City of Davis to institute new ordinance on soda "ban" with kid's meals
Replies
-
I know quite a few people who have a hard time paying their bills, yet manage to have $$ for smokes.
Same here, and when they have children going hungry and in poor health it infuriates me. My point is simply that I don't see as many smokers as I once did. I'm not sure if that's because of public smoking bans or the increase in cost of cigarettes or both. I know in traffic I don't see as many people with their cigarette clutching hand dangling out the window as I used to about ten years ago.
0 -
ninagray000 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »I'm in favor of the ordinance, and get a little frustrated when people react as though it's some horrible example of government over-reach. Decisions focused on public health are sensitive, for sure, but this one is a good example of a helpful one. Parents still have complete autonomy over deciding what they want to purchase for their child.
I'm also not a fan of starting a thread like this, really, as it just seems like flame-bait that can easily transition into the sort of political debate that I thought was discouraged on these boards. What's the purpose of the thread?
But I'm new here, so maybe I'm off-base.
So you don't see this as overreach? When does it reach that point for you? When the government imposes choices upon you rather than others?
Is it the government forcing something, or the corporations that have perpetuated unhealthy habits because they want to make a profit?
It's the government forcing something. Blaming corporations is just a plain copout.
0 -
-
Jaxxie1181 wrote: »
So, it's the corporations fault a person can't moderate their intake? You're giving the corporation too much power, and setting up the classic copout "it's the man's fault, not mine".0 -
So, it's the corporations fault a person can't moderate their intake? You're giving the corporation too much power, and setting up the classic copout "it's the man's fault, not mine".
Corporations know how to market. Do they directly control the consumer's actions? Of course not, but they have a heavy influence on consumers and know how to get to them - through the kids. Corporations have a lot more power than you are giving them credit for. They invest millions in lobbyists to lobby before congress for their own ends. They grease the palms of politicians. They have the best attorneys money can buy to insure the consumer has absolutely no legal recourse.
0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »
It's not. What I don't think you see here, is that this is a good precedence for the city to eventually get an approval to start taxing beverages with added sugar. They've already done it with bottle/canned drinks to raise state revenue (CRV in California). You pay CRV on top of cost of the bottle/canned drink.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
I'm bored, so I read the ordinance. You must *purchase* a soda for your child, if you wish. It will not be provided with the meal. See below. Emphasis mine.This seems like a non-issue to me. While I rarely order happy meals anymore because my kids are older, when I did order them, I just asked for the drink I wanted up front. And those few times I didn't ask up front, they simply asked me what drink I wanted. There was no pushing of sodas or any other type of drink.
Also, happy meals cost the same whether you get milk, soda, or juice, so why would there even be a need to push sodas? It would definitely push my buttons if they said parents could not order sodas for their kids, but this just seems like another useless ruling that really amounts to nothing.
That's where I need some clarification in this case. It says that the parents can still order soda, is that at an extra charge?
17.02.02 Default Beverages In Children’s Meals.
(a) On and after September 1, 2015 a restaurant that sells a children’s meal that
includes a beverage shall make the default beverage offered with the children’s
meal one of the following:
(1) Water, sparkling water, or flavored water, with no added natural or artificial
sweeteners;
(2) Milk or non-dairy milk alternatives.
(b) Nothing in this Section prohibits a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s
ability to purchase, a substitute or alternative beverage instead of the default
beverage offered with a children’s meal, if requested by the purchaser of the
children’s meal.
(c) All restaurants shall complete an initial self-certification certifying whether they
offer children’s meals and if so, certifying that they comply with the provisions of
this Section 17.02.02. Subsequently, restaurants that sell children’s meals shall
complete an annual self-certification, certifying that they comply with the
provisions of this Section 17.02.02, as may be modified from time to time at the
discretion of the City.
OK, so it is a true "nanny state" law that is truely banning of the inclusion of soda with the meal. Good thing we have the government around to tell me what my kid can and can't have with their meal. No junior, you can't have that sugary coke, but you can have that sugary juice. Makes sense.
I don't see juice on this list of provided options, actually:
(1) Water, sparkling water, or flavored water, with no added natural or artificial
sweeteners;
(2) Milk or non-dairy milk alternatives.
That's fair. I'm not sure where I was reading juice at.
I still stand by my statement of:
"so it is a true "nanny state" law that is truely banning of the inclusion of soda with the meal. Good thing we have the government around to tell me what my kid can and can't have with their meal."
I really don't understand why it's such a big deal to ask for soda if you want your kid to have it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Didn't they do something like that in NYC, I believe certain size drinks were banned or taxed, and has since been reversed?
Yep they did attempt that you could only buy I think it was like up to a 20 oz drink and they banned the 32 oz one or something stupid like that (I'm from NY and can't remember the idiocy of that clearly lol) and people would just buy 2 drinks instead which in turn you were drinking 40 oz instead of 32oz.
0 -
Jaxxie1181 wrote: »
So, it's the corporations fault a person can't moderate their intake? You're giving the corporation too much power, and setting up the classic copout "it's the man's fault, not mine".
Corporations know how to market. Do they directly control the consumer's actions? Of course not, but they have a heavy influence on consumers and know how to get to them - through the kids. Corporations have a lot more power than you are giving them credit for. They invest millions in lobbyists to lobby before congress for their own ends. They grease the palms of politicians. They have the best attorneys money can buy to insure the consumer has absolutely no legal recourse.
And what does this have to do with anyone making an informed decision for themselves? There's a Big Soda lobby at congress now?
I must be in the minority....I can actually say no to my kids once in a while and actually stick to it.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Honestly, I can see both sides of the argument as valid.
The ever increasing number of overweight and obese children is proof that parents just don't care enough to solve the problem. And that problem becomes everyone's problem with rising health care costs. And then there is the fact that feeding a child become until they become overweight or obese permenantly increases their risk of disease in adulthood, and therefore could be viewed as abuse of a helpless victim.
On the other hand, most children aren't overweight or obese and it is ultimately a parent's right to raise their children as they see fit.
But honestly, I couldn't care less about this. If the worst thing government ever did was take away our soda we'd probably be much better off than we are now.0 -
Thank you!Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?
Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!
0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »I think it's a good decision. Obviously america has a weight problem. Some know I believe it's not due to "inactivity". I already posted studies showing that "exercise" doesn't produce weight loss. The issue is the food we eat.
Comments like "it's not the governments job to make parent decisions for the kids" if the parents can't take care of their kids properly someone has to step in. I have seen countless women who are struggling with their weight on MFP. One reason is because they end up buying junk food for the kids, and the mother over consumes it. WHat are these parents teaching their kids?
It never made sense to me when people have foods they have problems with "junk foods that cause them to over eat and binge" in the house. Their common response is, "I shouldn't need to punish my kids because I am trying to lose weight." So what's the objective, let your kids get over weight?
I went off tangent of my original post. As @guitarjerry said, marketing to kids isn't cool. We have ot keep in mind food companies are a business. If you had a business of selling something, such as cars. Wouldn't you wan tto sell as many cars as you can and get people interested in your product and keep on buying it?
It's no different for food companies, they have a product, they want to make profit. They have food scientists making these foods as close to addicting as possible. They're not stupid, give as much flavor/taste as possible that people like, and put it in smallest volume possible. What is this? High caloric density foods, they digest quickly, so who wants more? It tastes good too.. so we should all just keep on buying and buying and buying.
Just as you say exercise is not the reason people are obese. Food is also not the reason people are obese.
Personal decisions are. If a person is aware that something lacks nutrients and contains high calorie content and chooses to indulge anyway, that is not the fault of the inanimate food item. If a person does not know that the food is high in caloric content and over consumption could lead to weight gain and poor health, that is an education issue, again not the foods fault.
I don't disagree with you, i agree with you. In my case, my dad always bought me and my brother whatever we wanted. We would see him every weekend and spend the summer with him. He's not over weight, and neither is my mother. I remember sometimes eating ice cream for breakfast, and drinking pepsi's all week as our water source. I learned some bad habits that evolved around food. I also remember eating Taco Bell and Burger King constantly. I eventually got up to 400lbs. When i was at my heaviest, Taco Bell was my favorite food. My brother is younger, and he's getting up there in weight. I lost most of my weight, but sometimes it's still a struggle as it is for most of us here. I asked my dad, "why did you give us whatever we wanted?" He said, "So you can learn what's right and wrong on your own and make wise decisions." I have had the freedom since child hood, it didn't workout well.
Do you think it would be acceptable for companies to put some drug in our food such as heroine or methamphetamine. The answer should be obviously not. I don't see how this is any different than the things food companies do to our foods. Someone might reply with, "those are damaging to your health" are they in low dosages? The food companies do the same.
Why though is it the food companies ? What about a local mom and pop bakery are their foods loaded with ingredients that make you keep coming back? What are these specific items that the food companies are using?0 -
It is a fact that most west virginians drink mt. Dew. It is addictive. It is given instead of milk because it is cheaper. They drink it from infancyto adulthood by the time they are in elementary they have a mouth full of rotting teeth and no way to fix it. They literally cannot stop drinking it. So I see many parents around me letting todlers drink pop and mt dew and they come to our house and want it well sorry we don't let our kids drink pop. It is so bad for you. So is juice and all those snacks aimed at kids thats bad bc it sits on their teeth all day. Personally I feel pop should not be a option at school or restaurant for kids.0
-
I'm curious as to the long-term effects should this be enforced. In my experience, if you don't allow a child to have something nine times out of ten they will try it as soon as they are able or old enough. So, you get through your childhood not drinking soda / pop? Plenty of time between the time you reach adulthood and you die that you can still become unhealthy drinking the stuff.
I'm wondering how many of these kids who theoretically wouldn't be allowed drink soda in childhood become regular soda drinkers as adults anyway?0 -
^ You are exactly right. i have two boys. I never told them not to do anything, because I knew that, if I did, they would just go do it anyway.
Your logic is impeccable!0 -
Well duh, it's California.0
-
^ You are exactly right. i have two boys. I never told them not to do anything, because I knew that, if I did, they would just go do it anyway.
Your logic is impeccable!
Well, thank you. It's just that I've been through the hell, I mean, the joy of raising three kids. Plus, I was a difficult child myself. Just truly curious how it would affect people long term.0 -
Jaxxie1181 wrote: »
So, it's the corporations fault a person can't moderate their intake? You're giving the corporation too much power, and setting up the classic copout "it's the man's fault, not mine".
Corporations know how to market. Do they directly control the consumer's actions? Of course not, but they have a heavy influence on consumers and know how to get to them - through the kids. Corporations have a lot more power than you are giving them credit for. They invest millions in lobbyists to lobby before congress for their own ends. They grease the palms of politicians. They have the best attorneys money can buy to insure the consumer has absolutely no legal recourse.
And what does this have to do with anyone making an informed decision for themselves? There's a Big Soda lobby at congress now?
I must be in the minority....I can actually say no to my kids once in a while and actually stick to it.
We're a dying breed, my friend.
0 -
I'm curious as to the long-term effects should this be enforced. In my experience, if you don't allow a child to have something nine times out of ten they will try it as soon as they are able or old enough. So, you get through your childhood not drinking soda / pop? Plenty of time between the time you reach adulthood and you die that you can still become unhealthy drinking the stuff.
I'm wondering how many of these kids who theoretically wouldn't be allowed drink soda in childhood become regular soda drinkers as adults anyway?
I don't see how this makes it an all or nothing. Pop isn't banned or restricted, it just has to be asked for specifically. There will still be kids who drink no liquids aside from pop 7 days a week, some kids who never drink it, and some who only get it once in a while.
I also doubt you'd find any realistic correlation between childhood use and adult use, provided you had a sample size older than college. Plenty of people who grew up drinking nothing but Coke who turn into water drinkers as one of the many measures they have to take to lose the hundreds of pounds gained from their childhood eating habits. Plenty who grew up never drinking it who developed a serious caffeine addiction in high school and college, but then got over it once they started seeing adverse health effects. If anything, you'd find a correlation by education.0 -
I'm curious as to the long-term effects should this be enforced. In my experience, if you don't allow a child to have something nine times out of ten they will try it as soon as they are able or old enough. So, you get through your childhood not drinking soda / pop? Plenty of time between the time you reach adulthood and you die that you can still become unhealthy drinking the stuff.
I'm wondering how many of these kids who theoretically wouldn't be allowed drink soda in childhood become regular soda drinkers as adults anyway?
I don't see how this makes it an all or nothing. Pop isn't banned or restricted, it just has to be asked for specifically. There will still be kids who drink no liquids aside from pop 7 days a week, some kids who never drink it, and some who only get it once in a while.
I also doubt you'd find any realistic correlation between childhood use and adult use, provided you had a sample size older than college. Plenty of people who grew up drinking nothing but Coke who turn into water drinkers as one of the many measures they have to take to lose the hundreds of pounds gained from their childhood eating habits. Plenty who grew up never drinking it who developed a serious caffeine addiction in high school and college, but then got over it once they started seeing adverse health effects. If anything, you'd find a correlation by education.
I agree. Nutrition and health overall is about education and knowledge regardless of where you live or what laws and rules are in place. It's all about common sense and moderation, but some people just don't have it.0 -
The PARENT should be making the prominent option, not the government. When I order a kids meal for my kid, I order milk for her instead of soda. But again, that's the option I make based on common sense.
Telling businesses how and what they can and can't advertise (and fining them for it if not compliant) shouldn't be the governments job.
My belief is this is just a step to an eventual "sin" tax on sugared items.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Agree - its on the level of tobacco. The evil, but very necessary tobacco industry. We would be even more bankruptier without it.
Funny - I offer my kids soda as a treat sometimes and they reply "nah I'll just drink water" Ah the power of positive reinforcement.0 -
I'm curious as to the long-term effects should this be enforced. In my experience, if you don't allow a child to have something nine times out of ten they will try it as soon as they are able or old enough. So, you get through your childhood not drinking soda / pop? Plenty of time between the time you reach adulthood and you die that you can still become unhealthy drinking the stuff.
I'm wondering how many of these kids who theoretically wouldn't be allowed drink soda in childhood become regular soda drinkers as adults anyway?
I must have had little angels. Not that my kids obeyed 100% but I can't remember them ever doing something simply because I told them not to. But I always told them why they couldn't have it.
But maybe when they went away to college they were crossing the street without looking, running with scissors and eating moldy fruit and I just didn't know about it.
0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »auntstephie321 wrote: »I think it's a good decision. Obviously america has a weight problem. Some know I believe it's not due to "inactivity". I already posted studies showing that "exercise" doesn't produce weight loss. The issue is the food we eat.
Comments like "it's not the governments job to make parent decisions for the kids" if the parents can't take care of their kids properly someone has to step in. I have seen countless women who are struggling with their weight on MFP. One reason is because they end up buying junk food for the kids, and the mother over consumes it. WHat are these parents teaching their kids?
It never made sense to me when people have foods they have problems with "junk foods that cause them to over eat and binge" in the house. Their common response is, "I shouldn't need to punish my kids because I am trying to lose weight." So what's the objective, let your kids get over weight?
I went off tangent of my original post. As @guitarjerry said, marketing to kids isn't cool. We have ot keep in mind food companies are a business. If you had a business of selling something, such as cars. Wouldn't you wan tto sell as many cars as you can and get people interested in your product and keep on buying it?
It's no different for food companies, they have a product, they want to make profit. They have food scientists making these foods as close to addicting as possible. They're not stupid, give as much flavor/taste as possible that people like, and put it in smallest volume possible. What is this? High caloric density foods, they digest quickly, so who wants more? It tastes good too.. so we should all just keep on buying and buying and buying.
Just as you say exercise is not the reason people are obese. Food is also not the reason people are obese.
Personal decisions are. If a person is aware that something lacks nutrients and contains high calorie content and chooses to indulge anyway, that is not the fault of the inanimate food item. If a person does not know that the food is high in caloric content and over consumption could lead to weight gain and poor health, that is an education issue, again not the foods fault.
I don't disagree with you, i agree with you. In my case, my dad always bought me and my brother whatever we wanted. We would see him every weekend and spend the summer with him. He's not over weight, and neither is my mother. I remember sometimes eating ice cream for breakfast, and drinking pepsi's all week as our water source. I learned some bad habits that evolved around food. I also remember eating Taco Bell and Burger King constantly. I eventually got up to 400lbs. When i was at my heaviest, Taco Bell was my favorite food. My brother is younger, and he's getting up there in weight. I lost most of my weight, but sometimes it's still a struggle as it is for most of us here. I asked my dad, "why did you give us whatever we wanted?" He said, "So you can learn what's right and wrong on your own and make wise decisions." I have had the freedom since child hood, it didn't workout well.
Do you think it would be acceptable for companies to put some drug in our food such as heroine or methamphetamine. The answer should be obviously not. I don't see how this is any different than the things food companies do to our foods. Someone might reply with, "those are damaging to your health" are they in low dosages? The food companies do the same.
Why though is it the food companies ? What about a local mom and pop bakery are their foods loaded with ingredients that make you keep coming back? What are these specific items that the food companies are using?
It's all sugar one way or the other. sugar can also be defined as processed carbs as well.
So it's whoever processes the carbs fault? Or is it the grower that sold it to the processor's fault?
What is it that is added to these items by the food industry that prevents only some individuals from limiting their intake?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm curious as to the long-term effects should this be enforced. In my experience, if you don't allow a child to have something nine times out of ten they will try it as soon as they are able or old enough. So, you get through your childhood not drinking soda / pop? Plenty of time between the time you reach adulthood and you die that you can still become unhealthy drinking the stuff.
I'm wondering how many of these kids who theoretically wouldn't be allowed drink soda in childhood become regular soda drinkers as adults anyway?
I must have had little angels. Not that my kids obeyed 100% but I can't remember them ever doing something simply because I told them not to. But I always told them why they couldn't have it.
But maybe when they went away to college they were crossing the street without looking, running with scissors and eating moldy fruit and I just didn't know about it.
Hahaha! Probably! My kids specifically weren't like that. Just a speculation. We had a 1 can of pop per day rule in our house. Sure, as they got older there were times they had more due to going out to eat with other people or being with friends. Other days they didn't have any. But again, it was just about setting an example of moderation overall.0 -
It's not just the sugar. Many sodas are high in caffeine, which is addictive and shouldn't be given to children. Nearly 90 studies have linked sweetened beverages and children's weight problems. Those studies don't even include the dental problems, and calcium depletion from the phosphorus.
At some point in our history, the government had to step in and say, "Hey, No more cigarettes for kids and stop the cutesy adds for them as well." Seems like the same is starting to happen with soda. I'm still neutral on the case of the ban. Are some people saying that the government involvement regarding cigarettes was not beneficial? I've really never pondered this point of view and would like to hear more.0 -
Jaxxie1181 wrote: »
So, it's the corporations fault a person can't moderate their intake? You're giving the corporation too much power, and setting up the classic copout "it's the man's fault, not mine".
Corporations know how to market. Do they directly control the consumer's actions? Of course not, but they have a heavy influence on consumers and know how to get to them - through the kids. Corporations have a lot more power than you are giving them credit for. They invest millions in lobbyists to lobby before congress for their own ends. They grease the palms of politicians. They have the best attorneys money can buy to insure the consumer has absolutely no legal recourse.
ahhh yes, the evil food masters have us programmed to eat when they say and how much they say ...
Damn those evil food companies for making their food taste good so they can make a profit...!
Have you ever gone back to a restaurant with crappy food?0 -
I didn't read it that way. It looks to be that LESS demand for fuel efficient vehicles. And the plants are are American Car makers right? American cars don't seem to sell as well as their Japanese counterparts.Packerjohn wrote: »
I live in CA which has one of the highest prices per gallon of gas and in an area which is the 3rd largest commuter's nightmare in the US. SUV's are a big staple of that commute (which is an average of an hour one way). California also has more cars per capita than any state. Sporting 2 of top 3 worst commutes in the US, along with one of the highest costs per gallon of gas, and along with the state with the most cars, and one of the most highest tax rates in the country, you'd have a hard time convincing me adding an extra tax would deter usage. It hasn't yet after all these years.Packerjohn wrote: »
They did this with gas and tobacco products. Adding "sin" tax does little to deter usage. Obesity is an issue due to lack of concern at HOW MUCH someone is consuming. Not just WHAT someone is consuming. There are lots and lots of healthy people who consume sugared drinks within a decent calorie amount. There are sugared teas, juices, coffee, etc. that don't fall under the same scrutiny as soda, yet yield some of the same amounts in grams.Packerjohn wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Since when is it the government's job to make parental decisions in the US?
Well since childhood obesity is run rampant, many parents don't do anything about it and the government is paying over 50% of healthcare costs.
How about a $.05 per ounce tax on pop, mandated to go to healthcare? Wonder how many people would buy the 64 oz bladder buster at $4.50 vs $.99?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Talk to someone who works in the auto industry about what happens to sales of pick ups and large SUVs vs small cars when the price of gas is over $4 a gallon vs $2.50. Ask them if the price of gas deters usage. BTW, would personally have no problem with a similar tax on the other sugared items mentioned.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
As gas prices increase (around $4.00 a gallon seems to be the magic mark) due to crude, taxes, etc., sales of less fuel efficient vehicles shift to those that are more fuel efficient, so gas price does make a difference.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102186856
Low gas prices are spurring increased purchases of less fuel efficient vehicles. This shifts when gas prices go up.
From the article:
As fuel prices have fallen, so has the fuel economy of the typical new vehicle, despite mandates to improve it, according to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI).
As recently as August, the average was 25.8 miles per gallon; it fell to just 25.3 miles per gallon last month. UMTRI researcher Michael Sivak noted there has been "less demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles because of the decreasing price of gasoline."
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »auntstephie321 wrote: »auntstephie321 wrote: »I think it's a good decision. Obviously america has a weight problem. Some know I believe it's not due to "inactivity". I already posted studies showing that "exercise" doesn't produce weight loss. The issue is the food we eat.
Comments like "it's not the governments job to make parent decisions for the kids" if the parents can't take care of their kids properly someone has to step in. I have seen countless women who are struggling with their weight on MFP. One reason is because they end up buying junk food for the kids, and the mother over consumes it. WHat are these parents teaching their kids?
It never made sense to me when people have foods they have problems with "junk foods that cause them to over eat and binge" in the house. Their common response is, "I shouldn't need to punish my kids because I am trying to lose weight." So what's the objective, let your kids get over weight?
I went off tangent of my original post. As @guitarjerry said, marketing to kids isn't cool. We have ot keep in mind food companies are a business. If you had a business of selling something, such as cars. Wouldn't you wan tto sell as many cars as you can and get people interested in your product and keep on buying it?
It's no different for food companies, they have a product, they want to make profit. They have food scientists making these foods as close to addicting as possible. They're not stupid, give as much flavor/taste as possible that people like, and put it in smallest volume possible. What is this? High caloric density foods, they digest quickly, so who wants more? It tastes good too.. so we should all just keep on buying and buying and buying.
Just as you say exercise is not the reason people are obese. Food is also not the reason people are obese.
Personal decisions are. If a person is aware that something lacks nutrients and contains high calorie content and chooses to indulge anyway, that is not the fault of the inanimate food item. If a person does not know that the food is high in caloric content and over consumption could lead to weight gain and poor health, that is an education issue, again not the foods fault.
I don't disagree with you, i agree with you. In my case, my dad always bought me and my brother whatever we wanted. We would see him every weekend and spend the summer with him. He's not over weight, and neither is my mother. I remember sometimes eating ice cream for breakfast, and drinking pepsi's all week as our water source. I learned some bad habits that evolved around food. I also remember eating Taco Bell and Burger King constantly. I eventually got up to 400lbs. When i was at my heaviest, Taco Bell was my favorite food. My brother is younger, and he's getting up there in weight. I lost most of my weight, but sometimes it's still a struggle as it is for most of us here. I asked my dad, "why did you give us whatever we wanted?" He said, "So you can learn what's right and wrong on your own and make wise decisions." I have had the freedom since child hood, it didn't workout well.
Do you think it would be acceptable for companies to put some drug in our food such as heroine or methamphetamine. The answer should be obviously not. I don't see how this is any different than the things food companies do to our foods. Someone might reply with, "those are damaging to your health" are they in low dosages? The food companies do the same.
Why though is it the food companies ? What about a local mom and pop bakery are their foods loaded with ingredients that make you keep coming back? What are these specific items that the food companies are using?
It's all sugar one way or the other. sugar can also be defined as processed carbs as well.
So it's whoever processes the carbs fault? Or is it the grower that sold it to the processor's fault?
What is it that is added to these items by the food industry that prevents only some individuals from limiting their intake?
A better question would be is "what makes certain drugs illegal, and who's fault is it?" that should answer the question. Of course there is personal responsibility in all this, but there is also people who have some serious problems. MOST Americans are over weight, so most people have a problem.
The problem is too many people, cramming too many calories into their pie holes, combined with the average person's inability to take information, understand it, and apply it. The sugar and or the calories in soda, or any other food for that matter, are not the problem, nor is the corporate model. Thinking that isolating a single item (sugar), declaring it as evil and the root of people being fat, doesn't help anyone understand why they are fat, nor how to reverse their problem.0 -
Just like the USDA food pyramid does.
You can whine about big brother. But this does no impinge on you. It does not take away a choice. It just makes the wrong choice a bit more difficult.rainbowbow wrote: »I used to live in Davis!! Wow, small world.
My mother got a "littering" ticket for dumping ice out of a cup on the concrete. She had ice water.
We were waiting to pick my sister up from her elementary school in our car in the middle of summer. Someone came and knocked on our window and told us to turn off our car (and AC) because it was "wasteful".
A majority of the people there either bike or drive (on the road) golf carts.
In other words.... I am not suprised. At all.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Are you saying we aren't paying now?Packerjohn wrote: »The government has no business telling anyone what they can and cannot order with their meal. This is ridiculous.
Do you pay taxes? If you don't know, government pays over 50% of the health care costs in the US. Chances are pretty good that when little Johnny or Janie develops becomes diabetic, with a bunch of pop being a significantly contributing factor you're going to be paying for the health care costs.
You good with that?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions