Has any "unhealthy" food ever been banned?
 

Several years ago there was a big debate about trans fats being banned. People were frantically calling radio stations and saying the following: What's next? Will they try to ban hamburgers? That's because they thought trans fat was a food so it made them wonder what other food would be next.

Now some people have said the same about CVS not selling cigarettes: They want to know what's next. Candy? ice cream? potato chips?

To my knowledge, no food item has ever been banned. So I wonder why some people keep worrying about it. The freedom to kill ourselves eating junk food has been well established. So let's cherish it, be proud of it and keep this fine tradition going. :icon_wink:

Damned straight. If you're born to hang, you won't drown.

All started in a garden...you may eat everything except the fruit of that one tree...it is tree of knowledge of good and evil...
Perfect paradise and one banned fruit.
No deal, God, we want to know about evil. We WILL eat that fruit...ban my fruit? No way.

Have been banned in schools.

Gracie, I'm stealing this. I love it!

:eclipsee_gold_cup: yep.

Excellent! :eclipsee_gold_cup:

Yes, but that's for kids not adults. You also have to raise your hand and ask permission to use the bathroom.

Banned for the adults working in the schools too.

I never heard of that. You mean if they don't bring their own lunch and eat in the cafeteria? Are you talking about teachers or cafeteria workers?

Anyway, that's a workplace situation and not exactly what I was referring to. If they don't like it they can always quit and go to work somewhere else.

If government can ban food you eat because they view them unhealthy then they can ban where you live how you worship who you associate what occupation you choose how many kids you can have etc etc etc.

None of the old familiar junk foods seem to be disappearing from the marketplace. Except Twinkies, and they came back I think.

Thank goodness that what we eat is a personal choice in this country. I was very upset when I read that the mayor of New York was banning large soda's. We do not have a right to dictate our diet and food views on others. There is a separation of food and state.:shrug:

There are so many, many, more important things to do than to police another person's diet unless you are their parent.. It does not work. You can't keep people from taking drugs and that is illegal and far more serious an issue.

I have spoken.:pepper2:

"Unhealthy" foods have changed over the years. Wonder how a "ban" could work???

They can ban asparagus, tofu, and "well done" steaks.
But they'll have to pry that ground chuck burger out of my cold dead hands. :pepper2:

Well the good ex-mayor Bloom-whatever of NYC tried (unsuccessfully) to ban large sodas… remember?

A Google search reveals 11 banned items (mostly imported).

There was one whacked caffeine/alcohol concoction made in the USA that was banned "Four Loco"…sounded like quite a "headache in a can" if you ask me.

government (Michelle O) guideline that is currently being rejected by many school systems nation wide as the kids are not interested and not buying in the cafeterias. Hence sales are down and cannot make a profit. Easy to reject government guidelines. Unfortunately the government assigns certain perks to those who follow the guidelines. But losing money is not a part of the equation very many school systems will adhere to.

They are only incented guide lines....not laws....YET anyway. Brown bagging solves the problem.....assuming kids would do so....probably not in this day and age!!

Our hospital removed all soda, except fake ginger ale. We just bring in our own.

The problem, as I se it, is that most people are unable to connect the dots. People don't want large sodas taken away but they don't see a connection to their tax dollars being taken away. I would rather have large sodas and trans fats taken away than to have my tax dollars taken away. Which would be more important to you, the large soda or your hard earned money that goes to pay taxes in New York City?

At the time they decided to ban trans fat in New York City, the hospitals were being flooded with patients getting "free" heart by-pass operations. The operations were free to most of those getting the procedure but not free to New York City (resident) tax payers.

Then came the issue of large sodas: Most people never saw it as a choice between keeping their soda and keeping their tax dollars. They voted to keep the status quo. That's fine if that's what they want, but if that's what they want they should stop complaining about high taxes.

About 80% of hospitals are private sector businesses, 20% are government owned like VA hospitals.:shrug: :shrug:
I don't see how you figure taxpayers are paying for all these medical procedures. Or are you advocating for the repeal of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veteran's Administration?

Did the NYC bureaucrats really think people were so stupid as to think they couldn't get around the big soda ban, by simply buying TWO smaller ones??

(Unless of course all of us dumbed-down, unwashed masses were given government rationing coupons that don't include soda at all)…..

Why did the soda companies come out with the double size sodas? Did they think people were so stupid that they couldn't buy two smaller bottles?

Answer: The soda companies do "test marketing" before they bring something to market. And they found that people consume more soda with the larger size. And that's what New York City was focused on, the net result. The net result being "higher consumption".

What somebody thinks is bad for you Could be bad for you but not that bad. I do not think people have heart transplants because of small amounts of sugar and aspartame. THAT is a huge reach.

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/g...tion-treatment

People have heart problems for any number of reasons, including genetics and due to overweight and consuming too much fat and sugar, but that is still their choice. This country has to be run by the majority, no matter what the majority think. It feels like we are bending over backward trying to make all views equal. It isn't working.

I think VPL's diet plan is extreme. I think that most people would be healthier if they cut down on fats and sugars and ate a variety and MORE of fruits and vegetables. AND GET MORE EXERCISE.BUT since that is not number one on my values list I would never lecture them. You would always get a lot from me if you asked what I think about how people are currently raising their children, because that is number one to me. We are all different.

But nice in our own way. Most of us. Nice.

As I said above, the issue was heart bypass operations not heart transplants. And this was costing New York City mucho millions of dollars every year. It was a very large significant amount of money. So Mayer Bloomberg and the N.Y.C. health department did what they did (banning trans fats) for 2 reasons. 1) to help tax payers avoid having to pay more tax increases and 2) to help improve health conditions overall.

About the soda issue: Sugar doesn't cause heart disease directly but it adds calories to a population that is already 2/3 overweight or obese. And it is the weight issue that is likely to bring on a chain of adverse health events that often leads to heart disease among many other diseases.

Banning soda to be manufactured wouldn't stop that problem. People don't cook at home and are in a huge rush. They work much harder than we did when we were younger because we usually had one person taking care of hearth and home and running errards and taking kids to lessons and sports and washing and even ironing the clothes. People don't even have time to cook and enjoy a decent meal. It is that and not the big soda's that is the problem. People don't have time to live and to spend time doing ordinary things. People don't learn to cook and make cooking a very simple, fun thing to do, rather than a task. The world has changed so much.

Yes, I agree, but why add fuel to the fire? Your plan, as I see it, is to give up on taking any steps at all because there may be bigger problems that can't be solved.

Many years ago I worked with my father. And whenever I felt overwhelmed by a big job, my father would say, "take it one step at a time." And that's what I recommend here.

The problem is bad, like you said. But trans fat and soda just adds more fuel to the fire. And the soda companies know it, that's why they came out with the bigger bottles. They knew it would add to overall consumption.

Doing nothing is not a good plan in my opinion. As it turned out it didn't work, but at least they tried.

Whether soda is good or bad, the government telling the people what size soda they can buy is simply the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

How do you feel about the government sticking their hands in our pockets to get the tax money they need to pay for all the bypass operations and other procedures for people who are overweight, obese or very close to it?

The government is paying for all the bypass operations? Really? Where do you come up with all this BS? Any sources?

Has any "unhealthy" food ever been banned?
 

You mean you're blaming all those operations on large-size sodas? And you think all those operations will magically disappear if large size sodas are outlawed?? Oh wait...of course you do...almost forgot who I was responding to there for a second.

Well, when you sign up for market insurance or public insurance like Medicare, you are always joining a pool of people with varying risks, so that the whole pool pays a person's bills instead of bearing the debt alone.

The solution if you don't like the others' risky lifestyles is to go self-insured….as in self-pay.

Good luck as a self-insured if you become one of the people who gets lung cancer without ever having smoked a cigarette; or if you end up like my nurse friend who is very health conscious and is almost a teetotaler, who has cirrhosis of the liver and has had to quit her nursing career/income.

I feel thankful and blessed that I have not so far had to bear the pain and heartache of an incurable disease or a life threatening condition. I am thankful to have never needed a hospital stay nor any kind of surgery at least so far. I am thankful though not quite perfect, my health is overall very good and I only need an annual doctor visit. I am thankful that I have had a good career and that I have been able to totally pay my family's way at least up to this point.

With that said I realize many have not been as blessed and fortunate as I and I do not begrudge those that have tried and struggled but still need help. I realize though I sometimes complain that I should be thankful that I don't have uncontrollable compulsions to eat, drink, smoke, or do other destructive behaviors. I have no problem helping those that are truly in need whether it be food, clothing, or healthcare.

I do believe everyone should try to help themselves and everyone should work for what they receive unless they are truly unable. I am thankful I have not needed assistance as so many seem to do but I do know that life is uncertain and things can change quickly. It is is much better to look upon the plight of the less fortunate with caring, understanding, and maybe a little sympathy if needed. I do believe I am no one that should look down upon anyone and for sure no one should exalt themselves or think themselves better than others when they are actually just more blessed than others and should be thankful their life is so good.

It's pretty clear that that is not what VPL is saying. VPL is saying that reducing obesity would reduce heart surgeries.

And that Medicare and Medicaid pay for a lot of heart surgeries, and other obesity related illness.

And that if banning certain "foods" would reduce obesity, then that would be fewer obesity related illnesses for Medicare and Medicaid to pay for - with our tax dollars.

I'm pretty sure that VPL never said that these measures would eradicate every vestige of heart disease.

Since the original post did not specify USA, the answer is yes, many foods are banned around the world. For example, we eat arsenic laced chicken here (arsenic is added to their food to speed growth), but it is banned in the EU. Farm raised salmon is banned in Australia and New Zealand. There are many more examples of our government kowtowing to big business at the expense of our health.

Didn't NYC ban trans fats? Wasn't saccharine banned?

Thanks, KIR. Makes me very sad that more people don't agree with you. It seems that whenever someone gets sick, the shame-and-blame chorus starts singing about what the person must have done to bring it on themselves. Birth defects or genetic diseases? Something the mother must have done, or eaten, or inhaled, or lived near. This serves to both insulate and glorify the blamer: "That couldn't possibly happen to ME."

There is a virulent undercurrent of hatred and dread towards overweight people in this county. God forbid they get so much as a hangnail, because some claptrap research will be trotted out to say that it's related to obesity. I'm tired of hearing about everyone's freaking tax dollars used to treat alcoholics or addicts or people in persistent vegetative states. The overtone of eugenics and a master race is quite disturbing.

OK, let me start off by saying that I don't smoke marijuana, but for those of you who are so concerned about a nonexistent ban on certain foods or chemicals in foods, doesn't the same argument apply to smoking weed? I'm just curious.

And by the way, the First Lady is not the government and does not make government regulations.

I so agree. AND I agree with Polar Bear. I always seem to.

My post was removed and it was right that it was.

Yes, but banning trans fat is not a ban of any food, it's a ban on using hydrogen to turn oils into trans fat. Hydrogen is not a food, as far as I know.
Oil still exists, it's just not hydrogenated anymore.

In 2010 the EPA stated that saccharin is no longer considered a potential hazard to human health. But one would have to understand how they mean it: They're not saying that it's good or that it promotes good health. I think what they mean is that there's no evidence that it directly causes cancer. That's what it seems the debate was about.