Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What role does the government/public officials have in nutrition, if any?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What role does the government/public officials have in nutrition, if any?

    Do you all feel that there is a tension between government or the public sector promoting health awareness (which i know you're hostile too) and letting people choose independently what they eat? Do we differentiate in how children and adults are handled?

    In the Paleo/Primal community we know for example that sugar is a no-no. It is literally suicide by a thousand cuts (See Sisson's article: The Definitive Guide to Insulin, Blood Sugar & Type 2 Diabetes (and you’ll understand it) | Mark's Daily Apple). However, many people would recoil from soda machines being pulled from schools or people being disgouraged from drinking too much soda.

    Do you feel there is a proper role for the government/public officials? Seems when they try to do something, they get ridiculed, as an example:
    Maybe the White House Should Address This Kind of Bullying . . . - By Julie Gunlock - The Corner - National Review Online

    I mean yes, you don't want a nanny state. On the other hand, if there's an effort ti improve the lives of our youth, and to undo some of the damages that subsidies (corn) or the FDA (food pyramid) have done, what's wrong with it? Is the French government out of line for having the school menu's that they do?

    Do you sometimes see a tension between your philosophy/politics and what you know about nutrition.

  • #2
    Originally posted by superseiyan View Post
    However, many people would recoil from soda machines being pulled from schools or people being disgouraged from drinking too much soda.
    I'm not sure I agree with this statement. MOST people I know have no problem with "people being discouraged from drinking too much soda" regardless of their views on the nanny state. I guess it depends on the means of discouragement. Education? Banning?

    Is the French government out of line for what? Having more vegetables and real food in the menu? That is not nanny-ism. If the government is creating the lunch menu and subsidizing the lunch menu how is it "out of line" to make it healthier*? Should the government deliberately make it less healthy and that is less nannyism how? Nannyism is when the school starts telling you what you can send to school in your kids lunch box.

    *regarding ""healthier" If the american lunch system actually followed US nutrition guidelines I would be fine with that despite the whole grains. - If they made lunches a lean protein, a serving of whole grains, a serving of veggies and a fruit it would be infinitely better than the "catsup is a veggie" system we have now.
    Last edited by runnergal; 04-01-2011, 08:54 AM.
    MTA: because it is rare I dont have more to say

    "When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - my daughter Age 7

    Comment


    • #3
      One role the government has in promoting health awareness is in the USDA food pyramid (which is completely inaccurate). The USDA food pyramid is more concerned with SELLING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS than it is about health! The government doesn't want consumers to believe that grains and sugar are bad because then sales in agricultural grain and corn products would go down dramatically, so they keep telling us to consume lots of "heart healthy whole grains" (oxymoron) and to stay on a low fat/high carb diet (which is total bull). What's going to happen to our economy if the biggest part of our food industry (grains, sugar, processed foods) crashes? That's why you constantly see inaccurate health information being thrown at us in the media. I mean, the USDA recommends 300g of carbs a day! That is insane and anyone following that diet is going to have major health problems. But the government knows that people are easily persuaded by the media, so they use it as a tool to persuade consumers into buying agricultural products.

      Also, the idea that saturated fat leads to high cholesterol leads to heart disease is FALSE. First of all, saturated fat raises HDL, the good cholesterol. Second, cholesterol does NOT lead to heart disease; heart disease is what ACTS ON cholesterol. Heart disease is not caused by high cholesterol but by INFLAMMATION in the arteries (through the OXIDATION of cholesterol which is what causes plaque in the arteries). Oxidation of cholesterol is caused by consuming processed vegetable oils and a diet high in carbohydrates (specifically grains and sugar). If you've ever seen the documentary "Fat Head", you'll learn that high cholesterol can actually be better than low cholesterol, and is usually the case for women over 60.

      Of course, everybody has been brainwashed into thinking that high cholesterol is bad, because the cholesterol lowering drug companies of the pharmaceutical industries have been so effective in paying off big media associations to print these stories so consumers will buy their products. It's all about making money!

      If you squeeze the entire length of human existence into one year, we have only been eating grains and sugar about YESTERDAY and processed vegetable oils about 10 MINUTES AGO (I'm getting a lot of this info from "Fat Head", it's a great documentary if you haven't seen it!), yet the government and the "experts" have somehow convinced us that the way to good health is to eat that crap. Bleh, it disgusts me.
      Last edited by chuckarie; 04-01-2011, 10:01 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        It's very important to question the accuracy of many "health" articles in newspapers and magazines. Most are just being funded by major food companies to sell their products.

        Comment


        • #5
          I trust ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOTHING that the government touches. Industries with the most money pay for the rules and dictate the results - the Monsantos, drug and insurance companies buy politicians like the rest of us buy shoes or groceries.

          Follow the money - that's really all you have to know.

          Comment


          • #6
            I trust ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOTHING that the government touches. Industries with the most money pay for the rules and dictate the results - the Monsantos, drug and insurance companies buy politicians like the rest of us buy shoes or groceries.

            Follow the money - that's really all you have to know.

            I'm so glad someone else knows how I feel! And if you look at the members of the USDA, they're mostly former CEOs of major agricultural companies like corn and even Monsanto!! (I couldn't believe it when I learned of this).

            Comment


            • #7
              The folks writing the nutritional guidelines are probably grain and corn farmers anyways.
              My weak attempt at a journal:http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread35809.html

              M/30y/190#

              Comment


              • #8
                Once the government uses force of arms to forbid free choice you have entered into a slippery slope.

                You can prove that just about anything is "harmful" to you and given enough political influence, you can use the violence and force of arms of government to force people into purchasing your product over a competitors product.

                It is best to keep the guns, and the violence and force out of the picture. Let the free market choose.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well, ok, so they took soda machines out of schools. Next stop, good fats. Oh, wait, they've already done that. Is meat next?

                  While we may all agree soda is bad for us, we don't need the government deciding what's not healthful and eliminating it from certain places. Even schools. But then, I don't think the federal government should have its hands in educating children in the first place.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The government education of children is an extremely bad problem. I had to relearn just about everything I was taught in school, even how to perform basic math. Only a state run education system will tell you to add numbers from right to left.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If you think government does a terrible job of intervening (it does), look how much worse it would be if Government checked out, let private industry do whatever it wants and let the magic of the marketplace fix it all. All food would be gross Frankenfood in plastic bags of salty and sugary food-like "product."

                      The question should be what would it take to get oversight done right?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DFH View Post
                        The question should be what would it take to get oversight done right?
                        Pink sparkly unicorns.
                        Sassy: Revised - my primal log

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by superseiyan View Post
                          Do you sometimes see a tension between your philosophy/politics and what you know about nutrition.
                          if large corporations weren't allowed to lie to the public like they tend to, and if there was a true separation between corporate interests and government decisions, i doubt we'd be in the position that we're in. i'm in favor of ending corporate welfare and demanding full disclosure so the public can make up its own mind. i don't consider removing soda machines from public schools to be unlibertarian. restricting kids from bringing their own would be.

                          as far as "choice" goes in school, restricting what kids do is acceptable. however, restricting what parents do (for example, what parents pack) would be unlibertarian. otoh, when we're dealing with large institutions like a school, you must consider the overall needs of the whole vs. personal liberties. a severely allergic child's need to breathe is trumped by another's taste for PB&J sammiches. the need for a calm, peaceful learning environment trumps kids' cravings for unnaturally sweet crap. a school is neither a democracy nor a republic, but rather an autocracy. and if you don't like the decisions that are made within the school, you always have the right (at least within the US) to withdraw your children from the school and choose another method of education (be it another school district, a private or charter school, private tutor, or education at home). some people forget that they have this option.

                          i also think that the federal gov't needs to stop meddling in school matters; decisions within a school should be made by the faculty and superintendent as well as their employers (the local taxpayers). the school "nutrition" programs should be cut. this program has devolved from a way to feed needy children to a method of peddling low-quality quasi-foods to children whose parents can usually afford much better. if there are children within a school district whose parents cannot afford to feed them, maybe the schools could petition the public to raise funding for a significantly scaled-back lunch program for those living in poverty.
                          Last edited by Saoirse; 04-01-2011, 12:57 PM.
                          my primal journal:
                          http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...Primal-Journal

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by AuH2Ogirl View Post
                            While we may all agree soda is bad for us, we don't need the government deciding what's not healthful and eliminating it from certain places. Even schools. But then, I don't think the federal government should have its hands in educating children in the first place.
                            i agree with the second statement (federal, though i do think it's in the best interest of the overall populace for LOCAL governments to "have their hands" in educating our children), but why should the government provide access to soda at schools? we're not talking about schools BANNING kids from BRINGING THEIR OWN soda, we're talking about the schools entering into long-term binding contracts with soda manufacturers to provide easy access to kids, away from the watchful eyes of parents. what we're talking about basically is cutting out the middle-man (aka parents) in the soda companies->parents->kids chain. what a sweet deal for soda companies!
                            my primal journal:
                            http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...Primal-Journal

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Grok View Post
                              Only a state run education system will tell you to add numbers from right to left.
                              how is this bad?
                              my primal journal:
                              http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...Primal-Journal

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X