Calories on menus - Government Nannying?

MercuryBlue

Playing devil's advocate here. . . if the government where you lives offers you health care be it universal or age/poverty related (Medicare/Medicaid) shouldn't that goverment take steps that help minimize the costs associated with your future health care needs?? Doesn't it make sense for them to try to stave off expenses in medical costs by providing people with ample opportunities to make informed/best practice choices?

I'm not a "big" government fan.

However, when we sit back and rely on the government to provide us with health care, we have to expect they will take steps to soften the blow of costs.

"We' (used collectively and not personally inclusively) expect our government to take care of so much, yet get riled when they step in to make necessary changes to mitigate future losses/expenses.

Calories on menus.

I think you make a great point, and I also think that this is where I'm seeing the biggest divide in this conversation. It appears to me that the majority of those who oppose this are American, whereas Canadians and people from European nations generally are supportive of it. Canada, being a nation with socialized healthcare, frequently takes steps to improve the health and well-being of its citizens, thereby reducing the demand for healthcare related to preventative illness/disease. For example, there are many programs out there that focus on prenatal and neonatal nutrition, providing education about fitness and nutrition for families of young children, offering assistance for individuals looking to quit smoking, fitness tax credits, etc. While Canada is in many ways similar to the US, and obesity rates have climbed along with theirs, one in four Canadians is obese compared to one in three Americans. To Canadians, this level of "government nannying" is a frequent (and polarizing) topic of discussion; however, generally speaking, Canadians are used to (and generally more accepting) of "interference" from the government if it is in the interests of public health and/or safety. Americans (generally speaking- it varies, of course, from state to state) tend to prefer to let the market drive itself, and believe that people will simply refrain from conducting business with individuals or corporations that they do not approve of.

At it's core, it does somewhat come down to a Socialism Vs. Capitalism debate; as a result, it's not one that people are likely to agree upon any time in the near future.

With that in mind, I fully support the requirements that bigger establishments (with the exception of small, locally-owned businesses) provide nutritional information to their customers, who can then use that information to make healthier choices. Or not, if they prefer. Contrary to what some may think, choosing what to eat is not always a matter of "common sense", as an individual may not possess the knowledge needed to distinguish between meals. Customers at restaurants may have no idea how the food is prepared (baked or fried? Covered in butter? What about sauces?), what a serving size looks like, or where unhealthy additions to the recipe may be hiding. It's not uncommon to find salads in restaurants that have a higher caloric content than entrees such as steaks or burgers.

(EDIT: Apologies for the thread necromancy. How on earth did I wander in here after so long? )