Is it right for the government to legislate our nutrition?

Question

And every other aspect of our lives, for that matter.

IE: New York banning trans-fats from all eating establishments. Well, good bye Micky-D's

Ryan's Mom: Even though that answer is ridiculously naive, I understand where you're coming from. But what about places like Germany, where in Bavaria, their main staple is stuff like sausages and meats. THEY aren't dropping dead left and right from heart disease, etc, etc.

The root is from parents (like you), telling their kids that it is NOT okay to fill their plates with nothing but fried foods at the buffet line. No, we shouldn't cut out ALL trans-fats, because those of us who are responsible enough know when to have a little here and there.

And plus the processes of taking the fats OUT of the product would jack up the cost. So it's either higher prices, or equal prices, but mystery-mass shovelled in to balance the cost. Ever wonder why decaf isn't way higher than regular coffee, even though it's more work to make?

Answer 1

No. At best, government should legislate to prevent harmful substances in our food supply and to ensure food labels correctly list all ingredients.

If a person wants to eat at McD's every day, that is their own darned fault.

Answer 2

Without some form of government we would be a bunch of barbarians like in the middle ages just killing each other for sport. The government needed to step in and control the food indusrty. Trans-fats need to be banned in ALL foods. They lead to heart disease, stroke, obesity, diabetes. If someone has no health insurance then the government ends up having to pay to house these people in state run homes, so YES, they NEED to have a hand in it. Also schools should not be serving food like fattening burgers and super sugary foods, and sodas. Even diet sodas are not good for people.

Answer 3

Absolutely not directly...it is not even consistent with the definition of what a right is.

Yes America has laws such as anti-smoking laws and dietary laws on information (IE trans fat must be reported on grocery product labels since 2006). Government should, for example, be able to deny smokers any higher medicare benefits than average people giving a "go at your own risk" message...but telling them they can not smoke or have to pay outrageous taxes on cigarettes is completely out of hand.
__________________________________________
You have to ask your self, what is the definition of the word RIGHT?

An essential right is the right to life. Life is a right because a right, by definition, can be enforced by a higher authority IE if you kill someone you can be killed for it or restricted to a condition where you can't kill (IE jail).


However, nutrition is not so clear cut. Your Big Macs may cut a few years off your life, but it will not tax your life like food poisoning (which is, rightfully, illegal and thus fair as being under government control/legislation).
YOU DO, however, have a right to know just how bad certain food, second hand smoke...is for you, that is a consumer right. But, if you, for example, don't like sitting in a restaurant with a smoker you should be telling the owner (or denying them business) or tell the smoker directly...rather than the government "telling them your needs"...as if they know them psychic-ly.

-----------------
It is OUR RIGHT to choose how much we will sacrifice in terms of health for lifestyle. If anything not PERFECTLY SAFE were put under government legislation bicycling, rafting, driving cars, flying planes...would all be illegal because of reasons like "they might increase dependence on Medicare". Obviously, the savings in losses in no way justifies the gains in lifestyle.
-----------------

There are obvious bounds in safety and nutrition so far as weighing the losses and gains of taking risk. Independent risk is what starts successful companies, fuels innovation, and keeps people emotionally healthy. There is NO WAY we should just hand that right over to goverment for their decision.

Answer 4

No. And did you know that when making the food pyramid, organizations like the dairy association, the beef industry, etc., etc. all have a voice in what it looks like? That's just not right. I suppose if the government wants to let us all know what a healthy diet consists of, fine. But base it on facts, not on which industries will be making or losing money if everyone actually followed the guide.

Answer 5

I think so if it makes food healthier and safer, stop companies from producing practically "poisonous" foods. I wish they would legislate to make cigarettes illegal also but I realize that is not going to happen. Trans fats have been shown to be a leading cause of heart disease- why not ban them ?

Answer 6

YES! a nice change in a response no?
For the most part, people are too stupid, evil, irresponsible, apathetic, etc... to control every aspect of their lives. Given the right government who will garuntee our well being as a society, then I say we hand over everything to them! It's like 1984 but not as noticable

Answer 7

NO!! Legislate of our nutrition is infringing on personal choice... and goes against freedom...

We need to do a better job of protecting free choice!
To many times the government listens to the whiners and complainers.

Did you know it is now illegal for me to paint on the side walk in the city I live in! (not paint on the actual side walk... but to set up an eisle and paint a picture on canvus)

Answer 8

Absolutely not!!! It's their responsibility to see to it that we don't get mad cow disease or salmonella, but that's as far as it goes!

They cannot tell us what to eat, where to eat, how much we can weigh, or what kind of physical condition we should be in. That's the responsibility of the individual.

Answer 9

Its not a mandate just a guideline chill cucumber. Nobody's going to monitor your diet and arrest you.

Answer 10

How do they legislate our nutrition? America is known of their obesity.