Fat Tues: Should gov't regulate food choices?

[sunny]

I don't agree with making the unhealthy stuff more expensive (trying to discourage unhealthy choices), but I absolutely agree with making healthy stuff affordable, encouraging healthy choices and making it super easy to incorporate into your lifestyle.

I also agree that safety is important and there should be more behind-the-scenes regulation in that regard.

[wrathofkuus]

I also think we do a huge disservice to the general public by making everything all about fatfatFAT body shape, and not about healthy habits. Statistically, people who are fat and eat well, and exercise plenty, have no higher incidence of disease than thin people who do the same. But despite this, we harp on body shape, which makes people anxious and fearful and shameful and depressed, and it's not exactly a shock that people who are anxious and depressed exercise little and overeat.

We talk a lot about how the corn industry is subsidized, but we talk very little about how the diet and body shaping industries are propped up by making people fat, and then making them feel bad about it.

[marie427]

To play devil's advocate a bit here - There are lots of healthier foods that *are* fairly cheap. Things like beans, many types of grains...and even produce can be affordable when they're in season and/or when there are sales. I've cut down our grocery bill considerably by sticking with these cheaper staples. Plus, I feel like by now, most people *should* be aware that a Snickers bar is not as healthy as an apple. I get that not all nutritional information is common knowledge but the basics like this should be.

I think it's a matter of what tastes good to people. Cake is yummy even if people know it's not necessarily the healthiest thing one can eat (especially if you eat the entire cake!). Healthy foods are boring. We don't treat food as something we need to eat just to live; it has to be satisfying like anything else we do.

[ringstrue]

I disagree that to do well you have to be anti-culture: anti-TV, anti-fast food, anti-diners, etc. I get that it works, but its not practical - you aren't going to change American culture, and you aren't going to change human psychology. Every parent knows they are one ill-timed kid tantrum away from stopping at McDonalds vs. going home and eating.

But you CAN change what foods are being sold and eaten and when and how. I don't really care *how* that is accomplished - be it with govt. incentives, taxes, cleaning up the USDA, etc. - we could debate the how until the end of time.

I just wanna say - wouldn't it be awesome to be able to go out to eat or pick up something real quick and know its the best option all around?

You also aren't going to change people's sedentary lifestyles. Not w/o getting rid of desk jobs and desktop computers and automobiles. Moderate activity has a pretty low overall effect on overweight loss as compared to diet changes.

[ringstrue]

I think meal planning is a big missing component too. I dunno how to address really outside of having specific guidelines for how food can be packaged (no 2.5 servings in a "single serving" bag) and getting rid of the chips and crackers aisles in grocery stores.

[basilosaurus]

I am more and more convinced that it's portion size that's the problem. Yes, sugar when you don't expect it adds calories, but Americans eat gigantic portions. I don't see how government regulations deal with that. (I still support ending corn subsidies, though).

Even traveling through France last week I was struck by how huge portions were compared to when I was there a decade ago. It was, honestly, quite disgusting. We ended up eating only half of our meals when before I'd eat 3 courses with no problem.

I rarely eat at chain American restaurants, but I get that same sort of revulsion when I'm served a meal that's at least 3 times what it should be. We have no concept of what a normal portion size is anymore.

[charminglife]

I was thinking about this more and I see it has been touched on in this thread - that education is important too. I just finished Anthony Bourdain's most recent book and one of the topics he touched on was the lack of knowledge in kids/teenagers on how to actually make your own food - basic things, like how to cook meat (temperature, time, seasoning), how to make a sauce, how to chop an onion. He proposed bringing back a modified home ec (for girls and boys) as a combo culinary arts/health class - teach kids how to make good tasting food within relatively healthy parameters.

Certainly difficult to implement but an interesting idea.

[wrathofkuus]

Sure, restaurant portion size is huge here, but what a restaurant gives you and what you actually eat at one time are two entirely different things. Does anyone ever go to a restaurant of any sort and not have a bag of to-go boxes full of leftovers to take home any more?

[Deleted]

May 15, 2012 10:47:25 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

May 15, 2012 10:38:24 GMT -5 @farmgirl said:

Just wanted to pop in and say that the federal ethanol subsidy expired in 2011.

The subsidies that most farmers receive now are being paid off of pre-existing "base" acres that were established into production over several farming and reporting generations. (last year that they could add to the base was in 1992? when they accepted soybeans), these are not directly "corn" subsidies. These are payments made to supplement ANY and all crops: soybeans, wheat, cotton, rice, pumpkins, pasture, hay, etc. As long as the bases are established on the farm and the farm remains in Agriculture production these subsidies can be paid to farmers. There are income caps on subsidies as well, for individuals and corporations. Which have to be certified via IRS.

2012 is the last year of the existing farm bill and with the way that the new one is looking to be written these "automatic" payments will be gone. All new payments will be based on a production or loss model, which may hurt small farmers even more. This is suppose to fit hand in hand with federal crop insurance.

May farmers use these payments as a way to balance out the rising cost of fuel, equipment, fertilizer, seed, vet/medications, repairs, property taxes, and labor. Farming isn't cheap and not everyone out there is a "big" farmer.

We raise about 30 acres of row crops, 45 head of cattle, about 40 acres of hay, free range chickens, and occasionally a hog or 2. So we are by no means "big" farmers. Everyone has to have an outside job to support our farm. Be careful when you say to get rid of all subsidies, you may not know who all you are hurting.

There are other ways to farm that don't require fuel and equipment and chemicals.

I know not every farm can do that and 30 acres is small (based on the idea that my family would need about 15 to grow all the food we would need to support ourselves and another family) and that transition would suck, but modern farming practices are just that - modern. There are ways to feed people that have been around for thousands of years that we could return to if we weren't accustomed to our way of life now.

But no one wants to eat in season, eat less, eat less meat and pay more for their food.

We also have a large concentration of people in urban areas like we have never seen before and an influx of people that are two major roadblocks.

I promise I'm not trying to be snarky here, so please don't take it as such, this is just something that is really close to home if you know what I mean

So how would a farmer in today's society farm with out fuel or chemicals?
Go back to horses, which would require upkeep on their own (additional feed, more water, veterinary care/farrier, expenses for the horse drawn equipment to plant and to cut their hay, and harnesses).
Plant by hand, your farm better provide enough food for you and be able to sell outside (to make profit to pay for the seed/water/canning jars because stuff doesn't grow in winter/ or put up a green house $)or one member of the family having a job while the other can farm all day, because everything grows in a different season with different preferred planting and harvesting dates, and I don't think your family wants to eat 15 acres of corn. Plus the expense of buying 15 acres of land that is tillable and taxes on that land.

Chemicals are easier to do with out, I know several organic farmers. I also know several that certain years they don't have fruit or tomatoes or corn because it was all ruined by insects or fungus or viruses. Better be out there every day checking for these things. Walking 15 acres is a pretty big patch. Then you hope that the weather won't be too wet/too dry/hail/wind.

You hit the nail on the head for me that currently there is a HUGE number of people that live in urban/suburban settings. Nowadays people are so removed from the farm that they don't understand what all goes into it. Plus add in the general population not wanting to pay more for food, how is one organic or naturally raising farmer going to survive in this world? I love to eat farm fresh. I garden and hit up the farmers markets. All my meat (except chicken, I can't eat my girls!) comes from the farm or hunting. Being an advocate for agriculture isn't exactly easy these days, people sure do like to hate on the farmers

[Deleted]

If making shitty food expensive meant less people ate/bought the stuff, movie popcorn sales would be dead in the water and there wouldn't be a starbucks on every fucking corner.

I oppose paternalism.

[heliocentric]

May 15, 2012 11:13:17 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

I disagree that to do well you have to be anti-culture: anti-TV, anti-fast food, anti-diners, etc. I get that it works, but its not practical - you aren't going to change American culture, and you aren't going to change human psychology. Every parent knows they are one ill-timed kid tantrum away from stopping at McDonalds vs. going home and eating.

But you CAN change what foods are being sold and eaten and when and how. I don't really care *how* that is accomplished - be it with govt. incentives, taxes, cleaning up the USDA, etc. - we could debate the how until the end of time.

I just wanna say - wouldn't it be awesome to be able to go out to eat or pick up something real quick and know its the best option all around?

You also aren't going to change people's sedentary lifestyles. Not w/o getting rid of desk jobs and desktop computers and automobiles. Moderate activity has a pretty low overall effect on overweight loss as compared to diet changes.

I don't have kids and I'm sure parenting is challenging much of the time, but I still think that's a cop out. Generations ago people managed cranky children without popping into McD's. Sure, maybe mom didn't work, but she was also busy hanging laundry on the clothesline, doing other chores without modern conveniences and likely taking care of several children at the same time.

People expect food to be effortless. It's not. It doesn't have to be difficult, but it is something that requires SOME planning or at least thoughtful consideration (and perhaps some new skills).

Note: Those skills are pretty easy to come by for anyone with an internet connect or a TV. I learned so many cooking skills from watching PBS.

[Deleted]

Also, I'm not comfortable with a plan that would limit food purchasing options for people and/or reduce job opportunities for unskilled labor.

[Deleted]

I also want to jump in and say that the food pyramid from USDA is now obsolete they are centering education on the "my plate" model. Michelle Obama is even a supporter!

www.choosemyplate.gov/

[Deleted]

Also, I have both backyard and container gardens and they are not easy peasy. I'm pretty sure I'll be violating the watering restrictions when summer gets full swing. Plus, it's not really a cheap hobby. Yes, I could go with the dirt already in my backyard and start from 10c a pack dollar store seed but my results would probably be incredibly shitty.

Hell, I'm using miracle grow gardening soil and estabilished plants from home depot and for the crop I'm anticipating, it's still a hobby garden and not a nutritional supplement.

[basilosaurus]

May 15, 2012 11:29:25 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Sure, restaurant portion size is huge here, but what a restaurant gives you and what you actually eat at one time are two entirely different things. Does anyone ever go to a restaurant of any sort and not have a bag of to-go boxes full of leftovers to take home any more?

You're a scientist. You should know that visualizing an appropriate portion size or knowing when you're full isn't something humans are really capable of. There are lots of studies on this. There are even studies on perception of portions based on plate size rather than food size, so if you have a bigger plate you're more likely to overeat.

Yes, people may take home food, but that's after far exceeding what a portion size should be.

[wrathofkuus]

May 15, 2012 11:48:17 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

May 15, 2012 11:29:25 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Sure, restaurant portion size is huge here, but what a restaurant gives you and what you actually eat at one time are two entirely different things. Does anyone ever go to a restaurant of any sort and not have a bag of to-go boxes full of leftovers to take home any more?

You're a scientist. You should know that visualizing an appropriate portion size or knowing when you're full isn't something humans are really capable of. There are lots of studies on this. There are even studies on perception of portions based on plate size rather than food size, so if you have a bigger plate you're more likely to overeat.

Yes, people may take home food, but that's after far exceeding what a portion size should be.

I am a scientist, and yes, humans are in fact capable of knowing when they've had enough. It's what leptin is for, among other things. The studies on what people eat and when they know they're full are mostly psychological studies.

[ringstrue]

May 15, 2012 11:33:03 GMT -5 heliocentric said:

May 15, 2012 11:13:17 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

I disagree that to do well you have to be anti-culture: anti-TV, anti-fast food, anti-diners, etc. I get that it works, but its not practical - you aren't going to change American culture, and you aren't going to change human psychology. Every parent knows they are one ill-timed kid tantrum away from stopping at McDonalds vs. going home and eating.

But you CAN change what foods are being sold and eaten and when and how. I don't really care *how* that is accomplished - be it with govt. incentives, taxes, cleaning up the USDA, etc. - we could debate the how until the end of time.

I just wanna say - wouldn't it be awesome to be able to go out to eat or pick up something real quick and know its the best option all around?

You also aren't going to change people's sedentary lifestyles. Not w/o getting rid of desk jobs and desktop computers and automobiles. Moderate activity has a pretty low overall effect on overweight loss as compared to diet changes.

I don't have kids and I'm sure parenting is challenging much of the time, but I still think that's a cop out. Generations ago people managed cranky children without popping into McD's. Sure, maybe mom didn't work, but she was also busy hanging laundry on the clothesline, doing other chores without modern conveniences and likely taking care of several children at the same time.

People expect food to be effortless. It's not. It doesn't have to be difficult, but it is something that requires SOME planning or at least thoughtful consideration (and perhaps some new skills).

Note: Those skills are pretty easy to come by for anyone with an internet connect or a TV. I learned so many cooking skills from watching PBS.

But food already IS effortless - or at least can be. I guess that's my point. You aren't going to get rid of convenient stores and fast food and take out. There are plenty of people for whom cooking at home is just a huge PITA. Yes, you could teach them ways to make it easIER and fastER, but nothing compared to ordering out. But what if the 2 options were virtually the same in terms of healthiness and variety? Then, who cares how much you order out? It doesn't have the stigma it did before - save for possibly the price tag.

[Deleted]

May 15, 2012 11:49:43 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

With backyard and container gardens, organizations like the FFA and university extensions and 4H are really helpful if they had the proper funding. These orgs - at least around here - offer classes and free tools and materials to help get people started and troubleshoot common problems.

You also have these orgs and local units of government pushing for community gardens that allows people to buy a plot of land, have it tended with the help of professionals and then they keep the produce. The fee is waived for low income people.

These are all good solutions that are often the first thing cut in budgets.

As well they should. I don't see the wisdom in tough economic times of continuing to fund endeavors that private donors are willing to take on at the expense of endeavors the public is not willing to pay for out of their own pockets.

Don't get me wrong, I do find value in the government funding things like this but I don't agree that they shouldn't be pretty high up on the list when looking for places to slash the budget, especially at the federal level.

[emilyj]

May 15, 2012 9:42:36 GMT -5 mr+ms said:

May 15, 2012 9:16:11 GMT -5 emilyj said:

Education needs to happen like yesterday. People are way too ignorant about what constitutes a healthy diet.

I don't think it's necessarily people being ignorant, though. I find it pretty sad that we have a need for intensive education on this topic.

Is it reasonable to expect individuals to make this day-to-day upstream battle via education?

So, yes, it's good to be informed and educated on nutrition/health, but I think we're kidding ourselves if we think we can arm the average under-resourced American with enough info to combat our current environment.

But as I said, you can't do it with just one element - not education alone, not eliminating corn subsidies alone, not regulation alone. It has to be a combination, but I do believe education HAS to be a big component of that.

I'm 34, well-educated, and it took me going to a registered dietitian before I felt confident to truly understand what a good diet was, based on how I grew up. The other day, my mother, a well-educated woman who is going to Weight Watchers told me "A carb is a carb and all carbs are bad".

Even if we can't inform the average under-resourced American with enough info to combat our current environment, does that mean we shouldn't try at all?

[heliocentric]

May 15, 2012 12:00:02 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

May 15, 2012 11:33:03 GMT -5 heliocentric said:

I don't have kids and I'm sure parenting is challenging much of the time, but I still think that's a cop out. Generations ago people managed cranky children without popping into McD's. Sure, maybe mom didn't work, but she was also busy hanging laundry on the clothesline, doing other chores without modern conveniences and likely taking care of several children at the same time.

People expect food to be effortless. It's not. It doesn't have to be difficult, but it is something that requires SOME planning or at least thoughtful consideration (and perhaps some new skills).

Note: Those skills are pretty easy to come by for anyone with an internet connect or a TV. I learned so many cooking skills from watching PBS.

But food already IS effortless - or at least can be. I guess that's my point. You aren't going to get rid of convenient stores and fast food and take out. There are plenty of people for whom cooking at home is just a huge PITA. Yes, you could teach them ways to make it easIER and fastER, but nothing compared to ordering out. But what if the 2 options were virtually the same in terms of healthiness and variety? Then, who cares how much you order out? It doesn't have the stigma it did before - save for possibly the price tag.

I should've rephrased. Yes, food is currently effortless for many. But it's generally not the ideal foods. Sure it would be nice it there were healthful, affordable, fast options, but that attitude that those things are necessary and lack of them is what's keeping people from eating well is not true.

At what point do people take ownership instead of waiting for someone else to do it for them? Some things in life require a bit of effort.

Plus, there are decent (or at least less bad) options at many fast food places. Those are not the things people are buying.

[basilosaurus]

May 15, 2012 11:52:04 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

May 15, 2012 11:48:17 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

You're a scientist. You should know that visualizing an appropriate portion size or knowing when you're full isn't something humans are really capable of. There are lots of studies on this. There are even studies on perception of portions based on plate size rather than food size, so if you have a bigger plate you're more likely to overeat.

Yes, people may take home food, but that's after far exceeding what a portion size should be.

I am a scientist, and yes, humans are in fact capable of knowing when they've had enough. It's what leptin is for, among other things. The studies on what people eat and when they know they're full are mostly psychological studies.

Psychology is powerful. So, in practice, no, people don't stop eating when their bodies tell them to, despite the biological mechanisms.

[wrathofkuus]

May 15, 2012 12:21:50 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

May 15, 2012 11:52:04 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

I am a scientist, and yes, humans are in fact capable of knowing when they've had enough. It's what leptin is for, among other things. The studies on what people eat and when they know they're full are mostly psychological studies.

Psychology is powerful. So, in practice, no, people don't stop eating when their bodies tell them to, despite the biological mechanisms.

Yes, which is why I mentioned the beauty myth culture and diet culture, which aren't solved at all by government regulation of food. And I can't help but think that the overworked nature of Americans plays a large role in this, too - when most of your time is spent working, you're not left with many pleasures in life other than food.

[NitaX]

May 15, 2012 11:33:03 GMT -5 heliocentric said:

May 15, 2012 11:13:17 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

I disagree that to do well you have to be anti-culture: anti-TV, anti-fast food, anti-diners, etc. I get that it works, but its not practical - you aren't going to change American culture, and you aren't going to change human psychology. Every parent knows they are one ill-timed kid tantrum away from stopping at McDonalds vs. going home and eating.

But you CAN change what foods are being sold and eaten and when and how. I don't really care *how* that is accomplished - be it with govt. incentives, taxes, cleaning up the USDA, etc. - we could debate the how until the end of time.

I just wanna say - wouldn't it be awesome to be able to go out to eat or pick up something real quick and know its the best option all around?

You also aren't going to change people's sedentary lifestyles. Not w/o getting rid of desk jobs and desktop computers and automobiles. Moderate activity has a pretty low overall effect on overweight loss as compared to diet changes.

I don't have kids and I'm sure parenting is challenging much of the time, but I still think that's a cop out. Generations ago people managed cranky children without popping into McD's. Sure, maybe mom didn't work, but she was also busy hanging laundry on the clothesline, doing other chores without modern conveniences and likely taking care of several children at the same time.

People expect food to be effortless. It's not. It doesn't have to be difficult, but it is something that requires SOME planning or at least thoughtful consideration (and perhaps some new skills).

Note: Those skills are pretty easy to come by for anyone with an internet connect or a TV. I learned so many cooking skills from watching PBS.

While I hear what you are saying, many people don't have time for elaborate meals with 17 different ingredients. I'mma tell you right now, if the recipe calls for 20 plus ingredients, I'm not going to make it. Why? Because I don't have all dayum evening to measure, whisk, beat, puree, saute' an item.

[redheadbaker]

May 15, 2012 6:32:20 GMT -5 marie427 said:

Even this big-government lover has serious reservations about his recommendations. Not sure I'd love having regulations tell me how much I can eat at a restaurant. However, I do think restaurants own a big slice of the Obesity Blamegame Pie because their supersize portions have totally desensitized us into thinking that 8 cups of pasta = 1 serving. But on the flip side, they may do that because we demand more food for our buck when dining out, even if that 1 meal out is 2 days' worth of calories.

Glad I read the replies before writing out my own. Ditto marie.

[heliocentric]

I'm responding to a few people, so no quotes.

My point is that making tasty, healthful food does NOT require 20 ingredients and doesn't take hours and tons of skill. Seriously. I don't know why people think that.

Yes, some basic skills are needed, but I am certain most people can manage. They are likely doing far more complex tasks on a regular basis. There is also a bit of upfront work needed to find a few "go to" recipes, but that's also not hard. Most people just don't want to. They prefer to open a box of something, heat it up and then complain that they have no choice.

I probably sound angry about this. I'm really not. Just passionate. I ate my share of hot pockets and similar crap until I made a choice to eat better, so I know it's not that difficult. Do people really not have 20-30 minutes a few times a week to cook some meals?

[Deleted]

Honestly, I think our eating habits as a nation have always been rather poor as have portion sizes. Steak and potatoes are not a new phenomenon.

What is a new phenomenon is how little movement we are getting as a nation.

I just think biology, cultural inclinations, and our current state of motion has come to an ugly, overweight head of late.

[Deleted]

May 15, 2012 11:31:14 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

If making shitty food expensive meant less people ate/bought the stuff, movie popcorn sales would be dead in the water and there wouldn't be a starbucks on every fucking corner.

I oppose paternalism.

Slightly off topic, but the only reason movie popcorn and stuff is so expensive is because the cinema's are held to ransom by the movie studios. They have to give 90% of the money from ticket sales on any movie to the studios for the first week, 75% the second week, and I think it drops to 40 or 50% on the third week. Basically, they only make their money via sales of crap food at ridiculous prices.

[Deleted]

Oh I know, Reeve. But they still make money on that shit, kwim?

[heliocentric]

May 15, 2012 13:45:23 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Honestly, I think our eating habits as a nation have always been rather poor as have portion sizes. Steak and potatoes are not a new phenomenon.

What is a new phenomenon is how little movement we are getting as a nation.

I just think biology, cultural inclinations, and our current state of motion has come to an ugly, overweight head of late.

I agree.

I also wonder if the foods themselves are different (GMO, treated with chemicals, etc.) and that is doing something to us. The steak and potatoes of today are not necessarily the same as those in the past.

[druidp]

Yes, Big Government should step in because Lawd knows I can't put a fork down or bypass a fast food restaurant all by myself.