Who ate all the pies?

[the doc]

Apparently, all of America:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183086.stm

So, what, if anything, do you think should be done about it? Will it require a government solution and do you think they should look for one?

[Have At You]

Healthy nutritious food is amazingly more expensive than processed unhealthy calorie-laden oversalted food. Fast food also provides full meals for far less than the price of a single piece of raw uncooked meat at the grocery store.

It unsurprising that people, given the choice between a cheap and work-free full belly, versus buying expensive raw food and then spending the time and effort to prepare a meal, choose the former.

So the quality of food being eaten is more likely to be fattening to begin with.

Add to that the fact that, at work and at home, people are less and less active, burning fewer calories. Lots of schools have started trading recess for quiet play, to keep the kids in control. Many have gotten rid of it altogether. Phys Ed has been cut in many school systems as well. So kids aren't getting a chance to burn calories in the first place (and obesity in children is the fastest-growing, ha, part of this crisis).

So life has gotten more leisurely. People burn fewer calories. And part of the leisure is readily-available fat food, providing more calories. Hardly surprising that people are getting fatter.

Disgusting.

[Inquartata]

Hey, the population needs to be pruned somehow. Eating yourself to death is a more pleasant method than most, I suppose.

[ThatReallyHurt]

Hey, the population needs to be pruned somehow. Eating yourself to death is a more pleasant method than most, I suppose.

Except for the burden that it puts on the tax and medical systems, affecting everyone else, too...

[Inquartata]

It wouldn't, if the government would get its meddling tendrils out of the healthcare industry.

Let the market work, let people who smoke and use drugs and overeat and do skateboard tricks on concrete surfaces and othe self-destructive things pay for their own health care or do without,and there wouldn't be any burden forced onto the uninvolved, through taxes or any other means.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

It wouldn't, if the government would get its meddling tendrils out of the healthcare industry.

Let the market work, let people who smoke and use drugs and overeat and do skateboard tricks on concrete surfaces and othe self-destructive things pay for their own health care or do without,and there wouldn't be any burden forced onto the uninvolved, through taxes or any other means.

Smokers can give you 2nd-hand smoke.
Druggies can rob you to get money for their habit.
Fatties can block the shop aisle infront of you.
Skateboarders can lose control over their skateboard so that it comes flying into your face.

Sorry, it not quite that easy.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

[QUOTE=PeterGustafsson]

Smokers can give you 2nd-hand smoke.

Not if I avoid them. And I do.

Druggies can rob you to get money for their habit.

They are welcome to try.

Fatties can block the shop aisle infront of you.

In what way is this a "cost"?

Skateboarders can lose control over their skateboard so that it comes flying into your face.

Or I could be bitten by a rattlesnake while being struck by lighting.

Sorry, it not quite that easy.

It sure seems to be.

[esskreemr]

Healthy nutritious food is amazingly more expensive than processed unhealthy calorie-laden oversalted food. Fast food also provides full meals for far less than the price of a single piece of raw uncooked meat at the grocery store.

It depends on what you consider 'food'. Processed food provides chemicals, by-products, artificial this and artificial that, high amounts of sodium, fat, and sugar. They 'enrich' the food with vitamins and minerals in order to put back what the processing has removed. Unfortuntely, vitamins are volatile elements and are easily destroyed, so the reported nutritional benefits are highly optimistic. Of course, they also appeal to our 'base' instincts to eat the highest caloric density possible that also provide carbs (sugar) and minerals (salt). Which means they taste REALLY good.

'Whole' foods (unprocessed) provide the essential nutrients without the need to add what was lost.

If you are comparing simple caloric value, the nutritionally deficient processed foods give you the most bang for your buck.

If, however, you want to give your body what it needs to be healthy, whole foods come out the winner.

Of course, if you start factoring in heart attacks, diabetes, cancer, and a host of other preventable diseases, there really isn't even a contest...

[Inquartata]

If, however, you want to give your body what it needs to be healthy, whole foods come out the winner.

Then you need only worry about the permitted amounts of insect parts and larvae, fecal material, pesticide residues...

[geezer]

Then you need only worry about the permitted amounts of insect parts and larvae, fecal material, pesticide residues...

Ummmm....the Spice of Life!!! (All kinds of them. Have you ever considered the microbiotic minutia of the aerosols we breath?)

[Inquartata]

No...that way lies madness.

Or Howard Hughes' hypochondria.

[esskreemr]

Then you need only worry about the permitted amounts of insect parts and larvae, fecal material, pesticide residues...

Which happen to be present in EVERY food you eat, regardless of rather or not it has been processed. They're called Food Defect Action Levels.

http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dalbook.html

[Epeecurean]

Government solution? If you saw the **** they're feeding students at public schools (as shown in "Supersize Me") it seems the government is more a part of the problem than the solution. Supersize Me then showed a school in Wisconsin which threw out all the crap food and had a catering company supply fresh, nutritious lunches. The interesting bit was that this cost NO MORE than the trans-fat- and sugar-laden food served before and students' discipline and behaviour improved.