well it kind of does but that's not necessarily a good thing. you see the American government for example spreads false information that makes people grow fat while the japanese system corrrectly addresses obesity as a condition and established compulsory programmes containing education as well as physical practice in order to limit the issue. so i would say government influence can go both ways.
Meat? Don't try to tax something because you think it's bad or we shouldn't eat it. Lots of people get healthy and lose weight by cutting out carbs and eating meat.
@PinkMichae Nope, because you have to feed animals plants to make them grow. But not only that, only a small portion of the calories that animals consume are converted to calories so raising meat is basically wasting food. And as for us "thinking" it's wrong? Do you think hurting a conscious being is wrong?
We do not need a nanny fed watching our plates. It's bad enough that they change the Food Pyramid and Nutiontion Labels as often as they do. Serving size logic has escaped their brain. At least in Europe, they standardize at a 100 gram "serving" - we can calculate from there.
Absolutely not, but the government also needs to stay out of the health care business in general. People should be allowed to make their own choices, but they should also be responsible for the consequences of their choices too.
Sort I think more things should be done to try and curbs people diets.
obese people in the UK are a contributing factor to the NHS struggling to stay a flout so I think they should have a say when they pay the medical bill
2
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Considering that the government is expected to pick up the bill for so much of the sickness that happens, they ought to have some say in what our diets are like. Not in the sense of telling you what you can and can not eat, but in the sense of encouraging healthy diets and exercise, and rewarding people who do have a healthy life style. . Also, in taxing some things that are particularly harmful.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
I would prefer the government didn't have much of a say in anything at all but as they seem to want to insist on being omnipresent in the western world they might as well make themselves useful.
The best way for them to have a say would be to tax unhealthy food and to put that money into the health service or provision of sports and health promoting centres etc.
This encourages people to make better choices while retaining personal freedom.
It already does, by producing insane amounts of junk food and genetically modified nutrients that may or may not have negative effects on consumers in the future, they couldn't care less, as long as they have the most effecient ways of delivering food to the people.
Yeah that's a brilliant idea, let the people that where feeding soldiers acid for the better part of a decade tell us what we can and cannot put into our own bodies. Why the hell would we do that? That's just an awful idea.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
+1 y
Yes , i believe government should only allow people on Snap benefits ( Food Stamps) to buy certain foods but no candy , no potato chips, no junk food only good food ( Meat , Potatoes , Vegetables, Bread, Milk etc) No ice cream , No cake, No little debbie cakes
I am convinced that unhealthy life styles would be much more prevalent if the government had control over it, why? Because money. Large corporations would be fucking us up real bad, more than they do now.
They should prevent all of the artificial garbage from going into food that otherwise would be all natural. High fructose corn syrup, for example is extremely unhealthy.
Government doesn't know how to control that because it is nearly impossible. How can you control people's diets? It would go against the law of human freedom.
Government can impose taxes, which simply induces desirable behaviour.
Sure, the government cannot really tell you and enforce to eat x grams of a vegetable, but it can impose taxes on e. g. meat so that people eat less of it
That's not it. If you'd really liked that, you would still buy it. It's like banning cigaretes, you know. Government made a law that you can't buy cigaretes under 18, consume any drugs (well I'm not including weed because in some places it is legal), buy alcohol under some age which is regulated by the government. But you know what, people still find a way to get these things even if they are younger. They still manage to buy even if it's too much to spend money on. You can't control a person, because it is his choice how to live. Everything is your choice. There will always be consequences but it's still your choice. That's what I wanted to say
There is this thing called the price elasticity of demand.
Like this study (https://academic. oup. com/ajae/article-abstract/50/4/888/116467? redirectedFrom=PDF) shows the elasticity of demand is -0.5 which means that if the price of cigarettes increases with 1%, demand decreases with 0.5%.
Even the demand for heroin (which is very addictive of course) is according to this study (https://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC4417427/#! po=0.387597) decreasing as price increases.
Or a more normal substance, alcohol. This study shows as 1% price increase, there is a 0.3% decrease in demand for alcohol (https://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/m/pubmed/6390555/).
Yeah people can find loopholes to circumvent laws and still procure alcohol, but that demand decreases when price increases (even with more addictive substances like heroin and cigarettes) is known.
Depending on the good, taxation has a decreasing effect on demand of various magnitudes
Well, yes, there will be less consumption of something that has a higher price. Because there are people who are nice and etc. But I mean, they still can't control everything. Addiction it is
Fuck the government, they’ve taken enough rights away as it is. I should have the right to do what ever drug I want to eat anything i want as long as my actions don’t take away the rights of others.
I don't think the government should control what I'm eating, sure we can promote the habit of eating healthier. However, I won't force people to stop forcing to stop eating junk food.
Yes to help prevent bad eating habits which leads to obesity and diabetes which require high medical costs. So having better diet can prevent this from happening
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
79Opinion
well it kind of does but that's not necessarily a good thing. you see the American government for example spreads false information that makes people grow fat while the japanese system corrrectly addresses obesity as a condition and established compulsory programmes containing education as well as physical practice in order to limit the issue. so i would say government influence can go both ways.
The government absolutely should try to induce certain behavior and ban dangerous foods.
Banning dangerous food is an absolutely crucial element of public safety, which is a major task of the government.
Oh, and the government should put higher taxes on e. g. cigarettes, candy and meat
Meat? Don't try to tax something because you think it's bad or we shouldn't eat it. Lots of people get healthy and lose weight by cutting out carbs and eating meat.
Yep, meat.
Maybe they should start taxing the poor vegetables that get killed for consumption. Of course that would be just as ridiculous as taxing meat.
Yeah no. Environmental costs of meat are way higher, which justifies the difference.
Mest is pretty fucking important to eat though
Not every day but once in a while
@Pulimuli
True. But average consumption of meat is way higher than is necessary for the human body to function.
You don’t need a couple hundred grams of
Meat every single day of the week, like many
Which is where taxation comes in. You’re never going to eradicate the demand for meat, just decrease it with e. g. 10 percent
Exactly, we should probably aim to make people eat less meat overall
Even 50% would be good
@PinkMichae Nope, because you have to feed animals plants to make them grow. But not only that, only a small portion of the calories that animals consume are converted to calories so raising meat is basically wasting food. And as for us "thinking" it's wrong? Do you think hurting a conscious being is wrong?
We do not need a nanny fed watching our plates. It's bad enough that they change the Food Pyramid and Nutiontion Labels as often as they do. Serving size logic has escaped their brain. At least in Europe, they standardize at a 100 gram "serving" - we can calculate from there.
Absolutely not, but the government also needs to stay out of the health care business in general. People should be allowed to make their own choices, but they should also be responsible for the consequences of their choices too.
Sort I think more things should be done to try and curbs people diets.
obese people in the UK are a contributing factor to the NHS struggling to stay a flout so I think they should have a say when they pay the medical bill
Considering that the government is expected to pick up the bill for so much of the sickness that happens, they ought to have some say in what our diets are like. Not in the sense of telling you what you can and can not eat, but in the sense of encouraging healthy diets and exercise, and rewarding people who do have a healthy life style. . Also, in taxing some things that are particularly harmful.
I would prefer the government didn't have much of a say in anything at all but as they seem to want to insist on being omnipresent in the western world they might as well make themselves useful.
The best way for them to have a say would be to tax unhealthy food and to put that money into the health service or provision of sports and health promoting centres etc.
This encourages people to make better choices while retaining personal freedom.
It already does, by producing insane amounts of junk food and genetically modified nutrients that may or may not have negative effects on consumers in the future, they couldn't care less, as long as they have the most effecient ways of delivering food to the people.
Yeah that's a brilliant idea, let the people that where feeding soldiers acid for the better part of a decade tell us what we can and cannot put into our own bodies. Why the hell would we do that? That's just an awful idea.
Yes , i believe government should only allow people
on Snap benefits ( Food Stamps) to buy certain foods
but no candy , no potato chips, no junk food only good
food ( Meat , Potatoes , Vegetables, Bread, Milk etc)
No ice cream , No cake, No little debbie cakes
I am convinced that unhealthy life styles would be much more prevalent if the government had control over it, why? Because money. Large corporations would be fucking us up real bad, more than they do now.
They should prevent all of the artificial garbage from going into food that otherwise would be all natural. High fructose corn syrup, for example is extremely unhealthy.
Government doesn't know how to control that because it is nearly impossible. How can you control people's diets? It would go against the law of human freedom.
Government can impose taxes, which simply induces desirable behaviour.
Sure, the government cannot really tell you and enforce to eat x grams of a vegetable, but it can impose taxes on e. g. meat so that people eat less of it
That's not it. If you'd really liked that, you would still buy it. It's like banning cigaretes, you know. Government made a law that you can't buy cigaretes under 18, consume any drugs (well I'm not including weed because in some places it is legal), buy alcohol under some age which is regulated by the government. But you know what, people still find a way to get these things even if they are younger. They still manage to buy even if it's too much to spend money on. You can't control a person, because it is his choice how to live. Everything is your choice. There will always be consequences but it's still your choice. That's what I wanted to say
Well, no.
There is this thing called the price elasticity of demand.
Like this study (https://academic. oup. com/ajae/article-abstract/50/4/888/116467? redirectedFrom=PDF) shows the elasticity of demand is -0.5 which means that if the price of cigarettes increases with 1%, demand decreases with 0.5%.
Even the demand for heroin (which is very addictive of course) is according to this study (https://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC4417427/#! po=0.387597) decreasing as price increases.
Or a more normal substance, alcohol. This study shows as 1% price increase, there is a 0.3% decrease in demand for alcohol (https://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/m/pubmed/6390555/).
Yeah people can find loopholes to circumvent laws and still procure alcohol, but that demand decreases when price increases (even with more addictive substances like heroin and cigarettes) is known.
Depending on the good, taxation has a decreasing effect on demand of various magnitudes
Oh it appears the links are a bit crappy. Gag puts a space between them
Well, yes, there will be less consumption of something that has a higher price. Because there are people who are nice and etc. But I mean, they still can't control everything. Addiction it is
True, they cannot control everything.
But like I said, they can tax specific goods so people are less likely to consume them.
That is, for most goods in the supermarket
Fuck the government, they’ve taken enough rights away as it is. I should have the right to do what ever drug I want to eat anything i want as long as my actions don’t take away the rights of others.
I don't think the government should control what I'm eating, sure we can promote the habit of eating healthier. However, I won't force people to stop forcing to stop eating junk food.
Yes to help prevent bad eating habits which leads to obesity and diabetes which require high medical costs. So having better diet can prevent this from happening
My personal feeling is, if you think the government should run any part of your daily life, spend a couple days in a DMV and see how you feel.
No but our doctors could. So if anyone should have power to limit a person diet it should be them. But I don't see how that would work out.
The government can suck my left nipple if I want too be fat I will be fat and if I want too starve myself then I’ll starve.
legislation... no... investment in education and healthcare paid for with extra taxes levvied on junk foods then yes