Should the government have a say in what we eat and drink?

1. 84

   alifeofdesignposted 13 years ago

   Should the government have a say in what we eat and drink?
   
   If we allow our government to prohibit the selling of large and/or 'super-sized' drinks, are we then approving the regulation of ALL caloric intake on the basis of it's not good for us? Furthermore, if we allow laws based on health hazards, why is tobacco still being sold?
   
   Surely, the number of obese has grown considerable. What of the number of deaths from smoking-related cancer?

   replyreport
2. 60

   nightwork4posted 13 years ago

   people want the government to control way too much these days. it scares the heck out of me how things that are personal choices are now being controlled by the government. isn't that basically what communism is?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Josakposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed it's stupid that anyone would want the government to intervene in matters like this, on the other hand that is not at all what communism is.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Attikosposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It's authoritarianism, at any rate. That can come colored in any economic system's paint, be that communist, socialist or capitalist, left or right. It always operates the same way, though, with your choices being stripped away for your own good.

      replyreport
3. 36

   ChristinSposted 13 years ago

   It's such a tough question - No I don't really want the government dictating what I can and cannot eat, drink etc.  At the same time, people who are obese and who suffer from the multitude of obesity related health issues make healthcare more expensive for all of us.  I think there needs to be personal accountability for ones choices - and enforced penalties for people whose own actions burden other people.  I mean we limit smokers, tax them etc. and it hasn't eliminated smoking... It's hard to say what the answer is.  I hate big government, but I also have a problem with everyone's "all about me" attitudes towards everything without ever considering what those choices are doing to the whole of society. 
   
   Perhaps government would do better by enforcing genuine nutrition education - but the food lobby would have none of that probably.  They profit from all the chemical laden addictive garbage they sell as "food".

   replyreport
   1. 84

      alifeofdesignposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed, ChristinS, it is a difficult question that I've been thinking about for sometime now....I think that is a good thing. From the replies thus far, other folks are thinking about it as well. Thank you for your thoughts.
      Best Regards,

      replyreport
4. 80

   junksellerposted 13 years ago

   It seems unrealistic to expect the government to just ignore a large health problem. Not many people seem to mind for instance the government researching cures for cancer or AIDS. The tax the government recently put on tanning salons I think is similar to the super-size ban . While, I don't necessarily agree with those policies, I do tend to think the government should do something about these health concerns. Prevention makes more sense than after-the-fact mitigation, but generally I think positive incentive policies work better than command and control punishments.
   
   And while alcohol and tobacco are still sold, they do have an extra 'sin tax' added to them to try and discourage consumption (which does not seem effective at all).

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Attikosposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, it is ineffective if reduction of use is the objective. That's a clue. Cutting abuse isn't the goal, it's merely the cover story. Control and money are what it's about.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      alifeofdesignposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you, junkseller, for your thoughts. I find the question a difficult one because I wonder, too, about the future impact on society and the enormous health issues that we are sure to face. This country's health is declining quickly!

      replyreport
5. 78

   Attikosposted 13 years ago

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Attikosposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry. This response grew too long for a simple comment, so I made a Hub of it. Please delete this one. Thanks.

      replyreport
6. 78

   Attikosposted 13 years ago

   What you eat is your choice. If you want to drink yourself under the table every night it's your right. At least that's the ideal view of it for a free country.
   It is not what we have today in America. The regulation of diet is expanding, too,... read more

   replyreport
7. 69

   Bob Zermopposted 13 years ago

   No, I don't think so. Though I agree with an earlier comment that obesity/smoking/maybe alcohol could make public healthcare more expensive, allowing the gov to control something as personal as diet is the top of a very slippery slope.

   replyreport
8. 0

   Ana Louisposted 12 years ago

   It is not the government's job to decide what a person can eat or drink.  Allowing them to do so opens the door to government's autocratic rule over all of us.   Government will never be wise enough, nor moral enough to fairly exercise that much control.

   replyreport
9. 81

   mikejhcaposted 12 years ago

   The government is doing it in an attempt to reduce obesity.  Obesity is a problem for the obese people and society in general.  There is a high cost to having a large number of obese people. The government is not stopping people from drinking pop they are reducing the size of the drinks so people do not drink more than they would if the drinks were smaller. 
   
   Where I live the government has done a lot to discourage smoking.  However they still allow people to smoke.  When alcohol was outlawed it did not turn out to well for the government but it was good for criminals.  If the government said people could no longer sell tobacco products people would sell it illegally and the products would be more dangerous.  At least now the government makes some money to help with the health care costs.

   replyreport
10. 81

    Amethystravenposted 12 years ago

    Out of all of the foods offered, the government can have a say in what pesticides, antibiotics, artificial colors and flavors, hormones and anything genetically modified can go in it. Food should be very revealing as far as to what is in it, but it shoud be our choice as to weather or not we want to eat it.

    replyreport
11. 61

    thecatgalleryposted 12 years ago

    It's essential that there be strong control over the elements that go into what we eat and drink, and there are organizations that were supposed to be set up for that purpose. Unfortunately big businesses have these organizations in their pockets, which allows them to slip in unhealthy ingredients with false advertising about how 'natural and healthy' they are. For instance the high fructose corn syrup, which is a good contributor toward obesity. And artificial sweeteners that are actually TOXIC. There are SO many dangerous ingredients in the products we eat and use.
    As far as tobacco still being used, that's another example. The financial power of that business lets them get away with keeping the tobacco available. There's not ENOUGH control by Government.
    And it's true that the health care costs of conditions and illnesses resulting from the hazardous products is astronomical compared with what they would have been under the philosophy of preventive medicine, disease prevention, and health promotion.
    A commendation to any Government official who takes a stand to protect our health.

    replyreport