Reminder that we live in a country where food manufacturers are

It's probably because of the money. They got me. I got diabetes.

>>35458770
But the worst part is I have to watch them do it to a new generation. My neices get fed junk food and my family just argues and fights me when I try and explain why it is setting them up for an addiction.

>>35458724
capitalism, lobbyist, money, greed. its not hard to figure out, whats hard is changing it into something that isnt a recipe for disaster

The same world that allows people to buy cigarettes and booze. The same world that doesn't have a breathalyzer installed into the ignition of every car. The same world that allows people to buy fertilizer at a gardening shop or farming wholesaler and diesel fuel next door.

Oh shit, food producers are min-maxing food sales. Big deal.

>>35458724
>Reminder that we
Maybe you do, Amerifats, but my country's people remain nice and thin.

>Reminder that as a parent you don't have to let your kids eat like shit

Yeah man and CVS sells the ingredients to kill yourself like 20 different ways. Doesn't mean you have to go out and kill yourself. What do I care if stupid people get stupider and fatter. It's just thinning out the employment and gene pool for the smarter people.

As a recovering anorexic it makes things a little easier for me.

>>35458724
This is why I want to get into the habit of only eating food you have to cook.

>>35458821
people are retards.
you can't save the ship anymore, anon.
just save yourself.

>>35459239

This. The people who care to be fit are fit and the lazy faggots are suffering. This is just the way of the world, your "form of dependency" is irrelevant.

because that is how good capitalism works
>muh free market
>don't restrict me, you commie socialist pig-dog

>>35459315
I feel bad for the kids who don't have a choice because their parents are irresponsible and are setting them up for failure from the start

>>35459411

So they turn it around in late teens/early twenties and enjoy the fun of a zero to hero story. Not such a big deal, really.

The parents are Amerifat shitstains, sure, but as long as the kid sacks up one day it all turns out OK.

>>35458724

I don't want people telling me what I can or cannot eat. It's all voluntary.

The real shame is how vulnerable children are. They don't have a choice in these things. Regulating parents isn't really an option. Children exposed to poor nutrition start adulthood at a significant disadvantage.

>>35459591
Problem there is that free will is a myth, and those kids are being set up into a statistic that's only getting bigger.

>>35459356
this ťbh
capitalism is a jewish invention
socialism is the white man's doctrine (Campanella, More, Owens, Saint-Simon, Marx)

>>35459142
And which country is that?

>>35459273
...... u wot m8

>>35459649
>tfw the only person who agrees with you is a crazy fucktard

goddamnit, go back to
>>>/pol/

you aren't helping me, only serving to make me look like a crazy faggot as well

>>35459239
>>35459080
It's also the same world which has warning signs and labels all over the place. The ingredients to kill yourself are all labelled as hazardous "do not consume". And cigarettes are labelled with illustrations of tumours etc. - alcohol is at least not sold to children.

I'm not saying any of those limitations should be there either, only that human behaviour isn't consistent about these things.

>>35459591
>turn it around
you can't undo the damage done to your body by childhood obesity - stop making this into a moral issue, it is in some cases but not when we're talking about children who are obese by age 5.

>>35459709
>/pol/
>socialism

>>35460622

It's national socialism

>>35459356
If you allow power to be concentrated in a few hands for the sake of saving the poor and weak you might wonder whether the hands you're concentrating power in actually care about the poor and weak or are only pretending in order to concentrate power.

>>35459603
Do you want people deliberately adding chemicals to your food to disrupt your normal relationship with food leading to over-eating etc. etc.

It isn't all voluntary if they know what's going into the food and you don't. It's war at that stage, and as such you have to be prepared to invest similar time and energy into it as the corporations do.

>>35458821
You're fighting the good fight but don't expect anyone in real life to appreciate it.
The best you can do is keep raising awareness and set a good example.

>its da evul corporations fault that im a hambeast!

you might as well leave /fit/ and join tumblr at this point

>>35460718
>people deliberately adding chemicals to your food

your walmart ready-to-eat garbage isnt my food.

just cook your own meals and you have zero problems with those 'chemicals' you seem to be so afraid of.

>>35460783
This.
It's common knowledge that processed food isn't that good for you.
Nobody is forcing you to buy it.
Just buy single ingredients and make stuff with it.

>>35460817
But food companys act like drug pushers. Getting people hooked on a damaging product. Not just adults who should know better but kids who will not understand until they are older.

>>35460783
I don't eat that stuff either but that isn't the point. I'm not concerned about myself as an individual, more so the trend.

Have you ever eaten a wild strawberry or a wild apple? They are much smaller and much less dense in sugar. It may be the store-bought versions have higher sugar content because that sells, it isn't necessarily a conspiracy to disrupt eating habits but it's still a distortion and it will affect you even if you cook everything.

>>35460862
I used my own money to buy high-sugar foods against my parents' wishes, maybe you could say my parents didn't do enough to warn me.

>>35460862
You can substitute the junk food with whole food and not suffer withdrawals. This isn't heroin, it's just careless behavior.

>>35460899
Have you seen My 600lb life? Some people are so badly addicted the threat of torment and death will not stop their desire for food.

>>35460864
>Have you ever eaten a wild strawberry or a wild apple? They are much smaller and much less dense in sugar.

dont know about apples but thats bullshit concerning strawberries.
we have some in our garden - they're extremely small, very soft, bright red, super sweet and have a much more intense taste than store bought variations.

I hope a plague wipes us out :D

>>35460898
It's the same with doctors aswell. They sugar coat the truth to spare causing you distress. They should put images of diabetic limb amputatuions on junk food like they do with cigarettes and images of tumors growing out of peoples necks.

>>35460899
>not suffer withdrawals

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

After a month on this intermittent-feeding schedule, the animals show a series of behaviors similar to the effects of drugs of abuse. These are categorized as “bingeing”, meaning unusually large bouts of intake, opiate-like “withdrawal” indicated by signs of anxiety and behavioral depression

>opiate-like “withdrawal” indicated by signs of anxiety and behavioral depression

>>35461026
well, that hasn't been my experience.

the same principle applies, even if you give people what they want they'll distort it to make it into something harmful to them. Even if it hasn't happened yet, there's nothing there to stop it happening.

File: 1451747106390.jpg (17KB, 203x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 203x300px

>come on fit
>Americans bragging about how tall they are
>literally bragging about how much bovine growth hormone your mom unknowingly exposed you to in the womb

lol

Reminder that we live in a country where video game developers are allowed to design and graphically alter their games in such a way that they effectively depress a person's desire to socialize and even encourage a form of dependency from a young age leading them to play/watch more than they normally would.

Why is this kind of shit allowed? How is the video game industry any less evil than the pharmaceutical industry?

>>35461029
I remember reading an article a few months ago about the lawyer who was in charge of the landmark case against the tobacco industry (I think they dramatised it in "The Insider") and he was gearing up to bring a lawsuit or a set of lawsuits against various American food companies I think on the basis of falsely advertising their food as healthy or less harmful than it is. I haven't heard anything about it since.

>>35461138
Video games give a lot back though. They make your mind and reflexes sharp.

>>35459080
>The same world that doesn't have a breathalyzer installed into the ignition of every car.
> trying to ban people in ketosis from driving

File: 1447441275194.jpg (157KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 650x366px

>>35458724

For everyone's information, the U.S. isn't entirely zombified as people like OP make it out to be with the processed foods and flouride in the water craziness.

Cocacola and Pepsi Co. are having an incredibly hard time dealing with the decline of soft drink consumption. That's not to say they're struggling and underwater, they're rich as fuck and are involved in many other markets. They're just encountering a challenge with the health trends in the nation and are looking for alternative sources of income. The largest being water. Others being "health" beverages. Cocacola's product "Vitamin Water" is complete bullshit. It's like cake in a bottle. Put some powdery minerals into sugar water and market it as healthy, that's Vitamin Water.

There's that argument that healthy and wholesome food is too expensive. It really isn't. Food prices haven't really changed in decades. There are just new and incredibly cheap unhealthy alternatives that have been added to the market. This somehow created the scurry misconception that healthy foods are out of reach and we're being forced to eat shit. This then gave the rise to people like OP. Pair that with pesticide obsession, hormonal meats, degenerating grain strain genetics, and evil Nestle water, and you've got a shitshow of crazy people.

You can go buy a bag a 5 pound bag of rice right now for like 1.50...

OP is a troll

File: 1299746522258.jpg (29KB, 216x210px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 216x210px

>>35461165
Foods give a lot back though. They make your body and mind be able to exist.

>>35459315
Completely this.
>>35459411
You also have to remember how ingrained food choices are just because of how people grew up eating.

I remember bringing girls I was dating back to my apt during uni and having health shit. When they would look for something ot eat they would always ask where the sugar/salt products were (chips,cookies) stuff like that even though there was fruit in front of them.

>>35460783
>>35460817
there's chems in meat too.

>>35461125
They still aren't even tall

>>35461165
>They make your mind and reflexes sharp.
while crippling your ability to use your mind and reflexes for anything other than sitting in a darkened room.

>>35461215
average height in the US is 5'8.5

on that note, i've never actually seen someone brag about height AS AN AMERICAN.

ie
>mfw american
>mfw 6'2
>mfw trump is in the lead

>>35461183
Pepsi own Tropicana and Coca Cola own Innocent.

Coca Cola even entered into an agreement with the founders of Innocent that was meant to keep the brand vaguely ethical but they very easily shat all over it (it was something like the profits from Innocent were to he donated to local charities for so many years which is a dumb as shit agreement).

>>35461251
Europeans don't have all these hormones, it's why height is more consistent in European countries and not sporadic like in the US

>>35461234
But video games can be positive at least. Junk food is never positive unless you get a kick out of it like heroin.

>>35461251
it's something like 5'10.5 in 20-year old males according to the CDC.

http://reference.medscape.com/calculator/height-age-percentile-boys

>>35461285
why are you saying American height is sporadic?

File: 67ryq8.jpg (5KB, 251x251px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 251x251px

>>35461301
But food can be positive at least. Bad gaming is never positive unless you get a kick out of it like heroin.

>>35461301
doesn't that make it worse, though? If there's something half-positive about something then that serves to give people's denial something really substantial to hold onto, when overall they're still suffering as a result of it (if that's true about video-game addiction, I assume it is from what I've read but I don't know).

>>35461313
Because the gap in height between generations is way too dramatic. Also all the increased breast sizes

Say it with me, bovine growth hormone

File: 1445099957718.jpg (115KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 900x600px

>>35461285
>>35461251
>>35461215
>>35461125

The average height in the U.S. is going down due to the influx of Hispanics.

>mfw 6'2"
>mfw I'm becoming taller thanks to Pedro and his 13 children

>>35461315
Healthy food is positive. Are you telling me learning how to make mods for skyrim isn't improving yourself?

>>35458724
just eat natural state unprocessed or packaged foods..

>>35461343
I like games but I'm not in denial that video games are going to lead me to the promised land. I play just to do amazing shit and that is good enough for me. Fuck everything else.

>>35461183
Just checked it, Innocent is owned by Coca Cola.
And here comes another product I will never buy again.

>>35461349
>Healthy food is positive. Are you telling me learning how to make mods for skyrim isn't improving yourself?

You're getting so close! I'm telling you that any behavior that reinforces an unhealthy habit - whether that be an addiction to gaming or an addiction to junk food - is a bad thing.

People can be addicted to anything, and the line between an addiction and a habit is very thin, it's that an addiction prevents you from leading a normal life. People can be addicted to healthy food just like they can be addicted to junk food. It is not what they are addicted to that matters, it's the addiction itself. For example, here is the "Rainbow diet":

Monday (white):
Breakfast: ½ apple (40.5 cals)
Lunch: ½ apple (40.5 cals)
Dinner: 1 cucumber (24 cals)
Total: 105 cals

Tuesday (yellow):
Breakfast: 1 banana (108.5 cals)
Lunch: 1 banana (108.5 cals)
Dinner: ½ cup corn (66 cals)
Total: 283 cals

Wednesday (fast):

Thursday (orange):
Breakfast: ½ orange (31 cals)
Lunch: ½ orange (31 cals)
Dinner: 1 carrot (26 cals)
Total: 88 cals

Friday (red):
Breakfast: ½ cup strawberries (21.5 cals)
Lunch: ½ cup strawberries (21.5 cals)
Dinner: ½ red pepper (16 cals)
Total: 59 cals

Saturday (purple/blue):
Breakfast: 10 blueberries (8 cals)
Lunch: 10 blueberries (8 cals)
Dinner: 10 raspberries (24 cals)
Total: 40 cals

Sunday (green):
Breakfast: ½ cup grapes (57 cals)
Lunch: ½ grapes (57 cals)
Dinner: 1 cup lettuce (7 cals)
Total: 121 cals

Week total: 696 cals

>>35461453
you're much better off eating raw fruit than innocent smoothies anyway, since they're pasteurised which denatures enzymes which the western diet is deficient in.

>/fit/ is full of tinfoil hatted lunatics whining about "chemicals" (lol) in their precious processed food

i knew this wasn't the brightest board, but damn

>>35461476
>it's that an addiction prevents you from leading a normal life.
An addiction is a neurochemical state of dopamine disregulation, you don't need to look at how someone functions in life to diagnose it (and given that I've seen totally "normal" people by society's standards who nonetheless seem to have disregulation I think it isn't a very reliable measure).
>People can be addicted to anything
You can use pretty much anything to harm yourself and self-harm is addictive so you're right, but substances and activities vary a lot in how addictive they are.

>>35461530
I only drink them the next day after or going to bed after a long night of drinking.
It's scary behind how many companys coca cola is :/

>>35461476
But this diet looks like suicide. That's not addiction to healthy food. I am really overly fond of oatmeal and my bodyfat stays higher than I want as a result but it's not damaging. If unhealthy food did not exist it would be hard for any kind of diet to be harmful. Exept starving yourself of course. Give a fatty a 200g bowl of oatmeal and they would struggle to finish it. If it was a huge bucket of fried chicken it would be gone in minutes. Also, video games don't prevent me from living a normal life they just give me something interesting to do now that I have quit life.

>>35461579
>believing corporations are acting against your interests is on a par with thinking radiowaves are being beamed into your head

File: 28w13jo.jpg (15KB, 476x356px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 476x356px

>>35461603
You're absolutely right, that diet is suicide. However, it is made up of totally healthy foods, but they are consumed at an unhealthy level. The unhealthy behavior has nothing to do with the food and everything to do with the behavior.
>>35461596
put it very well:
>You can use pretty much anything to harm yourself and self-harm is addictive so you're right, but substances and activities vary a lot in how addictive they are.

>Also, video games don't prevent me from living a normal life they just give me something interesting to do now that I have quit life.

I eat fried chicken. I eat junk food. I also play video games (also because they give me something interesting to do!). But none of those things prevent me from also having a job, being healthy, and having social relationships because I enjoy them in moderation at a healthy level.

Your suggestion is to ban junk food, but billions of people are able to enjoy junk food without getting fat and unhealthy. Your mentality towards junk food is the same mentality that results in people saying "OMG ADAM LANZA PLAYED VIDEO GAMES AND KILLED 20 KIDS, BETTER BAN VIDEO GAMES".

File: ameriblubb.jpg (43KB, 464x602px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 464x602px

>>35458724
>Reminder that we live in a country
Fucking ameriblobs

>>35461620
nigga why would anybody act in YOUR interest?
corporations provide and sell what their consumers demand and buy. nothing more, nothing less. peoples choice in available food has never been greater than it is today - if people are choosing to eat shitty garbage when perfectly healthy stuff is available, its their own business. some people apparently value deep-fried butter sticks over a functional body.

>>35461755
you have to be able to identify what is healthy and what isn't - the corporations will not do this for you and they have more control over how your food is produced and ability to test it than you do. It isn't "tin-foil hat" to think that's an alarming situation.

Using the obvious examples of unhealthy foods is just avoiding the issue. It isn't always so obvious, and it seems like the average person has no idea added sugar is harmful.

>>35459649
>Marx
>not jewish
top kek

>>35461795
>read sticky
>follow advice
wow that sure was hard

>added sugar is harmful
unless you're diabetic or gulping down tons of it, it really isn't.

>>35461795
It sounds like you're confounding two issues.

>the average person has no idea added sugar is harmful.
>this is the corporation's fault.

We can fault corporations when they mislead or don't provide full information in order for people to make well-informed decisions, but we can't fault them when people, despite having good information, make bad decisions. Your example of added sugar is clearly bad decisionmaking on the part of the public, not a failure to provide adequate information on the part of the corporation.

>he doesn't have enough self control to avoid shit foods 90% of the time
>he finds it easier to blame GMO for his high bf%
Come on dude. I know the new year maymay is in full swing but at least try putting the fork down for a minute before you pretend mcdick is forcing you to eat their food.

>>35461695
The government should do something to control junk food though. Heavily tax it at least. A food product that is made in a lab to be as addictive as possible and is then made available to children is just obviously going too far.

>>35461695
>billions of people are able to enjoy junk food without getting fat and unhealthy.
30% obese, 30% overweight in the US and UK and that's using BMI which 50% of the time says someone is normal weight when they're overweight by bf% and that someone is overweight when they're obese by bf% (it has a 100% success rate the other way around, so it isn't wrongly identifying anyone where bf% says they're healthy).

We're living in an obesity epidemic and you're saying billions are enjoying junk food without getting fat and unhealthy? If 60% of children were committing shooting sprees your example might work.

I think junk food probably is preventing you being as healthy as you could be. Health is not only a matter of bf%.

>>35461171
Holy shit didn't realize this was even a thing. Anon you might have just saved my ass.

File: 1304342739281.jpg (15KB, 420x242px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 420x242px

>>35461868
Now you're making a much more reasonable argument. A much different one from before, but more reasonable.

This is the classic "paternalism" problem of policy. Should the government influence the decisionmaking of the public for the public's own good? Different countries have taken different views on this, with European countries tending to (there are some exceptions) favor paternalistic governments while Americans tend to be wary of paternalism. There is an entire book on this topic called Nudge. You may enjoy it if you're interested in policy such as this.

I don't think we can answer that question here, but I want to ask another question of you, because policy questions like this are rarely black and white. How would you define "make in a lab to be as addictive as possible"? Many companies would say - rightly so - that such a thing is akin to banning taste testing. Afterall, they test their food for tastiness, and why would you, Mr. Knowitall, want to put a higher tax on tasty food? Don't people have a right to good tasting food?

File: monday-early-dars-5.jpg (22KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x376px

>>35461930
>I think junk food probably is preventing you being as healthy as you could be.

Probably, but I'm a reasonable, psychologically healthy adult, and I'm fully capable of making decisions and understanding consequences for myself. I recognize that a whole wheat Triscuit is probably a better snack for me than Mike and Ikes. I'll choose the Triscuits 95% of the time, but sometimes I want the Mike and Ikes. And that's OK.

>>35461828
>unironically following the sticky

>it really isn't
As I understand it excess sugar is neurochemically disruptive, it isn't only an issue for diabetics.
>tons of it
I think it's also about how much you consume over time.

>>35461850
Fair enough.

>>35461975
making sure food tates ok is one thing but hitting a perfect balnce with your food product, that makes it as addictive as possible, using specialized equipment that the normal person has no knowledge of or access to is just so unfair. Especially when it goes straight into kids mouths without the parents even realizing.

>>35462060
>Especially when it goes straight into kids mouths without the parents even realizing.

Where are the parents? Shouldn't they be watching what their kids are eating? Where does it stop? Why not just have the government buy all of our food?

What is this magical "specialized equipment" that you are referring to that allows companies to put cocaine into food?

>>35462084
Clearly food companies have more expert knowledge of food technology than the average joe

>>35462060
>the normal person has no knowledge of or access to is just so unfair.

It sounds like your problem is with the information provided to the public, which you do not need a tax on junk food in order to solve. You can solve it by simply providing said information to the public. We already do this with nutrition labels, ingredient lists, warning labels, etc.

Is there additional information that you think should be provided to the public? I think that would be a fair point of discussion.

>>35461975
I'm not him, but "good tasting food" isn't the same as addictive food. They're related, but addictive could be described as when taste "overtakes" the nutritional content of the food. In theory the balance between appetite-stimulating effect and satiating effect should be able to be identified, and addicts would say "this doesn't taste of anything!" because they're addicts who need to go through withdrawal etc.. Meanwhile on the other end of the spectrum I never eat high-sugar stuff and don't enjoy it when I do.

>>35462030
>I'm fully capable of making decisions and understanding consequences for myself.
I think unless you're unusually well-educated in neuroscience you probably don't have that ability. There are obvious pitfalls you know how to avoid (outright obesity, binge-eating) but I think there are subtler effects which even a reasonable, normal human is susceptible to.

>>35461975
Different Anon here.

Why can't we approach food like we do cigarettes? California makes restaurants put the calories of every item on the menu in all restaurants. That's a good start. What needs to happen next is a different measurement system that allows people to visualize the amounts of nutrients in their food. That way, they can more easily recognize that, for example, a Coke has an insane amount of sugar in it.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that we make sure that unhealthy food isn't marketed specifically to kids, just like cigarettes and alcohol. They can get it, and we don't need "Warning, this will kill you" labels, but it's marketing that hooks kids on to terrible foods early, thus giving them problems throughout their life.

>>35462119
See this post: >>35462128

If the problem is information or knowledge, a tax would solve nothing. Why not simply provide the information?

>>35462084
>Where are the parents? Shouldn't they be watching what their kids are eating?
I'm not him, but my parents didn't watch over me all day long. I had money of my own and I spent it on high-sugar goods which I had been banned from having in my normal diet.

>>35462128
I'm not him, but one way I think you could solve the obesity crisis is to measure the satiating effects of food and the appetite-stimulating effects of food and enforce regulations to make sure the latter does not outstrip the former as I think it does in the case of mcdonalds, coca-cola etc.

In the end, the choice of what you eat is ultimately yours

You can't blame anyone else

>>35462128
Some people are just too stupid to understand. You can't make them understand even if you tell them straight to their face in simple terms. I have got the response "But I like cookies". Unless you enjoyed tormenting and dismembering people then this situation needs to change. Get rid of the junk food.

>>35462132
>I think unless you're unusually well-educated in neuroscience you probably don't have that ability.

Agreed, but there are people who are unusually well-education in neuroscience and they have written much on this topic. Being a reasonable, psychologically healthy adult in a society of free-flowing information I am able to read those things to help myself with my own understanding. Do I have a Ph.D in neuroscience? No, but I don't have to in order to make good decisions as long as information is readily available to me.

Are there subtler effects? Perhaps, but at what point are you taking all agency out of the individual and making the decision for them? Where is the line between a bad decision and simply different preferences? Many of those subtler effects are actually heuristics that serve us very well in the world by significantly reducing the time and effort needed to make a decision.

>>35462214
>Some people are just too stupid to understand.

I agree. However, it is not the duty of the government, the corporation, or the rest of society to force them into understanding unless they are directly harming others. Further, why should we ban junk food for everyone because landwhales can't keep their mouths shut? I like my Mike and Ikes every once in a while and I'm a perfectly healthy person. Why should I have that taken away from me because of the actions of someone else?

A better question is why are you trying to change and interacting with stupid people?

>>35462134
You mean like the label on the back of every coke bottle that gives you the sugar content? Retard

>>35462220
Yeah but people are getting wrecked by food. It's just going to get worse and worse. Something will change eventually.

>>35462253
Because they are my fucking family mate.

>>35462268
I mean people can't visualize 60 grams of sugar. They can visualize a cup, they can visualize tablespoons and teaspoons, but not grams. That's why it needs to change.

File: Kellogg-s-HSR1_61f177e8[1].jpg_width=300&height=300&mode=max.jpg (27KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x300px

>>35461795
>you have to be able to identify what is healthy and what isn't - the corporations will not do this for you
They are trying this shit in Australia with "health star ratings" but a fair deal of it can be shitty, orange juice for example usually has 5 stars.

>>35462209
we don't take the same approach to selling drugs to children - maybe you think we should.

>>35462220
At some point you have to expect that not everyone has the time or even the intelligence to take in and understand that information. We already put warning signs on electrical equipment without expecting you as an individual to learn and identify the types of electrical equipment before you can safely leave the house.

I mean subtler effects of high-sugar, high-fat foods - subtler than binge-eating.

>>35462187
>>35462220

If you can magically measure such a thing that would be awesome. I would, however, disagree than any food that does not meet your proposed "balance" should be banned. People have different preferences on the satiation-taste seesaw. Perhaps they prefer slightly more tasty food than nutritional food. They like sweet potatoes instead of russet potatoes even though sweet potatoes have a slightly higher sugar content.

These slightly different preferences are what make our society and economy function, and you can't make a moral or policy argument to dictate them for people.

Admittedly my argument doesn't hold on the extremes. For instance, we banned transfat because it was so extremely unhealthy in proportion to its benefit, but for normal, everyday foods, it would be extremely difficult to make a case that doesn't interfere with individual freedom.

>>35462214
> some people are too stupid to understand what's good for them

Literally every atrocity in human history was based around that idea. What possible divine power do you have that you can be do sure you're not only smarter than all other people, but that you also will always have their best interests at heart, and also that you're guaranteed to be correct in your choices such that you can take on all their responsibility.

>>35462253
I'm not him, but if by "stupid people" you mean the overweight and obese, they make up 60% at least of the US and UK - there's no way to avoid that number of people.

>>35462292
I wouldn't trust health authorities, that's another issue that has to be addressed.

>>35462327
Banning junk food is not playing god wtf

>>35462290
>I mean people can't visualize 60 grams of sugar. They can visualize a cup, they can visualize tablespoons and teaspoons, but not grams. That's why it needs to change.

>>35462300
>At some point you have to expect that not everyone has the time or even the intelligence to take in and understand that information. We already put warning signs on electrical equipment without expecting you as an individual to learn and identify the types of electrical equipment before you can safely leave the house.

I agree with both of these arguments. However, these are both arguments for more and better information, not outright bans or significant taxes.

>>At some point you have to expect that not everyone has the time or even the intelligence to take in and understand that information

If they don't have the time, that is the choice of the individual, and even if it is bad they have a right to make that choice. If they don't have the intelligence we should not punish those that do by taking away their ability to make an informed decision via high taxes of outright bans.

>>35462342
>I wouldn't trust health authorities, that's another issue that has to be addressed.

I've been waiting for you to say this.

If you don't trust health authorities, then who should be making these super-important banning and taxing decisions?

see >>35462327

>>35462359
You're right, it's not.

You're intentions are good, and I agree with your goals. But I'm challenging you because these problems do not exist in vacuums. They are not easy, that's why they haven't been solved yet.

At the very least we will both understand our own positions better and be able to better defend them by the end of this thread.

>>35462429
So be junk food Hitler. Why not?

>>35459649
>Voluntary trade is myth lol.

Low iq detected

>>35462303
I'm not saying we should have no variation at all - I'm saying if you remove all the food which has an addictive level of appetite-stimulant effect vs. satiating effect then I think it will reduce obesity dramatically.

At the very least, you should expect that if you allow those products to circulate you'll end up with a lot of addicts. If heroin were freely distributed we would have a lot more addicts, especially if it was passed around in some innocuous form.

I think even in terms of what you're suggesting it would make sense to make it illegal to market and sell high-appetite, low-satiation products as "food" and instead have to market them as drugs.

I would like to see all drugs banned and destroyed and for society to collectively reject all addictions as a dead-end, which is what I believe they are - a huge, self-reinforcing sink-hole which swallows up money, time and entire lives. You may as well say we should let schizophrenics beat their head against the wall because it's their freedom of expression.

>>35462455
I think there are two arguments being made here:

1. A ban or high tax would have spillover effects and harm those who are not at fault for the problem.
2. There are other, less intrusive ways of solving the problem.

Also, it bears noting that the percentage adults above normal weight has only increased by 5% since 1997 (from 70% to 75%).

>>35462515
yeah, lol, only 75%. Just most of them then.

The government are just balancing the books like a company. The details don't matter. We are on our own. Even the kids that we supposedly nuture and protect.

>>35462327
If you don't trust someone to regulate, you have to accept the risk of anything being in your food (glass, horse-meat, bits of plastic).

>>35462387
I think the authorities should be making it but with a more up-to-date set of information than they have now.

>>35462370
>If they don't have the time, that is the choice of the individual
In reality it isn't realistic to expect everyone to be an expert in everything. It would be ideal but it isn't realistic.

>>35462429
>They are not easy, that's why they haven't been solved yet.
Governments are way behind dealing with this, I don't think they're struggling with serious moral issues - they're just woefully uneducated.

>>35459142
Might be cause your starving in your shit 3rd world country.

>>35461600
>It's scary behind how many companys coca cola is

I hope English is your second language

>>35462589
>In reality it isn't realistic to expect everyone to be an expert in everything. It would be ideal but it isn't realistic.
I agree, however, we are a society of free-flowing information and I can readily access synthesized information that has been created by experts. But again, you're making an argument for more and better information, not for banning or high taxes.

>>35462607
>Governments are way behind dealing with this, I don't think they're struggling with serious moral issues - they're just woefully uneducated.
Agreed that governments are behind. However, I think the problem is what you've stated: they're uneducated. That is not an argument for bans or high taxes.

>>35462677
Haha, yeah.
This happens when you translate it 1:1 from your language :D

>>35462730
>I can readily access synthesized information that has been created by experts.
If you're trusting the experts to synthesise information it seems like you may as well trust them to ban foods. Either they say "it's like this" and you trust them on authority or they use that authority directly to ban something before you even see it on the shelves: it's the exercise of authority in either case.

>>35462811
>If you're trusting the experts to synthesise information it seems like you may as well trust them to ban foods.

Absolutely not, and that's an extremely juvenile and black-and-white way to view the world. I trust them to give me information, not to make my decision. Providing information and actively making a decision are two extremely different actions and levels of agencies. For instance, I'm sure you trust researchers when they say that speeding is dangerous, but yet I'm sure you speed. And that's OK because you're an adult that is able to make their own decisions. Sometimes you are late for work and are willing to take on the slightly increased risk in exchange for not pissing off your boss. The world is not black-and-white.

>>35462863
>health authorities sort products between those which will be sold and which won't
>scientists sort information between what will be taught and what won't
in each case decisions are being made without you.

I think neuroscience's conclusions are what I want to follow so I don't mind if food is banned according to neuroscience - it only makes it easier for me not having to sort through all the useless products I will never want to consume. After all, we already have regulations to stop food with shards of glass making it onto the shelves - if you agree with that it seems the same to me.

Then again, I have already looked at the information so a ban wouldn't be done "over my head" anyway.

>>35463006
Your argument is extremely poor in this. It amounts to "it's the decision I would have made otherwise so I'm OK with it", see here:
>Then again, I have already looked at the information so a ban wouldn't be done "over my head" anyway.

This itself implies that you give importance to your own agency in decisionmaking. I also do, but I have a sense that I give it more importance. I would never want my ability to make a decision taken away from me even if it meant that I might end up making a bad one or even if I agreed with the end result. Self-determination is that important. In fact, it's so important that I'm totally OK with you allowing scientists and regulators to make your decisions for you. That's a perfectly acceptable and common way to make decisions. Just don't force your heuristic or your decision onto me.

In both the decisions you've cited, there are indeed decisions being made without me, but they are not decisions that I have direct agency in. When I go to buy something, that is something I have total agency in. What statistical models a researcher uses, how regulators make their decisions, etc, I understand that I have no agency over those, and I'm OK with that because I understand that others have to have a level of agency as well. But I would never so easily give up my ability to purchase something.

Your shards of glass example is also flawed. No one would willingly eat something with shards of glass in it. But some people willingly eat unhealthy things. But here is a question. Let's say someone wanted to eat something with shards of glass. How would they do it? Easy: add their own glass. Under your world, where junk food is banned, what is stopping someone from crafting their own junk food?

I get it, you're young and think you have all of the answers to the world.
>If people only followed my way of thinking everything would be perfect!
People are different, they have different wants, needs, tastes, and preferences. And that's OK.

>>35463291
>I have total agency when I buy something
There's a limited amount of space in the store, you don't decide what's in there - it's a combination of those who are selling it or the regulators.
>No one would willingly eat something with shards of glass in it
If they understood the effect of these products on neurochemistry they wouldn't willingly eat it either.
>Under your world, where junk food is banned, what is stopping someone from crafting their own junk food?
It isn't that junk food should be banned so much as it shouldn't be legally sold. If the only way to have it was to make your own at least this thread wouldn't exist.
>I get it, you're young
You don't know how old I am.
>my way of thinking
It isn't "my way of thinking" - it's neuroscience which is saying that other people's preferences are not ok - and we have an epidemic to illustrate what happens if you leave preferences unchecked. If you support regulation then I see no reason not to support this type of regulation.

Not everyone understands the need to avoid chemical contamination of food, yet the regulation against that contamination exists. It's an affront against their freedom as much as regulation like I'm talking about would be to yours.

File: pepe41.png (10KB, 427x451px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 427x451px

>>35458724
you're literally embarrasing

>>35458724
im replying just to tell you
that i could not be arsed to read your post
i got half a line through and got bored

i hear tumblr calling for you

>>35459649
The problem isn't in the system, but in who has the system governing.
A heterogeneous society will most often tend to go downwards.

>>35461028
If only.

>>35461138
It doesn't work for me. At most I've been able to play a game for a week or less.
All those games in my computer? never finished a single one.

>>35461361
>Assuming the seeds aren't tainted
I'm dwelling in paranoid territory, but it's true. Not only the years of interbreeding, but the fact that they might be touched so that they produce chemicals that inhibit satiety perception.

>>35462370
I don't support a ban, but more taxes would be okay. Information is key in consumption decisions. That's why it needs to be addressed first.

>>35462515
That's not the right direction homie.