This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- University choices
- “I’m 73 and in the retirement trap – my pension is too small but I can’t get a job”
- Conflicted- What should I do?
- Working at an aiport?
- Ideas for presentation on current issues in education
- Why is it that girls and boys can reach puberty at such a young age?
- TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?
- UK or Australia?
- My Life is Bad, but it could be great
- Finding a work-life balance as a student on placement
- Looking for the impossible
- Don't know if i should stay at home or leave for uni?
- health
- Are any graduates experiencing graduate depression?
- do guys actually like bigger girls? be honest
- Erectile Dysfunction
- We are all screwed
- Do you think its feasible to travel around the country while working remotely?
- moderate lifestyle accommodation?
- Personal trainers?
Government and Lifestyle
To what degree do you believe the government, media or private sector should attempt to coerce or influence people's lifestyle choices? I am referring to issues like health (and obesity), smoking, drinking etc.
These sorts of issues have been in the forefront of the media in particular recently, The Mirror has recently launched a campaign to tackle obesity. Often emphasis is placed on educating people about the dangers of an unhealthy lifestyle. However I would argue that people are perfectly aware health issues and make a conscious choice to eat junk food, smoke and drink.
Fast Food giants like McDonalds and its ilk attempted to introduce healthier food lines like salads and fruit juice, yet their efforts proved unsuccessful and many of these choices are being pulled from the menus and replaced with even bigger and fatter burgers. Consumers made a conscious choice for the junk food over the healthy option. The private sector attempted to cater to what it believed were the consumers demands, and it backfired.
Meanwhile, the government and media place increasing emphasis on coercing our lifestyles. Obviously health and lifestyle issues have implications for other areas of society, most notaby the NHS. Do you feel that these bodies should play a role in dictating people's personal choices or do you believe in the individual's choice to live their life as they please with all the available information to them? And if you believe the latter, what do you believe the response should be in terms of funding the health implcations of those decisions?
These sorts of issues have been in the forefront of the media in particular recently, The Mirror has recently launched a campaign to tackle obesity. Often emphasis is placed on educating people about the dangers of an unhealthy lifestyle. However I would argue that people are perfectly aware health issues and make a conscious choice to eat junk food, smoke and drink.
Fast Food giants like McDonalds and its ilk attempted to introduce healthier food lines like salads and fruit juice, yet their efforts proved unsuccessful and many of these choices are being pulled from the menus and replaced with even bigger and fatter burgers. Consumers made a conscious choice for the junk food over the healthy option. The private sector attempted to cater to what it believed were the consumers demands, and it backfired.
Meanwhile, the government and media place increasing emphasis on coercing our lifestyles. Obviously health and lifestyle issues have implications for other areas of society, most notaby the NHS. Do you feel that these bodies should play a role in dictating people's personal choices or do you believe in the individual's choice to live their life as they please with all the available information to them? And if you believe the latter, what do you believe the response should be in terms of funding the health implcations of those decisions?
Scroll to see replies
I'd say that it would be wise for the government to interfere in so far as our free consumption choices produce negative externalities. If say, with smoking, there are obvious externalities, then tobacco should be taxed. I imagine a similar argument might exist with unhealthy foods.
If the NHS didn't exist, then perhaps the justification for taxation etc wouldn't be so great (I don't think you can get passively obese). But given that it does, and almost certainly will for a very long time (whether that's a good thing or not is up to you), I think that that justification will still be there.
Is the taxation used to compensate for the externalities and the increased drain on the NHS coercion? I don't think so. Do you, Laika?
If the NHS didn't exist, then perhaps the justification for taxation etc wouldn't be so great (I don't think you can get passively obese). But given that it does, and almost certainly will for a very long time (whether that's a good thing or not is up to you), I think that that justification will still be there.
Is the taxation used to compensate for the externalities and the increased drain on the NHS coercion? I don't think so. Do you, Laika?
I reckon people are eating the unhealthy foods because they're cheap - you can buy a "meal" from McDonalds for (I think) £3.05 and you'll be pretty full after that. There's very few healthy alternatives which fill you up for that price. Perhaps some kind of taxation might be useful here because, although people clearly know how unhealthy the food is, if they need something cheap then it will do. Whereas what's a McDonalds' salad? bit of lank lettuce and a few half mouldy carrots = rabbit food, not filling.
so yeah, I think that people need to be educated about the dangers of things and perhaps a little tax if it's likely that people doing them will lead to increased strain on the NHS because the money's got to come from somewhere (less highly paid top people would probably be helpful...). However, the government shouldn't stop people doing this because it's their right if they want and are informed of both dangers and benefits.
so yeah, I think that people need to be educated about the dangers of things and perhaps a little tax if it's likely that people doing them will lead to increased strain on the NHS because the money's got to come from somewhere (less highly paid top people would probably be helpful...). However, the government shouldn't stop people doing this because it's their right if they want and are informed of both dangers and benefits.
Thud
I reckon people are eating the unhealthy foods because they're cheap - you can buy a "meal" from McDonalds for (I think) £3.05 and you'll be pretty full after that. There's very few healthy alternatives which fill you up for that price. Perhaps some kind of taxation might be useful here because, although people clearly know how unhealthy the food is, if they need something cheap then it will do. Whereas what's a McDonalds' salad? bit of lank lettuce and a few half mouldy carrots = rabbit food, not filling.
so yeah, I think that people need to be educated about the dangers of things and perhaps a little tax if it's likely that people doing them will lead to increased strain on the NHS because the money's got to come from somewhere (less highly paid top people would probably be helpful...). However, the government shouldn't stop people doing this because it's their right if they want and are informed of both dangers and benefits.
so yeah, I think that people need to be educated about the dangers of things and perhaps a little tax if it's likely that people doing them will lead to increased strain on the NHS because the money's got to come from somewhere (less highly paid top people would probably be helpful...). However, the government shouldn't stop people doing this because it's their right if they want and are informed of both dangers and benefits.
I suppose in the language of 'negative externalities' (anyone read The Corporation by Joel Bakan? - I thoroughly recommend it!) we could say that McDonalds are in some measure culpable for the health consequences of the food they sell and promote. The difficult issue is determining how culpable.
From a purely selfish point of view, as you might be paying taxes for the treatment of those who have become ill from their addiction to McDonalds, maybe taxpayers have a right to limit what McDonalds can sell and how they sell it?
Oswy.
Oswy
I suppose in the language of 'negative externalities' (anyone read The Corporation by Joel Bakan? - I thoroughly recommend it!) we could say that McDonalds are in some measure culpable for the health consequences of the food they sell and promote. The difficult issue is determining how culpable.
From a purely selfish point of view, as you might be paying taxes for the treatment of those who have become ill from their addiction to McDonalds, maybe taxpayers have a right to limit what McDonalds can sell and how they sell it?
Oswy.
From a purely selfish point of view, as you might be paying taxes for the treatment of those who have become ill from their addiction to McDonalds, maybe taxpayers have a right to limit what McDonalds can sell and how they sell it?
Oswy.
"The Corporation" - 10% sense and interesting comment - 90% hyperbole generalisation and agenda ridden manipulation.
How culpable? Not culpable much at all... so long as you tell people what you are selling, and they know what the health consequences are - then you havent got much to answer for.
Lawz-
"The Corporation" - 10% sense and interesting comment - 90% hyperbole generalisation and agenda ridden manipulation.
How culpable? Not culpable much at all... so long as you tell people what you are selling, and they know what the health consequences are - then you havent got much to answer for.
How culpable? Not culpable much at all... so long as you tell people what you are selling, and they know what the health consequences are - then you havent got much to answer for.
I think your explanatioin posits an unrealistic communicative relationship between the likes of mega-industry McDonalds and the average semi-educated individual (often a child) sucked in by adverts, branding, sponsorship, etc, etc.
Where the recipient of a communication is on equal terms to the transmitter,and thus in a fair position to respond, I'd agree with you - but I'm not convinced this is how it actually works in such cases.
Oswy.
Oswy
I think your explanatioin posits an unrealistic communicative relationship between the likes of mega-industry McDonalds and the average semi-educated individual (often a child) sucked in by adverts, branding, sponsorship, etc, etc.
I knew we'd get onto the kids
...It's up to the parents to regulate what their children eat... not McDonalds.
However - yes - there is I would agree, some level of responsibility when it comes to marketing to children. Beyond that though I dont really see the problem.
Where the recipient of a communication is on equal terms to the transmitter,and thus in a fair position to respond, I'd agree with you - but I'm not convinced this is how it actually works in such cases.
Oswy.
Oswy.
Outside of children, I dont see the issue - no adult is really unaware about the health effecs of eating large amounts of fast food.
Lawz-
I knew we'd get onto the kids ...
It's up to the parents to regulate what their children eat... not McDonalds.
However - yes - there is I would agree, some level of responsibility when it comes to marketing to children. Beyond that though I dont really see the problem.
Outside of children, I dont see the issue - no adult is really unaware about the health effecs of eating large amounts of fast food.
...It's up to the parents to regulate what their children eat... not McDonalds.
However - yes - there is I would agree, some level of responsibility when it comes to marketing to children. Beyond that though I dont really see the problem.
Outside of children, I dont see the issue - no adult is really unaware about the health effecs of eating large amounts of fast food.
Ok, why do you agree that children are vulnerable in such situations?
Oswy.
Lawz-
Ahhh the perennial fallacy that fat people use to justify their continued munching... "I cant afford an apple and a sandwich"...
May I be the first to say - *******S
May I be the first to say - *******S
a sandwich and apple doesn't fill you up in the same way as a big mac, chips and coke - so no I don't think it's got the same "value for money" as mcdonalds does in many people's minds.
(I don't eat mcdonalds btw)
Thud
a sandwich and apple doesn't fill you up in the same way as a big mac, chips and coke - so no I don't think it's got the same "value for money" as mcdonalds does in many people's minds.
(I don't eat mcdonalds btw)
(I don't eat mcdonalds btw)
Of COURSE it doesnt fill you up in the same way - because it's not a ridiculous amount of food... that's the whole point.
The fact remains that if you eat a sandwich for lunch, with some fruit and tea/water - and are still hungry - chances are you need to lose weight.
The point is not "does it fill you up" - but "can you eat sufficent healthy food to provide you with the nutrients you need"... answer - yes.
children just aren't as good at making informed choices as adults. Ultimately though the kids parents are responsible for their wellfare, not Mcdonals. Food at McD's isn't bad for you, as in dangerous. But it is bad if you eat there too often and too much. Because the food they sell is high in calories/bad oils etc.
Lawz-
Of COURSE it doesnt fill you up in the same way - because it's not a ridiculous amount of food... that's the whole point.
The fact remains that if you eat a sandwich for lunch, with some fruit and tea/water - and are still hungry - chances are you need to lose weight.
The point is not "does it fill you up" - but "can you eat sufficent healthy food to provide you with the nutrients you need"... answer - yes.
The fact remains that if you eat a sandwich for lunch, with some fruit and tea/water - and are still hungry - chances are you need to lose weight.
The point is not "does it fill you up" - but "can you eat sufficent healthy food to provide you with the nutrients you need"... answer - yes.
of course but people like to feel like they've had a decent (ha!) meal for a small amount of money. Eating mcdonalds salad is just crap, and going into Boots or something and buying a sandwich is a) less accessible than mcdonalds (usually) and b) it feels like they're being ripped off. People don't like to feel ripped off.
Laika
To what degree do you believe the government, media or private sector should attempt to coerce or influence people's lifestyle choices? I am referring to issues like health (and obesity), smoking, drinking etc.
None at all. It's unfair to punish me for wanting to go into Mcdonalds once every few months of buy a burger and chips because some people are so ****ing stupid as to go eat one of them every day. Governmental intervention into my lifestyle is completely absurd; People who eat McDonalds are more than capable of leading healthy lifestyles. Perhaps if people saw some kind of negative to eating McDonalds food every day, like having to pay for their own treatment in the case of suffering health problems due to obesity...
Fat chance, eh? Turns out I'll be taxed at 40% of my income, 17.5% of everything I buy, inheritance tax, 50% of whatever fuel I decide to buy, and whatever else the government decides to take off me in order to pay for people whose treatment is due to their own inability to look after themselves.
Maybe people would be more careful about what they put in their own bodies if they knew over-indulgence would result in increased health premiums?
Thud
I reckon people are eating the unhealthy foods because they're cheap - you can buy a "meal" from McDonalds for (I think) £3.05 and you'll be pretty full after that. There's very few healthy alternatives which fill you up for that price. Perhaps some kind of taxation might be useful here because, although people clearly know how unhealthy the food is, if they need something cheap then it will do. Whereas what's a McDonalds' salad? bit of lank lettuce and a few half mouldy carrots = rabbit food, not filling.
so yeah, I think that people need to be educated about the dangers of things and perhaps a little tax if it's likely that people doing them will lead to increased strain on the NHS because the money's got to come from somewhere (less highly paid top people would probably be helpful...). However, the government shouldn't stop people doing this because it's their right if they want and are informed of both dangers and benefits.
so yeah, I think that people need to be educated about the dangers of things and perhaps a little tax if it's likely that people doing them will lead to increased strain on the NHS because the money's got to come from somewhere (less highly paid top people would probably be helpful...). However, the government shouldn't stop people doing this because it's their right if they want and are informed of both dangers and benefits.
I'm always hungry about 10mins after a massive portion of fast-food...they have nothing good in them, and so do not energise you, which leads to hunger...I can get chicken thighs, tomatoes, etc etc etc, with cheese for 2quid...I can make a chicken pasta bake that will serve me 6 times, and will fill me everytime. Fast-food is by no means 'cheap' in comparison to healthy options.
Smoking, Alcohol, these we should be educated about because they do not only affect you. Being fat...that doesn't affect anyone but the person, so let them eat as much as they want.
Thud
a sandwich and apple doesn't fill you up in the same way as a big mac, chips and coke - so no I don't think it's got the same "value for money" as mcdonalds does in many people's minds.
(I don't eat mcdonalds btw)
(I don't eat mcdonalds btw)
Hunger is produced by a lack of nutrients...a sandwich and an apple will fill you more. McDonalds has nothing of worth in it, and you end up hungry an hour later. Compare this to a good lunch at 1pm that will fill you till 6/7pm.
Lawz-
Because some kids are in a position to buy for themselves, and some parents are ****.
I don't think I'm following your answer here. You're acknowledging that children are vulnerable to the was McDonalds use the media to promote their products, yes? But what is it about a child that makes it so vulnerable, in your view?
Oswy.
tehjonny
Hunger is produced by a lack of nutrients...a sandwich and an apple will fill you more. McDonalds has nothing of worth in it, and you end up hungry an hour later. Compare this to a good lunch at 1pm that will fill you till 6/7pm.
Quoted for truth.
When I used to eat McDonalds/Burger King etc, I found that as you finished eating it, you have a sore stomach and feel bloated for 20 minutes. Then you feel full for 20 minutes. Then you're starving again.
Related discussions
- University choices
- “I’m 73 and in the retirement trap – my pension is too small but I can’t get a job”
- Conflicted- What should I do?
- Working at an aiport?
- Ideas for presentation on current issues in education
- Why is it that girls and boys can reach puberty at such a young age?
- TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?
- UK or Australia?
- My Life is Bad, but it could be great
- Finding a work-life balance as a student on placement
- Looking for the impossible
- Don't know if i should stay at home or leave for uni?
- health
- Are any graduates experiencing graduate depression?
- do guys actually like bigger girls? be honest
- Erectile Dysfunction
- We are all screwed
- Do you think its feasible to travel around the country while working remotely?
- moderate lifestyle accommodation?
- Personal trainers?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?