…saith Gummint, when it comes to just about every human product or endeavor. Here’s a fresh dose of silliness, from a doctor (another group of busybodies):
Banning junk food won’t stop people eating it, just look at how Prohibition failed! But we DO need new regulations to tackle our poor diet
Oh we do, do we? So banning won’t work, but the softly-softly approach by regulation will achieve the same ends (cf. gun control Over Here, another catalog of failures). Let me continue:
How do you feel about being told what to do, particularly when it comes to decisions around your health? — I want to reach for my 1911.
Most of us, I suspect, think we should be left to make our own decisions (and our own mistakes). — Except for doctors, government busybodies and other foul control freaks
But I also think most of us would accept that there are areas where the government should step in and regulate” — errrr no. Maybe 5% of all human activity might need government oversight, and I’ll entertain arguments from anyone who thinks that 5% is too much.
Anyway, after dealing with the low-hanging fruit (leaded gasoline and cigarettes), Our Good Doctor gets after food.
There’s no way you can ban people from eating junk food — not only is it everywhere but you also have to ensure there are affordable alternatives. — No, “you” don’t. People would prefer to eat Twinkies instead of carrot sticks or oatmeal bars. Leave the Twinkies alone.
But there are lots of things that could be done to nudge our behaviour, many of which Boris Johnson planned to introduce before he fell from power. — and not a moment too soon.
These include the end of BOGOF (Buy One Get One Free) sales on foods high in fat and sugar — their main purpose, after all, is to make you eat more junk food. You rarely see BOGOF (US: BOGO) offers on fresh veg or fish. — errrr that’s because fresh veg and fish are perishables, hello.
Other plans included a ban on adverts for junk food and sweets aimed at children, online and before 9pm on TV. These measures are popular — a YouGov poll found a ban on junk food adverts before 9pm is supported by 62 per cent and opposed by just 17 per cent — but almost all the anti-obesity strategies Boris loudly promoted have been kicked into the long grass. — because they’re unpopular, stupid and bossy. Kinda like Boris. By the way, the same percentage (62%) applies to people who want to reinstate the death penalty in the U.K. No?
With one in five children now overweight or obese when they get to primary school, and the number of obese adults projected to soon outnumber those of a healthy weight within the next five years, there is a desperate need for action. Yes, ban smoking in the young but we also need to be thinking about diet. — If we’re serious about reducing the number of fat people, why not just shoot them all in the street? This would be the most efficient (and, by the way, the least costly) option.
And we just know that Gummint is all about efficiency — except in their own dealings, of course.
Let’s rather just shoot them. On the whole, I’d be happier living among fat people than having Government busybodies peering into my shopping basket.
Not to mention:
Anyone else starting to feel peckish?
A major problem with encouraging the government to regulate the dietary choices of the citizens is that it can’t make up its mind about what is a good diet. I’ve lived through the Four Food Groups, the Food Pyramid, and god alone knows what all else. I’ve pretty much ignored Low Fat, then Low Carb, shifting standards on cholesterol, and so on.
The classic saying is; Don’t like the weather? Wait five minutes.
Well, Don’t like the government’s dietary advice? Wait five years.
I’m eating pizza and burgers.
If someone else wants to graze on grass and plants be my guest.
Just don’t force your bullshit on everyone else.
By the way, if cow farts cause global warming, all the more reason to thin the herd and grill up some steaks.
Just recently bought a new grill!
People are not fat because they eat too much. They are fat because they have achieved the human race’s evolutionary goal of being able to live, work, and play sitting down. Assign annual excise taxes on couches, chairs, desks and dining tables.
Next problem?
.
That’s a good start, stencil, but it doesn’t go far enough and is too easy to circumvent.
How about we tackle three problems at once? If there were a requirement that everyone show up at a gym and work out on machines that harvest that effort as energy to be fed into the power grid, there would be benefits:
1. All that exercise would whip the population into fantastic shape. The machines would have the ability to recognize us and record our output so there’d be no cheating. Our required outputs would be adjusted for age and actual, not chosen, gender.
2. The energy output would be fed into the power grid, thus decreasing demand for fossil fuels.
3. Forcing us all into large rooms to face identical challenges would revive the useful custom praised by Alexis de Tocqueville of voluntarily forming social groups to solve society’s problems. The size, enthusiasm, and effectiveness of the groups formed to overthrow the overly controlling government would revive the concept of “consent of the governed”, for instance.
Referencing the pic above – crispy Kreme lady. I’d much rather a crispy Kreme lady than some liberal cunt who dictates masticating on greens.
Curves and junk food please.
eat from the farm, not the factory.
Has anyone linked the rise in obesity to the increased presence of televisions, movies, computers and such? Recreation is more sedentary than it was decades ago I would think.
JQ
“Food comes from factories, not farms. We don’t need farms to feed the population”.
Statement by the Dutch deputy minister for agriculture, 2022 (in response to questions how the government thinks to feed the population if they shut down farming).
He must be related to that Ocasio-Cortez creature.
There’s a pic on the internets if AOC with her partner in an eatery, and he has a burger. Interesting…
She’s cute for a libtard. Face down, ass up of course; you wouldn’t want to listen to her bullshit.
She is about as bright as AOC, but holds far more power…
Food Science for the most part just seems to contradict itself every few months or years. They release a study that coffee or caffeine is unhealthy. Then a study comes out that it’s good for you. Salt has been vilified then recognized to have some health benefits because iodine was added to salt and thyroid issues decreased significantly. I tend to ignore those sensationalist articles about some scientist coming to some conclusion that will be debunked in a few months. When these recommendations are pushed by government bureaucrats, that’s even stronger evidence to ignore them. Four food groups might make sense to classify things. The food pyramid is supposed to illustrate portion control. That doesn’t appear to be a one size fits everyone situation.
The best exercise move I learned was to push my plate away after a reasonable portion. My wife is a great cook so seconds were not unheard of at meal time with me.
JQ
“There’s no way you can ban people from eating junk food — not only is it everywhere but you also have to ensure there are affordable alternatives. — No, “you” don’t. People would prefer to eat Twinkies instead of carrot sticks or oatmeal bars. Leave the Twinkies alone.”
Sure you can ban people from eating it. Because the government can ban it being sold and produced, which makes it unavailable universally, ESPECIALLY if the globalists get their way and there are no other countries from which it can be smuggled in.
That’s how island nations get (largely) away with banning all kind of stuff, importing it is hard as the borders are harder to cross and easier to patrol than land borders tend to be.
That’s how countries like Ireland and the Netherlands are planning to do it. Just ban the manufacture and sale, not just the consumption, of meat. Combined with a campaign vilifying the product as “bad for the environment”, “animal welfare”, “public health” (all of which are based on lies, but after decades of very insistent propaganda most people no longer realise that) it’s going to succeed too, ESPECIALLY if they start (as they are) with mandating a vegan diet being served exclusively in hospitals and to government workers (which is exactly what they’re doing).
Where prohibition was introduced pretty much cold turkey in the USA, which was a large reason for its failure, a gradual approach can and does work well. Not only do you get people used to not having access to the product over time, you turn those who refuse to go along into villains in the eye of the general population, make them outcasts who are excluded from “civilised society” to the point they can’t get jobs. Then making it so people who are known to violate the ban on the product are excluded from social security and can get their property confiscated serves as the final hard measure to ensure compliance prior to carting them off to the “reeducation camps” where they’re starved and beaten into submission.
You don’t work for the government, do you?
not at the moment. I’ve worked as a contractor for several government agencies, including the ministry of health, ministry of justice, consumer protection agency (our equivalent of the FDA), weather service (our equivalent of NOAA), and ministry of the interior.
So I know how they work…