Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should junk food be taxed?
Replies
-
Bottled water isn't junk food and there are probably more plastic bottles used by any nation with the same issue of littering.GaleHawkins wrote: »It would be nice if there was no junk food perhaps but it could lead to major protests I expect. I can see how junk food adds to the litter since it comes in packages that get tossed. A tossed apple will decompose or be eaten by critters.
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
3 -
Bottled water isn't junk food and there are probably more plastic bottles used by any nation with the same issue of littering.GaleHawkins wrote: »It would be nice if there was no junk food perhaps but it could lead to major protests I expect. I can see how junk food adds to the litter since it comes in packages that get tossed. A tossed apple will decompose or be eaten by critters.
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
Good point. Some areas have bottle deposits. My state has a bottle deposit, but it doesn't apply to water. Also, it hasn't changed for decades so the value of returning the bottle is no longer enough to make much (if any) difference on littering.0 -
I think a more interesting and possibly more feasible idea would be to restrict advertising. But again, I think defining junk food would be the barrier to this solution.2
-
CatherineThorsdottir wrote: »I think a more interesting and possibly more feasible idea would be to restrict advertising. But again, I think defining junk food would be the barrier to this solution.
I would support requiring companies to show the calories in a clear way both in print and media advertising. Awareness is lacking in how many calories people consume on a daily basis. If people saw how many calories Doritos, regular soda or whatever has everytime they are advertised, they might stop overeating them.
1 -
I am against government penalizing people for making a perfectly legal choice. I am also against governments being required to assist people with consequences relating to their personal circumstances.
7 -
CatherineThorsdottir wrote: »I think a more interesting and possibly more feasible idea would be to restrict advertising. But again, I think defining junk food would be the barrier to this solution.
I would support requiring companies to show the calories in a clear way both in print and media advertising. Awareness is lacking in how many calories people consume on a daily basis. If people saw how many calories Doritos, regular soda or whatever has everytime they are advertised, they might stop overeating them.
This has been a thing for a long time in many places. It's not helping. I can give you all of the numbers in the world, but if you don't know what they mean, and don't actually track them, it's pointless.
ETA: not necessarily in TV adverts, etc., but I have been seeing more and more nutrition info in big bolded numbers on chip stands, and things of that nature. Also, restaurants in certain cities are required to have the information on their menus. Honestly though, you could have a banner go across the middle of the screen during Super Bowl commercials saying "600 calories per bag", and that's not going to stop anyone from eating it, that wants to eat the stuff to begin with. Hell, just take a look around this website, and these people are on a damned forum that's attached to a nutrional database (though many of the entries are suspect).0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Yes, i'd certainly like to see some kind of "sugar" tax, but not to the extent that we would create "prohibition" conditions.
This isn't something to be taken lightly but otoh neither is a 30% obesity rate.
Not enough is being done to help people control their weight, overeating is a hugely popular hobby.
why in the world do you want the government trying to regulate weight?????? And there is absolutely nothing wrong with sugar when consumed in moderation...
Because the government pays over 50% of healthcare costs and that percentage is rising. Obesity ialong with smoking ate the biggest controllable health risks.
Agree nothing wrong with sugar in modreatiom, just like nothing wrong with booze in moderation and there is tax on that above.the typical sales tax.
not sure how the flawed/unconstitutional right for the government to pay for healthcare costs somehow turns into a right for the government to regulate everyone's weight..
that is a ridiculous argument.
Don't think the government paying for health care has been declared unconstitutional. MedI care and Medicaid have been around for years.
please tell me what section of the constitution provides the government the authority to pay for healthcare costs?
Sure right after you show us where medicare and Medicaid plus insurance for government employees is unconstitutional
there is no inherent power in the constitution for the government to provide healthcare or medicare or medicaid payments....that is your answer...
unless you want to point to a specific authority in the constitution that grants said power?1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Yes, i'd certainly like to see some kind of "sugar" tax, but not to the extent that we would create "prohibition" conditions.
This isn't something to be taken lightly but otoh neither is a 30% obesity rate.
Not enough is being done to help people control their weight, overeating is a hugely popular hobby.
why in the world do you want the government trying to regulate weight?????? And there is absolutely nothing wrong with sugar when consumed in moderation...
Because the government pays over 50% of healthcare costs and that percentage is rising. Obesity ialong with smoking ate the biggest controllable health risks.
Agree nothing wrong with sugar in modreatiom, just like nothing wrong with booze in moderation and there is tax on that above.the typical sales tax.
not sure how the flawed/unconstitutional right for the government to pay for healthcare costs somehow turns into a right for the government to regulate everyone's weight..
that is a ridiculous argument.
Don't think the government paying for health care has been declared unconstitutional. MedI care and Medicaid have been around for years.
please tell me what section of the constitution provides the government the authority to pay for healthcare costs?
Sure right after you show us where medicare and Medicaid plus insurance for government employees is unconstitutional
there is no inherent power in the constitution for the government to provide healthcare or medicare or medicaid payments....that is your answer...
unless you want to point to a specific authority in the constitution that grants said power?
It's definitely not there, but unfortunately, our population is shifting it's mentality toward "well the Constitution doesn't say they can't", instead of the opposite.
It also doesn't say that they can't make you smoke crack while standing on one foot for their amusement. Cool with that one, everybody?1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Yes, i'd certainly like to see some kind of "sugar" tax, but not to the extent that we would create "prohibition" conditions.
This isn't something to be taken lightly but otoh neither is a 30% obesity rate.
Not enough is being done to help people control their weight, overeating is a hugely popular hobby.
why in the world do you want the government trying to regulate weight?????? And there is absolutely nothing wrong with sugar when consumed in moderation...
Because the government pays over 50% of healthcare costs and that percentage is rising. Obesity ialong with smoking ate the biggest controllable health risks.
Agree nothing wrong with sugar in modreatiom, just like nothing wrong with booze in moderation and there is tax on that above.the typical sales tax.
not sure how the flawed/unconstitutional right for the government to pay for healthcare costs somehow turns into a right for the government to regulate everyone's weight..
that is a ridiculous argument.
Don't think the government paying for health care has been declared unconstitutional. MedI care and Medicaid have been around for years.
please tell me what section of the constitution provides the government the authority to pay for healthcare costs?
Sure right after you show us where medicare and Medicaid plus insurance for government employees is unconstitutional
there is no inherent power in the constitution for the government to provide healthcare or medicare or medicaid payments....that is your answer...
unless you want to point to a specific authority in the constitution that grants said power?
It's definitely not there, but unfortunately, our population is shifting it's mentality toward "well the Constitution doesn't say they can't", instead of the opposite.
It also doesn't say that they can't make you smoke crack while standing on one foot for their amusement. Cool with that one, everybody?
the standard response is that it is "implied" which is a way of saying "it is not in there, but we are going to make it up because we know better" Technically, the Supreme Court never had the authority to rule a law unconstitutional, and they just made that up in Marburry VS Madison...4 -
Nah, it'd be pointless. I'd be angry about it, but I'd still be ordering crap off of GrubHub, buying bakery stuff in-store, etc.0
-
CatherineThorsdottir wrote: »I think a more interesting and possibly more feasible idea would be to restrict advertising. But again, I think defining junk food would be the barrier to this solution.
I would support requiring companies to show the calories in a clear way both in print and media advertising. Awareness is lacking in how many calories people consume on a daily basis. If people saw how many calories Doritos, regular soda or whatever has everytime they are advertised, they might stop overeating them.
Smaller bottles of pop here do have the calorie amounts on them.
Like this one (it is a link from Daily Mail in UK so maybe this is not just here).
Some bars do too. I've never paid attention to if all of them have them or not. Or if it is a certain company or what..JPG)
0 -
3DR, all packaged food is labelled in the U.S. sometimes the labeling is a little misleading, but once you've made it through third grade, that's just another in a very long line of excuses. I'm assuming most third graders aren't reading food labels. Yet.4
-
I'm entertained by all the people supporting this and then somehow reasoning that it would apply to high sugar/carb products. Right now the US government has a very interesting definition of "healthy", and if they went and taxed things that were "unhealthy", a lot of people making this argument (several of which I know are LCHF) would likely be upset.
Case in point: Kind bars just received a cease and desist letter from the USDA to stop them from using the word "healthy" on their labeling because their bars do not meet the government definition due to the high fat content of the nuts used in their products. They have no such restrictions on high sugar levels or use of HFCS or artificial sweeteners.11 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Thinking though.
Perhaps a "taxed unless the manufacturer can prove it meets specific health standards" could make sense. It might make it so that manufacturers strive to make their products a bit more "healthy". They would have incentives in that more people might buy the product.
That being said... I can see that system failing in other aspects already. Like low fat items - chalk full of fillers (or so I hear), but marketed as healthier than full fat alternatives. Or organic.. still full of pesticides, just not the ones on the "no-no" list... (or so I've heard).
I don't know how you establish guidelines that aren't murky. Do you tax all chips, or would oven-baked ones get an exemption for trying to be healthier? Is reducing fat a good way to tell if something is healthier? Wait, no, we did that already and it was a terrible idea. Do you have to reduce fat while not adding more than 5% sugar? Or do we just go on calorie ratios - reduce calories by 30% or more and it's tax-exempt? But then do you end up with people consuming more because they're "healthy," defeating the whole purpose?
Hmmm that's true too.1 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »CatherineThorsdottir wrote: »I think a more interesting and possibly more feasible idea would be to restrict advertising. But again, I think defining junk food would be the barrier to this solution.
I would support requiring companies to show the calories in a clear way both in print and media advertising. Awareness is lacking in how many calories people consume on a daily basis. If people saw how many calories Doritos, regular soda or whatever has everytime they are advertised, they might stop overeating them.
Smaller bottles of pop here do have the calorie amounts on them.
Like this one (it is a link from Daily Mail in UK so maybe this is not just here).
Some bars do too. I've never paid attention to if all of them have them or not. Or if it is a certain company or what.
I am talking about requiring companies to list calories on TV commercials and print advertising. I do like when products I want have it listed like that. Mostly because I don't need my glasses to read it on the nutritional label.
Restaurants too. Applebee's was advertising bottomless french fries baskets for awhile. I think it would help the overweight population to know that the basket of fries is 430 calories.
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »3DR, all packaged food is labelled in the U.S. sometimes the labeling is a little misleading, but once you've made it through third grade, that's just another in a very long line of excuses. I'm assuming most third graders aren't reading food labels. Yet.
Sorry, I meant that this labels were in addition to the regular labelling. In case, you know, you don't want to bother to turn the bar over to read the nutrition label, it's right on the front too.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »CatherineThorsdottir wrote: »I think a more interesting and possibly more feasible idea would be to restrict advertising. But again, I think defining junk food would be the barrier to this solution.
I would support requiring companies to show the calories in a clear way both in print and media advertising. Awareness is lacking in how many calories people consume on a daily basis. If people saw how many calories Doritos, regular soda or whatever has everytime they are advertised, they might stop overeating them.
Smaller bottles of pop here do have the calorie amounts on them.
Like this one (it is a link from Daily Mail in UK so maybe this is not just here).
Some bars do too. I've never paid attention to if all of them have them or not. Or if it is a certain company or what.
I am talking about requiring companies to list calories on TV commercials and print advertising. I do like when products I want have it listed like that. Mostly because I don't need my glasses to read it on the nutritional label.
Restaurants too. Applebee's was advertising bottomless french fries baskets for awhile. I think it would help the overweight population to know that the basket of fries is 430 calories.
Oh, come on. Who doesn't know that fried food has...wait for it...oil?0 -
cmriverside wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »CatherineThorsdottir wrote: »I think a more interesting and possibly more feasible idea would be to restrict advertising. But again, I think defining junk food would be the barrier to this solution.
I would support requiring companies to show the calories in a clear way both in print and media advertising. Awareness is lacking in how many calories people consume on a daily basis. If people saw how many calories Doritos, regular soda or whatever has everytime they are advertised, they might stop overeating them.
Smaller bottles of pop here do have the calorie amounts on them.
Like this one (it is a link from Daily Mail in UK so maybe this is not just here).
Some bars do too. I've never paid attention to if all of them have them or not. Or if it is a certain company or what.
I am talking about requiring companies to list calories on TV commercials and print advertising. I do like when products I want have it listed like that. Mostly because I don't need my glasses to read it on the nutritional label.
Restaurants too. Applebee's was advertising bottomless french fries baskets for awhile. I think it would help the overweight population to know that the basket of fries is 430 calories.
Oh, come on. Who doesn't know that fried food has...wait for it...oil?
Sure they know that fried food has oil but do they know how many calories there are in fried foods.
Have you not seen the treads here from people saying they knew it was a lot but didn't know just how many calories they were overeating? People on MFP know. The population at large not so much.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »CatherineThorsdottir wrote: »I think a more interesting and possibly more feasible idea would be to restrict advertising. But again, I think defining junk food would be the barrier to this solution.
I would support requiring companies to show the calories in a clear way both in print and media advertising. Awareness is lacking in how many calories people consume on a daily basis. If people saw how many calories Doritos, regular soda or whatever has everytime they are advertised, they might stop overeating them.
Smaller bottles of pop here do have the calorie amounts on them.
Like this one (it is a link from Daily Mail in UK so maybe this is not just here).
Some bars do too. I've never paid attention to if all of them have them or not. Or if it is a certain company or what.
I am talking about requiring companies to list calories on TV commercials and print advertising. I do like when products I want have it listed like that. Mostly because I don't need my glasses to read it on the nutritional label.
Restaurants too. Applebee's was advertising bottomless french fries baskets for awhile. I think it would help the overweight population to know that the basket of fries is 430 calories.
Oh, come on. Who doesn't know that fried food has...wait for it...oil?
Sure they know that fried food has oil but do they know how many calories there are in fried foods.
Have you not seen the treads here from people saying they knew it was a lot but didn't know just how many calories they were overeating? People on MFP know. The population at large not so much.
And taxation is going to solve that problem? That seems to be an argument for labeling menus with calorie information (which studies have shown does not deter people from ordering the same dish at a restaurant).1 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »CatherineThorsdottir wrote: »I think a more interesting and possibly more feasible idea would be to restrict advertising. But again, I think defining junk food would be the barrier to this solution.
I would support requiring companies to show the calories in a clear way both in print and media advertising. Awareness is lacking in how many calories people consume on a daily basis. If people saw how many calories Doritos, regular soda or whatever has everytime they are advertised, they might stop overeating them.
Smaller bottles of pop here do have the calorie amounts on them.
Like this one (it is a link from Daily Mail in UK so maybe this is not just here).
Some bars do too. I've never paid attention to if all of them have them or not. Or if it is a certain company or what.
I am talking about requiring companies to list calories on TV commercials and print advertising. I do like when products I want have it listed like that. Mostly because I don't need my glasses to read it on the nutritional label.
Restaurants too. Applebee's was advertising bottomless french fries baskets for awhile. I think it would help the overweight population to know that the basket of fries is 430 calories.
I get some people lack education on general nutrition but I really don't know anyone who doesn't know that a basket of fries is a LOT of calories.cmriverside wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »CatherineThorsdottir wrote: »I think a more interesting and possibly more feasible idea would be to restrict advertising. But again, I think defining junk food would be the barrier to this solution.
I would support requiring companies to show the calories in a clear way both in print and media advertising. Awareness is lacking in how many calories people consume on a daily basis. If people saw how many calories Doritos, regular soda or whatever has everytime they are advertised, they might stop overeating them.
Smaller bottles of pop here do have the calorie amounts on them.
Like this one (it is a link from Daily Mail in UK so maybe this is not just here).
Some bars do too. I've never paid attention to if all of them have them or not. Or if it is a certain company or what.
I am talking about requiring companies to list calories on TV commercials and print advertising. I do like when products I want have it listed like that. Mostly because I don't need my glasses to read it on the nutritional label.
Restaurants too. Applebee's was advertising bottomless french fries baskets for awhile. I think it would help the overweight population to know that the basket of fries is 430 calories.
Oh, come on. Who doesn't know that fried food has...wait for it...oil?
Sure they know that fried food has oil but do they know how many calories there are in fried foods.
Have you not seen the treads here from people saying they knew it was a lot but didn't know just how many calories they were overeating? People on MFP know. The population at large not so much.
IMO, the number is useless without context. 430 calories is meaningless without understanding your overall calorie intake altogether. Those people are now seeing their food in the context of their overall goal now.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »CatherineThorsdottir wrote: »I think a more interesting and possibly more feasible idea would be to restrict advertising. But again, I think defining junk food would be the barrier to this solution.
I would support requiring companies to show the calories in a clear way both in print and media advertising. Awareness is lacking in how many calories people consume on a daily basis. If people saw how many calories Doritos, regular soda or whatever has everytime they are advertised, they might stop overeating them.
Smaller bottles of pop here do have the calorie amounts on them.
Like this one (it is a link from Daily Mail in UK so maybe this is not just here).
Some bars do too. I've never paid attention to if all of them have them or not. Or if it is a certain company or what.
I am talking about requiring companies to list calories on TV commercials and print advertising. I do like when products I want have it listed like that. Mostly because I don't need my glasses to read it on the nutritional label.
Restaurants too. Applebee's was advertising bottomless french fries baskets for awhile. I think it would help the overweight population to know that the basket of fries is 430 calories.
Oh, come on. Who doesn't know that fried food has...wait for it...oil?
Sure they know that fried food has oil but do they know how many calories there are in fried foods.
Have you not seen the treads here from people saying they knew it was a lot but didn't know just how many calories they were overeating? People on MFP know. The population at large not so much.
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »3DR, all packaged food is labelled in the U.S. sometimes the labeling is a little misleading, but once you've made it through third grade, that's just another in a very long line of excuses. I'm assuming most third graders aren't reading food labels. Yet.
That is part of the point about education. If third graders aren't reading food labels, fine. But by the time they leave 5th grade, they should be able to read and understand nutrition labeling. I don't think that is part of the curriculum today, but it should be. In fact, I wonder if nutrition labels are included in any K-12 curriculum in the U.S.
Personally, I was given education about nutrition labels towards the end of 4th grade and beginning of 5th grade, but it wasn't provided through public school and it wasn't something my peers learned. It was only because of medical reasons, for which I received education on a large number of relevant topics, that I was taught how to read and understand nutrition labels. I couldn't keep track of all the times over the years when I've encountered well-educated adults who could not figure out basic information when it was provided to them. Most often, I see errors with serving size. For example, someone will look at a box of cereal, say "it has 180 calories in it" and proceed to pour a bowl that easily has 3 times that much. It isn't that the information isn't available, but for some reason people have a hard time understanding it.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »CatherineThorsdottir wrote: »I think a more interesting and possibly more feasible idea would be to restrict advertising. But again, I think defining junk food would be the barrier to this solution.
I would support requiring companies to show the calories in a clear way both in print and media advertising. Awareness is lacking in how many calories people consume on a daily basis. If people saw how many calories Doritos, regular soda or whatever has everytime they are advertised, they might stop overeating them.
Smaller bottles of pop here do have the calorie amounts on them.
Like this one (it is a link from Daily Mail in UK so maybe this is not just here).
Some bars do too. I've never paid attention to if all of them have them or not. Or if it is a certain company or what.
I am talking about requiring companies to list calories on TV commercials and print advertising. I do like when products I want have it listed like that. Mostly because I don't need my glasses to read it on the nutritional label.
Restaurants too. Applebee's was advertising bottomless french fries baskets for awhile. I think it would help the overweight population to know that the basket of fries is 430 calories.
Oh, come on. Who doesn't know that fried food has...wait for it...oil?
Sure they know that fried food has oil but do they know how many calories there are in fried foods.
Have you not seen the treads here from people saying they knew it was a lot but didn't know just how many calories they were overeating? People on MFP know. The population at large not so much.
The population at large doesn't give a toss about calories, yeah they know that big number are bad small numbers are good, but that's where it ends. When I was obese and saw a large calorie number my reaction was "meh, who cares" and that's even if I looked at the nutrition label in the first place which I only did by accident while looking at the ingredients to see if celery was listed (allergic) or if it had beef flavor (don't like it).
Listing calories everywhere would help those who already are trying to watch their weight, it would not dissuade anyone else from buying that cinnamon bun.
4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »3DR, all packaged food is labelled in the U.S. sometimes the labeling is a little misleading, but once you've made it through third grade, that's just another in a very long line of excuses. I'm assuming most third graders aren't reading food labels. Yet.
That is part of the point about education. If third graders aren't reading food labels, fine. But by the time they leave 5th grade, they should be able to read and understand nutrition labeling. I don't think that is part of the curriculum today, but it should be. In fact, I wonder if nutrition labels are included in any K-12 curriculum in the U.S.
Personally, I was given education about nutrition labels towards the end of 4th grade and beginning of 5th grade, but it wasn't provided through public school and it wasn't something my peers learned. It was only because of medical reasons, for which I received education on a large number of relevant topics, that I was taught how to read and understand nutrition labels. I couldn't keep track of all the times over the years when I've encountered well-educated adults who could not figure out basic information when it was provided to them. Most often, I see errors with serving size. For example, someone will look at a box of cereal, say "it has 180 calories in it" and proceed to pour a bowl that easily has 3 times that much. It isn't that the information isn't available, but for some reason people have a hard time understanding it.
I went to public school and we did learn how to read nutrition labels in 6th grade (had to do a whole project and everything). That said, that was in 1991 and the nutrition facts labels were a relatively new thing. Not sure if they teach that anymore.
0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did I say in any of this about low carb? I said "healthy". And those 2 do not go hand in hand.
1 -
kristen6350 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did I say in any of this about low carb? I said "healthy". And those 2 do not go hand in hand.
Oh good you are back! We went off on a huge tangent because of your extremely logical post, but I think most people got the gist...3 -
OP - NO, big fat NO. It's already taxed under state sales taxes. Personal responsibility should rule the day, anyway. Nanny state BS is what causes this kind of thinking.
Not personally attacking you. I'm just attacking the whole notion of such thinking. It is wrong-headed from the word go.
Not to mention the difficulty of defining "junk food." I can make an extremely good argument for a Double 1/4 Pounder from McDonald's being part of a well-balanced diet, especially for someone as active as I am with the calorie, protein, and carbohydrate requirements I have just to maintain my weight and current muscle mass.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did I say in any of this about low carb? I said "healthy". And those 2 do not go hand in hand.
Oh good you are back! We went off on a huge tangent because of your extremely logical post, but I think most people got the gist...
HOLY CRAP. I didn't realize what a crap storm that would produce.
I think I'll shut up now...
2 -
kristen6350 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did I say in any of this about low carb? I said "healthy". And those 2 do not go hand in hand.
Oh good you are back! We went off on a huge tangent because of your extremely logical post, but I think most people got the gist...
HOLY CRAP. I didn't realize what a crap storm that would produce.
I think I'll shut up now...
Meh.
10 -
And taxation is going to solve that problem?
Does anybody think seat belts are supposed to solve the problem of people dying in cars? Show of hands? No one?
Ok, does anybody think having police is going to solve the problem of crime? Again, no one.
I could go on and on with examples but the point is you're asking the wrong question.1
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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