obvious stuff like that there should be no bans.
There is no reason to let health insurance companies (yes, they are likely the ones behind this fascism) make these choices for us... this is why the health industry should not be for-profit.
- 2 months ago
-
noxidereus
-
-
hammywill
-
Limits are already in place...it's called STOP EATING IT! I mean there is NOTHING simpler. The solution to the "Fast Food Epidemic" is already in place...STOP EATING FRENCH FRIES! God! IDIOTS!
- 2 months ago
-
hammywill
-
-
FoosMaster
-
hammywill:
I agree, but I also think that they should be forced to post in easily readable text and language Exactly what is in it so that the public can make an 'Informed' decision about what they actually want.
- 2 months ago
-
FoosMaster
-
-
FoosMaster
-
I don’t believe in restricting what they can sell but I Do believe in making them post Exactly what is in it with Large fines if they lie about it.
- 2 months ago
-
FoosMaster
-
-
Gordon_Shumway
-

-
I think perhaps a horizontal version of the Carnival ride safety check might be appropriate.
"You may not Super Size your order if you can not fit through this opening ..."
- 2 months ago
-
Gordon_Shumway
-
-
bailey78
-
Gordon_Shumway:
I believe your on to something with that.
- 2 months ago
-
bailey78
-
-
Vic_Romano
-
Normally, I'd say just don't eat that crap. However, I'd really like some assurances that we're not going to be eating McSoylent Green in the near future.
- 2 months ago
-
Vic_Romano
-
-
hammywill
-
Vic_Romano:
Solution, stop eating it. Problem solved. The reason why Fast Food is still a problem is NOT because of McDonalds..it's because of the people WHO EAT IT!
- 2 months ago
-
hammywill
-
-
Vic_Romano
-
hammywill:
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. This wouldn't even be a problem if people just stuck to eating good food. However, these mega conglomerates are pretty much vertically integrated at this point. I don't know how much of a market share Yum foods, for instance, has at the local grocery store. But it is a concern.
- 2 months ago
-
Vic_Romano
-
-
Radical_Centrist
-
If the Government can dictate how big our Soda Pop is them what in the hell can they not dictate to us about? I am opposed to fast food personally, but the Government has no business telling me what types of food or sizes of drinks I can consume.
- 2 months ago
-
Radical_Centrist
-
-
Vic_Romano
-
Radical_Centrist:
Yep. But it's really more a matter of what in the hell they're serving.
I mean, you can only go so far with that caveat emptor thing before you end up digesting your neighbor's cat.
- 2 months ago
-
Vic_Romano
-
-
Gordon_Shumway
-

-
Vic_Romano:
What's that about "digesting your neighbor's cat"?
- 2 months ago
-
Gordon_Shumway
-
-
Vic_Romano
-
Gordon_Shumway:
LMFAO!!!!
- 2 months ago
-
Vic_Romano
-
-
Saladin
-
Radical_Centrist:
"...but the Government has no business telling me what types of food or sizes of drinks I can consume."
I don't necessarily disagree with the point, but this is a child-like attitude.
With obesity as bad as it is, the problem is bad enough that it deserves public attention.
Any ban on bad food has nothing to do with *you*. They don't give a shit about telling you what you can and cannot eat.
It would be about addressing the problem and protecting public safety.
Most restrictions aren't fucking arbitrary. Do you understand that?
- 2 months ago
-
Saladin
-
-
MSII
-
Saladin:
right-wingers only understand what's good for their uncle tom's - the 1%ers, and corporates.
- 1 month ago
-
MSII