| Author |
Message |
Steve Jefferies (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 61
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 3:52 pm: |       |
The pelinks4u February 2007 editorial is entitled "Forcing Healthy Choices: Restrictive, Prescriptive, or Necessary?." Please post comments to the editorial in this thread.
(Message edited by admin on March 02, 2007) |
Steve Jefferies (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 63
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 2:29 pm: | |
(Coincidentally, when I wrote the pelinks4u February editorial the following editorials appeared in the Central Washington University, weekly newspaper. The two student authors present opinions against and for the ban on trans fats.)
by Megan Hansen
City editor
In another attempt to take choice away from citizens, government officials have been trying to pass legislation controlling what we eat.
Since early December, when New York announced an approved ban on trans fat, the product that makes French fries crunchy and cookies chewy, cities across the country including Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland have looked into banning it in their own backyard.
Many think the ban on trans fat is a great thing. The government wants us to be healthier. The government’s job to tell us whether or not to put an FDA approved substance into our bodies.
The majority of what people put into their bodies is bad for them. For a long time, sugar and carbohydrates were bad. Then red meat was bad, followed by constant debate about eggs. Everything can be unhealthy.
Banning trans fat is not about making Americans healthier, it’s about control. People have the right to choose what they will and will not eat. Banning trans fat takes away our right to choose.
Northwest Cable News highlighted a Portland restaurant owner during a recent program on trans fat. One of his major concerns is that his restaurant is known for having the best fish and chips in Portland; unfortunately his fish and chips are fried using trans fatty oil.
If Portland bans trans fat, this man’s restaurant, and credibility will be at stake. He said he experimented with other oils and it wasn’t the same. If his business goes down because of it, would the government be held accountable for ruining this man’s business? Yes.
Restaurants will have to start displaying nutritional information on menus and packaging with the amount of trans fat. This aspect of the ban is a great idea. Increased information allows for consumers to make informed decisions. The Portland restaurant-owner should be able to continue using trans fatty oil, with nutritional information displayed allowing customers to decide on their own.
Banning trans fat is just the next step to government-regulated diets. By allowing such bans to take affect across the country, we’re losing our right to choose.
by Paul Balcerak
Senior reporter
I’m about two shakes short of being a libertarian, so government-mandated regulations on citizens’ personal decisions usually don’t sit too well with me. But I’m willing those regulations if they protect other citizens’ well-being.
Most opponents of recent state bans on trans fats will argue that consuming trans fats is a choice, which reminds me of another choice Washington voters chose to ban last year: smoking. I make this comparison to illustrate the point that trans fats are just as dangerous as cigarettes and should be regulated all the same.
According to the Centers for Disease Control Web site, both are top ten killers of Americans and both are completely preventable.
But while tobacco companies have endured endless scrutiny from lawmakers and the public at large, fast food chains and junk food companies have been allowed to profit off choking Americans with their own fat.
Tobacco companies had been banned from advertising on TV and billboards long before the 2006 Washington State bans. Joe Camel, lawmakers claimed, encouraged youth smoking because he was a cartoon. But they had no problem with Ronald McDonald coaxing kids into premature “Super-Sized” graves.
The difference is that people have been conditioned to believe that smokers are rebellious and disgusting while overeaters are just victims. Think about it: a mother with a young child wouldn’t think twice to berate someone smoking in public. But that same mother would be mortified if her husband let loose a tirade on a obese man gorging himself on pancakes in an IHOP.
Children of overeaters are the most at risk. How is a child supposed to develop healthy eating habits when his parents succumb to gluttony on a daily basis? Behavior like that is just as inexcusable as smoking in front of your children and exposing them to the dangers of second-hand smoke and nicotine addiction.
If we’re going to allow people to overeat, we might as well make the world a smoker’s lounge, as well.
|
Howard Weiss (Weissice)
New member
Username: Weissice
Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2007 - 10:46 am: | |
The current climate in this country is to blame everyone's poor health on lifestyle choices. This is just the government’s way of dealing with our poor health care system. Many people get sick and/are obese despite anything they do short of starve to death. There are others who can eat the kitchen table and never gain an ounce. Some people smoke until they die at 110 and others get lung cancer at 50 despite never having smoked a cigarette. Many diseases are caused by environmental conditions created by business, industry and government. People sometimes get sick because of poor immune systems. A person’s genetics are often responsible for many diseases including obesity. Moreover, there are thin people who are in very poor physical condition and health. I am not saying we shouldn't teach our children to make healthy choices, but we should not mandate laws that take away personal freedom. Let's work instead to provide a single payer health care system like the rest of the modern world. And let’s stop blaming the victims. |
cindy smith (Cgsmith24)
Junior Member
Username: Cgsmith24
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 5:33 am: | |
i also disagree with government mandated rules about what i cook my french fries in...however, the rate that childhood obesity is rising is alarming...and that seems to me to be sign of prosperity in america. when kids have too many video games, computers, dvd players, etc. to go outside and play. the focus should be more on our activity level than on what or how much we eat. just my opinion though, i could be wrong, i have been before...and i'm sure i will be again... |
|
