USDA to ban "Junk Food"

[Flonne]

A non-intrusive government is the whole reason we have the satirical term "'Murican." It's pineappleing disgusting.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly, the reason we have useless people littering the country is the terrible education system, the lack of any real motivational incentives to work rather than just sit at home and collect welfare, and that fact that most politicians, democrats and even republicans whether they will admit it or not, profit off of people being as stupid and pacified as possible, sitting at home as human livestock, useful only as a statistic on a report nobody will ever read. So, essentially, the reality is the exact opposite of what you just said, our current government is almost ENTIRELY at fault.

[Foolyz]

I disagree with this wholeheartedly, the reason we have useless people littering the country is the terrible education system, the lack of any real motivational incentives to work rather than just sit at home and collect welfare, and that fact that most politicians, democrats and even republicans whether they will admit it or not, profit off of people being as stupid and pacified as possible, sitting at home as human livestock, useful only as a statistic on a report nobody will ever read. So, essentially, the reality is the exact opposite of what you just said, our current government is almost ENTIRELY at fault.

How do you expect that to change? A simultaneous nation-wide epiphany?

[Flonne]

How do you expect that to change? A simultaneous nation-wide epiphany?

Change? Nope, too late for that, this country has been irredeemably destroyed for decades at this point. It's still better than a lot of places, but comparing a pile of pomegranate to a bigger pile of pomegranate only goes so far. All we can look forward to now is a slow and painful death.

[Chilly]

I approach this problem the same way I approach most things that could be considered "the government infringing on rights," using a "Choices and Consequences" model of my own design. Choices must be given, and while it can be considered Draconian or heartless, the consequences of poor choices is strict and unforgiving.

The school has the imperative to serve the best (healthiest) food possible with the taxpayer money, because citizens should not be responsible for the costs (incurred elsewhere) of obesity. Aside from those government-funded selections, if other entities want to sell "junk" food and with the local government (city, municipality, school board or even some thing as simple as the PTA) approval, this choice must be given to allow people to spend their own money on it. But if you choose to spend you own money on food that eventually leads to obesity, you are not going to inflate medical costs around your orbit, you will pay higher insurance premiums which will not be passed through to others, your obesity will not be considered a disability (eligible for welfare) and if that poverty leads to an early death, then the world is better without you.

I employ the same ideal when it comes to the health insurance mandate, there should be no penalty for not buying health insurance, i.e. no mandate, but if you unfortunately encounter some catastrophic health emergency, you will be expected to pay for it in full and as services are being rendered. Hospitals should be allowed to refuse you service or continue their service if you are unable to pay. If you die, that is a consequence of your choice.

Of course, many of the things I describe, mostly the "dead people" things really offend others because of our crippling compassion so we will continue this long slog until people learn to take and assign responsibility for their actions.

[Lugin]

Lemme put this out there: I can get WXIN on local broadcast.

They've been pushing this crap for at least the last 15 years. The "healthy" stuff they push is the cheapest, raw vegetable crap they can push on you.

Remember, you can pick two of these options:
Cheap
Healthy
Tasty

Guess which one gets dropped?

[Lozmaster]

I disagree with this wholeheartedly, the reason we have useless people littering the country is the terrible education system, the lack of any real motivational incentives to work rather than just sit at home and collect welfare, and that fact that most politicians, democrats and even republicans whether they will admit it or not, profit off of people being as stupid and pacified as possible, sitting at home as human livestock, useful only as a statistic on a report nobody will ever read. So, essentially, the reality is the exact opposite of what you just said, our current government is almost ENTIRELY at fault.

There are plenty of incentives to work rather than just stay at home all day beyond just the initial wage you get. Just because you're happy to sit at home all day doesn't mean everyone shares your mindset (else there wouldn't be millions employed in things like retail...)

[Flonne]

There are plenty of incentives to work rather than just stay at home all day beyond just the initial wage you get.

Ignoring the (rude) second half of your statement, I'll still ask, like what? For a person that prefers nothing more than to sit at home eating cheetos, watching TV and neglecting their kids, what possible incentive is there to work over sitting around doing nothing and getting paid for it?

This attitude is a LOT more common than you think down here in the southern US, and it's a pretty huge area to disregard. I don't even associate with people outside of my family and I would still estimate that at least 1/10 of the people I know are absolutely terrible. Luckily my immediate family is mostly unaffected, but I could tell you things that would make you throw up about a couple branches of it; ever been legitimately hit on by a 400 pound 61 year old woman that ACTUALLY DEVOURS 3 full cases of soda PER DAY, because you look like your father and she had a creepy stalker crush on him before he died? At a funeral? While she is eating a personal supply of donuts she brought for herself and no one else, covered in stickiness because she is a slob, touching you all over the place in a way that is just short of molestation?

Even if the job market wasn't so ridiculously bad here, it wouldn't matter, it was like this before the recession hit, and will be like this tomorrow.

[KhainiWest]

Ignoring the (rude) second half of your statement, I'll still ask, like what? For a person that prefers nothing more than to sit at home eating cheetos, watching TV and neglecting their kids, what possible incentive is there to work over sitting around doing nothing and getting paid for it?

.

To be honest, the last part of my previous job, I was getting paid to do nothing at one point. No one questioned anything I did because I was considered a vet there, and I didn't do anything for almost 4 months. So why did I leave?

Because my incentive was to feel like I was doing something that accomplished something, so that's at least one reason why some people don't accept free money besides being a slacker

[Dystopiq]

No, however, the correct question is

Which is a yes. Parents should be the ones to enforce for their child individually, not have the government make huge sweeping restrictions on everyone and everything. That's not their job, their job is to be as unitrusive as possible and not get in our way, essentially, but they've been forgetting that more and more recently. The real solution is for the parents to actually care enough about their kid to pack them a lunch from home, it's not that hard, my parents did and they got up at 4:30AM every morning and work 5:30-6 with 45 minute drives to/from; parents can't complain they don't have the time, they can pineappleing make the time, it's their child. If they can't, they shouldn't have one to begin with.

Well it's too late. Parents aren't enforcing good eating habits in their children

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm

Not to mention that this increases the National Heathcare Cost. So now the Gov has to step in because parents can't seem to be bothered to do.
I don't have an issue with this. If this is what it takes then so be it.

[icephoenix21]

The fact that a ban is being implemented shows how much of an issue obesity really is.

To be honest, I'm tired of seeing stupid photos/sayings around the internet that say things like:
"Curves, because no one likes cuddling with a stick" and such.

It's one thing to be confident with your body even if you are a bit overweight, but that being said, you are unhealthy if you're fat, and you should be working on bettering yourself. Sure, it's not my place to judge but the whole idea of "being accepting of overweight and obese individuals as the norm" does not sit well with me.

Spoiler

[KhainiWest]

I'm torn in the middle on this because we should have the freedom to do what we want. Yet there's no real downside to creating these restrictions, in fact grocery stores should do the same. However, diet is one aspect to a clearly healthy lifestyle, should we limit internet usage as well?

[Words]

I'm torn in the middle on this because we should have the freedom to do what we want. Yet there's no real downside to creating these restrictions, in fact grocery stores should do the same. However, diet is one aspect to a clearly healthy lifestyle, should we limit internet usage as well?

Are people overdoing it to the point that they get in a bad health situation that ends up costing everyone else?
I think food thing is one of those things that infringes on the rights of others and I'd be somewhat glad that government is taking care of them and therefore me. I think nearly "unlimited freedom" has its downsides and a "moderate" or similar approach is much more "healthy". But I'd understand why people there who have grown up with those values and ideals would oppose strongly to that ban or even feel torn on an issue that has no real downside (pragmatically at least... I guess).

And anyway, if people there really dislike it and really think it infringes on their freedom they can go ahead and make the government change that. You guys are in a country with so much democracy that you want to spread it around the world after all

I think that people and therefore government should think less in limitations and more on services to help people develop healthy life styles.

[KhainiWest]

Are people overdoing it to the point that they get in a bad health situation that ends up costing everyone else?
I think food thing is one of those things that infringes on the rights of others and I'd be somewhat glad that government is taking care of them and therefore me. I think nearly "unlimited freedom" has its downsides and a "moderate" or similar approach is much more "healthy". But I'd understand why people there who have grown up with those values and ideals would oppose strongly to that ban or even feel torn on an issue that has no real downside (pragmatically at least... I guess).

And anyway, if people there really dislike it and really think it infringes on their freedom they can go ahead and make the government change that. You guys are in a country with so much democracy that you want to spread it around the world after all

I think that people and therefore government should think less in limitations and more on services to help people develop healthy life styles.

Whats the point of eating a balance diet if you don't burn carbs, arthritis, all sorts of other things, including addiction and dependency. I don think "take care of me", is the best way to put it. There should be regulations to create standards. However now you're punishing the people who sell the product, how about people who cant afford that standard of living? I mean anyone who has tried to go "healthy" will tell you about the prices going up considerably.

There is a lot more to this change (in a pessimistic view point) than simply making sure people live to the best they can, in which case I feel as though a lot of peoples general perspective here is "the end justifies the means".

It personally doesn't bother me that much, if at all, but this is definitely a topic that can be fleshed out on.

[Aubog007]

Schools don't want to be held accountable or liable. If nothing is wrong at school, or can't be blamed by school, then it's obviously the parent's fault.


And we all know the parent is the absolute best at parenting.


Part sarcasm with truth.

[ImagineAll]

However now you're punishing the people who sell the product, how about people who cant afford that standard of living? I mean anyone who has tried to go "healthy" will tell you about the prices going up considerably.

How are you punishing people who sell these foods exactly? These changes apply solely to school cafeterias, vending machines, and bake sales. All of which are owned or funded by the school district. As far as I'm concerned it's a free market and it's their decision to allow whatever standards they want.

[KhainiWest]

How are you punishing people who sell these foods exactly? These changes apply solely to school cafeterias, vending machines, and bake sales. All of which are owned or funded by the school district. As far as I'm concerned it's a free market and it's their decision to allow whatever standards they want.

You're taking it out of context when you take that post by itself, and I don't feel I articulated the point as well as I wanted to.

If school's decide to take responsibility and restrict what they eat to a balance diet, since it's again, as you said, on school regulation, I don't see the problem with it at a shallow point. However if we are to have the government feel they have the responsibility to restrict our choices to certain standards to our diet (fda but on roids), then I feel by creating that standard we would also hurt the wholesalers.

I'm thinking beyond the school district as everyone is very accepting of this choice since it's overall a benefit, but, much like everything else, if the federal forces a blanket on us, it does hurt us in the long run.

[ImagineAll]

You're taking it out of context when you take that post by itself, and I don't feel I articulated the point as well as I wanted to.

If school's decide to take responsibility and restrict what they eat to a balance diet, since it's again, as you said, on school regulation, I don't see the problem with it at a shallow point. However if we are to have the government feel they have the responsibility to restrict our choices to certain standards to our diet (fda but on roids), then I feel by creating that standard we would also hurt the wholesalers.

I'm thinking beyond the school district as everyone is very accepting of this choice since it's overall a benefit, but, much like everything else, if the federal forces a blanket on us, it does hurt us in the long run.

Right, but it's not as though people are being deprived of other options. The children and their parents still have the option to bring their owned sack lunch with whatever contents they so choose. The schools just will no longer be facilitating the distribution of unhealthy foods on their end.

[KhainiWest]

Right, but it's not as though people are being deprived of other options. The children and their parents still have the option to bring their owned sack lunch with whatever contents they so choose. The schools just will no longer be facilitating the distribution of unhealthy foods on their end.

Yes that's the black and white result of it. But how much will those lunches cost? Will bag lunches cause the program to eventually fail except for those on food vouchers? If it's successful will we have a national level change in our grocery stores? etc. etc.

If this was state reg's I'd be a lot more for those, but being a federal level brings a lot of warning flags in my opinion

[Luxeraph]

Yes that's the black and white result of it. But how much will those lunches cost? Will bag lunches cause the program to eventually fail except for those on food vouchers? If it's successful will we have a national level change in our grocery stores? etc. etc.

If this was state reg's I'd be a lot more for those, but being a federal level brings a lot of warning flags in my opinion

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but I didn't think you'd be into conspiracy theories.

[KhainiWest]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but I didn't think you'd be into conspiracy theories.

You're reading it wrong.

There is plenty of evidence that a federal "standard" is in fact a very bad thing. Look at our america's public education system plummit ever since we received federal standards on education. There are things that the federal government should regulate, but I dont think this qualifies. That doesn't make the federal government "OUT TO GET US", believe me I work for the government. But there are things I feel states should have power over, and in fact should have majority of the power in a lot of things.