Legally required healthy diets

[Rory17]

What would be the pros and cons of the Government requiring healthy diets by law?
I know some people think healthy eating should be a choice and shouldn’t be forced by law, but hear me out, please.
* Making healthy eating mandatory could drastically reduce the number of cases and deaths of different types of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity and even mental health conditions.
* It could really improve people’s quality of life.
* Children would be among those who could benefit, as their parents would no longer be able to feed them on just junk food and too much sugar.
* Even animals could benefit if their carers/farmers were also required to feed them healthier.
* This could reduce costs to the NHS.
* In places like America, it could reduce costs to the poor because they may have to take fewer doctors’ visits for the prevented health issues.
* The legal requirement could also stress on and encourage organic/local/homegrown food, helping the planet.
* Even those with eating disorders would benefit. Binge eaters, for example, would no longer be able to access and legally consume high amounts of sugar and junk food. The amount of unhealthy foods and drinks being sold in the first place could be reduced, and those caught eating an unhealthy diet/too much sugary/junk food could simply be legally required to have therapy, even if it needed to be government/nhs/charity-funded. The worst could be that they would be sent to an eating disorder recovery centre and hopefully healed.

 

[majorbloodnok]

Will your manifesto later on include mandatory exercise to promote healthy living? A curfew on being outside during sunny times to reduce skin cancer? A moratorium on extramarital sex to reduce the incidence of STDs? Making bungee jumping, parachuting and swimming illegal given the risks associated with them? Are you going to remove a person's legal right (at least in the UK) to choose to end their life? At what point does well intentioned nannying cross over the line into unwarranted curbing of freedom?

Freedom of choice is not to be given away lightly. The problem generally isn't with the consumers but with the industries influencing them. Rather than dictate to the individual, why not actually follow through with the promises of a sugar tax? Why not remove all agricultural subsidies so that meat prices actually reflect the cost of production? Why not legislate that the most prominent thing on food packaging is its scoring against recommended daily allowances? Why not mandate that every unhealthy item on a restaurant's menu have a corresponding healthy choice (you want 10 different burgers, you gotta provide 10 healthy main course dishes on the same menu).

You're not going to change people's habits by hitting them with a big stick. Encouragement is a far better strategy and all that really needs to be tackled is stopping food manufacturers' marketing budgets distracting from that encouragement.

 

[Brian W]

I think there is a case for restriction where one's choices affect others such as children and the NHS. I've often thought that those who don't care about their health have no right to expect hospital treatment when they become ill, however, I also don't believe it is right for doctors to refuse to treat them. I think there must be some way of compromising here. Some legislation yes, but fascism no.

 

[Lou]

There are so many examples where governments require or enforce common sense safety laws.
Seatbelts, bike helmets, motorcycle helmets, smoke alarms, vaccines, masks, car insurance, smog tests, safety inspections, etc.
But it's tricky.

Personally, I'm against it. But not for the reasons you might think. I see it as Evolution in Action. let's get the idiots out of the gene pool.
on the other hand, these idiot do have a negative effect on the economy. Like higher health costs. And Evolution in Action takes a very long time. Some of the idiots have already produced children.

 

[majorbloodnok]

There is, of course, no reason why higher taxation of unhealthy foods couldn’t be directed straight towards the NHS so that those who choose an unhealthy lifestyle pay proportionately more towards their later care.

 

[Lou]

NYC had a tax on giant sugary drinks. I think it got repealed cause it was so unpopular.

Maybe the best place to start is school lunches.

 

[Brian W]

NYC had a tax on giant sugary drinks. I think it got repealed cause it was so unpopular.

Maybe the best place to start is school lunches.

Jamie Oliver tried reforming school lunches and the kids were not amused!

 

[Lou]

did you see that Michel Moore movie where he goes to France and sees how the kids eat at school?

 

[Lou]

 

[silva]

That's amazing!
Other countries surpass the US in so many ways. I was floored by, I believe, Germanys prison reformation

 

[silva]

I cannot think of any pros with the US enacting food laws. Plant based diets would most likely be outlawed for pregnant women and children.
You have to realize what you deem healthy would not be what your government would require. As it stands, there are schools that require milk to be at all lunches

As it is, parents are put on display and condemned for restricting their kids to whole foods and not allowing sugars or processed things--and i'm not talking veg'ns either!

 

[majorbloodnok]

What would be the pros and cons of the Government requiring healthy diets by law?
...

So here’s a thing. @Lou alluded to this point, but let’s lay it out in the open.

Bearing in mind that veganism is still distinctly in the minority, if the Governmental advisers pushed for a clause in the law on enforced healthy diets that required everyone to regularly take a supplement that can only come from animal sources, are you going to take it? Remember, it’s a legal requirement now; your only choice is between obedience or offending.

One example of such a potential supplement is carnosine for helping combat Alzheimer’s. The list of other candidates is small but still there. I don’t say this is a likely scenario but it’s an illustration of why freedom shouldn’t be relinquished easily. Before suggesting legal intervention "in everyone's best interests", it's worth considering that legal intervention might contravene your own ideals.

 

[Lou]

but it’s an illustration of why freedom shouldn’t be relinquished easily.

Good point.
Hey, did you hear this thing - its been in the news a little bit.
Might be a loophole for ending abortion bans. Religious freedom.

State lawsuits defend abortion access with religious freedom | AP News

 

[majorbloodnok]

Good point.
Hey, did you hear this thing - its been in the news a little bit.
Might be a loophole for ending abortion bans. Religious freedom.

State lawsuits defend abortion access with religious freedom | AP News

No, I hadn't seen that specifically. To be blunt, though, it's always amazed me how inconsistent legislation is from state to state in the US.

 

[Sax]

Oh hell no. Look at the food served in public schools for an idea of what happens when government institutions decide what food we should eat.

We'll all be eating tater tots and drinking chocolate milk while we're told how healthy it is and corporations pocket huge tax dollars.

 

[silva]

Oh hell no. Look at the food served in public schools for an idea of what happens when government institutions decide what food we should eat.

We'll all be eating tater tots and drinking chocolate milk while we're told how healthy it is and corporations pocket huge tax dollars.

Truth!

 

[Lou]

Still, I can't help but think (hope) that things will get better. I like the way the French and the Japanese think of lunch as an opportunity to educate. Social skills, nutrition, epicurism (?)...

I think here in California, vegan meals options are required by law in hospitals and prisons (and airplanes?).
NYC has vegetarian meals in their schools (but they don't look very good).

 

[VeganRachel]

What would be the pros and cons of the Government requiring healthy diets by law?
I know some people think healthy eating should be a choice and shouldn’t be forced by law, but hear me out, please.
* Making healthy eating mandatory could drastically reduce the number of cases and deaths of different types of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity and even mental health conditions.
* It could really improve people’s quality of life.
* Children would be among those who could benefit, as their parents would no longer be able to feed them on just junk food and too much sugar.
* Even animals could benefit if their carers/farmers were also required to feed them healthier.
* This could reduce costs to the NHS.
* In places like America, it could reduce costs to the poor because they may have to take fewer doctors’ visits for the prevented health issues.
* The legal requirement could also stress on and encourage organic/local/homegrown food, helping the planet.
* Even those with eating disorders would benefit. Binge eaters, for example, would no longer be able to access and legally consume high amounts of sugar and junk food. The amount of unhealthy foods and drinks being sold in the first place could be reduced, and those caught eating an unhealthy diet/too much sugary/junk food could simply be legally required to have therapy, even if it needed to be government/nhs/charity-funded. The worst could be that they would be sent to an eating disorder recovery centre and hopefully healed.

I think eating healthy makes sense, but many will say "NO". Humans do not like changing and our "diets" are very personal.
There are laws against using cannabis, heroin, mushrooms, and other substances...but it has never stopped humans from doing so.
Many humans are addicted to stuff that can make them unhealthy, such as processed foods, hydrogenated oils, fast foods, candy,
fried foods, chocolate, liquor, but they have a right to consume them.
Only 2/10 or maybe 3/10 americans eat the recommended amounts of fruit and veggies daily. only 5% of americans eat the
recommended amount of beans every week. Crappy foods have overtaken our diets, and sadly many humans like crappy food.
I see many people in supermarkets buying gallons of milk, 6 packs of soda, beer, candy, frozen pizza's, ice cream, etcetera every time I shop.

IF a 'health insurance" company required healthy eating, they would have to regularly test insurers for compliance.
But, its' a nice ideal.

 

[Lou]

IF a 'health insurance" company required healthy eating, they would have to regularly test insurers for compliance.
But, its' a nice ideal.

Not that I think it's a good idea... but if you were going to do it you would have to do it on the supply side.
We tax cigarettes and alcohol. I think there have been some states (or nations) that have taxed candy. and wasn't it NYC that tried making extra large sodas illegal?

Maybe the most possible tactic would be something a bit sneakier. Slowly reduce subsidies to meat and diary companies, and the livestock industry. maybe even start collecting higher fees for range land permits. Disguise it as a tax cut. Oh, and like they did with Tobacco, make the industry pay for informercials.

The Democrats probably would be in favor of it if you could make it part of the Green New Deal. Maybe even sneak it by the Republicans disguised as a tax cut. However we already saw Fox news go crazy over something similar. One of the Fox News anchors yelled that Biden was coming for your hamburger, even tho there wasn't anything like that happening so I can imagine their response to the reduction of subsidies to be even worse.

Also anything that would increase the price of milk, meat, and eggs would be labeled as a regressive tax and unfair to poor people.

 

[Lou]

So I was somewhat impressed with the USDA's effort to improve the nutrition of school meals. For those behind the curve: it's mostly reducing salt and sugar.

School Meals to Change Across America

This is still. pretty new but I haven't seen any pushback from the right.
Well, it's not like they can complain about government overreach - Governments have been regulating school lunches since 1945.

Of course I would have like to have seen them go at least one step further in relation to dairy and meat.

Here in California we have made some improvements in that area.

The Fight for Dairy Diversity in Public Schools | Ambrook Research

Friends of Animals | FoA challenges USDA to boost vegan school lunch options - Friends of Animals