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.

Government control of portion sizes and calories

1356

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?

    You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
    Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;

    Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.

    Airborne Ranger in the army.

    Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.

    Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
    Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
    I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.

    I'm sure no one is going to restrict the amount of food you can buy. I wouldn't waste energy worrying about it.

    Having to buy two meals instead of one large one costs quite a bit more.

    At subway for example, a footlong BLT sub costs $7.96. If the government said they could no longer sell footlong subs because they have too many calories and I had to buy two 6 inch subs it would now cost me $10.18. That's $2.59 more.

    You're assuming that prices wouldn't change or places like Subway wouldn't institute special deals specifically for customers who were seeking greater volume in the wake of such changes.

  • peckchris3267
    peckchris3267 Posts: 368 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?

    You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
    Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;

    Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.

    Airborne Ranger in the army.

    Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.

    Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
    Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
    I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.

    I'm sure no one is going to restrict the amount of food you can buy. I wouldn't waste energy worrying about it.

    Having to buy two meals instead of one large one costs quite a bit more.

    At subway for example, a footlong BLT sub costs $7.96. If the government said they could no longer sell footlong subs because they have too many calories and I had to buy two 6 inch subs it would now cost me $10.18. That's $2.59 more.

    You're assuming that prices wouldn't change or places like Subway wouldn't institute special deals specifically for customers who were seeking greater volume in the wake of such changes.
    Yes, I am assuming that. They would make more money and be able to blame the prices on the government. Win win for them.
  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,213 Member
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?

    You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
    Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;

    Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.

    Airborne Ranger in the army.

    Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.

    Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
    Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
    I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.

    I'm sure no one is going to restrict the amount of food you can buy. I wouldn't waste energy worrying about it.

    Having to buy two meals instead of one large one costs quite a bit more.

    At subway for example, a footlong BLT sub costs $7.96. If the government said they could no longer sell footlong subs because they have too many calories and I had to buy two 6 inch subs it would now cost me $10.18. That's $2.59 more.
    Footlong subs are not going to be banned in the UK. I promise.

    Source: I fricking live in the UK, and I know how government regulation works here.

    In an alternate universe where they were banned, I'd fund the price increase with the money I save by only ever buying 500ml of Coca Cola per person when we eat out.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Quick serve (places like Pret a Manger, which is a UK based chain, I think) typically all have calories posted where I am (Chicago). I like that, since I think it results in them having a number of lower cal options.

    Local places (non chains) don't, and I think that's fine -- too much burden for them as they change the menu more and nothing is standardized, and no one has to go there if seeing calories is a premium (and they will generally answer questions about how things are made in a way you don't get at a quick serve place).

    The problem with giant serving sizes in many places is because of consumer demand -- people want "value." Does it make sense to basically say "in the current world it's not in your best interest since too many people are fat, sorry"? It rubs me the wrong way, but if the UK wants to experiment with it and see how it goes, I don't care.

    This. I don't think the problem is that the portions are too large (there are smaller portion options available like a plain hamburger) or that the information isn't available, the problem is that people either don't care or don't know enough about energy balance to put it into use.
    And if I want a double quarter pounder and large fries I should be allowed to buy it without government restrictions.

    The GB challenge with this is the government pays 80%+ of healthcare costs and it's going broke. If someone is going to get services from an organization, it is probably that organization's right to make restrictions on things that impact its costs.

    It's not going broke, it's underfunded. Vast difference. We have a predominantly right wing press in the UK and a conservative government at the moment who would love it if healthcare was privatised. Making the NHS look like it's failing is a nifty way to make it happen.

    The simple definition for going broke for a business, government entity, family, individual, etc is their revenue (regardless of the source) is less than their expenses on a regular basis. You can do 3 things to fix this, bring in more revenue, reduce expenses or some combination of the 2. It appears GB is looking at the cost side with limits on portion sizes/calories.

  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    edited August 2017
    If governments are hoping to reduce the obesity rates it would be more effective to put the time and money into a coordinated "Healthy You!" type campaign rather by going about it piecemeal, one negative element at a time. They won't make a dent in habits for the majority of the population any more than taxing soda or reducing fast food portions will make much difference for most (people will eat and drink what they want unless there's a reason that's compelling to them not to, such as developing diabetes or heart disease), but I think this type of program could reach a greater percentage of the minority.

    Sound-bites that highlight a single component of healthy eating aren't useful to the majority of people, even those actively trying to manage their weight. Taxing soda (because sugar is bad) but not applying the same logic to candy bars and cake, monitoring fast food portion sizes without also monitoring restaurant servings doesn't teach people how to eat more nutrient-dense food in appropriate portions. Pointing people towards the current version of the "food pyramid" doesn't teach them how to incorporate the principles into their everyday meals (for instance, for the longest time I thought "eat 5-7 servings of fruits and 2-3 servings of fruit daily" meant actually eating 1 portion of 5 different vegetables and 2 different fruits, which was never going to happen).

    I don't know where the money would come from, but I think the only kind of effective government-sponsored weight and health management program would have to involve a massive, multi-media campaign (internet, tv/radio. billboards) providing clear directions on how to access comprehensive support in those areas. Have the information available in printed form in places people tend to go anyway as well as online, like "pick up your guide to a healthy life at any post office or grocery store". Include detailed instructions on how to meal-plan and include the foods you like. How to work with chaotic schedules. How to avoid the "all or nothing" mindset by incorporating reasonable amounts of treats into daily life. Create "healthy living" centers providing individual support for both the short and long term. Make risk management and mitigation a required class in high school.

    Note that I'm only laying out what I think I think it would take for a government-sponsored push to reduce obesity and the accompanying health costs. I'm not advocating for or against such a program, and have mixed feelings on the complications involved in funding in particular.

    edits for spelling, grammar and punctuation
  • peckchris3267
    peckchris3267 Posts: 368 Member
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?

    You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
    Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;

    Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.

    Airborne Ranger in the army.

    Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.

    Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
    Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
    I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.

    I'm sure no one is going to restrict the amount of food you can buy. I wouldn't waste energy worrying about it.

    Having to buy two meals instead of one large one costs quite a bit more.

    At subway for example, a footlong BLT sub costs $7.96. If the government said they could no longer sell footlong subs because they have too many calories and I had to buy two 6 inch subs it would now cost me $10.18. That's $2.59 more.
    Footlong subs are not going to be banned in the UK. I promise.

    Source: I fricking live in the UK, and I know how government regulation works here.

    In an alternate universe where they were banned, I'd fund the price increase with the money I save by only ever buying 500ml of Coca Cola per person when we eat out.
    No one ever imagined that 32ounce sodas would be banned in NYC either, but it happened.
  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,213 Member

    Packerjohn wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Quick serve (places like Pret a Manger, which is a UK based chain, I think) typically all have calories posted where I am (Chicago). I like that, since I think it results in them having a number of lower cal options.

    Local places (non chains) don't, and I think that's fine -- too much burden for them as they change the menu more and nothing is standardized, and no one has to go there if seeing calories is a premium (and they will generally answer questions about how things are made in a way you don't get at a quick serve place).

    The problem with giant serving sizes in many places is because of consumer demand -- people want "value." Does it make sense to basically say "in the current world it's not in your best interest since too many people are fat, sorry"? It rubs me the wrong way, but if the UK wants to experiment with it and see how it goes, I don't care.

    This. I don't think the problem is that the portions are too large (there are smaller portion options available like a plain hamburger) or that the information isn't available, the problem is that people either don't care or don't know enough about energy balance to put it into use.
    And if I want a double quarter pounder and large fries I should be allowed to buy it without government restrictions.

    The GB challenge with this is the government pays 80%+ of healthcare costs and it's going broke. If someone is going to get services from an organization, it is probably that organization's right to make restrictions on things that impact its costs.

    It's not going broke, it's underfunded. Vast difference. We have a predominantly right wing press in the UK and a conservative government at the moment who would love it if healthcare was privatised. Making the NHS look like it's failing is a nifty way to make it happen.

    The simple definition for going broke for a business, government entity, family, individual, etc is their revenue (regardless of the source) is less than their expenses on a regular basis. You can do 3 things to fix this, bring in more revenue, reduce expenses or some combination of the 2. It appears GB is looking at the cost side with limits on portion sizes/calories.
    What if the revenue is being allocated to different areas, i.e. not the NHS, due to the ideological convictions of the decisionmakers and/or corruption?

    Or simply spent poorly, on account of a neverending stream of false economies. For example, a minister tries to save money by cutting funding to coastal sea defenses. Severe flooding, to the value of much more than the cost of the coast defenses (hello, we are an ISLAND. The coast needs upkeep...) then happens along coastal towns...

    P.S. This. Actually. Happened.

  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Quick serve (places like Pret a Manger, which is a UK based chain, I think) typically all have calories posted where I am (Chicago). I like that, since I think it results in them having a number of lower cal options.

    Local places (non chains) don't, and I think that's fine -- too much burden for them as they change the menu more and nothing is standardized, and no one has to go there if seeing calories is a premium (and they will generally answer questions about how things are made in a way you don't get at a quick serve place).

    The problem with giant serving sizes in many places is because of consumer demand -- people want "value." Does it make sense to basically say "in the current world it's not in your best interest since too many people are fat, sorry"? It rubs me the wrong way, but if the UK wants to experiment with it and see how it goes, I don't care.

    This. I don't think the problem is that the portions are too large (there are smaller portion options available like a plain hamburger) or that the information isn't available, the problem is that people either don't care or don't know enough about energy balance to put it into use.
    And if I want a double quarter pounder and large fries I should be allowed to buy it without government restrictions.

    The GB challenge with this is the government pays 80%+ of healthcare costs and it's going broke. If someone is going to get services from an organization, it is probably that organization's right to make restrictions on things that impact its costs.

    It's not going broke, it's underfunded. Vast difference. We have a predominantly right wing press in the UK and a conservative government at the moment who would love it if healthcare was privatised. Making the NHS look like it's failing is a nifty way to make it happen.

    The simple definition for going broke for a business, government entity, family, individual, etc is their revenue (regardless of the source) is less than their expenses on a regular basis. You can do 3 things to fix this, bring in more revenue, reduce expenses or some combination of the 2. It appears GB is looking at the cost side with limits on portion sizes/calories.
    What if the revenue is being allocated to different areas, i.e. not the NHS, due to the ideological convictions of the decisionmakers and/or corruption?

    Or simply spent poorly, on account of a neverending stream of false economies. For example, a minister tries to save money by cutting funding to coastal sea defenses. Severe flooding, to the value of much more than the cost of the coast defenses (hello, we are an ISLAND. The coast needs upkeep...) then happens along coastal towns...

    P.S. This. Actually. Happened.

    It's still going broke. Believe me, I live in Illinois, we're the definition of corruption, allocating money to other areas (huge pension mess), debt at close to junk bond status, etc.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited August 2017
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?

    You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
    Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;

    Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.

    Airborne Ranger in the army.

    Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.

    Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
    Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
    I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.

    I'm sure no one is going to restrict the amount of food you can buy. I wouldn't waste energy worrying about it.

    Having to buy two meals instead of one large one costs quite a bit more.

    At subway for example, a footlong BLT sub costs $7.96. If the government said they could no longer sell footlong subs because they have too many calories and I had to buy two 6 inch subs it would now cost me $10.18. That's $2.59 more.

    You're assuming that prices wouldn't change or places like Subway wouldn't institute special deals specifically for customers who were seeking greater volume in the wake of such changes.
    Yes, I am assuming that. They would make more money and be able to blame the prices on the government. Win win for them.

    I think that's a completely baseless assumption. Price is a major driver in fast food decision making and offering good deals is a way to get people in the door.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Quick serve (places like Pret a Manger, which is a UK based chain, I think) typically all have calories posted where I am (Chicago). I like that, since I think it results in them having a number of lower cal options.

    Local places (non chains) don't, and I think that's fine -- too much burden for them as they change the menu more and nothing is standardized, and no one has to go there if seeing calories is a premium (and they will generally answer questions about how things are made in a way you don't get at a quick serve place).

    The problem with giant serving sizes in many places is because of consumer demand -- people want "value." Does it make sense to basically say "in the current world it's not in your best interest since too many people are fat, sorry"? It rubs me the wrong way, but if the UK wants to experiment with it and see how it goes, I don't care.

    This. I don't think the problem is that the portions are too large (there are smaller portion options available like a plain hamburger) or that the information isn't available, the problem is that people either don't care or don't know enough about energy balance to put it into use.
    And if I want a double quarter pounder and large fries I should be allowed to buy it without government restrictions.

    The GB challenge with this is the government pays 80%+ of healthcare costs and it's going broke. If someone is going to get services from an organization, it is probably that organization's right to make restrictions on things that impact its costs.

    It's not going broke, it's underfunded. Vast difference. We have a predominantly right wing press in the UK and a conservative government at the moment who would love it if healthcare was privatised. Making the NHS look like it's failing is a nifty way to make it happen.

    The simple definition for going broke for a business, government entity, family, individual, etc is their revenue (regardless of the source) is less than their expenses on a regular basis. You can do 3 things to fix this, bring in more revenue, reduce expenses or some combination of the 2. It appears GB is looking at the cost side with limits on portion sizes/calories.
    What if the revenue is being allocated to different areas, i.e. not the NHS, due to the ideological convictions of the decisionmakers and/or corruption?

    Or simply spent poorly, on account of a neverending stream of false economies. For example, a minister tries to save money by cutting funding to coastal sea defenses. Severe flooding, to the value of much more than the cost of the coast defenses (hello, we are an ISLAND. The coast needs upkeep...) then happens along coastal towns...

    P.S. This. Actually. Happened.

    This is very likely to happen in the US, since a lot of these taxes are local or state and go into the general fund earmarked for specific purposes. The funding can be diverted as deemed necessary by the government. I see these kinds of explicit taxes as cynical money-grabs and not an attempt to reduce obesity in the general population.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?

    You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
    Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;

    Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.

    Airborne Ranger in the army.

    Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.

    Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
    Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
    I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.

    I'm sure no one is going to restrict the amount of food you can buy. I wouldn't waste energy worrying about it.

    Having to buy two meals instead of one large one costs quite a bit more.

    At subway for example, a footlong BLT sub costs $7.96. If the government said they could no longer sell footlong subs because they have too many calories and I had to buy two 6 inch subs it would now cost me $10.18. That's $2.59 more.
    Footlong subs are not going to be banned in the UK. I promise.

    Source: I fricking live in the UK, and I know how government regulation works here.

    In an alternate universe where they were banned, I'd fund the price increase with the money I save by only ever buying 500ml of Coca Cola per person when we eat out.
    No one ever imagined that 32ounce sodas would be banned in NYC either, but it happened.

    Oh, no. This again?
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?

    You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
    Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;

    Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.

    Airborne Ranger in the army.

    Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.

    Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
    Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
    I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.

    I'm sure no one is going to restrict the amount of food you can buy. I wouldn't waste energy worrying about it.

    Having to buy two meals instead of one large one costs quite a bit more.

    At subway for example, a footlong BLT sub costs $7.96. If the government said they could no longer sell footlong subs because they have too many calories and I had to buy two 6 inch subs it would now cost me $10.18. That's $2.59 more.

    You're assuming that prices wouldn't change or places like Subway wouldn't institute special deals specifically for customers who were seeking greater volume in the wake of such changes.
    Yes, I am assuming that. They would make more money and be able to blame the prices on the government. Win win for them.

    This is how it would work in the absence of competition.

    And "I assume" isn't a great argument. Just saying.
  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,213 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Quick serve (places like Pret a Manger, which is a UK based chain, I think) typically all have calories posted where I am (Chicago). I like that, since I think it results in them having a number of lower cal options.

    Local places (non chains) don't, and I think that's fine -- too much burden for them as they change the menu more and nothing is standardized, and no one has to go there if seeing calories is a premium (and they will generally answer questions about how things are made in a way you don't get at a quick serve place).

    The problem with giant serving sizes in many places is because of consumer demand -- people want "value." Does it make sense to basically say "in the current world it's not in your best interest since too many people are fat, sorry"? It rubs me the wrong way, but if the UK wants to experiment with it and see how it goes, I don't care.

    This. I don't think the problem is that the portions are too large (there are smaller portion options available like a plain hamburger) or that the information isn't available, the problem is that people either don't care or don't know enough about energy balance to put it into use.
    And if I want a double quarter pounder and large fries I should be allowed to buy it without government restrictions.

    The GB challenge with this is the government pays 80%+ of healthcare costs and it's going broke. If someone is going to get services from an organization, it is probably that organization's right to make restrictions on things that impact its costs.

    It's not going broke, it's underfunded. Vast difference. We have a predominantly right wing press in the UK and a conservative government at the moment who would love it if healthcare was privatised. Making the NHS look like it's failing is a nifty way to make it happen.

    The simple definition for going broke for a business, government entity, family, individual, etc is their revenue (regardless of the source) is less than their expenses on a regular basis. You can do 3 things to fix this, bring in more revenue, reduce expenses or some combination of the 2. It appears GB is looking at the cost side with limits on portion sizes/calories.
    What if the revenue is being allocated to different areas, i.e. not the NHS, due to the ideological convictions of the decisionmakers and/or corruption?

    Or simply spent poorly, on account of a neverending stream of false economies. For example, a minister tries to save money by cutting funding to coastal sea defenses. Severe flooding, to the value of much more than the cost of the coast defenses (hello, we are an ISLAND. The coast needs upkeep...) then happens along coastal towns...

    P.S. This. Actually. Happened.

    It's still going broke. Believe me, I live in Illinois, we're the definition of corruption, allocating money to other areas (huge pension mess), debt at close to junk bond status, etc.
    I think it's intellectually dishonest to conflate different issues, like mismanagement, corruption or prioritisation under "broke".

    I have plenty of money to feed and clothe my children each day as long as I make sensible decisions like a reasonable adult . However, if I spend an exorbitant amount of money on discretionary home improvements and renovations (a palatial bathroom, for instance- British readers may know where I'm going with this one), I won't. But would it be fair or justifiable for me to say, "I know it's my responsibility to care for my children, but they can only have one meal a day for the next five years because I'm broke. It's terribly unfortunate, but just not enough revenue has come in from my job to cover our expenses, and costs have to be cut somewhere"?

    In my view, that would be totally wrong. I feel the same way about the underfunding of public services in my country at the moment.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?

    You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
    Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;

    Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.

    Airborne Ranger in the army.

    Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.

    Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
    Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
    I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.

    I'm sure no one is going to restrict the amount of food you can buy. I wouldn't waste energy worrying about it.

    Having to buy two meals instead of one large one costs quite a bit more.

    In this hypothetical situation, I'm sure they'd find a way around it, like buy one, get a second for half price.

    But OBVIOUSLY the US is not going to limit fast food portion sizes.

    And the thing in the UK is about setting targets companies can voluntarily choose to meet.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?

    You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
    Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;

    Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.

    Airborne Ranger in the army.

    Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.

    Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
    Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
    I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.

    I'm sure no one is going to restrict the amount of food you can buy. I wouldn't waste energy worrying about it.

    Having to buy two meals instead of one large one costs quite a bit more.

    At subway for example, a footlong BLT sub costs $7.96. If the government said they could no longer sell footlong subs because they have too many calories and I had to buy two 6 inch subs it would now cost me $10.18. That's $2.59 more.

    You're assuming that prices wouldn't change or places like Subway wouldn't institute special deals specifically for customers who were seeking greater volume in the wake of such changes.
    Yes, I am assuming that. They would make more money and be able to blame the prices on the government. Win win for them.

    If the goal was to make more money based on smaller sizes, they wouldn't have the giant sizes they do now. They clearly find it beneficial to be able to sell volume/value.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?

    You realize how small a % of the population this involves in a developed country?
    Well, let's see. Here are some of my past jobs;

    Forestry, managed forest and fought forest fires.

    Airborne Ranger in the army.

    Pipe fitter/pipe welder, new construction.

    Prior to those I was a competitive triathlete. Completed 2 ironman triathlons,(2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run) and countless shorter ones over the course of 5 years while working in forestry and landscaping.
    Those are just my experiences, how about professions like roofing?
    I'm also an avid hiker doing day hikes as long as 20 miles. I want to be able to order as much food as I want after a hike like that.

    I'm sure no one is going to restrict the amount of food you can buy. I wouldn't waste energy worrying about it.

    Having to buy two meals instead of one large one costs quite a bit more.

    At subway for example, a footlong BLT sub costs $7.96. If the government said they could no longer sell footlong subs because they have too many calories and I had to buy two 6 inch subs it would now cost me $10.18. That's $2.59 more.
    Footlong subs are not going to be banned in the UK. I promise.

    Source: I fricking live in the UK, and I know how government regulation works here.

    In an alternate universe where they were banned, I'd fund the price increase with the money I save by only ever buying 500ml of Coca Cola per person when we eat out.
    No one ever imagined that 32ounce sodas would be banned in NYC either, but it happened.
    Ye gods. Did that reference go over your head?

    Dude. I was on that thread. I KNOW 32 ounce sodas were not banned in NYC. In fact, thanks to your outraged thread and the pushback on it, there are probably remote tribes in the Amazon who now know that 32 ounce sodas were never banned in NYC.

    Heh.
  • peckchris3267
    peckchris3267 Posts: 368 Member
    NYC also banned trans fats from fast food restaurants.
    So I never buy the argument that "it would never happen".
  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,213 Member
    edited August 2017
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    NYC also banned trans fats from fast food restaurants.
    So I never buy the argument that "it would never happen".
    peckchris3267 wrote: »
    NYC also banned trans fats from fast food restaurants.
    So I never buy the argument that "it would never happen".
    I bet they banned using arsenic in flour as a flour treatment agent to make it whiter in NYC too. This is obviously an inevitable slippery slope to banning all fflour itself.


    I'm being sarcastic, by the way.

    Banning a particular ingredient is nothing like making it illegal to sell big sandwiches. The voluntary regulation in the UK's fast food sector will just see more large chains visibly displaying calorie counts. Market forces will push other chains into displaying the calorie counts for their menus, and then all that will naturally lead to a bit of rejigging of recipes to bring the calorie counts down. A tablespoonful less of oil here, a bit less sugar there.

    You know, just as thousands do at home, with their own home cooking, because modern apps like MFP have made it easy for the calorie-minded consumer to see and calculate the impact little adjustments like that will make, without affecting taste.

    In the UK, the public conversation is not blaming increased obesity on the availability of footlong subs. There is no public appetite for banning footlong Veggie Delites, and no governmental interest in such. For the record, we have a right-wing party in government, and that is not the kind of political stance with which it is associated!


  • crackpotbaby
    crackpotbaby Posts: 1,297 Member
    While there shouldn't be government control of how much food a person is allowed to buy or consume, both the retailer and the government have a role in informing (educating) the literal consumer about what constitutes a serve of a particular food.

    This is already included in the nutritional information table on packaged foods. I think it's reasonable that this same 'per serve' and 'gross' nutritional values are available to people when they purchase take away (etc) so they can make informed decisions about their intake.

  • GemstoneofHeart
    GemstoneofHeart Posts: 865 Member
    edited August 2017
    My former self, the one that ate whatever I wanted and didn't care how many calories I consumed, would have just ordered two (or three!) to make up for smaller portion sizes.
    I'm in the US though and a ton of fast food restaurants are posting calories on the menus now, so that is a step in the right direction regarding informative choices.
  • lucerorojo
    lucerorojo Posts: 790 Member
    Most restaurants that are not required to, would not want to put their calorie information out for the customer to see. I recently ate at a sit down restaurant and asked if they had the nutritional information and the waiter just laughed and said maybe it's on the website, but that he had no clue. (It was not on the website--I checked before I even went to the restaurant). I've stopped eating out much because I can't even estimate how many calories are in the meals. The portions are huge in my area and I don't think that they want to advertise that the meal most people are eating in one sitting has 1800 calories in it!
  • mandrewes
    mandrewes Posts: 24 Member
    I am shocked, surprised and rather disappointed with the level of vitriol over ths
  • MsHarryWinston
    MsHarryWinston Posts: 1,027 Member
    mandrewes wrote: »
    I am shocked, surprised and rather disappointed with the level of vitriol over ths

    Annoyance, disappointment, disbelief, and all around "boo on this"? Sure. But "vitriol"? Im really not seeing that in the responses. Many people here simply seem to believe there are better ways to tackle the issue.
  • CynthiasChoice
    CynthiasChoice Posts: 1,047 Member
    I like the idea of requiring nutritional information on the menu.
  • RuNaRoUnDaFiEld
    RuNaRoUnDaFiEld Posts: 5,864 Member
    No. I like the huge portion sizes. I can make one take away do three meals.

    The calorie counts given in that article are suspiciously low.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories