• This post is deleted!

  • Governments today are welfare states, so it is expected that the State provide equal opportunity to every citizen to secure means to gain nutritious foods.

    Here state can be justified in providing subsidized nutritious foods to those who cannot secure it themselves, due to states failure to provide equal socio-economic opportunities.

    Here state may also be justified in protect its subjects from harmful foods by overtaxing alcohol and other high cholesterol foods to prevent incidence of non-communicable diseases.

    However its under no condition does the State have a responsibility or power to solve the over consumption and the under consumption crisis. Or in any way try to enforce What foods its subjects should consume based on any research.

    Every person has inherent free will and a state cannot take it away to make the world it sees fit. If a person wants to eat unhealthy, non nutritious food the best a state can do is warn him of the consequences, overtax the product as a sin good and hope that person does the right thing.

    The moment the state tries to limit consumption of one group of people, it delves into trying to bring equality of the outcomes rather than equality of opportunity. And that as we have seen from USSR is a recipe for disaster.

    And talking of regulating diet based on "scientific research" most of the times, its pseudo scientific research backed by religious outfits trying to pass majoritarian sentiments as "scientific". The day states start regulating diet based on such cultural norms, would be end of a secularism, and a step closer to a theocratic society.

  • One Woman Army Sarah's Fan Club

    oh my god no. giving this kind of power to the government will lead us to some kind of a soylent-green type future of wacky food regulations. imho taxes are are much more better way of curbing bad diets. just tax sugary foods & deep fried crap and people will buy less of them.
    and hey, maybe then you can use all that new tax money to feed people who are starving? killing two birds with one stone :)

  • @DIVine if we look on the bright side

    1. It shrinks the gulf between rich and poor as the govt provide the same diet to all without any discrimination
    2. Reduces the death rates
    3. Most of the ppl will become human capital.
    4. Most importantly GDP will rise

  • @Kahina-JBibi said in Should your government control your diet?:

    @ObviouslyLucifer Could you make that a little shorter like summarize it?... because wow thats alot of words


    It basically means "hell no"

    And government can tax bad stuff, but can't say don't eat this or that.

    Everyone has free will and government has no business in dictating ones diet.

    And since most governments live for vote banks so they will say some shit is scientific and try to enforce their world view on rest of the people who have smaller vote banks.

    So NO to government deciding diet.

  • Music Lovers Movie Buff Freedom Writers GSP Patrol | The Proofreaders

    Many of the national governments have decided to not regulate ingredients and nutrients in liquids and foods. Because those ingredients and nutrients are indeed scientifically debatable.

    Haggis is still banned in the USA because it uses the lung of a sheep. Both USA and canada have banned Olean because it causes stomach cramps, flatulence, diarrhea, greasy stools.

    An adult man should take 2000 to 3000 calories and an adult woman should take 1600 to 2400 calories. Carbohydrate is the primary source of energy and Fat (saturated and unsaturated) is the secondary source of energy. People often think that cabohydrate is the first nutrient that should not be even consumed. But they are wrong ! The white suger which is always said to be "bad carbohydrate" can save one's life from diarrhea's effects as ORS solution.

    Saturated fat is more dangerous nutrient than that of carbohydrate. The AHA recommendation for saturated fat is limited to 5%-6% or 13 grams per day (for 2000 calories). Instead of increasing tax on carbohydrates government should imply more tax on those foods which are the highest source of saturated fats i.e. pork, lamb, fatty beef. It definitely includes some junk foods. It is also debatable which food is exactly junk one. However, foods which have good ratio in both fats, should not become expensive.

    Lack of carbohydrates in diet can lead you to reduced stamina, hypoglycemia, ketosis, malnutrition and tooth decay. Our body is an efficient energy burner, and will take or make glucose from other sources and use it for energy such as fat and protein, if we exclude carbohydrates from our diet. Most of the poor people are labourers and farmers, if government implies more tax on carbohydrates, they will have lesser stamina. The result be a negative impact on our economy. Approx 1.1 billion people worldwide are farmers and half of this number, are in wage labour.

    Protein, which is the third source of energy, should be more inexpensive. Except of soy and pulses, other veg foods do not contain enough protein. Today, protein is one of the most expensive nutritions i.e. the best brand for whey protein optimum nutrition 5 pound is priced at 58 USD.

    Alone cigrattes smoking is responsible for 480,000 deaths/year in USA.
    On average, 130 Americans die every day from opioid overdose and 6 people die daily from alchohol poisoning in the USA.
    In 2016, tobacco used caused 7.1 billion+ deaths.
    WHO estimates that at least 2.8 million people die annually from conditions strongly linked to overweight and obesity. Only junk foods use does not make you obese. You can burn off that energy through physical activities and exercies. Therefore, cigrattes and tobacco should be consumed in the least amount, for which the governments should take their actions.

  • lol hell no

  • @ObviouslyLucifer Could you make that a little shorter like summarize it?... because wow thats alot of words

  • One Woman Army Sarah's Fan Club


    1. totally true, sugar is pretty much everywhere, even in our blood :O but it wouldn't be an everything tax, it would be a tax only on overly sugary foods. you know, things like sodas, energy drinks, unhealthy sweets etc.
    2. agreed, fat isn't the enemy. however, deep fried foods have an excess of bad fats like saturated fats & trans fats, which makes them wayy more unhealthy for people to consume. they're also very sodium-rich and just generally unhealthy.
    3. 100% true, that's how it works, not gonna argue with that.
    4. is it though? i can understand the argument of this tax causing the government to basically profit off people's health, but that's how all sin taxes work. we tax alcohol, tobacco, gambling & prostitution (in some countries), why not add unhealthy foods to the list? raise the prices and force people who want to eat unhealthily to pay more (as they're also a larger burden to the society), then use the tax money for things like food banks, healthy food subsidies & research into sustainable foods. basically, profit off bad habits to make good habits more affordable.

    We are living in the time of over production, and unequal consumption. This not only hampers the environment, but the people as well.

    agreed. the fact that 1/4 of our planet suffers from over-consumption, while the other 1/4 suffers from under-consumption is completely absurd, and really unfair

  • @DIVine

    How will the government regulate the need of special cases like hypertense people or professional sport players? You can't give the same amount of food to a person that works out everyday vs a person that never works out. Or the diet of a person that has diabetes can't be the same as a person that has not that condition. How will people that need more Or a different diet will get it?

  • @Lurker govt can make certain amendments in their policy πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚. They can do anything to prove their policy is for the benefits of the people. Everything in this world has a loophole remember thatπŸ˜…

  • @R-Sharma said in Should your government control your diet?:

    They can do anything to prove their policy is for the benefits of the people.

    Well here's a rare and unique government you have there πŸ˜‚ when does people come before money for any government? πŸ™ƒ

  • @Lurker money is secondary thing for any
    Politician. The prime objective of every politician is to retain their position or to stay in power as long as possible you can take an example of Russia

  • @DIVine 3and 4 point is for commerce student 😹😹

  • @DIVine skills can only be developed by experience and observation

  • Chocolate Lovers ;) SPARTAN Global Moderator

    @DIVine That would work but

    let people be happy ffs

  • Chocolate Lovers ;) SPARTAN Global Moderator

    @R-Sharma Hahahahahaaaaa well I’ll just put it on here

    Chocolate chip cookies
    Chocolate cake
    Melted chocolate in a bowl
    Milk chocolate bars
    Milk chocolate
    Lemon cake
    Dark chocolate

    Italian food

    Whipped cream
    Tres Leches (I’m not a fan of it, but a lot of ppl like it)
    Lemon squares
    Fried ice cream
    Ice cream
    Oreo ice cream
    Oreos in general

    ....now I want chocolate and cake

  • @R-Sharma

    Always had a feeling politicians wanted to get as much as they could while they were in the power πŸ˜‚ but then again... I'm terrible at politics

  • @Lurker I'm not so good in political science πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

  • @KATholic it would work out in Kats dreamland where she would be controlling everyone's dietπŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

By using TalkWithStranger, you are accepting our privacy and usage terms . You must be 18+ or 13+ with parental permission to use our online chatting site.