Bio
I am a 44 year old single mother of two beautiful children; Brian 20, and Nicole 17. Being a mom is the thing I am most proud of; I could sit and ta...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Should The Government Control What We Can and Can Not Eat?

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 14
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

I know many people don't think our government has any business telling us what we can and can not eat. Until recently, I might have even agreed. But the problem of obesity is reaching epidemic proportions, and there's no sign of it getting any better on its own. More and more evidence is pointing to the dangers associated with all the high fat, high sugar, and processed foods we are eating.  And with such a limited amount of healthy food available to the consumer, (at least compared to unhealthy foods), its virtually impossible to suggest that people have a "choice" when it comes to avoiding trans fats and processed foods.

These foods are not just making us fat, these foods are killing us.   The CDC estimates that more than 300,000 Americans die each year from obesity-related complications...Doesn't our government bare some responsibility in protecting the lives of its citizens?

It seems we are long past telling people to simply avoid these unhealthy foods. To make matters worse, it's now believed that junk food can be as addicting as cocaine.

Here is a graph showing preventable causes of death...

What can be done?

Obesity isn't a problem that can be solved with a one-size-fits-all solution.  But there are things our government could do that would help.  

Although controversial, some say that taxing junk food is the answer.  But during a recession it's hard to justify increasing the cost of food (even if it is junk).  I think taxing junk food could be a good idea, as long as it's done in conjunction with making healthy foods more available and affordable.  And what about taxing the manufacturers producing this junk too?  It surely couldn't hurt to make selling junk food less profitable.

I also think more regulations on processed and fast foods would be beneficial.  Eliminating trans fats is a great start, but lowering the acceptable amounts of sodium and sugar being used by manufacturers is also very important.  We have to stop allowing manufacturers to sell products that are essentially killing consumers.

What do you think?

Here are a few articles on this topic...

From The Huffington Post...

We know, for example, that diets rich in fruits and vegetables can help manage weight and lower risks for cancer and other chronic diseases, especially when they replace calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods. Yet fewer than one in 10 Americans meet the levels of fruits and vegetable consumption recommended under the latest calorie-specific, healthy eating guidelines. And farm policy historically has overlooked incentives for fruit and vegetable production.

So how do we get farm policy and public health on the same page?

As a start, the executive branch needs to pull together disparate health and agriculture communities around food policy. There needs to be a Healthy Foods Commission -- and it has to be independent. Such a commission, comprised of non-governmental public health, agriculture and food system experts, could work closely with the Administration's Task Force on Childhood Obesity to ensure upstream and downstream food system goals are mutually reinforcing.

Can We Legislate Ourselves Thinner?

"I think we learned from tobacco," says Najeebah Shine, who oversees community health programs for the Cuyahoga County Board of Health. "It's going to take large public-policy changes to move us beyond individual behavior choices."

But like tobacco regulation, anti-obesity policies face pushback from industry, as well as ideological resistance from those who don't think government should tell us what to eat. It's debatable whether we can legislate ourselves thinner, or whether we should even try.

"This is an interesting philosophical debate in how you define what is a public- health interest versus an individual-health interest," says Jessica Berg, a professor of law, bioethics and public health at Case Western Reserve University.

State interventions to reduce obesity face even higher hurdles than tobacco laws, Berg says, because tobacco is a single product with no redeeming quality. But even the greasiest fries have some nutritional value.

Who's to say which foods on society's grand buffet table should be legislated?

From iVillage...

The government already has more of a role in helping you determine what foods you place in your grocery cart than you might realize.

  • 14
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
claudius2u 5 pts

Is there a solution to We the People eating grossly unnatural, disease-causing "foods"? Of course there is!

1. Turn off the hourly, 24/7/365 brain-deceiving media crap advertising hidden agenda "news," "health," and Big Pharma "health solutions," and get interested in what causes good human health, sound emotions, and good relationships that promote good health.

2. Make a priority of sitting on the heads of those who hold our children hostage in schoolrooms of dumbed-down de-education, and demoralizing, unethical thinking and disrespect for parents, government [Although the government deserves no respect], and mandated on-site student consumption of mal-nourishing, commercial enterprise-produced cafeteria meals, banning brown bag meals from home.

3. Demand local farmers on the small end be favored food providers for local stores.

4. Learn how, and encourage all one's neighbors to also learn and grow at least come vegetables in their apartment, in outside containers, or in their yard.

5. Encourage everyone to go to the library, online, or to a local agriculture extension service to learn what to plant locally, how to grow it in high-nutrition soil, and how to harvest and use the food.

6. Abandon the entire scope of wrong-headed thinking that government will somehow take care of our health, our sicknesses, and our relationship-caused disease woes: it will never, ever be something any government can accomplish, and historically, it has never been done anywhere, by any government. Get used to it!

claudius2u 5 pts

When "the executive branch" of the U.S. private enterprise, aka "our government, does any kind of health and nutrition legislation, or even proposals, We the People[Sheeple] suffer from worsened situations that such actions were supposedly meant to alleviate.

What our land truly needs, is for "the executive branch, " and ALL government to back off supporting Big Pharma control of our agriculture, get out of allowing Big Pharma board directors and CEOs to control and manipulate the FDA, and forcefull return our farming enterprises back to small-scale farmers, with fully-backed support for non-chemical agronomy, and local produce and other farmer-produced foods sales.

But, with such a plan's great loss of financial gain now going to Big Pharma-owned agriculture enterprises, and the PACs and lobbyists' sppending literal billions of dollars to outright buy elected representatives' support in Congress, and in "the executive branch," we can look ahead, and realize there will be absolutely No Change!

NicoleWins 5 pts

The more the government has meddled in nutrition and agriculture, the more obese we've become. Obviously, they're doing it wrong.

Health has declined by every measurable standard since the government began pushing its low fat agenda. As Gary Taubes famously questioned in 2002, "What if it's All Been A Big Fat Lie?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if... ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if... )) The science simply doesn't support a low fat, high carb diet for the growing or healthy individual, and the various government agencies who have been promoting that diet to all of us made assumptions and put them into policy and now they're killing us, just as surely as the junk food manufacturers who load up on sugar and high fructose corn syrup to make their foods fashionably lowfat.

The USDA requirements for schoolchildren's lunches, and the massive subsidies that make frozen "chicken" nuggets cheaper then fresh whole chickens, are proof enough the government control of our food system was a terrible mistake. The only way I'd support continued or further control is if they drastically rewrite their guidelines and goals to get processed food out of the system and bring fresh food made from scratch back in. I have about as much faith in that as I do in the unicorn my daughter swears lives in the back yard.

Catherine Morgan 5 pts

Hi Lori. I agree that the problem is bigger than just offering wholesome foods at reasonable prices...But it seems we need to start somewhere, even small steps toward a solution is better than no steps at all.

Thanks for commenting.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
Also at Catherine-Morgan.com ( http://catherine-morgan.com/ )

Lori D H 5 pts

While I understand that we need to find a solution, even trying to offer more wholesome foods at a reasonable cost to lower income families won't entirely fix the problem.

Have you looked at the corner convenience store shelves in poor neighborhoods? They are filled with processed junk foods, not perishable fruits and vegetables. The profit margin for local stores in these areas, where welfare checks and WIC dollars are often spent, lies with highly processed, poor quality food. Many people don't have the transportation to go to a farmer's market or an organic food store, let alone purchase higher priced foods.

Until the government can tell these individuals in a practical manner HOW to do it, they simply shouldn't tell them WHAT to do.

Catherine Morgan 5 pts

Thanks Lisa...I think that Jamie Oliver's show is great, I hope it catches on.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
Also at Catherine-Morgan.com ( http://catherine-morgan.com/ )

lisalawless 5 pts

It's obviously time to take action and make changes. Regulations on trans fats, sodium, HFCS, and sugar levels is fine if the products are actually tested properly. Education could help as well. I'm inspired by how well the word is spreading from Jaimie's food revolution.

lisa from lisa is cooking

http://lisaiscooking.blogspot.com/ 

HealthisAbundance 5 pts

Absolute Gratitude

AbsolutAbundance

Perhaps if goverments put pressure on retail outlets to include organic produce at a competitve price, than these types of foods would be more available to consumers and not be restricted due to price.

Catherine Morgan 5 pts

It really blows my mind how little food is actually in our food...and then there's the additives, chemicals, hormones, and don't forget the artificial coloring to make the non-food look like actual food.

As far as a tax on junk food...The only way I would support it would be if the money raised from the tax was being used to make healthy food more affordable...Don't ask me how they would do that, but that would be my vision. The truth is, even without a tax, the cost of these foods will go up, it's just that it will be the manufacturers raising the prices. Because once mandates are put on the manufacturers to produce healthier food, you can bet the manufacturers will lovingly pass that cost onto the consumer. Sadly, it's a lose/lose for the consumer as far as cost is concerned, we can only hope that at least in the long run our health will benefit.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
Also at Catherine-Morgan.com ( http://catherine-morgan.com/ )

Just_Margaret 8 pts

I really appreciate this article, Catherine.

I would agree wholeheartedly that the megacorps won't go down without a fight. *sigh* But I guess I'm not at the point where I think that the average Joe or Jane should have to shoulder the financial burden of the poor choices offered to them. These COMPANIES are feeding us shit! Our most inexpensive food isn't actually food. If the megacorps were prohibited from producing it in the first place, they would certainly have new incentive to produce *actual* food at a reasonable cost.

What I see is this. I can produce in a lab some cheaper food alternative. I sell this to the general population--it's cheap, it's tasty and you buy it. My prices are low. Lower than real food. So you buy my non-food. Now, you have health issues. Sorry--the government says I can make it--and I'm not FORCING you to consume it. This is not my problem.

So now, you need another non-food product (prescription drugs) to address your high blood pressure and your cholesterol problem. You need more health care because you've damaged your body with all that non food. Needless to say, additional health care, even if you have insurance, will cost you money. Money that's probably not growing on the tree in the back yard. Money, that if you had it in the first place, could have been spent to make healthier food choices.

So, finally, the Gov't says, this is no good--people are not healthy because of this non food. "Don't buy the non food! If you do, not only will your body punish you, but we'll tax you and add to your financial burden." wha...?

I could see the value of the tax on junkfood if healthy food were on an equivalent cost scale. But with the system as it currently is, I think it places an undue burden on the most financially precarious of our population.

~Margaret

Just Margaret ( http://maurhoffbarney.blogspot.com )

Catherine Morgan 5 pts

Thanks for your comment Kay. I think the "choice" aspect depends completely on the socioeconomic level of the consumer. Even if you know what is health and what's not, there is no doubt that junk food is much more affordable than healthy food...Choice just isn't even an option for some, and this really needs to change.

As far as what the government would consider "healthy" -- I hope doctors and nutritionist will be consulted...It shouldn't be left to the manufacturers. We need strict standards on processed food, and what's considered healthy.

Thanks for your comment Kay.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
Also at Catherine-Morgan.com ( http://catherine-morgan.com/ )

Catherine Morgan 5 pts

Hi Margaret, thanks for commenting. I totally agree with you, the primary responsibility should be placed on the manufacturers. However, these companies won't go down without a fight, and I fear that if this is the only method used by the government it could be years and years before any headway is made at all. That's why I think if they could apply a small tax on these junk foods and use the money collected to make healthy foods more available, it might be enough to get us over the hump. Just a thought.

Thanks again for commenting, this is such an important issue.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
Also at Catherine-Morgan.com ( http://catherine-morgan.com/ )

Kay Em 5 pts

I think that eating healthy is not only about availability, but choice. There have been many instances when I chose to open a bag of chips instead of eating the fruit I had available at home. Embarassing enough, I just didn't want to take the effort and do the right thing.

Eating and thinking of eating healthy takes an effort and if we are a market driven economy, it has to hit either the business or the end user. My fear is that the end user will then be left with no choice of healthy nor processed food. I agree that if junk food is taxed then, healthy food must be priced lower and made available. Then the question is what is healthy?

Just_Margaret 8 pts

I make fun of my husband sometimes, because he gets on what I call health kicks. He has been talking about HFCS and Transfat for ages, and only in the last six months or so have I really started paying attention to what he was saying, and doing a bit of my own reading on the matter of food production and our government's involvement in it.

I feel as if the 'control' needs to be placed at the top of the chain--not at the end user. HFCS is not a food found in nature! Transfats are not found in nature! These are products created in a laboratory, not someone's kitchen. Companies created these products and they are cheaper to use, so they do--damn the health of the consumer!

If the government is going to be effective in the job of positively impacting what we as Americans eat, the sanctions/taxes/etc need to be placed at the source of the problem--at the production end of the 'food chain.'

~Margaret

Just Margaret ( http://maurhoffbarney.blogspot.com )