Obesity continued
Item 3: There some governments are now proposing a world wide food organization or monitor and combat obesity, akin to the organizations that are in place, and/or are being propsed to combat global warming. The idea of a multi-national panel is goofy enough, but the truly disturbing part was the way officials were quoted. They said something along the lines, we need to create an organization to monitor what we feed our people. As if i'm some piece of livestock and it's the governments job to feed me and nourish me before they take me off for the slaughter. HELLO! It's my job to feed me. I don't need anyone else feeding me, except possibly a hot woman. This is just one more step in the idea that everything is the government's job, and wouldn't we all be better off if the government did everything.
I have long claimed the real difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals like the zoo and conservatives like the wild. Liberals want everyone to play nice in their little cages. Everyone will have enough food, and a place to sleep, but you have to obey all the zoo rules, be happy locked in your cage. Whereas conservatives say we're in the wild and some of us are going to be eaten, and that sucks for them, but for those who don't get eaten they have the freedom to live to the fullest. Now government are literally talking about what to feed us. I hope i'm not that only one who finds this thought disconcerting.
I have long claimed the real difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals like the zoo and conservatives like the wild. Liberals want everyone to play nice in their little cages. Everyone will have enough food, and a place to sleep, but you have to obey all the zoo rules, be happy locked in your cage. Whereas conservatives say we're in the wild and some of us are going to be eaten, and that sucks for them, but for those who don't get eaten they have the freedom to live to the fullest. Now government are literally talking about what to feed us. I hope i'm not that only one who finds this thought disconcerting.
posted by Trashcan at 4/08/2008 01:50:00 AM
4 Comments:
I haven't heard about that, so I don't know the details. Obviously I'm against it in the way you are. However, I do have several concerns that may only be addressed by such an organization.
Does my food contain toxins that are poisonous, in such small amounts that they are permitted by the government, but might be enough to harm my baby? If you live in America, the answer is yes. It's probably also yes in Europe, though standards are higher here. Now, how can you tell such a thing? You can't, unless you own a mass spectrometer: even one part atrazine, for example, per billion, is enough to turn male frogs into hermaphordites. What effect does it have on children or pregnant women? Nobody has figured that out yet. How do you know if it's in your meat? If you eat non-organic fed meat in America, it's probably there, because atrazine is a pesticide used for corn fields in the States (it's banned in Europe), and just about all livestock there are now corn fed.
So just eat organic food then, you may say. There's two things wrong with that. First, all the stupid people will still be giving birth to hermaphodites, and once they're the majority, they might start discriminating against us. You know I don't want the government running my life, but I think letting the government ban such dangerous toxins from foods is not over the line, since consumers are so in the dark about the issue. All I'm saying I support is that food containing toxins can't be sold, say, unless it has a skull and crossbones on it, like a can of poison. And don't retort about trasfatty acids, that is clearly over the line.
Second, I, and most people, can't just eat organic because it's too expensive. Whatever is mainstream is cheap. As long as poison food is cheap, it will remain mainstream.
This topic has a very intersting history, I'll lend you a book about it in June.
quality control of food is completely legitimate, but this is about something completely different. I don't know if anything will ever come of it, i read about it a while ago, and haven't heard anything since, but if anything were to come from it, it would be more like banning potato chips, candy or soda or something along those lines. Something to try and control obesity and what people eat, instead of mainting the quality of the foods i decide i want to eat.
well, what you mention now is simply impossible. don't you know how much much money is made from snack revenues? i'm sure it's more than, or in the same range as oil, since agriculture uses up a fifth of the u.s. petroleum expenditures each year. you think that ain't candy?? well it is chico!
They are already doing it. Candy is illegal in schools. I will blog later if i remember it about students being suspended for selling candy to one another at school. I'm not saying a complete ban on candy. Maybe require movie theaters to sell healthy snacks along side candy to start with. Make it illegal for stores to put candy at the check out isle so people can't buy can't on a whim. Require candy to have fewer calories. Even put an age limit on candy. Must be over 16 to buy candy. I could see all those things happening. That's the start. Just like cigarettes, you can't stop them all at once, but move slowly.
Post a Comment
<< Home