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.
What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Replies
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
...other way around...
People do not follow government guidelines very well but the for profit manufacturing side will even when guidelines are medically unproven.
The guidelines are basically eat more veg and fruit and switch from white to whole grains and consume added sugar and added fat in limited amounts.
The for-profit side puts out stuff that's popular. Tons of paleo and keto things these days and things marketed as "no sugar!", not any more nutritious in many cases than the old "low fat!" snacks (which no one legitimately thought were health food when they were cookies and such).People eat what is in front of them just like I did as a child eating from the garden and pasture field.
Hmm. What's "in front of me" is what I choose to cook or otherwise to put in front of me.There were no leftovers to have to put away after most meals.
We had leftovers eating mostly whole foods when I was a kid. I intentionally create meals where there will be leftovers now, as they are helpful for bringing lunch.We know today obesity is more a factor of what kind of calories we feed the body than how many calories we eat because the total calorie count has on average stayed the same.
No, we do not know this. The credible studies demonstrate that calories have increased a lot (including from fat!). There are NO credible studies that show that calories don't dictate weight loss, maintenance, or gain. All studies controlled for calories demonstrate that calories ARE the factor.
What you choose to eat, in a non controlled environment, probably determines how likely you are to overeat. If someone ate like the guidelines, they'd (on average) be less likely to overeat than if they ate some other ways that are common in the US currently. Indeed, you have frequently explained how you used to eat, and it was nothing like the guidelines.I still eat 2000-3000 calories daily staying away from processed foods containing added sugars and or any form of any grains.
You have frequently mentioned eating processed foods, not that there's anything wrong with that.
You don't track your calories, do you?
Many men eat 2000-3000 cal a day and maintain, as I believe you have said you are doing.I just got back from the huge annual insurance claims event PLRB and did not gain or loss a pound of weight unlike when eating my old WOE (Way of Eating) that I left Oct 2014 at the age of 63. In the past I always gained more than just water weight.
Rather obviously your current dietary restrictions -- which I agree seem to work for you -- made a lot of the foods you typically would have eaten off-limits. The same is true if one is doing W30 or 100% plant-based or logging and decides not to make an exception for the special event. None of that goes to the worth of the guidelines being discussed or to the effect of calories.
While cause and effects can be hard to define at least we can agree that since the event of government eating guidelines in the USA have been established that obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc have become worse.
The guidelines aren't being followed by most people, hence the results.
Or the guidelines are being followed by most people but the guidelines are based on flawed research.
If the guidelines were being followed by most people, most people would be eating a crap ton more veg and fruit, more whole grains like oats, legumes, lentils, leaner proteins, etc. If you think the guidelines are being followed by most people, you're smokin' crack.12 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »If you want the government to show you how to eat, how about bringing Home Economics back to public school.
I loved middle school Home Ec! The memories and practical knowledge. Field trip to the grocery store, learned to wash dishes properly to save water and make breadsticks from scratch. Yeah, now days kids aren't allowed to use knives.
I enjoyed middle school (well, "junior high" in my day and place) home ec for a while, but the memories were pretty much spoiled when the bullies decided to remove the needles from the sewing machine and run around stabbing people with them, and the teacher did zilch about it.
So maybe not letting them have knives these days isn't such a bad thing.
I remember the times when students got a good spanking for that kind of behaviour. And then a second one as soon as they got off the school bus, because the bad deed had already been reported to the parents. I wonder how we all survived as kids... But I guess, we learned a lesson..
Really? I don’t. I mostly remember the bullies getting away with pretty much everything they did, whereas I got in trouble the moment I retaliated or defended myself.
The good old days really, really weren’t.8 -
Truth. In. Labeling. Stop letting food manufacturers get away with slapping "Natural", "Lite" and "Healthy" on crap foods and getting away with it because the FDA doesn't have even a minimal standard to use those terms. Serving sizes should be exact and equivalent to what a reasonable adult would consume (half a muffin? really?). Stop food manufacturers from using weasel words that actually mean sugar without coming right out and saying it, e.g. "barley malt", "dextrose" and "rice syrup". It's a constant game of cat and mouse with the junk makers dodging and weaving to stay one step ahead. Yes, it's the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves and read labels carefully, but raise your hand if you haven't been fooled at least once by a food maker's shifty tactics. And lastly, force manufacturers to limit the amount of sodium in packaged foods. Read the label on a can of Campbell's soup lately? They and many other brands we grew up with are poisoning Americans day in and day out. When heart disease is the #1 killer in this country, more needs to be done to cut down on the staggering amount of salt that's in everything we eat, from sliced bread to salad dressing to frozen meals and even chicken.11
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »TheRoadDog wrote: »While I agree that people are not eating healthy and weight is an issue now, more than ever before, I don't want the Government telling me what I can and cannot eat.
Has anyone suggested that it should?
I’m OK with governments offering advice, though.
The food industry recommend the eating guidelines.and the USA federal government put them in place officially.
Love me some conspiracy theory. Is the food industry buying telling the WHO what to put in their guidelines too?
Why isn't the government recommending 2-3 servings of Coke/Pepsi, Lays Chips, McDonalds fries, etc a day, these companies are big players in the food industry.9 -
ultra_violets wrote: »Truth. In. Labeling. Stop letting food manufacturers get away with slapping "Natural", "Lite" and "Healthy" on crap foods and getting away with it because the FDA doesn't have even a minimal standard to use those terms. Serving sizes should be exact and equivalent to what a reasonable adult would consume (half a muffin? really?). Stop food manufacturers from using weasel words that actually mean sugar without coming right out and saying it, e.g. "barley malt", "dextrose" and "rice syrup". It's a constant game of cat and mouse with the junk makers dodging and weaving to stay one step ahead. Yes, it's the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves and read labels carefully, but raise your hand if you haven't been fooled at least once by a food maker's shifty tactics. And lastly, force manufacturers to limit the amount of sodium in packaged foods. Read the label on a can of Campbell's soup lately? They and many other brands we grew up with are poisoning Americans day in and day out. When heart disease is the #1 killer in this country, more needs to be done to cut down on the staggering amount of salt that's in everything we eat, from sliced bread to salad dressing to frozen meals and even chicken.
The FDA is considering definitions for "natural" and "healthy," but there is already a standard for when "light" or "lite" can be used: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.56
Serving sizes are already based on what adults self-report eating of a particular type of food. If a muffin is 700-800 calories, is a reasonable person really eating the entire thing? Is our "reasonable person" an obese person?
The ingredients you refer to as "weasel words" are actually real ingredients. Rice syrup is a real ingredient (I actually have some in my pantry right now). Describing all those things as just "sugar" is going to make it very challenging for people with allergies to pick their food (what if I can't have rice and the product with rice syrup just tells me it has "sugar"?).
I don't want the government telling soup companies how much salt they can sell me. If I want a salty soup, that's between me and Campbell's Soup. I don't have high blood pressure or any medical conditions that require me to restrict salt.13 -
ultra_violets wrote: »Truth. In. Labeling. Stop letting food manufacturers get away with slapping "Natural", "Lite" and "Healthy" on crap foods and getting away with it because the FDA doesn't have even a minimal standard to use those terms. Serving sizes should be exact and equivalent to what a reasonable adult would consume (half a muffin? really?). Stop food manufacturers from using weasel words that actually mean sugar without coming right out and saying it, e.g. "barley malt", "dextrose" and "rice syrup". It's a constant game of cat and mouse with the junk makers dodging and weaving to stay one step ahead. Yes, it's the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves and read labels carefully, but raise your hand if you haven't been fooled at least once by a food maker's shifty tactics. And lastly, force manufacturers to limit the amount of sodium in packaged foods. Read the label on a can of Campbell's soup lately? They and many other brands we grew up with are poisoning Americans day in and day out. When heart disease is the #1 killer in this country, more needs to be done to cut down on the staggering amount of salt that's in everything we eat, from sliced bread to salad dressing to frozen meals and even chicken.
Have you ever tasted soup that has no salt added...fairly uneatable. Chicken is labeled as to if it has had a sodium solution added to it. They sell chicken without the addition of sodium...you will pay more so you have to decide if it is worth it or not. For me it is since I have BP problems and water retention episodes.
Most people don't read the nutrition labels and even fewer read the ingredient list. The info is there...we either choose to read it or we don't. Honestly, other than people that are intentionally trying to better their health, most don't care or most don't spend their time standing in a grocery store reading labels.
Believe me though in part I agree with what you are saying. I get very frustrated with lack of products that are low in sodium and don't taste like cardboard. As a result I cook about 85-90% of my food from fresh produce and no sodium added chicken(that costs me a fortune every week).4 -
ultra_violets wrote: »Truth. In. Labeling. Stop letting food manufacturers get away with slapping "Natural", "Lite" and "Healthy" on crap foods and getting away with it because the FDA doesn't have even a minimal standard to use those terms. Serving sizes should be exact and equivalent to what a reasonable adult would consume (half a muffin? really?). Stop food manufacturers from using weasel words that actually mean sugar without coming right out and saying it, e.g. "barley malt", "dextrose" and "rice syrup". It's a constant game of cat and mouse with the junk makers dodging and weaving to stay one step ahead. Yes, it's the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves and read labels carefully, but raise your hand if you haven't been fooled at least once by a food maker's shifty tactics. And lastly, force manufacturers to limit the amount of sodium in packaged foods. Read the label on a can of Campbell's soup lately? They and many other brands we grew up with are poisoning Americans day in and day out. When heart disease is the #1 killer in this country, more needs to be done to cut down on the staggering amount of salt that's in everything we eat, from sliced bread to salad dressing to frozen meals and even chicken.
Have you ever tasted soup that has no salt added...fairly uneatable. Chicken is labeled as to if it has had a sodium solution added to it. They sell chicken without the addition of sodium...you will pay more so you have to decide if it is worth it or not. For me it is since I have BP problems and water retention episodes.
Most people don't read the nutrition labels and even fewer read the ingredient list. The info is there...we either choose to read it or we don't. Honestly, other than people that are intentionally trying to better their health, most don't care or most don't spend their time standing in a grocery store reading labels.
Believe me though in part I agree with what you are saying. I get very frustrated with lack of products that are low in sodium and don't taste like cardboard. As a result I cook about 85-90% of my food from fresh produce and no sodium added chicken(that costs me a fortune every week).
They have to do it gradually, yeah. And as far as I understand, some brands like Lean Cuisine actually have been working to scale back the amount of salt in their products. But it's frustrating to have to give things up that I know and love. Almost half my day's supply of sodium in one serving of Campbell's tomato soup. Not even the whole can, just one cup! Our palates have gotten used to an abundance of salt (and sugar) and it's definitely going to take time to make products healthier without the public turning away from them, but I hope it's possible.0 -
This is about risk mitigation. Salt and sugar are cheap food preservatives, so if you want prepared food to hold shelf life this is the best way to survive transportation and temperature variations.
Salt is preferable to botulism.
There is nothing inherently unhealthy about salt or sugar. There is little objective evidence in support of any of the health scare over salt.
8 -
This is about risk mitigation. Salt and sugar are cheap food preservatives, so if you want prepared food to hold shelf life this is the best way to survive transportation and temperature variations.
Salt is preferable to botulism.
There is nothing inherently unhealthy about salt or sugar. There is little objective evidence in support of any of the health scare over salt.
Yet they manage to produce no salt added products. I have never gotten botulism from any of those products.
I agree...nothing routinely unhealthy about sodium...unless it is. I can tell when I am not eating a lower sodium diet. My ankles swell up and my legs turn red. My blood pressure shoots up...my clothes are tight...etc etc. So the evidence for me is when my ankles swell up over my socks. Leaves some really ugly indentations.
However, simply because I have problems with sodium I have never advocated for anyone else to limit it. It would be nice though if there were a few more options available to those that do need to and also a little easier to find. It would be nice if the grocery stores would give us a small section of low sodium items as they for gluten free people.
Don't get me wrong...I like salt in my food...I would actually say that I love salt in my food.0 -
ultra_violets wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »Truth. In. Labeling. Stop letting food manufacturers get away with slapping "Natural", "Lite" and "Healthy" on crap foods and getting away with it because the FDA doesn't have even a minimal standard to use those terms. Serving sizes should be exact and equivalent to what a reasonable adult would consume (half a muffin? really?). Stop food manufacturers from using weasel words that actually mean sugar without coming right out and saying it, e.g. "barley malt", "dextrose" and "rice syrup". It's a constant game of cat and mouse with the junk makers dodging and weaving to stay one step ahead. Yes, it's the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves and read labels carefully, but raise your hand if you haven't been fooled at least once by a food maker's shifty tactics. And lastly, force manufacturers to limit the amount of sodium in packaged foods. Read the label on a can of Campbell's soup lately? They and many other brands we grew up with are poisoning Americans day in and day out. When heart disease is the #1 killer in this country, more needs to be done to cut down on the staggering amount of salt that's in everything we eat, from sliced bread to salad dressing to frozen meals and even chicken.
Have you ever tasted soup that has no salt added...fairly uneatable. Chicken is labeled as to if it has had a sodium solution added to it. They sell chicken without the addition of sodium...you will pay more so you have to decide if it is worth it or not. For me it is since I have BP problems and water retention episodes.
Most people don't read the nutrition labels and even fewer read the ingredient list. The info is there...we either choose to read it or we don't. Honestly, other than people that are intentionally trying to better their health, most don't care or most don't spend their time standing in a grocery store reading labels.
Believe me though in part I agree with what you are saying. I get very frustrated with lack of products that are low in sodium and don't taste like cardboard. As a result I cook about 85-90% of my food from fresh produce and no sodium added chicken(that costs me a fortune every week).
They have to do it gradually, yeah. And as far as I understand, some brands like Lean Cuisine actually have been working to scale back the amount of salt in their products. But it's frustrating to have to give things up that I know and love. Almost half my day's supply of sodium in one serving of Campbell's tomato soup. Not even the whole can, just one cup! Our palates have gotten used to an abundance of salt (and sugar) and it's definitely going to take time to make products healthier without the public turning away from them, but I hope it's possible.
But Campbell's isn't even all that good, IMO. Why be a prisoner of the red'n'white can, when homemade(ish) is easy/quick to make, certainly tastier, potentially cheaper (per nutrient, for sure), more nutritious (per calorie, for sure), and we control the sodium content?
Dollars are votes on food choices.2 -
This is about risk mitigation. Salt and sugar are cheap food preservatives, so if you want prepared food to hold shelf life this is the best way to survive transportation and temperature variations.
Salt is preferable to botulism.
There is nothing inherently unhealthy about salt or sugar. There is little objective evidence in support of any of the health scare over salt.
Proper canning and other types of heat related preservation techniques are preferable to botulism. That doesn't have to mean salt. I, as a person who doesn't own any industrial appliances, can safely can beef bolognese sauce if when I'm able to correctly use a pressure canner. That I've done so and never gotten botulism wasn't because of the salt in the sauce. Reputable information can be found about that here.
sigh I really do need to buy a pressure canner now that my grandma has gifted her's to one of my cousins.
edit: I salt things like pasta water and some soups and sauces somewhat liberally. That's not because of safety, it's because as someone said above - chicken soup without salt is awful.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »Truth. In. Labeling. Stop letting food manufacturers get away with slapping "Natural", "Lite" and "Healthy" on crap foods and getting away with it because the FDA doesn't have even a minimal standard to use those terms. Serving sizes should be exact and equivalent to what a reasonable adult would consume (half a muffin? really?). Stop food manufacturers from using weasel words that actually mean sugar without coming right out and saying it, e.g. "barley malt", "dextrose" and "rice syrup". It's a constant game of cat and mouse with the junk makers dodging and weaving to stay one step ahead. Yes, it's the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves and read labels carefully, but raise your hand if you haven't been fooled at least once by a food maker's shifty tactics. And lastly, force manufacturers to limit the amount of sodium in packaged foods. Read the label on a can of Campbell's soup lately? They and many other brands we grew up with are poisoning Americans day in and day out. When heart disease is the #1 killer in this country, more needs to be done to cut down on the staggering amount of salt that's in everything we eat, from sliced bread to salad dressing to frozen meals and even chicken.
The FDA is considering definitions for "natural" and "healthy," but there is already a standard for when "light" or "lite" can be used: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.56
Serving sizes are already based on what adults self-report eating of a particular type of food. If a muffin is 700-800 calories, is a reasonable person really eating the entire thing? Is our "reasonable person" an obese person?
The ingredients you refer to as "weasel words" are actually real ingredients. Rice syrup is a real ingredient (I actually have some in my pantry right now). Describing all those things as just "sugar" is going to make it very challenging for people with allergies to pick their food (what if I can't have rice and the product with rice syrup just tells me it has "sugar"?).
I don't want the government telling soup companies how much salt they can sell me. If I want a salty soup, that's between me and Campbell's Soup. I don't have high blood pressure or any medical conditions that require me to restrict salt.
The problem with this is that self-reporting is notoriously inaccurate. People tend to portray a rather idealised version of events, rather than what they actually did. So while the majority of people might claim that they nobly and restrainedly only ate half of the 700-cal muffin, I'm willing to bet that most of them actually ate the whole thing.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »Truth. In. Labeling. Stop letting food manufacturers get away with slapping "Natural", "Lite" and "Healthy" on crap foods and getting away with it because the FDA doesn't have even a minimal standard to use those terms. Serving sizes should be exact and equivalent to what a reasonable adult would consume (half a muffin? really?). Stop food manufacturers from using weasel words that actually mean sugar without coming right out and saying it, e.g. "barley malt", "dextrose" and "rice syrup". It's a constant game of cat and mouse with the junk makers dodging and weaving to stay one step ahead. Yes, it's the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves and read labels carefully, but raise your hand if you haven't been fooled at least once by a food maker's shifty tactics. And lastly, force manufacturers to limit the amount of sodium in packaged foods. Read the label on a can of Campbell's soup lately? They and many other brands we grew up with are poisoning Americans day in and day out. When heart disease is the #1 killer in this country, more needs to be done to cut down on the staggering amount of salt that's in everything we eat, from sliced bread to salad dressing to frozen meals and even chicken.
The FDA is considering definitions for "natural" and "healthy," but there is already a standard for when "light" or "lite" can be used: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.56
Serving sizes are already based on what adults self-report eating of a particular type of food. If a muffin is 700-800 calories, is a reasonable person really eating the entire thing? Is our "reasonable person" an obese person?
The ingredients you refer to as "weasel words" are actually real ingredients. Rice syrup is a real ingredient (I actually have some in my pantry right now). Describing all those things as just "sugar" is going to make it very challenging for people with allergies to pick their food (what if I can't have rice and the product with rice syrup just tells me it has "sugar"?).
I don't want the government telling soup companies how much salt they can sell me. If I want a salty soup, that's between me and Campbell's Soup. I don't have high blood pressure or any medical conditions that require me to restrict salt.
The problem with this is that self-reporting is notoriously inaccurate. People tend to portray a rather idealised version of events, rather than what they actually did. So while the majority of people might claim that they nobly and restrainedly only ate half of the 700-cal muffin, I'm willing to bet that most of them actually ate the whole thing.
Or, their brain goes, "That was a bran muffin. Healthy. It had to be lower-calorie. Yeah, that's it. Because a healthy breakfast/afternoon snack can't possibly be that high. I bet that muffin was smaller than the bran muffin the person who created this entry had in mind. Or it had lower calorie ingredients. Why, I bet that bran muffin was really more like half a muffin!"4 -
This is about risk mitigation. Salt and sugar are cheap food preservatives, so if you want prepared food to hold shelf life this is the best way to survive transportation and temperature variations.
Salt is preferable to botulism.
There is nothing inherently unhealthy about salt or sugar. There is little objective evidence in support of any of the health scare over salt.
Yet they manage to produce no salt added products. I have never gotten botulism from any of those products.
I agree...nothing routinely unhealthy about sodium...unless it is. I can tell when I am not eating a lower sodium diet. My ankles swell up and my legs turn red. My blood pressure shoots up...my clothes are tight...etc etc. So the evidence for me is when my ankles swell up over my socks. Leaves some really ugly indentations.
However, simply because I have problems with sodium I have never advocated for anyone else to limit it. It would be nice though if there were a few more options available to those that do need to and also a little easier to find. It would be nice if the grocery stores would give us a small section of low sodium items as they for gluten free people.
Don't get me wrong...I like salt in my food...I would actually say that I love salt in my food.
I don't find it difficult to buy low sodium if I want. I mostly don't worry about it since I mostly cook from whole foods (have since my 20s, nothing about sodium) and get my chicken (and other meat besides fish) from a farm, but when I buy canned things I will typically look for low sodium/no added sodium all else equal, and it's generally available. Maybe different demands in different locations (I'm in the US, but a large city)?0 -
ultra_violets wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »Truth. In. Labeling. Stop letting food manufacturers get away with slapping "Natural", "Lite" and "Healthy" on crap foods and getting away with it because the FDA doesn't have even a minimal standard to use those terms. Serving sizes should be exact and equivalent to what a reasonable adult would consume (half a muffin? really?). Stop food manufacturers from using weasel words that actually mean sugar without coming right out and saying it, e.g. "barley malt", "dextrose" and "rice syrup". It's a constant game of cat and mouse with the junk makers dodging and weaving to stay one step ahead. Yes, it's the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves and read labels carefully, but raise your hand if you haven't been fooled at least once by a food maker's shifty tactics. And lastly, force manufacturers to limit the amount of sodium in packaged foods. Read the label on a can of Campbell's soup lately? They and many other brands we grew up with are poisoning Americans day in and day out. When heart disease is the #1 killer in this country, more needs to be done to cut down on the staggering amount of salt that's in everything we eat, from sliced bread to salad dressing to frozen meals and even chicken.
Have you ever tasted soup that has no salt added...fairly uneatable. Chicken is labeled as to if it has had a sodium solution added to it. They sell chicken without the addition of sodium...you will pay more so you have to decide if it is worth it or not. For me it is since I have BP problems and water retention episodes.
Most people don't read the nutrition labels and even fewer read the ingredient list. The info is there...we either choose to read it or we don't. Honestly, other than people that are intentionally trying to better their health, most don't care or most don't spend their time standing in a grocery store reading labels.
Believe me though in part I agree with what you are saying. I get very frustrated with lack of products that are low in sodium and don't taste like cardboard. As a result I cook about 85-90% of my food from fresh produce and no sodium added chicken(that costs me a fortune every week).
They have to do it gradually, yeah. And as far as I understand, some brands like Lean Cuisine actually have been working to scale back the amount of salt in their products. But it's frustrating to have to give things up that I know and love. Almost half my day's supply of sodium in one serving of Campbell's tomato soup. Not even the whole can, just one cup! Our palates have gotten used to an abundance of salt (and sugar) and it's definitely going to take time to make products healthier without the public turning away from them, but I hope it's possible.
But Campbell's isn't even all that good, IMO. Why be a prisoner of the red'n'white can, when homemade(ish) is easy/quick to make, certainly tastier, potentially cheaper (per nutrient, for sure), more nutritious (per calorie, for sure), and we control the sodium content?
Dollars are votes on food choices.
Agreed (especially on the homemade soup point), and also if someone is bummed because the Campbells was to their taste, there's no reason to assume the no salt added Campbells would be as tasty to them.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »Truth. In. Labeling. Stop letting food manufacturers get away with slapping "Natural", "Lite" and "Healthy" on crap foods and getting away with it because the FDA doesn't have even a minimal standard to use those terms. Serving sizes should be exact and equivalent to what a reasonable adult would consume (half a muffin? really?). Stop food manufacturers from using weasel words that actually mean sugar without coming right out and saying it, e.g. "barley malt", "dextrose" and "rice syrup". It's a constant game of cat and mouse with the junk makers dodging and weaving to stay one step ahead. Yes, it's the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves and read labels carefully, but raise your hand if you haven't been fooled at least once by a food maker's shifty tactics. And lastly, force manufacturers to limit the amount of sodium in packaged foods. Read the label on a can of Campbell's soup lately? They and many other brands we grew up with are poisoning Americans day in and day out. When heart disease is the #1 killer in this country, more needs to be done to cut down on the staggering amount of salt that's in everything we eat, from sliced bread to salad dressing to frozen meals and even chicken.
The FDA is considering definitions for "natural" and "healthy," but there is already a standard for when "light" or "lite" can be used: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.56
Serving sizes are already based on what adults self-report eating of a particular type of food. If a muffin is 700-800 calories, is a reasonable person really eating the entire thing? Is our "reasonable person" an obese person?
The ingredients you refer to as "weasel words" are actually real ingredients. Rice syrup is a real ingredient (I actually have some in my pantry right now). Describing all those things as just "sugar" is going to make it very challenging for people with allergies to pick their food (what if I can't have rice and the product with rice syrup just tells me it has "sugar"?).
I don't want the government telling soup companies how much salt they can sell me. If I want a salty soup, that's between me and Campbell's Soup. I don't have high blood pressure or any medical conditions that require me to restrict salt.
The problem with this is that self-reporting is notoriously inaccurate. People tend to portray a rather idealised version of events, rather than what they actually did. So while the majority of people might claim that they nobly and restrainedly only ate half of the 700-cal muffin, I'm willing to bet that most of them actually ate the whole thing.
It certainly has drawbacks, but my overall point was that manufacturers are basing it on information provided by the government. It isn't something that manufacturers are pulling out of thin air to trick us.
I'd love to see improvements on the self-reporting, but this wouldn't be a new law or regulation. It would be a refinement of the laws already in place.0 -
[/quote]
To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.[/quote]
Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.[/quote]
You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.[/quote]
lol wut
Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.[/quote]
It kind of is though, because gas tax goes towards road &bridge repair, which bike commuters do use but they aren't having to contribute specifically to that portion of the tax that goes to that area. Bike commuters are definitely doing less wear and tear, but they're still using the roads.1 -
TCopper_Boom wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Putting aside for one minute that people need to take more responsibility for themselves, mandating that food suppliers, restaurants, etc have to provide nutritional information would be the one thing I'd like to see.
That's already required for the most part. It would be very burdensome for mom and pop establishments though and many of them would likely go out of business.
Just curious- why would this be especially burdensome for Mom and Pop restaurants and put many of them out of business? They’re allowed to use the database method. It doesn’t have to be any harder than it is for us to fill out a recipe in MFP. It might actually help them to more accurately calculate the cost to make a portion when they look at the amount of each ingredient.
For one thing, if actual legislation was enacted, I would have serious doubts as to them being allowed to use the data base method as that would be pretty loosey goosey for actual legislation. And really, what's the point of enacting legislation when databases are so full of absolute *kitten* for entries made by other users of the system? How much will they be allowed to be off? Would people even trust the stated calorie counts? I mean people already question the counts of restaurants who's food gets sent to a lab. Do they get fined for using bad entries to create their calorie counts? Do they get away with using entries that are erroneously low to make it appear that their menu is lower calorie? How is the FDA going to verify the calorie counts without that food going to a lab?
Mom and pop restaurants already run on a very thin margin and many, if not most struggle to just stay open. As I stated in an earlier reply, this is extra time spent when owners of these establishments are already burning it at both ends, and time is money. It's irrelevant though because any such legislation would never allow for something so unscientific as using a random database to come up with calorie counts to assure the public of what they're getting. Having food sent to a lab is expensive and would put many of these places under.
Beyond that, mom and pop restaurants are a pretty small % of the restaurant world and the overall food supply. I seriously don't think mom and pop restaurants are contributing substantially to the obesity epidemic. If you looked at it on a pie chart, mom and pop restaurants would be a tiny sliver of the overall food supply...why burden something so small with more bureaucracy? They already have to deal with a *kitten* ton of it already. The government doesn't typically enact legislation that makes things easier...
I'm not sure where you are located, but this is already required in the U.S. for restaurants with 20 or more locations. The FDA website does state that they can comply using nutrient databases (USDA, cookbooks, etc.). No requirement to send food to a lab.
Yup, that is correct. The company I work for produces indoor and outdoor print and digital content for restaurants all over USA and many other countries. Any chain with 20+ franchises is required by the FDA to now list calories for every item listed on the menu boards. Although I don't eat fast food, I personally feel it is nice to know the calories/macros breakdown of the food. I'm willing to bet that the average person walking into mcdonalds to get a super sized big mac value meal, doesn't give a scheet what the calories are. Some of the calories in some of these combo meals are daily caloric intakes of most people, its unreal.
With that being said, I'm currently working on some menu graphics for a fried chicken chain restaurant. 7 Chicken Tenders, 1 side item, with gravy & a biscuit or roll, plus a 32oz drink. Caloric range (depending on the side item you choose and what beverage you choose) 1270-1858 calories.2 -
This is about risk mitigation. Salt and sugar are cheap food preservatives, so if you want prepared food to hold shelf life this is the best way to survive transportation and temperature variations.
Salt is preferable to botulism.
There is nothing inherently unhealthy about salt or sugar. There is little objective evidence in support of any of the health scare over salt.
Proper canning and other types of heat related preservation techniques are preferable to botulism. That doesn't have to mean salt. I, as a person who doesn't own any industrial appliances, can safely can beef bolognese sauce if when I'm able to correctly use a pressure canner. That I've done so and never gotten botulism wasn't because of the salt in the sauce. Reputable information can be found about that here.
sigh I really do need to buy a pressure canner now that my grandma has gifted her's to one of my cousins.
edit: I salt things like pasta water and some soups and sauces somewhat liberally. That's not because of safety, it's because as someone said above - chicken soup without salt is awful.
This isn't a concern with home preservation means, but critical in large scale production. I love canning and the ritual behind this. It is a wonderful exercise to create and preserve.
Certainly not the only means, but certainly the cheapest. Vacuum sealing is very effective, but not cheap in large scale operations. Vacuum sealing + salt/sugar are what many large scale operations utilize to ensure risk is mitigated. There is also the matter of the container/closure device as plastic/polymer is not an air barrier, so vacuum sealing requires a more expensive primary barrier.
This is largely driven by regulations now, so manufacturing with terminal heat and/or salt means you don't require a class 10,000 manufacturing floor. Manufacturing salt free likely means you'll need a class 1,000 or even class 100 floor, which requires more automation, increased air filtration, and increased cleaning protocol.3 -
Do it like the Japanese.
You get a physical every year and pay a tax based on how overweight you are.
The annual physical starts in grade school and continues through your working life.
It encourages people to make healthier choices or pay for the consequences - literally.
You learn how to eat healthy and why, almost as a side-effect.
Many companies have nearly-mandatory exercise breaks instead of coffee breaks.
It almost certainly will not help in the short-term because many people will whine and complain about persecution, "shaming", or some other excuse until the whole country accepts that this is the way it will be.
But it could start to offset the costs of obesity-related diseases in the long-term.
Definitely works for the Japanese.
The national rate of obesity is something like 5% - and that includes sumo wrestlers, who are national icons.
Interestingly enough, most Japanese people still feel shame, embarrassment, and responsibility for things that some people in American culture actually try to justify or blame on outside factors.
Being overweight in Japanese society usually makes the people around you uncomfortable and that is not very socially acceptable.
Good luck finding a lot of XXL or plus-sized clothing in Japan. Especially outside of major cities.
The expectation is that you are reasonably fit and close to a healthy body fat range for your height.
Then again, they also have pillows made to look like a woman's lap.
Maybe no one is perfect.8 -
Personal responsibility for one's own life, health and exercise, work and coordinate with your physician. Would like to see calorie disclosure requirement on all food stuffs, grocer and/or restaurant. Parents are responsible for what their child consumes; they can provide own healthy smoothies rather than Starbucks or other "treats". Parents are responsible for exercise of child and to make sure that local Board of Ed. provides exercise and physical ed. time in public school.1
-
Do it like the Japanese.
You get a physical every year and pay a tax based on how overweight you are.
The annual physical starts in grade school and continues through your working life.
It encourages people to make healthier choices or pay for the consequences - literally.
You learn how to eat healthy and why, almost as a side-effect.
Many companies have nearly-mandatory exercise breaks instead of coffee breaks.
It almost certainly will not help in the short-term because many people will whine and complain about persecution, "shaming", or some other excuse until the whole country accepts that this is the way it will be.
But it could start to offset the costs of obesity-related diseases in the long-term.
Definitely works for the Japanese.
The national rate of obesity is something like 5% - and that includes sumo wrestlers, who are national icons.
Interestingly enough, most Japanese people still feel shame, embarrassment, and responsibility for things that some people in American culture actually try to justify or blame on outside factors.
Being overweight in Japanese society usually makes the people around you uncomfortable and that is not very socially acceptable.
Good luck finding a lot of XXL or plus-sized clothing in Japan. Especially outside of major cities.
The expectation is that you are reasonably fit and close to a healthy body fat range for your height.
Then again, they also have pillows made to look like a woman's lap.
Maybe no one is perfect.
Yeah Japan has its own set of issues surrounding health (physical and mental health), sexism, and exceedingly long work hours.6 -
Do it like the Japanese.
You get a physical every year and pay a tax based on how overweight you are.
The annual physical starts in grade school and continues through your working life.
It encourages people to make healthier choices or pay for the consequences - literally.
You learn how to eat healthy and why, almost as a side-effect.
Many companies have nearly-mandatory exercise breaks instead of coffee breaks.
It almost certainly will not help in the short-term because many people will whine and complain about persecution, "shaming", or some other excuse until the whole country accepts that this is the way it will be.
But it could start to offset the costs of obesity-related diseases in the long-term.
Definitely works for the Japanese.
The national rate of obesity is something like 5% - and that includes sumo wrestlers, who are national icons.
Interestingly enough, most Japanese people still feel shame, embarrassment, and responsibility for things that some people in American culture actually try to justify or blame on outside factors.
Being overweight in Japanese society usually makes the people around you uncomfortable and that is not very socially acceptable.
Good luck finding a lot of XXL or plus-sized clothing in Japan. Especially outside of major cities.
The expectation is that you are reasonably fit and close to a healthy body fat range for your height.
Then again, they also have pillows made to look like a woman's lap.
Maybe no one is perfect.
I actually like the idea. I don't think it is the government's responsibility to help people manage their weight (I am a big believer in personal responsibility. Everybody already has the tools they need to maintain a healthy weight or lose weight. If they choose not to do so, that is on them.) That being said, the taxpayers ARE already on the hook for all the obesity related chronic illnesses through medicare and medicaid. We also pay higher premiums because private insurance companies must pay for these people's diseases. The tax would at least help offset some of that expense. It is fair.4 -
Japan's lesser obesity rate than other developed nation's probably has less to do with shaming and more to do with their amount of NEAT. The country is very urban with most people living in one of several population dense cities that are navigated by walking and mass transit.
For comparison, I'm sure being a chikan (groper) is treated as more shameful than being obese, yet they have a major problem with that - explainable in part also by their reliance on mass transit.2 -
Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
7 -
Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Or how about shortening lunch breaks to 20 minutes so you can get out of work earlier and exercise when and where YOU want to?7 -
Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Sounds nice... In reality, however...
Most of us don't get paid lunch time. Those who are unabe to workout for some reasons will be stuck for 1.5 hrs, playing with their thumbs, as many employers don't have flexible lunch hours. That sucks... You can't force anyone to be active aside from set job requirements on the clock, as this would be a field day for their worker's compensation insurance...
Aside from walking, the suggested activities require space. Many companies will lease their business, extra space is expensive, if it isn't used to create profit. Besides, this has the potential to turn into mandatory group activites, and I always hated to be bullied into activities by some co-workers that don't have a life outside of the office... And again, there is the issue of worker's comp...
Bicycle parking isn't the problem where I live... Making it to the office alive through traffic, however is in some regions... Also, in areas with long commutes, the company would be required to provide showers and such...because what business wants their customers exposed to body odor... Mind you, the time it takes you to take a shower and change, will not be on the clock...
Rewarding 'active commute' would be punishing anyone who is forced to take a car, because they are not able to find work closer to home. Honestly, I'm struggling with a 45 min (one way) commute to work in the car. How much time are you willing to sacrifice (in all weather, or it won't count for $10/day...) to get to work..
There is always a bigger picture. Nothing will get us out of stepping up and taking responsibility for our own health, though...IMO10 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Or how about shortening lunch breaks to 20 minutes so you can get out of work earlier and exercise when and where YOU want to?
Lunch and break times are set by labor law. Not only are employers required to give them to you, you are also required to take them. The laws and regulations of course vary by state and occupation. In addition to this, many jobs require actual rest time, so they can perform whatever they are doing safely. Packing gym time into this is not the idea of occupational safety.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Or how about shortening lunch breaks to 20 minutes so you can get out of work earlier and exercise when and where YOU want to?
Lunch and break times are set by labor law. Not only are employers required to give them to you, you are also required to take them. The laws and regulations of course vary by state and occupation.
I work for a Union Shop. We don't get lunch breaks, at all. If we work over 7 hours, the new contract requires that we get a second paid 10 minute break. That's it, even if the workday turns out to be 12 hours, or more.
The state Department of Labor will not intervene in the affairs of a Union Shop.
We all sweat and smell bad, though - and we're getting plenty of activity. The insurance, which I don't have to pay for (it's covered by Union Dues), is the best I've ever had. I still wouldn't say we're a healthy bunch.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Or how about shortening lunch breaks to 20 minutes so you can get out of work earlier and exercise when and where YOU want to?
Lunch and break times are set by labor law. Not only are employers required to give them to you, you are also required to take them. The laws and regulations of course vary by state and occupation. In addition to this, many jobs require actual rest time, so they can perform whatever they are doing safely. Packing gym time into this is not the idea of occupational safety.
Understand the laws regarding lunch and break times vary among type of work, state/locality and country. I've been on a management payroll for most of my worklife, so there really isn't anything as a specific lunch or especially a break.
My original point was not to make the time at work longer (i.e, forced longer break middle of day), to allow for midday exercise. If anything let people get out so they can do the exercise of their choice. or offer flex hours. I've never seen a workplace gym with a lifting platform or a squat rack (I'm sure as you mention worker's comp issues) and those are things I need to train. I could personally give a rat's behind about yoga classes, walking groups etc.
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions