LiptonCambell: I dunno where to put this, but since I hope to be discussing the politics of the matter, rather than the contents of the food, hopefully this is the right place(as opposed to Gastro-whatever)
Do you believe Fast Food has a place in modern society? Is there a need for it? Should government regulate fast food or fast food business, such as ensuring people have access to health foods in their areas, or should it be based on the free market system, where the products that people buy, succeed? Should there be taxes on fast food products, such as pop/soda? Should "Junk Food" be kept out of school zones?
davidk14: Good question. I think you can make cases for both sides. I heard that Mrs Obama wants more real grocery stores to open in low income neighborhoods to off set the fast food outlets. It's a good idea, but how do you legislate that? Both are free market enterprises. Fast food is cheaper per meal than preparing it. Economics 101 says you can't beat the $1 Whopper.
chronology: Mr Camble raises a good point. In poor neighbourhoods stores seem to be full of Candies, Cookies, Sodas, White Bread, etc, full of calories with no nutrients. But when you remember how much alcohol and drugs and cigarettes folks in those neighbourhoods use, food seems well down on their 'problem list'.
davidk14: Chrono said: In poor neighbourhoods stores seem to be full of Candies, Cookies, Sodas, White Bread, etc, full of calories with no nutrients.
David says: So true. Better profit margins and these stores don’t have to worry about food spoilage. There are still a few fast service stores that have apples or bananas on display near the checkout counter. But I have never seen anyone ever buy them. There are gas stations that have expanded their food selection to hot dogs, burritos and stuff like that but they too are just full of sugar, salt and flour.
LiptonCambell: Haha Chrono, I just presented the question- I haven't taken a stance on it;
Honestly, I believe in personal responsiblity- while I do agree that having healther food accessable for low income individuals is important, I do not believe there is anything the government can really do about it, or SHOULD do about it. If people WANT to buy from health food stores, then theres an opportunitty to develop a successful store. I believe that government "regulating" what kind of stores can be opened in an area is certainly a receipe for disaster, and opens the door for both elitism(Are steakhouses honestly healthier than burger and fry joints?), and courrption(how do you define health food store? Who gets to define it?)
The Pop tax is interesting though- Pop is cheap because we subsidize corn, with the government buying corn for more than they sell it, which is then used as a cheap sweetener for various products- so if we were to tax pop, we would be spending taxes to make it cheap, then expensive again.....
Outbackjack: I think certain food should have a warning on it.For example a Big Mac should detail how much of the Brazilian rainforest was cut down to produce it.
davidk14: Ouback, Dont worry...Our next ice age will occur in about 10,000 years. History Channel...How the earth was made...great show about last ice age 10k years ago and the next one coming....Mother Nature always wins...she has a lot of patience.
davidk14: Outback, I think this might be a first. I agree with you. Since I have been in the culinary field and use a lot of seafood in my recipes, I know that of the 17 fishing zones in the world, something like 7 of them are dead. This also causes the eco-system to be wacked out. Our oceans are in real bad shape and I dont believe people understand the tragedy of the Gulf oil spill and how it will affect the rest of the oceans. Very sad indeed.
Outbackjack: Its a pretty sad state of affairs whats going on with our oceans.It has been used as a garbage bin for too long.That much toxic waste is still being put in that cadmium and mercury levels increase by about 1-2% a year.
Another problem are the worlds ships.The paint used on them is very toxic and contaminates all the nearby water.
The Gulf oil spill is now the worlds worse ever oil spill in an ocean.There really doesnt seem to be an end in sight.The latest news is that it will be capped with concrete by the beginning of August.
But who can really believe anything that is said about this?
I really hope that there is a solution found to this.
davidk14: There has been rumors that using explosives should be used. Even President Clinton recently suggested this option. You know its bad when this type of option may be a consideration if the relief wells dont work. Explosives may work. They may not and some scientists think that the explosives will make things worse. Perhaps we humans may then discuss how to spend our last days on earth? Science fiction novel in the making? Or not.
Outbackjack: It makes you really wonder.Yes it is scary when they start talking about explosives to fix this.
I read in the paper that the recent hurricane spread the spill to hundreds more beaches along the U.S coast.
Another Wireclub member recently posted an article by an engineer who believed that the oil well could not be capped because of the enormous pressure from the huge amount of oil.Time will tell but time is running out.
davidk14: They dodged a bullet with this storm. If it had hit directly on the LA or MISS coastline it would have been disasterous. Yes, beaches were affected but there was no real storm surge which would have taken the oil miles inland. Unfortunately, we have many more storms to go this season.
davidk14: There is no way to cap the well unless the pressure is relieved and thats why the relief wells are being drilled. But no guarantees these wells will work. Part of the problem has been the oil clean up response which has been very slow. They are just now bringing in the big guns to start the cleanup. These big boats were not allowed to start the cleanup because government regulations stated that the water being returned to the gulf had to be 99.8% clean of oil. Hell, if the boats only returned 75%, anything would have been better than nothing at all. Here's one instance were government regulations hurt in the cleanup effort.
LiptonCambell: >>>.For example a Big Mac should detail how much of the Brazilian rainforest was cut down to produce it.
Such an idea, while having good intentions, is counter-productive. How would McDonalds keep track of this? Are you only suggesting big chains do this, or small ma and pop shops and really any and all shops too? If I were to open a business selling burgers out of a trailer, should I have to somehow "calculate" the ammount of "ecodamage" I do? If I don't, does that mean I am no longer allowed to conduct business? How is this fair? How could it be verified if you are telling the truth with your calculation? What would be the punishment for not accurately calculating or even outright making up your calculations? Wouldn't such a program discourage small business people, and encourage large corportations?
And, again, we've been over this- if the people of a democractic nation choose to use their resources, then I don't think we really have much of a say. Again, its elitism to believe that we, who have chopped down our forests to build vast farmlands and cities and infastructure in our countries, now turn around and say that the people in the countries of Brazil, Columbia, ect ect can't use their resources because "we" find it wrong. If people don't want a product, they do not have to purchase it- but you aren't trying to create an informed consumer- you're trying to create stigmatisation.
Again, your goals are noble, but your methods certainly are not- these countries are soverign nations, and the use of their resources are their concern, not ours. Don't like it? Become a citizen of these countries and try to institute some changes- instead, you cry out about the willing citizens of a willing country doing business with willing corportations, who in turn sell their product to willing customers. Everyone involved does so on a voluntary basis. Your issue isn't about enviromentalism as much as you wish to tell people what to do.
Instituting such things as "detail(ing) how much of the Brazilian rainforest was cut down to produce it" is simply more stigmatisation- an attempt at social control by elitists who believe they know better than everyone else, and are willing to force or guilt trip people- meanwhile, EVERYONE, elitists and not alike, are responsible for the mass consumption thats going on- unless I'm mistaken, and you are living in a hole in the ground with no electricity or water. Otherwise, yes, you are damaging the ecology and the life that once lived where you live. The only difference is, when you got there, the forest was already cut down.
And on that note, why are only business's held to this standard? How much ecological damage does any individual do - or yourself, for that matter? And how would one calculate such a thing to begin with? Wouldn't that be required for an informed consumer to make an accurate accessment of their actions? After all, if 1 Big Mac= 1/1000th of an acre of rainforest to be destoryed, while that information would be informative, you would also have to know how much ecological damage each person, or more accurately you personally, does annually, and judge it on that basis. Otherwise, you have no concept of the greater picture, and are judging your dietary concerns based only on what you see at the tip of your nose. A Big Mac might cause 1/1000th of the rainforests to be cut down, but an annual persons toilet papper usage might cause 5 acres of rainforest to be chopped down annually, while their gas usage causes 2000 marine life to die annually, for example- suddenly the Big Mac doesn't seem to be as damaging. Without a method for explaining how much damage each person makes individually, there is no way to accurately judge the information.
Not that having a fully informed consumer is your goal. It seems you are looking for a scapegoat- blame the logging and fast food industry for supplying us with the products we want or (on the issue of logging), need.
LiptonCambell: >>>also any crop/food grown with geneticaly modified seeds .
Got bad news for you Frank- the vast majority of foods nowadays are genetically modified. Not that its as harmful as fearmongers wish us to believe- after all, Billions are in the process of eating them already, and no conclusive link to any sort of danger from eating them has been found. We've been modifying foods long before genetic modification came around, and the changes we have made has helped create stronger, healther food that feeds more people. The sad truth that many people who oppose genetically modified foods don't want you to know is there would be far more people starving and suffering from malnutriention in the world if not for these foods.
Outbackjack: *Winds in the fishing line.
I knew I would get a bite McLipton.I suppose you have to earn that retainer from McDonalds somehow.
The citizens of Brazil have no say whatsoever in how their resources are ravaged.You and I both know that.So dont wax lyrical about democracy here McLipton.
We all cause environmental damage but the Amazon raniforest is vital for out world.I have planted about 10,000 trees in my life McLipton and plant an average of 300 a year.
What do you do?
Another thing is that McDonalds couldnt give a toss about the rainforest.They actually burn it and not log it.At least if they logged it there would be some use of the timber.They could also selectively log it and use the felled area.This would cause a lot less damage than clearfelling or burning the lot.
LiptonCambell: >>>I knew I would get a bite McLipton.
I wouldn't expect any less from a troll. How about you actually address what I asked in my oringial topic, rather than warping my topic to suit your agenda?
Outbackjack: Giving me compliments now McLipton.
To insinuate that I am a troll means I must be getting under your skin
Okay I will address the issue of Fast food.
I dont eat much of it.There are no fast food places out here except the roadhouses.
The food is rotten and a great incentive to eat at home.
LiptonCambell: Wow, way to read my actual original post;
Do you think there should be any government regulation on fast food? Should they be outright banned? Do you think there should be a pop/soda tax? Should the government regulate the kinds of restaurants are in an area, to ensure low income families and individuals have easy access to health food, or should it be a matter of allowing the free market and the consumers decide what they want?
Outbackjack: Well you know my opinion on free traders.The global financial crisis of 2008 discredited the lot of you.Especially when you all waxed lyrical about how you dont need governments and then took the begging bowl to them and got trillions of OUR taxpayer dollars.
The hypocrisy was truly amazing.
But back on topic.
There does need to be some freedom of choice on this.In Australia our consumption tax (GST) is not on fresh food but on processed food.
The tax rate is 10% but hardly does a difference in this case as proccessed food is cheaper.
There needs to be more access to fresh food.When you look at the U.S and Europe who wax lyrical about free trade,you only have to look at how much they subsidise their farmers to know its a load of cxwy and bull.
In Australia the farmers do not receive ANY subsidies except drought relief and emergency aid.So maybe the government could subsidise the other end of the food chain so consumers have access to cheap fresh food.
The biggest problem here is that remote communities dont have access to fresh food.It is cheaper to buy frozen processed food brought in on the truck.Most of these areas have no access to water for irrigation and with a large indigenous population,who has only started eating Western junk food in the last 20-50 years,this is a problem.
The biggest problem of this whole question arises out of the old saying:
"You can take a horse to water but you cant make them drink it."
FogofWar: "The Gulf oil spill is now the worlds worse ever oil spill in an ocean.There really doesnt seem to be an end in sight.The latest news is that it will be capped with concrete by the beginning of August.
But who can really believe anything that is said about this"
The wellsite location was on Conoco Phillips property; leased to BP. My brother works for Conoco Phillips; they are already beginning to cement it shut. They are plugging the whole thing and just leaving it....as my brother said; if they do want to return to it in the future, they will simply move to a new location.
"Another thing is that McDonalds couldnt give a toss about the rainforest.They actually burn it and not log it"
McDonalds burns the rainforest? That sounds like one pointless and expensive hobby!
Remote communities don't have access to fresh food???? Apparently farming isn't much of an industry in Australia then. Remote communities here in Canada have little to no access to fast food. All food is grown locally, and is all fresh; with the exception of fruit; which comes from California; and BC in the summer (this is fresh too).
As far as fast food, or processed food being cheaper; that is entirely not true. There are several recipe books available that show cheap fresh meals. I have found a recipe for a meal that can feed an entire family of 4 for less than the cost of a single Big Mac meal. A smart consumer can make healthy eating cheaper than fast food; it all comes down to will.
That being said; we, as adults have a responsibility to act like...adults! It is up to us to moderate what we eat; and maintain our own personal health....that being said; I would agree with a tax on soda; etc, as the increase in diabetes from these soft drinks and sugary candies causes a problem in our health care system....but then again, so too does fast food.
I think at this stage, we need to cut our losses; to be frank. We down right fz@y$z up on the last few generations; and I think it's about time we corrected ourselves. If we, as mature adults, cannot regulate ourselves (and eating 3 supersized Big Mac meals for lunch is NOT regulating), then maybe it is time someone did it for us....I personally don't care if someone wants to waste their life sitting infront of a TV eating fast food; struggling to breath; but why the hell should I have to pay for their health care because they are a lazy slob? It's definately not an easy question to answer.
I do think that we need to remove vending machines from schools; and limit children as to what they are subjected to. We cannot force them to make decisions...kids always find a way to get around it; but we sure can limit what, or at least how much, is subjected to them. Kids don't have the maturity to make rational decisions based on the future; and as such, don't care about eating healthy (usually)....but if we can teach them discipline at a young age; they can learn to moderate themselves.
I believe in free choice, but I am by no means proud that my country is among the fattest and laziest in the world.