nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Should we ban junk food?

Austerity

Because people get chronic diseases when they eat junk food alot is this a reason to ban it? When these people get sick they don't shoulder the full burden of the costs themselves, instead taxpayers are forced to foot the bill.

In many places they have banned transfats because they are considered to dangerous. Several countries have banned the diabetes drug Avandia because of the negative side effects, leading to death in some cases.

If we can ban transfats and dangerous drugs why can't we ban junk food?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

curlzy

Ban junk food? Should we not put a stop to smoking first, it is after all the Wests biggest killer. Hmmm all this typing got me hungry, I'm off for a Big Mac and a smoke

up for anything

curlzy wrote: »

Ban junk food? Should we not put a stop to smoking first, it is after all the Wests biggest killer. Hmmm all this typing got me hungry, I'm off for a Big Mac and a smoke

I do hope you are going to have an apres lunch aperitif* too.

]

*digestif apparently. Have one of both and err on the side of caution.

TheUsual

Fat people = slow suicide.
Or attention at best.

efb

Fat tax ftw

senordingdong

efb wrote: »

Fat tax ftw

Banning or taxing fatty/junk foods is not the answer.
We already know that this wouldn't work by looking at the high prices of cigarettes and alcohol in this country.

Furthermore, higher medical cost for smokers and drinkers doesn't seem to be a deterrent...

I also think it's silly to expect the schools to pick up the slack
(my g/f is primary teacher and told me the schools implement rules on what you can and can not bring for lunch - I think that's ridiculous)

Better parenting is what's needed.

sunshineoh9

TheUsual wrote: »

Fat people = slow suicide.
Or attention at best.

its not about being fat, its about being unhealthy... just because a person is say, 20 lbs overweight it doesn't mean they are committing slow suicide. they could be extremely healthy with some extra padding; all the while you can have a thin person (at proper weight or underweight) that have severe health issues due to their diet...

the way i see it is that the bigger problem here isn't sugar, salt, fat or caloric content (don't get me wrong, someone that takes in 5000 calories a day and sits on their a$$ is usually unhealthy) but the main reason all these junk foods have so many calories is because of all the preservatives and other chemicals in them. junk food isn't food, its a derivative of food!
eg: if you buy a spud, slice it, fry it in pure oil or grease and season it with natural sea salt and whatever herbs you wish it will be MUCH healthier than a bag of crisps you buy at a store. no, its not going to be a great thing to always eat but its 1000000000000 times better for you than the bag of crisps.

so not only do people have a problem with excess but now our food has less good nutritional content and more crap in it...

TPD

How about people stop calling for things to be banned, and everyone take a little personal responsibility? I don't see how or why anyone would desire less choices in life.

smokedeels

People should be allowed smoke, drink and eat what they want, I personally observe the practice of moderation, but that’s my choice, if people want to knock 20 years off their lives it’s up to them, I can’t agree with systematically modifying personal habits through law.

rubadub

Austerity wrote: »

If we can ban transfats and dangerous drugs why can't we ban junk food?

moonage wrote: »

Who is it that will define what junk food is anyway?

+1, drugs are specifically banned or not. What is "junk food" is an extremely grey area

sunshineoh9 wrote: »

i'm sure they could make a system involving how much fat and/or sugar is in processed foods... obviously a potato is not junk food because it has to additives, but a bag of crisps could be loaded with a day's worth of fat in one serving.

It is not so obvious at all. Is a pizza junk food? it has a similar nutritional make up as a ham & cheese & tomato sandwich. If I mix mashed potato with coconut oil it could have a higher fat content than crisps. Try and give some more examples of what should be banned and you will see it is not workable. Do we ban olive oil? its high in fat, what about isotonic sports drinks -high in salt.

Is Lilt a junk food? skimmed milk has more sugar per 100ml than lilt.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Austerity wrote: »

It's illegal for parents to give their children alcohol,

No it's not.

Herb Powell

Austerity wrote: »

Because obese people with obesity related chronic diseases cost the taxpayers ****loads of money. Isn't that argument enough to ban junk food?

Maybe we can instead add punitive taxes to junk food like with alcohol and ciggies.

No, it's a fucking terrible argument to be fair

TheUsual wrote: »

These things are nice in moderation (except drugs)

ah well now........:p

DarkJager

Can we ban people from being self appointed moral guardians for everyone else?

Delicate_Dlite

To be fair, not just 'fatties' suffer damage from eating 'junk food', choloesterol etc and fitness should be considered when deciding health. It's not just about jean size/weight.

Also, no mention of eating disorders, primarily B.E.D. Personal freedom is highly important, but it's shocking how little some people know about the content of what they eat. So education is needed

Ah post: tax the fatties... and ugly ppl. :cool:

sunshineoh9

rubadub wrote: »

It is not so obvious at all. Is a pizza junk food? it has a similar nutritional make up as a ham & cheese & tomato sandwich. If I mix mashed potato with coconut oil it could have a higher fat content than crisps. Try and give some more examples of what should be banned and you will see it is not workable. Do we ban olive oil? its high in fat, what about isotonic sports drinks -high in salt.

Is Lilt a junk food? skimmed milk has more sugar per 100ml than lilt.

*points to my last post* this pretty much explains it, fat and all that surely is a big part of junk food but i don't think it should be banned because of that....

sunshineoh9 wrote: »

the way i see it is that the bigger problem here isn't sugar, salt, fat or caloric content (don't get me wrong, someone that takes in 5000 calories a day and sits on their a$$ is usually unhealthy) but the main reason all these junk foods have so many calories is because of all the preservatives and other chemicals in them. junk food isn't food, its a derivative of food!
eg: if you buy a spud, slice it, fry it in pure oil or grease and season it with natural sea salt and whatever herbs you wish it will be MUCH healthier than a bag of crisps you buy at a store. no, its not going to be a great thing to always eat but its 1000000000000 times better for you than the bag of crisps.

so not only do people have a problem with excess but now our food has less good nutritional content and more crap in it...

also, idk if you had them over there but when i was younger there was a diet pringle (crisp) on the market that ended up being recalled because one of the chemicals in it coated the stomach with a greasy, plastic-like substance which prohibited the person from absorbing nutrition properly. many people became malnourished from this and had to seek medical treatment... so this is a crisp that barely has potatoes and/or corn in the ingredients list, it had less fat & etc than a fresh batch of homemade chips, but is it still not junk food? its more about the ingredients than the calories

knird evol

If you ban Junkfood, you'll only push it underground. It won't be regulated. It won't be controlled. It will come into the hands of organised crime gangs and scumbags who won't care about the fat people but only care about how much money they're making. In this dark, nefarious and unregulated world, dealers with target the young and vulnerable, pushing Pizza and Hunky Dory crisps on children outside schools. A generation of addicts will come up, needing to rob maim and steal to fund their pathetic chinese food cravings.
Let's legalise food........etc

marcsignal

Austerity wrote: »

Because obese people with obesity related chronic diseases cost the taxpayers ****loads of money. Isn't that argument enough to ban junk food?

what about their contribution to the Arts ??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNRjfl4F2sg

rubadub

sunshineoh9 wrote: »

this pretty much explains it, fat and all that surely is a big part of junk food but i don't think it should be banned because of that....

So what criteria do you suggest? again, how can you legal define junk food? Drugs are easily banned as they are definite compounds/substances so a judge can be told it was scientifically tested and found to be cocaine.

sunshineoh9 wrote: »

the main reason all these junk foods have so many calories is because of all the preservatives and other chemicals in them. junk food isn't food, its a derivative of food!.

The perservatives and chemicals usually have negligible calories, they are only there in trace amounts.

sunshineoh9 wrote: »

so this is a crisp that barely has potatoes and/or corn in the ingredients list, it had less fat & etc than a fresh batch of homemade chips, but is it still not junk food? its more about the ingredients than the calories

Thats what I am getting at, "is it junk food?" and how are you suggesting people can tell. Common sense has no place in a court room, you have to have specific criteria and I am wondering what they could be. No doubt there are already legal limits on the amount of presevatives etc in foods.

These lowfat crisps will have more potatoes in them than regular ones, as if there is less oil there is obviously a higher % of oil. I would sooner have the high fat ones myself. In the nutrition forum there was discussion on how to increase your intake of coconut oil -very high is saturated fat, but eaten by many for health reasons.

The pringles had a type of altered fat which was not digested properly, like these OTC diet drugs out now, they can cause "leakage", which is a nice way of saying you can soil yourself as your slippy faeces leaks out. Some women in the nutrition forum did soil themselves.

tman

sunshineoh9 wrote: »

perhaps not BAN junk food altogether but put warning labels on it and make it age restricted purchases... like only people 16 years and older can buy them but any age can eat (so if parents allow junk food they have to buy it for the children)

That's not actually a bad idea!

Start putting cigarette packet style pictures of fatsos on food packaging.
McDonalds supersize drink containers with pictures of a gastric bypass band being fitted

sunshineoh9

rubadub wrote: »

So what criteria do you suggest? again, how can you legal define junk food? Drugs are easily banned as they are definite compounds/substances so a judge can be told it was scientifically tested and found to be cocaine.

The perservatives and chemicals usually have negligible calories, they are only there in trace amounts.

Thats what I am getting at, "is it junk food?" and how are you suggesting people can tell. Common sense has no place in a court room, you have to have specific criteria and I am wondering what they could be. No doubt there are already legal limits on the amount of presevatives etc in foods.

These lowfat crisps will have more potatoes in them than regular ones, as if there is less oil there is obviously a higher % of oil. I would sooner have the high fat ones myself. In the nutrition forum there was discussion on how to increase your intake of coconut oil -very high is saturated fat, but eaten by many for health reasons.

The pringles had a type of altered fat which was not digested properly, like these OTC diet drugs out now, they can cause "leakage", which is a nice way of saying you can soil yourself as your slippy faeces leaks out. Some women in the nutrition forum did soil themselves.

well i think the ingredients list can be used the same as drug chemical compounds... test the chemicals in the food and see if its harmful or not, and obviously its only going to be food that has been processed

tman wrote: »

That's not actually a bad idea!

Start putting cigarette packet style pictures of fatsos on food packaging.
McDonalds supersize drink containers with pictures of a gastric bypass band being fitted

exactly! not to mention removing toys from all junk food products, it just lures kids in... they are just as bad as the tobaco companies!

DOC09UNAM

sunshineoh9 wrote: »

well i think the ingredients list can be used the same as drug chemical compounds... test the chemicals in the food and see if its harmful or not, and obviously its only going to be food that has been processed

exactly! not to mention removing toys from all junk food products, it just lures kids in... they are just as bad as the tobaco companies!

Since when do they give out toys with cigs, please tell me where you get yours, i'd like some toys

sunshineoh9

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Since when do they give out toys with cigs, please tell me where you get yours, i'd like some toys

toys in kid's meals = candy flavored fags

although i have found cigarettes that came with fancy lighters that flash different colors when lit, thats kind of a toy

lol

DOC09UNAM

sunshineoh9 wrote: »

toys in kid's meals = candy flavored fags

although i have found cigarettes that came with fancy lighters that flash different colors when lit, thats kind of a toy lol

Yes, I love those lighters, I have a habit of either losing them Or never getting them back when i have one

sunshineoh9

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Yes, I love those lighters, I have a habit of either losing them Or never getting them back when i have one

yeah, i got one in central florida and once i had a chance to fill in (back in south florida) it didn't work!!! and it was an $8 lighter!!!

racso1975

I love the logic of after hours. Fat=unhealthy and skinny=healthy! Cop the fluck on!

Now for the usual ah responses about me being fat cause i dont agree with your rubbish arguements

sunshineoh9

racso1975 wrote: »

I love the logic of after hours. Fat=unhealthy and skinny=healthy! Cop the fluck on!

Now for the usual ah responses about me being fat cause i dont agree with your rubbish arguements

lol, i feel the same way!

efb

Obese is unhealthy. Check your BMI!!!

racso1975

efb wrote: »

Obese is unhealthy. Check your BMI!!!

yeah BMI gives a reallly definative answer!!! Hence why all the irish rugby team register as obese. They must really be unhealthy

mikemac

Not schilling or anything but just saying this is a brilliant book, one of the best I've ever read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Food_Nation

Goes into the who corporate sector, how the companies became so succusful, look at immigrant workers in meat factories, food safety and so much more

Worth buying, it's on Amazon

Saying that, the film version with Bruce Willis is atrocious

Read the book, ignore the film

Btwndeyes

Austerity wrote: »

Because people get chronic diseases when they eat junk food alot is this a reason to ban it? When these people get sick they don't shoulder the full burden of the costs themselves, instead taxpayers are forced to foot the bill.

In many places they have banned transfats because they are considered to dangerous. Several countries have banned the diabetes drug Avandia because of the negative side effects, leading to death in some cases.

If we can ban transfats and dangerous drugs why can't we ban junk food?

Stop messing with natural selection, sheesh.

TPD

feelingstressed wrote: »

Saying that, the film version with Bruce Willis is atrocious
Read the book, ignore the film

Ah good god that film was awful. Starring Avril Lavigne*, of course it's going to be shíte.

*Sorry Tar