Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Pushing Junk Food is OK or Not? Discuss...

4thTimeLucky · 05-08-2003, 04:36 AM

Wow, someone else who writes posts as long as mine. Even if it was pasted!

Facts
- Fast food in large quantities is bad for your health and seriously affects the length and quality of your life (they call it morbid obesity for a reason).
- Children are unable on their own to make balanced judgements about the immediate rewards of sugary/fatty foods versus the long term health risks.
- Many children do not have the parental guidance to make this decision for them.
- Fast food firms agressively target marketing at young children.
For more read Fast Food Nation

Conclusions
IF we do not want the next generation to suffer unecessarily and place a great burden upon the health care system THEN we must act.
There are two broad options:
A) The wait-and-sue
B) The preempt-and-regulate

For some reason America seems very keen on (A). From terrorists destroying skyscrapers to coffee that is too hot, the solution to the world's problems is deemed to be a market-based one: If the threat of suing is strong enough then people/organisations/firms will not do bad things.
This is flawed because (i) the market often fails (terrorist supporters will not be put off by law suits), (ii) money ends up being taken away from where it is needed (schools) and reallocated in a way that distorts markets, and (iii) places you on a slippery slope to such cases as uptight-smart-girl v. unlucky-school.
Despite all this I wonder sometimes whether there isn't a belief in some quarters that maybe we need no laws at all, so long as the threat of economic sanctions through litigation is strong enough.

The alternative, (B), is to allow the state to flex some muscle to protect your own children. And let me remind you how happy many were to see the state flex its muscles to help Iraq's children. Fast food joints are banned from aggresively targeting children and are forced to add health warnings to their products, similar to those on cigarrette packets, or invest in proper dietary education for consumers. No more sponsored schools. No more adverts during prime-child-time. No more Happy Meals. No more lies about the health effects of their food.

Profits are great. But not when they are gained at the expense of the state and the health of your children.

05-08-2003, 04:36 AM	#3 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Wow, someone else who writes posts as long as mine. Even if it was pasted! Facts - Fast food in large quantities is bad for your health and seriously affects the length and quality of your life (they call it morbid obesity for a reason). - Children are unable on their own to make balanced judgements about the immediate rewards of sugary/fatty foods versus the long term health risks. - Many children do not have the parental guidance to make this decision for them. - Fast food firms agressively target marketing at young children. For more read Fast Food Nation Conclusions IF we do not want the next generation to suffer unecessarily and place a great burden upon the health care system THEN we must act. There are two broad options: A) The wait-and-sue B) The preempt-and-regulate For some reason America seems very keen on (A). From terrorists destroying skyscrapers to coffee that is too hot, the solution to the world's problems is deemed to be a market-based one: If the threat of suing is strong enough then people/organisations/firms will not do bad things. This is flawed because (i) the market often fails (terrorist supporters will not be put off by law suits), (ii) money ends up being taken away from where it is needed (schools) and reallocated in a way that distorts markets, and (iii) places you on a slippery slope to such cases as uptight-smart-girl v. unlucky-school. Despite all this I wonder sometimes whether there isn't a belief in some quarters that maybe we need no laws at all, so long as the threat of economic sanctions through litigation is strong enough. The alternative, (B), is to allow the state to flex some muscle to protect your own children. And let me remind you how happy many were to see the state flex its muscles to help Iraq's children. Fast food joints are banned from aggresively targeting children and are forced to add health warnings to their products, similar to those on cigarrette packets, or invest in proper dietary education for consumers. No more sponsored schools. No more adverts during prime-child-time. No more Happy Meals. No more lies about the health effects of their food. Profits are great. But not when they are gained at the expense of the state and the health of your children. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!