City of Davis to institute new ordinance on soda "ban" with kid's meals
Replies
-
Lol, then for sure I would have to drink soda because I'm lactose intolerant now.Hopefully the water shortage doesn't muck with Davis' plans; otherwise milk will the the stand alone default.
ETA, I lived in that goofy state for years. Land of 'believe as I do or else'.
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 -
mantium999 wrote: »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.
If this is all true (let's say it is, though I personally completely disagree about the corporate model being a-ok) and we care about the obesity problem and its consequences, what is the logical conclusion?
Maybe, it's to use policies and other tools so that the "average person" is less burdened by having to account for those single items - and their summation. Because you 're right, it's not just the soda, or the ice cream, or the 10 oz cheeseburger and fries. It's that people eat that stuff all the time.0 -
Well I would think people think that way because it's all they know. I mean take a phone away from the average teen today and what do you think would happen? IMO, they'd probably freak out so bad because they don't know HOW to live without their phone. Social media today takes up a lot of their time.rainbowbow wrote: »No, but today's people know that being overweight/obese is a bad thing. If they KNOW that, then why aren't they able to avoid it?
What if learning about how to eat correctly was a class curriculum?
Here's my views on your first assumption. I'd like to point out that sometime in the past 20 years overweight stopped being synonymous with "unhealthy". Despite the overwhelming evidence that being overweight and even obese has ill effects on health, as the population grows even larger (and seemingly more sensitive to weight) the media presence overall tends to float towards the "body acceptance" movement. Each and every day I see more and more "curvy" "effyourbeautystandards" nonsense.
I'd implore you to explore the following:
http://www.haescommunity.org/
http://www.reddit.com/r/BodyAcceptance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_acceptance_movement
http://redefiningbodyimage.tumblr.com/post/17770763679/big-fat-list-of-myth-defying-health-resources
http://www.fatnutritionist.com/index.php/articles-evidence/
http://bigliberty.net/
etc.
People are now being encouraged to "embrace their curves", and that somehow weight doesn't have any correlation with health. You can be "healthy" at any size!
As far as education is concerned, i agree wholeheartedly, however, I have to wonder how that would even begin to be implemented. It seems as if schools who DO try and offer nutritional information (based on fact) are being bombarded with lawsuits by said people above for being a "nanny" or by companies/figures with an interest in business which have some sort of "all carbs are evil" "sugar is the problem" "no you're eating too much fat" "The type of fat you're eating is the real problem" and so forth.
http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
Even for suggesting material on calories in/calories out is being debated by these people.
At some point I have to ask, do these people just not CARE about their size? Do they just not CARE about their health? Why do they CHOOSE to do this even when presented with the truth?
I dont know. I think something better needs to be addressed here. How many people think feeding their children a lunch of cheetos, oreos, and a big gulp soda is perfectly fine? I'd say far too many. And it's them (and us) who pay the price.
If education is implemented, will that solve the obesity crisis? I don't know. I still think many would choose to follow the path of the glutton...
Take those same teens and teach them a program on how to interact with others at social gatherings, clubs, cheerleading, football, science club, going to the library, etc. BEFORE getting them a phone, and these kids probably would be fine finding a way to do without a phone.
I have a TV. I have a computer. They DON'T dominate my life because I've learned things to do outside of what they offer. I love the gym, I like walking, I spend time outside with my daughter.
There are lots and lots of adults who can't say the same because they either don't know, or weren't exposed positively to the benefits.
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
You love activity like it's your job. Oh wait, it is ;p
It's a multifactorial problem. Less people like activity, maybe. There is also less opportunity for activity because most people's jobs are sedentary, then they have to drive 30-60 minutes to get home because in lots of places walking is just impractical if not impossible. Then we have the conveniences of modern life. Going for a half hour walk for pleasure isn't going to fight all that on its own. Most people spend all day sitting (and eating) and that is because of many reasons relating to societal structures.0 -
On top of the food quality/quantity issue0
-
People really don't care that much about obesity any more than they care about people starving. People are going to do what they need to do to ensure the survival of their immediate family/relatives and future generation. And maybe some very close friends.mantium999 wrote: »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.
If this is all true (let's say it is, though I personally completely disagree about the corporate model being a-ok) and we care about the obesity problem and its consequences, what is the logical conclusion?
Maybe, it's to use policies and other tools so that the "average person" is less burdened by having to account for those single items - and their summation. Because you 're right, it's not just the soda, or the ice cream, or the 10 oz cheeseburger and fries. It's that people eat that stuff all the time.
IMO, government gets involved when government starts losing money.
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 -
Whether it was my job or not, I'd still love it. I was a bodybuilder and active person BEFORE I even considered a career in it. Before this I sold vacuum cleaners door to door and was a manager for a popular electronics chain before it went bankrupt (not my fault).
Well I would think people think that way because it's all they know. I mean take a phone away from the average teen today and what do you think would happen? IMO, they'd probably freak out so bad because they don't know HOW to live without their phone. Social media today takes up a lot of their time.rainbowbow wrote: »No, but today's people know that being overweight/obese is a bad thing. If they KNOW that, then why aren't they able to avoid it?
What if learning about how to eat correctly was a class curriculum?
Here's my views on your first assumption. I'd like to point out that sometime in the past 20 years overweight stopped being synonymous with "unhealthy". Despite the overwhelming evidence that being overweight and even obese has ill effects on health, as the population grows even larger (and seemingly more sensitive to weight) the media presence overall tends to float towards the "body acceptance" movement. Each and every day I see more and more "curvy" "effyourbeautystandards" nonsense.
I'd implore you to explore the following:
http://www.haescommunity.org/
http://www.reddit.com/r/BodyAcceptance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_acceptance_movement
http://redefiningbodyimage.tumblr.com/post/17770763679/big-fat-list-of-myth-defying-health-resources
http://www.fatnutritionist.com/index.php/articles-evidence/
http://bigliberty.net/
etc.
People are now being encouraged to "embrace their curves", and that somehow weight doesn't have any correlation with health. You can be "healthy" at any size!
As far as education is concerned, i agree wholeheartedly, however, I have to wonder how that would even begin to be implemented. It seems as if schools who DO try and offer nutritional information (based on fact) are being bombarded with lawsuits by said people above for being a "nanny" or by companies/figures with an interest in business which have some sort of "all carbs are evil" "sugar is the problem" "no you're eating too much fat" "The type of fat you're eating is the real problem" and so forth.
http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
Even for suggesting material on calories in/calories out is being debated by these people.
At some point I have to ask, do these people just not CARE about their size? Do they just not CARE about their health? Why do they CHOOSE to do this even when presented with the truth?
I dont know. I think something better needs to be addressed here. How many people think feeding their children a lunch of cheetos, oreos, and a big gulp soda is perfectly fine? I'd say far too many. And it's them (and us) who pay the price.
If education is implemented, will that solve the obesity crisis? I don't know. I still think many would choose to follow the path of the glutton...
Take those same teens and teach them a program on how to interact with others at social gatherings, clubs, cheerleading, football, science club, going to the library, etc. BEFORE getting them a phone, and these kids probably would be fine finding a way to do without a phone.
I have a TV. I have a computer. They DON'T dominate my life because I've learned things to do outside of what they offer. I love the gym, I like walking, I spend time outside with my daughter.
There are lots and lots of adults who can't say the same because they either don't know, or weren't exposed positively to the benefits.
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
You love activity like it's your job. Oh wait, it is ;p
It's a multifactorial problem. Less people like activity, maybe. There is also less opportunity for activity because most people's jobs are sedentary, then they have to drive 30-60 minutes to get home because in lots of places walking is just impractical if not impossible. Then we have the conveniences of modern life. Going for a half hour walk for pleasure isn't going to fight all that on its own. Most people spend all day sitting (and eating) and that is because of many reasons relating to societal structures.
And I disagree with you when it comes to physical activity. Many other industrialized countries who have commuting issues, are freezing cold outside, and job that require more sitting than physically moving around, don't deal with obesity because they don't eat so much. WE have that problem not due to society, but because of habitual behavior. Create a habit of not eating so much and guess what? There wouldn't be much of a weight problem.
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 -
People really don't care that much about obesity any more than they care about people starving. People are going to do what they need to do to ensure the survival of their immediate family/relatives and future generation. And maybe some very close friends.mantium999 wrote: »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.
If this is all true (let's say it is, though I personally completely disagree about the corporate model being a-ok) and we care about the obesity problem and its consequences, what is the logical conclusion?
Maybe, it's to use policies and other tools so that the "average person" is less burdened by having to account for those single items - and their summation. Because you 're right, it's not just the soda, or the ice cream, or the 10 oz cheeseburger and fries. It's that people eat that stuff all the time.
IMO, government gets involved when government starts losing money.
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
There's also an obligation to promote health and wellbeing, though, as well. I see it that way, at least.0 -
Whether it was my job or not, I'd still love it. I was a bodybuilder and active person BEFORE I even considered a career in it. Before this I sold vacuum cleaners door to door and was a manager for a popular electronics chain before it went bankrupt (not my fault).
Well I would think people think that way because it's all they know. I mean take a phone away from the average teen today and what do you think would happen? IMO, they'd probably freak out so bad because they don't know HOW to live without their phone. Social media today takes up a lot of their time.rainbowbow wrote: »No, but today's people know that being overweight/obese is a bad thing. If they KNOW that, then why aren't they able to avoid it?
What if learning about how to eat correctly was a class curriculum?
Here's my views on your first assumption. I'd like to point out that sometime in the past 20 years overweight stopped being synonymous with "unhealthy". Despite the overwhelming evidence that being overweight and even obese has ill effects on health, as the population grows even larger (and seemingly more sensitive to weight) the media presence overall tends to float towards the "body acceptance" movement. Each and every day I see more and more "curvy" "effyourbeautystandards" nonsense.
I'd implore you to explore the following:
http://www.haescommunity.org/
http://www.reddit.com/r/BodyAcceptance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_acceptance_movement
http://redefiningbodyimage.tumblr.com/post/17770763679/big-fat-list-of-myth-defying-health-resources
http://www.fatnutritionist.com/index.php/articles-evidence/
http://bigliberty.net/
etc.
People are now being encouraged to "embrace their curves", and that somehow weight doesn't have any correlation with health. You can be "healthy" at any size!
As far as education is concerned, i agree wholeheartedly, however, I have to wonder how that would even begin to be implemented. It seems as if schools who DO try and offer nutritional information (based on fact) are being bombarded with lawsuits by said people above for being a "nanny" or by companies/figures with an interest in business which have some sort of "all carbs are evil" "sugar is the problem" "no you're eating too much fat" "The type of fat you're eating is the real problem" and so forth.
http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
Even for suggesting material on calories in/calories out is being debated by these people.
At some point I have to ask, do these people just not CARE about their size? Do they just not CARE about their health? Why do they CHOOSE to do this even when presented with the truth?
I dont know. I think something better needs to be addressed here. How many people think feeding their children a lunch of cheetos, oreos, and a big gulp soda is perfectly fine? I'd say far too many. And it's them (and us) who pay the price.
If education is implemented, will that solve the obesity crisis? I don't know. I still think many would choose to follow the path of the glutton...
Take those same teens and teach them a program on how to interact with others at social gatherings, clubs, cheerleading, football, science club, going to the library, etc. BEFORE getting them a phone, and these kids probably would be fine finding a way to do without a phone.
I have a TV. I have a computer. They DON'T dominate my life because I've learned things to do outside of what they offer. I love the gym, I like walking, I spend time outside with my daughter.
There are lots and lots of adults who can't say the same because they either don't know, or weren't exposed positively to the benefits.
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
You love activity like it's your job. Oh wait, it is ;p
It's a multifactorial problem. Less people like activity, maybe. There is also less opportunity for activity because most people's jobs are sedentary, then they have to drive 30-60 minutes to get home because in lots of places walking is just impractical if not impossible. Then we have the conveniences of modern life. Going for a half hour walk for pleasure isn't going to fight all that on its own. Most people spend all day sitting (and eating) and that is because of many reasons relating to societal structures.
And I disagree with you when it comes to physical activity. Many other industrialized countries who have commuting issues, are freezing cold outside, and job that require more sitting than physically moving around, don't deal with obesity because they don't eat so much. WE have that problem not due to society, but because of habitual behavior. Create a habit of not eating so much and guess what? There wouldn't be much of a weight problem.
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
I'm just saying there are many factors, overall reduction of NEAT activity is one. Habit is, too. But people will always take the shortcut given a choice. That's usually smart, but in this environment, not so much. One solution (the policy solution) is to tweak the environment, given we know that's how people are.0 -
If that were entirely true, then healthcare should be taken care of by the government instead of insurance companies. The US is one of the only countries who's government doesn't do this and we spend more money per capita than any other country without ranking in the top 35.
People really don't care that much about obesity any more than they care about people starving. People are going to do what they need to do to ensure the survival of their immediate family/relatives and future generation. And maybe some very close friends.mantium999 wrote: »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.
If this is all true (let's say it is, though I personally completely disagree about the corporate model being a-ok) and we care about the obesity problem and its consequences, what is the logical conclusion?
Maybe, it's to use policies and other tools so that the "average person" is less burdened by having to account for those single items - and their summation. Because you 're right, it's not just the soda, or the ice cream, or the 10 oz cheeseburger and fries. It's that people eat that stuff all the time.
IMO, government gets involved when government starts losing money.
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
There's also an obligation to promote health and wellbeing, though, as well. I see it that way, at least.
If people can't afford to go to the doctor for check ups, could it be possible that they ignore health markers that indicate a dire issue that needs to be addressed? I would say yes.
Maybe if the government considered spending less on policing the world and more on health and well being, we might not be in the dilema we are in now. Of course that's just my opinion on 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
0 -
If that were entirely true, then healthcare should be taken care of by the government instead of insurance companies. The US is one of the only countries who's government doesn't do this and we spend more money per capita than any other country without ranking in the top 35.
People really don't care that much about obesity any more than they care about people starving. People are going to do what they need to do to ensure the survival of their immediate family/relatives and future generation. And maybe some very close friends.mantium999 wrote: »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.
If this is all true (let's say it is, though I personally completely disagree about the corporate model being a-ok) and we care about the obesity problem and its consequences, what is the logical conclusion?
Maybe, it's to use policies and other tools so that the "average person" is less burdened by having to account for those single items - and their summation. Because you 're right, it's not just the soda, or the ice cream, or the 10 oz cheeseburger and fries. It's that people eat that stuff all the time.
IMO, government gets involved when government starts losing money.
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
There's also an obligation to promote health and wellbeing, though, as well. I see it that way, at least.
If people can't afford to go to the doctor for check ups, could it be possible that they ignore health markers that indicate a dire issue that needs to be addressed? I would say yes.
Maybe if the government considered spending less on policing the world and more on health and well being, we might not be in the dilema we are in now. Of course that's just my opinion on 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
I agree with you on all this completely. (I'm not a US person, though, just to say.)0 -
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?
so you are justifying this bad law by pointing to an even more horrible law that takes money from one group of people and then uses it - unconstitutionally IMO - to subsidize health care for another group?
If you're talking about Obamacare, I'm personally not a fan. Fact is most of the government paid heath care is for Medicare, Medicaid, benefits for government employees/veterans, etc vs Obamacare subsidies.
As I said earlier I would put a significant tax on sugary drinks.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
I work in a fringe segment of the auto industry. I can assure you as fuel prices increase demand for fuel efficient cars increases and demand for vehicles with poor fuel economy.
Also, don't know what you're talking about regarding American cars and Japanese counterparts. The article is talking about sales in the US as a whole. Also, virtually all of the Japanese branded cars sold in the US are assembled here. This article shows the top 10 vehicles for US content, half of them are Hondas and Toyotas.
http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&subject=ami&story=amMade0613&referer=advice0 -
Because taxing all the "bad" stuff has obviously deterred it's usage.Packerjohn wrote: »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?
so you are justifying this bad law by pointing to an even more horrible law that takes money from one group of people and then uses it - unconstitutionally IMO - to subsidize health care for another group?
If you're talking about Obamacare, I'm personally not a fan. Fact is most of the government paid heath care is for Medicare, Medicaid, benefits for government employees/veterans, etc vs Obamacare subsidies.
As I said earlier I would put a significant tax on sugary drinks.
And no I'm not talking about Obamacare. That's STILL an insurance act. I'm speaking of healthcare that's AUTOMATIC for any individual. The US is a for profit health care system. It should be a non profit system. Lots and lots of other countries do fine by it. Will there be people who abuse it? Of course. But that happens in any system. The percentage of people trying to fudge the system will be much much smaller than the people who abide. Because of the cost of health care, there's lots and lots of medical FRAUD and uneeded costs by the providers themselves, not by the people going in for it.
The US government has the money. Our system is just deciding not to spend it on the country's health and well being over other profitable ventures that help create more tax revenues.
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 -
I think the issue is parents who feed that type of food "happy meals" all the time to their kids. We take our kids to fast food maybe every other month if that and I have no problem giving them a small pop because it's a treat, not the norm. I'd think with the obesity epidemic the government has to step in and try to do something to encourage the parents who use fast food as a staple to try to make healthier choices. Sad, but true...0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »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?
so you are justifying this bad law by pointing to an even more horrible law that takes money from one group of people and then uses it - unconstitutionally IMO - to subsidize health care for another group?
If you're talking about Obamacare, I'm personally not a fan. Fact is most of the government paid heath care is for Medicare, Medicaid, benefits for government employees/veterans, etc vs Obamacare subsidies.
As I said earlier I would put a significant tax on sugary drinks.
I am talking about obamacare and the system pre-obamacare ...even pre obamacare we were still subsidizing peoples care vis-à-vis medicare and Medicaid.
So your solution is more taxes? So the ocassional soda drinker has to suffer because some people can't control themselves? By doing that all you are doing is punishing the consumer, because the companies will just increase their prices to compensate for the taxes.
0 -
I'd rather see policy designed to prohibit parents from smoking around their small children than making it more difficult for them to get a 12oz soda with a children's meal.
0 -
2014 was one of the highest costs for fuel recently. Yet there was an increase in percentage of sales for SUV's and SUV crossovers. Stats don't lie. And even as it starts to creep back up again, SUV sales percentage are still going up.Packerjohn wrote: »
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
I work in a fringe segment of the auto industry. I can assure you as fuel prices increase demand for fuel efficient cars increases and demand for vehicles with poor fuel economy.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
It's not a secret that American cars don't seem to have the same reliability as their Japanese counterparts here in America at least. Probably why most people in my own family don't buy American cars. So maybe I'm just biased.Also, don't know what you're talking about regarding American cars and Japanese counterparts. The article is talking about sales in the US as a whole. Also, virtually all of the Japanese branded cars sold in the US are assembled here. This article shows the top 10 vehicles for US content, half of them are Hondas and Toyotas.
http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&subject=ami&story=amMade0613&referer=advice
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 -
Late to the party, but...
I guess I struggle with this to some extent.
My initial reaction is that this isn't a government issue. Parents should decide what their kids can and can't have, and businesses should be free to sell what they can when they can. But I'm fairly intelligent and I make good decisions for my kids (I think).
There are a lot of parents that don't do that. So at what point does someone have to step in? Or will evolution eventually take care of this as the lazy soda drinkers die off earlier and earlier while healthy genes live on and get passed along?
I guess I like intent of the ordinance, I'm just not sure about the execution.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Since when is it the government's job to make parental decisions in the US?
I know, right? If I want to let my kid smoke, that should be my decision as a parent, not the government's!
Soda has no redeeming qualities at all except it tastes good. Same as ciggarettes, nothing good, only bad comes out of smoking. If we restrict smoking, why is it such a leap to restrict soda? Explain the difference.0 -
What a waste of time and resources.
If you're going to implement laws to fight childhood obesity, do something that'll make a different. Pretending like soda is the culprit is ridiculous. It's overeating. If you're going to demonized sugar, why only soda? We don't just keep children from drinking vodka. They can't have any alcohol. To me, a soda ban (and one that isn't even a ban but forcing parents to be the ones that actually order it) would be like only saying kids can't have vodka but it's ok to have run and champagne.
Growing up, I never had weight issues. My brother however was overweight. We ate the same cooked meals at home, the same snacks, the same school lunches, the same restaurants. Why was he overweight? He ate more. He'd have another pork chop at home. He'd have 2 double cheese burgers and a milkshake at McDonald's. Instead of just having eggs and bacon that dad cooked, he'd make a sandwich with them and put half a cup of mayo on it.
We rarely drank sodas. I loved that sugary sweet tea though!
He wasn't a big tea drinker....he actually was a massive milk drinker. 2%. He'd go through gallons. Multiple 16 oz glasses a day. Go figure.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Since when is it the government's job to make parental decisions in the US?
I know, right? If I want to let my kid smoke, that should be my decision as a parent, not the government's!
Soda has no redeeming qualities at all except it tastes good. Same as ciggarettes, nothing good, only bad comes out of smoking. If we restrict smoking, why is it such a leap to restrict soda? Explain the difference.
Explain the difference between soda and cigarettes? Really....someone went there......smh.0 -
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.I know, right? If I want to let my kid smoke, that should be my decision as a parent, not the government's!
Because sugar is exactly the same as meth, heroine, and cigarettes.
0 -
Convenience is a direct reason. Also, I believe many people live beyond their means because it's the "American" way. So needing 2 jobs to make ends meet, instead of one takes someone out of the loop who could be providing better options of meals to children. Now of course if someone is a single parent this doesn't apply, but even there are still better options to consider than just eating fast food all the time.jessica22222 wrote: »I think the issue is parents who feed that type of food "happy meals" all the time to their kids. We take our kids to fast food maybe every other month if that and I have no problem giving them a small pop because it's a treat, not the norm. I'd think with the obesity epidemic the government has to step in and try to do something to encourage the parents who use fast food as a staple to try to make healthier choices. Sad, but true...
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 -
Ding ding. Kids learn from parents when it comes to habitual behavior.I'd rather see policy designed to prohibit parents from smoking around their small children than making it more difficult for them to get a 12oz soda with a children's meal.
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 -
Darwinism usually wins.Late to the party, but...
I guess I struggle with this to some extent.
My initial reaction is that this isn't a government issue. Parents should decide what their kids can and can't have, and businesses should be free to sell what they can when they can. But I'm fairly intelligent and I make good decisions for my kids (I think).
There are a lot of parents that don't do that. So at what point does someone have to step in? Or will evolution eventually take care of this as the lazy soda drinkers die off earlier and earlier while healthy genes live on and get passed along?
I guess I like intent of the ordinance, I'm just not sure about the execution.
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 -
Being that I just had my MIL's boyfriend died from terminal lung cancer last week, him smoking a pack a day is DISTINCTLY different than him drinking a 20 ounce soda (yes he did that daily and wasn't fat). Please don't try to compare something that has years of factual study to show that it's an actual cause for cancer versus something that's being consumed outside of the US yet doesn't yield the same results as the obesity issues the US has.brianpperkins wrote: »Since when is it the government's job to make parental decisions in the US?
I know, right? If I want to let my kid smoke, that should be my decision as a parent, not the government's!
Soda has no redeeming qualities at all except it tastes good. Same as ciggarettes, nothing good, only bad comes out of smoking. If we restrict smoking, why is it such a leap to restrict soda? Explain the difference.
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 -
bump0
-
It's not a debate on right or left, but on whether or not government should be mandating rulings on people's choices of food.
We've also had a similar discussions on this about school lunches, vaccines, and physical education.
There are things that government should regulate. This I believe shouldn't be one of them. No sides taken, just an opinion on what people think about the move itself.
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
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions