-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Happy meals banned in several counties in California
- Thread starter lmitchell0012
- Start date
Generally I'd disagree with government intervention, but in matters of food and health care I think there is room for government to interfere a bit.
The best idea I've seen was Chou's (sarcastically or not) suggesting a slight tax on fast food and possibly using that money (and no other money) to cover medical expenses related to obese people or subsidizing healthy food.
The only reason I think McDonalds is being picked on is because it's an easy target. It obviously targets children, is very popular, and is very easy to enforce. (It's not as easy to determine if a local burger joint makes burgers that are less healthy because you'd actually have to test a burger from that one restaurant.)
As long as the regulation is specific to one restaurant or meal, I don't think it has any legitimacy.
The best idea I've seen was Chou's (sarcastically or not) suggesting a slight tax on fast food and possibly using that money (and no other money) to cover medical expenses related to obese people or subsidizing healthy food.
The only reason I think McDonalds is being picked on is because it's an easy target. It obviously targets children, is very popular, and is very easy to enforce. (It's not as easy to determine if a local burger joint makes burgers that are less healthy because you'd actually have to test a burger from that one restaurant.)
As long as the regulation is specific to one restaurant or meal, I don't think it has any legitimacy.
I'm pretty sure the Australian government does, actually ;)
Does WEIRD refer to the country, or just to the demographic? Because I would have thought you don't get a lot of rich people taking psych quizzes. Most of the students I know who have particpated in studies (and I know plenty) don't have much money, which is why they don't mind getting paid $30 for an hour or half-hour of their time.
thats not much healthier though
Thats the point. The issue of the healthy lifestyle is an extremely complicated one, and the people who are eager to dumb it down to "McDonalds is the cause" are the ones who already had anti-commercial sentiments.
If it doesn't create physical or psychological dependency, then it's not addictive. You're just throwing the word around to bolster your argument by associating the thing you're arguing against with addiction.
People like pleasurable things. People will generally do pleasurable things over non-pleasurable things/foregoing pleasurable things if at all possible. McDonalds is pleasurable. Therefore, people eat McDonalds. This is especially true of kids. It's not psychological association or whatever shit, kids like to eat tasty food.
Except for the fact that many overweight and obese individuals continue to overeat despite the well known negative health and social consequences, expressing a desire to limit their food consumption, yet struggling to control their intake and repeatedly consume beyond their energy requirements. That sounds a lot like addictive behavior to me.
(References: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1440-1754.2007.01267.x/full , http://her.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/2/347.full )
And you know what? There is science to support a physiological basis for food addiction. In this elegant study, extended but not restricted access to a palatable high-fat diet induced addiction-like reward deficits, overeating and loss of homeostatic energy balance in rats:
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v13/n5/full/nn.2519.html#/references
Here's an easier-to-read summary of said article if you don't like the neuroscience jargon: http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/20100329.html
Even from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense that addiction to foods with high fat and carbohydrate content would arise. The summary at the beginning of this article
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00392.x/full
Really, you should crack open a neuroscience textbook and read a few journal articles before making sweeping claims the way you do.
^ There is a lot of overlap between what is lack of self-control and what is addiction.
Nevertheless, you obviously didn't read the Nature article I posted that clearly demonstrates that the same neural substrates present in drug addiction are also present in individuals who overeat. In particular, excessive consumption of palatable, energy-dense food produces over-stimulation of brain reward systems, which induces a profound state of reward hyposensitivity and the development of compulsive-like eating.This is analogous to the reward hyposensitivity experienced by drug addicts.
The reward hyposensitivity (aka reduced ability to feel pleasure when presented with things that are normally rewarding) is, of course, produced by down-regulation of D2 receptors in the nucleus accumbens, which is basically the reward center of the brain. This is exactly the same neural mechanism that underlies drug addiction.
Nevertheless, you obviously didn't read the Nature article I posted that clearly demonstrates that the same neural substrates present in drug addiction are also present in individuals who overeat. In particular, excessive consumption of palatable, energy-dense food produces over-stimulation of brain reward systems, which induces a profound state of reward hyposensitivity and the development of compulsive-like eating.This is analogous to the reward hyposensitivity experienced by drug addicts.
The reward hyposensitivity (aka reduced ability to feel pleasure when presented with things that are normally rewarding) is, of course, produced by down-regulation of D2 receptors in the nucleus accumbens, which is basically the reward center of the brain. This is exactly the same neural mechanism that underlies drug addiction.
tbh unless you have a disease like prado-willy etc, i don't see why your lack of self control is an "addiction".
Two things having overlap doesn't make them interchangeable. Eating McDonald's everyday for a straight month, and then stopping cold turkey, doesn't create physical (meaning something happening other than "I don't want to go on without this") trauma during periods of withdrawal. Nicotine, narcotics, sleeping pills, amphetamines, caffeine, etc. (substances that actually are addictive) do. Just because something loads your shit with dopamine doesn't make it addictive.
there is a difference between withdrawal and addiction. withdrawal is a condition that can result from an addiction to a substance, but even when intake of the addictive substance is abruptly stopped, that is not a necessary nor sufficient condition to cause withdrawal. many people are able to stop taking some "addictive" substances cold-turkey with little to no side effects. also, withdrawal-like symptoms occur in individuals who stop taking normal doses (read: they don't abuse) of certain prescription medicines, and I certainly wouldn't leap to labeling people who take antidepressants as "addicted" to their medicine.
I have little background in neuroscience so sorry if I fucked up an explanation somewhere!
edit: I feel like I should qualify this argument by saying that even if the underlying mechanisms for junk food and cocaine addiction are similar, it doesn't mean the labels "addictive" should carry the same weight for both substances. there are a lot of other factors that need to be quantified, such as the portion/dose needed to cause addiction, the duration of the neurological imbalance, etc. a purely mechanistic approach is intellectually interesting but it's not enough to place junk food "addiction" in its proper social context.
err... actually, the results of the nature study seem to suggest the exact opposite. it is the parallel between the lowered level of d2 dopamine receptors in cocaine/whatever abusers and obese rats that suggests the action of both is the same. I think everyone can agree that a cocaine habit is an "addiction". the article argues that the same deformed neurological mechanism is present in rats that have a drug addiction as rats that were fed high-calorie, high-fat foods. this is a very strong suggestion that junk food is addictive in the same way that cocaine is addictive.
I have little background in neuroscience so sorry if I fucked up an explanation somewhere!
edit: I feel like I should qualify this argument by saying that even if the underlying mechanisms for junk food and cocaine addiction are similar, it doesn't mean the labels "addictive" should carry the same weight for both substances. there are a lot of other factors that need to be quantified, such as the portion/dose needed to cause addiction, the duration of the neurological imbalance, etc. a purely mechanistic approach is intellectually interesting but it's not enough to place junk food "addiction" in its proper social context.
^^ Actually, you didn't mess up a thing. I would have said basically the same thing.
And I agree that junk food addiction definitely isn't as severe as cocaine addiction;it's more on par with addiction to cigarettes. And actually, it's somewhat similar to alcoholism in that certain individuals are far more predisposed to it than others.
Your qualifications of this model are very smart, as well, and should definitely be considered. Here's my understanding: The duration of food addiction can be life-long, and can occur with periods of abstinence followed by relapses just like any other addiction. Portion/dose to cause addiction is quite high, but if you think about the early age at which some children are repeatedly exposed to junk food all the time, it makes sense that it would be prevalent, and once it's present, it probably doesn't matter. I'd cite more studies, but I have to go to a meeting!
And I agree that junk food addiction definitely isn't as severe as cocaine addiction;it's more on par with addiction to cigarettes. And actually, it's somewhat similar to alcoholism in that certain individuals are far more predisposed to it than others.
Your qualifications of this model are very smart, as well, and should definitely be considered. Here's my understanding: The duration of food addiction can be life-long, and can occur with periods of abstinence followed by relapses just like any other addiction. Portion/dose to cause addiction is quite high, but if you think about the early age at which some children are repeatedly exposed to junk food all the time, it makes sense that it would be prevalent, and once it's present, it probably doesn't matter. I'd cite more studies, but I have to go to a meeting!
Nicotine is believed to be one of the most addictive substances around. Anecdotal reports from people addicted to heroin and to cigarettes is that the heroin is easier to quit.
Alcoholism may be a more apt comparison. The difference is that junk food "addiction" is normal human behaviour. Our physiology has evolved to cope with an unreliable and low quality food supply; an environment in which eating foods high in fat and sugar is a good thing, and any negative health consequences of obesity are far outweighed by the risk of death by starvation.
To clarify, the ruling would ban restaurants from giving toys out with meals that don't meet their nutrition requirements.
They aren't attacking McDonald's restaurants specifically like your topic title implies. They can still serve Happy Meals, they just can't include a free toy for the kids unless their food becomes healthier.
With this said, it isn't McDonald's fault that about 1 in 3 Americans are obese. They offer tasty food at a low price, with a (reasonably) trustworthy brand name to boot. Considering how wages have remained stagnant for the last 3 decades while the cost of living has gone up, it doesn't surprise me at all that lots of people love fast food. There are plenty of other reasons why everyone is overweight: soda/high fructose corn syrup subsidized by the government, an increasing lack of personal responsibility combined with a decreasing effort to give children physical education, access to new technology making inside more fun, etc. There is no single cause to the problem, it is what should be the expected output of our society. We get what we deserve on the group level.
When I said it was on par with cigarettes, I meant in terms of the social consequences-- it's generally frowned upon, and people judge you if you do it, but in the end, you're only harming yourself. Although with cigarettes there's also that pesky second-hand smoke, so the analogy has its limitations.
And yeah, you're right about the alcoholism comparison and the fact that the food addiction thing is more evolutionarily adaptive, too. Sorry for the confusion; I was really in a rush when I wrote that last post.
Its not the meals fault its the parenting. in todays society most families go out to eat. 50 years ago the obesity rating was a lot lower due to the fact that a.) Kids were way more active. b.) families cooked inside the house more as it was a bigger social norm back then. But still im not a kid and I still buy my happy meals (small girl). I would be Wicked pissed off if they did that here.
Great idea. Start kids out to get really and unhealthy fat early on so they can die young and we can have less fat people.
The sad thing about this is that the government is sticking its nose in places that it should never go near.
If people want to be fat, they will be fat. It's like how the health boards are making school lunches have to be 100% perfectly healthy now.
All of my school's vending machines now only stock diet drinks, which are just as bad for you as regular drinks (they just swap the calories out, and add more sodium to the mixture).
Pennsylvania is trying to pass a law to force 45 minutes a day of mandatory physical education.
The issue isn't whether happy meals are bad for kids, it's whether the government has a right to do this. It should be the right of the people to decide what they consume, how healthy (or unhealthy) they live, not the government's.
Why don't you ban tobacco if you're so concerned with people's health?
If people want to be fat, they will be fat. It's like how the health boards are making school lunches have to be 100% perfectly healthy now.
All of my school's vending machines now only stock diet drinks, which are just as bad for you as regular drinks (they just swap the calories out, and add more sodium to the mixture).
Pennsylvania is trying to pass a law to force 45 minutes a day of mandatory physical education.
The issue isn't whether happy meals are bad for kids, it's whether the government has a right to do this. It should be the right of the people to decide what they consume, how healthy (or unhealthy) they live, not the government's.
Why don't you ban tobacco if you're so concerned with people's health?
You do what you want with your body, but in this case the little kids can't make decisions for themselves on what to eat, so who's making that little kids eating decisions? Yeah.
By the way, I used to get the happy meals just for the toys when I was younger, not really the food.
By the way, I used to get the happy meals just for the toys when I was younger, not really the food.
Well, given the government runs the schools, what food is provided in them IS the government's responsibility.
Well, it's the problem that, while it IS true that the government runs the schools, they still should have no right to have any influence on what we consume. If we want to be fat, we will be fat. They can't stop people from eating "unhealthy" things even if they try.
~
And yeah, lol I got the Happy Meals for the toys too, haha.
~
And yeah, lol I got the Happy Meals for the toys too, haha.
Yes, but they can prevent people from getting fat purely on the basis of the food the Government controls.
It won't stop people going home and gorging themselves on chocolate pizza cake, but those who do are largely beyond help. It's for the benefit of those who don't that school lunches are made healthy.