"Your Kid is Fat! (And Ugly Too!)

[femurphy77]

The latest from the land of fruits and nuts: http://thehill.com/homenews/news/40...estrict-sugary-drinks-for-kids-in-restaurants. Governor Moon Beam wants to regulate sugary drinks served to kids with their "Happy Meals". While I agree with the sentiment I have a difficult time seeing the need for legislation for (here it comes) something the parents should be doing. As someone "addicted" to Coca Cola for a lot of my adult life I recognize the danger in children but not to the level of government oversight. Maybe I'm missing something?

 

[rob63]

So basically, the state wants to mandate that parents have to purchase white milk or water with their Happy Meal, whether they want it or not, and then pay extra for a soda.

I wonder what will happen if the restaurants simply hand out cups with the meal and tell you to go get your water out of the soda machine? Will the police arrest somebody if you get soda instead?

 

[eldirector]

So basically, the state wants to mandate that parents have to purchase white milk or water with their Happy Meal, whether they want it or not, and then pay extra for a soda.

I wonder what will happen if the restaurants simply hand out cups with the meal and tell you to go get your water out of the soda machine? Will the police arrest somebody if you get soda instead?

No, but the manager will give you an epic beat down.

I really wish major retailers would simply declare California a lost cause and pull out. At some point, costs will outstrip revenue. Imagine if McDonalds recalled their franchises, and closed up shop. Over 1400 locations...

 

[Cameramonkey]

They are on a solid course toward becoming a nanny state. Each law they pass emboldens them further.

Based on recent history, and stories like this, they will not be happy until the state controls every single facet of your life. They will tell you what to eat, what to drink, how much, what you can buy, and what you cant say.

It wont be long before that state is incompatible with our constitutional republic.

 

[Hohn]

They are on a solid course toward becoming a nanny state. Each law they pass emboldens them further.

Based on recent history, and stories like this, they will not be happy until the state controls every single facet of your life. They will tell you what to eat, what to drink, how much, what you can buy, and what you cant say.

It wont be long before that state is incompatible with our constitutional republic.

You say these things as if they haven't already happened. I admire your optimism.

 

[Itchytriggerfinger]

The only solution is more fires.

 

[Spear Dane]

The only solution is more fires.

QFT...lots of QFTing.

 

[Alpo]

High fructose corn syrup is the problem. Ban that stuff and go back to cane/beet sugar and some of the problem disappears.

Kids today are fat. Obese. Parents aren't doing the job..they are obese too. Obesity costs you and me money.

 

[eldirector]

High fructose corn syrup is the problem. Ban that stuff and go back to cane/beet sugar and some of the problem disappears.

Kids today are fat. Obese. Parents aren't doing the job..they are obese too. Obesity costs you and me money.

It only costs you and me more money because the the government stuck their nose in. Now, the solution is more government?

 

[Alpo]

I don't think so. Without some regulation, you might be eating catburgers at McDonalds and sewer effluent laced cola.

My government didn't require people to weigh 350 pounds. They did that to themselves. Capitalism has a few failures. Consumer advertising is one of them.

 

[eldirector]

You do realize that the whole reason we use so much HFCS is because of government meddling, right? Sugar tariffs and government farm subsidies make HFCS cheaper than actual sugar, at least in the US.

Besides, HFCS consumption has DROPPED, even though obesity continues to rise. "Banning" the sweetener sounds all cool and hip, but it doesn't seem to correlate directly to the obesity problem. I suppose it all depends on the actual goal: reducing obesity, or extended government over-reach?

 

[Alpo]

Tariffs....thank God this administration isn't so naive!

 

[Hohn]

You do realize that the whole reason we use so much HFCS is because of government meddling, right? Sugar tariffs and government farm subsidies make HFCS cheaper than actual sugar, at least in the US.

Besides, HFCS consumption has DROPPED, even though obesity continues to rise. "Banning" the sweetener sounds all cool and hip, but it doesn't seem to correlate directly to the obesity problem. I suppose it all depends on the actual goal: reducing obesity, or extended government over-reach?

Sugar in the USA is actually artificially HIGH in price because the government has fixed a minimum price below the prevailing global market rate. It's a sop to the Fanjul brothers in FL that every FL politician makes sure stays intact.

So on one hand we prop up the price of "domestic" (i.e. Fanjul brothers) sugar and on the others we tax imported sugar to prevent competitive pressure from highlighting the absurdly high price of domestic sugar.

And then-- because sugar is so expensive-- the government THEN steps in to solve the "problem" of expensive sugar (that it created to help some billionaires) by subsidizing corn to extreme levels so that corn sweeteners become cheaper alternatives.


A ban on HFCS would do nothing because HFCS is only slightly higher in fructose than regular table sugar. Regular sugar is 50/50 fructose/glucose. HFCS is about 55/45-- hardly an earth-shattering difference.

 

[Alpo]

Well, we'd need someone with an advanced degree in metabolism to provide us with reliable information since there is a lot of suspiciously biased data provided by both sides.

Why are people today more corpulent today than in the 1960's, say? Less active? More junk food? Diets higher in some fat-producing ingredients?

Asking for a friend.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/12-graphs-that-show-why-people-get-fat#section12

 

[actaeon277]

People want sweeter food.
They get fatter.


So.. how about telling people, if you eat that stuff, and get fat, then tough luck.
Responsibility for your actions.

 

[actaeon277]

And yes, I'd say a BIG reason for obesity, is ACTIVITY.

 

[thunderchicken]

While I agree some government oversight is needed to help ensure food safety is taken seriously. But, I do think there are many who are willing to go way too far by saying what I/ we can and can't have served to our children. What a parent allows a kid to eat or drink is their decison not that of the gov't.
I also agree there are some parents who rely way too much on fast food/junk food to keep the kids fed. So much so it is considerably unhealthy to their long term health. But, I see this as another complex problem in our society.
We have busier & busier constant on the go lifestyles where convenience is a huge element. Most restaurant options (even beyond fast food) just don't offer much in the way of good clean meals. Even the healthier options are mystery meals since we don't know how they are prepared.
Cheap food options have a place too. Often people with mid - lower incomes find it difficult to keep the family fed without breaking the bank. So more processed foods and fattier meats are the norm because they have to buy more based off the price tag than the quality. When I was in my 20s- early 30s, I walked down that path. We didn't do much fast food, mostly home cooked meals. But they weren't as healthy as we would have liked to have been eating. But sometimes you gotta do what you can to make sure your kids bellies are full. We had a bunch of pork chops, meals with hamburger (70/30 because it was cheap), chicken because it was cheap. Also had potatoes or pasta on the table as part of an evening meal 3 or 4 days a week because it was cheap and we didn't have to go to bed hungry.
Is what it is, we don't all have the same income levels which means some have to deal with struggles some will never know.
As an obese person, I hate it. It's something I battle every day one step at a time. I'm making progress towards being healthier and leaner.
But since I put it out there, I will also say other than my weight my doctor is amazed how healthy I am. No meds, all the regularly checked stuff is good.

So staying on topic we do need to do more to help people make better choices. But I don't think this is any area for more government control.

 

[HoosierLife]

It’s sugar. ALL sugar. Until the last 100 years, only the super rich could afford much sugar to begin with.

After WW2 there was a spike in heart disease and so 1 study, which has been debunked over and over again, said it was our high fat diet as the cause.

So we stripped out all the fat, lard, butter etc. That’s what gave food a good flavor btw. Guess what they replaced the bland garbage everyone was eating? Sugar!!

Look st the ingredients to ANYTHING. They’re all high in sugar, HFCS, sugars by another name etc.

Paleo, Keto, Atkins types of diets/ways of eating have tried to restore things back to the way humans have eaten for thousands of years.

Then there’s no exercise and processed foods too.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Paleo, Keto, Atkins types of diets/ways of eating have tried to restore things back to the way humans have eaten for thousands of years.

Then there’s no exercise and processed foods too.

I think the no exercise and processed "food" is most of the problem. When I was in Italy and when I was in Paris, lots of carbs in their diet and very little "paleo", etc. Yet they walk a lot, portions are small, and they are by and large rather thin people.

I'm certainly no expert, though.

 

[Hohn]

I noticed the same when I was in Italy for 4 months. They eat lots of starch as a percentage of their diet. But very few convenience foods and they all seemed thin. Nothing processed. Lots of walking and bike riding, too.