Fast Food: Who's to blame?

[Imperialmajesty]

The companies for putting the product out there, and the idiot consumers who buy the product.

 

[Zardnaar]

It goes further, warpus.

Food is a very emotional thing. We associate it with the feelings and goings-on of the event in which it is consumed. Parents often take kids there as a reward or for "fun times". This causes a life-long association between the food and 'good times' that becomes a subconcious driver of diet.


You don't really love bacon, you love the memories.


ps. People who try to change their diet without creating new positive food associations are doomed.

I was about 12 before I had McDonalds for the first time, and KFC was a rare treat 1-2 a year sort of thing usually on a road trip. Local town didn't have McDs or KFC and fish and chips was the fast food of choice and was a rare treat. I basically wasn't allowed soda that often either and coffee at all. Even if I go to McDs now I skip the fries and soda. I eat alot of fast ood but here you can get reasonably healthy options and burgers are reasonably ok if you don't go to overboard on the dressings, egg and bacon.

 

[amadeus]

Blame implies that there's something wrong with eating fast food, as though fast food should be singled out as an evil. Well, any behavior taken to extremes is unhealthy.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

Usa .

 

[MagisterCultuum]

It is largely the fault of consumers and parents, but the state bears much of the blame too--not for letting people choose unhealthy foods, but for subsidizing their decisions through agricultural subsidies that make the ingredients for unhealthy fast foods cheap at the expense of the environment and the tax payer. It is quite possible that unsubsidized beef would be too expensive for fast food chains to buy, so they would be forced to reevaluate their menus. The remaining beef industry would probably be seen as more of a luxury, so the quality might go up as the quantity goes down. Removing the subsidies on grain (including the wheat for the buns and the corn for the corn syrup in the soda, no the the massive cane sugar subsidies wouldn't support unhealthy soft drinks just as much if they hadn't switched to corn syrup) would probably help a lot too.

 

[bhsup]

Unless a gun is being put to your head, or knife to your throat, or other sort of coercion, the responsibility of eating fast food lies totally with the consumer and nobody else. You don't have to go to McDonalds or Hardee's or Sonic or Smak's. You CHOOSE to. Just like with voting, eating is entirely on the private citizen and nobody else.

 

[Munch]

Who's to blame? A combination of the weak-willed and those who exploit the weak-willed. That is to say, demand and supply.

 

[emzie]

Depends. Most of the blame is on the consumer, obviously, but the corporate chains are rather insidious about creating an "experience" for children. When tobacco companies do this they get moral outraged all over TV, but no one things twice about "happy meals"

I blame the government for not banning heavily taxing transfats.

Unless a gun is being put to your head, or knife to your throat, or other sort of coercion, the responsibility of eating fast food lies totally with the consumer and nobody else. You don't have to go to McDonalds or Hardee's or Sonic or Smak's. You CHOOSE to. Just like with voting, eating is entirely on the private citizen and nobody else.

Think of what types of food you eat most now in your life. When did you start eating them? I mean types of food.

It goes further, warpus.

Food is a very emotional thing. We associate it with the feelings and goings-on of the event in which it is consumed. Parents often take kids there as a reward or for "fun times". This causes a life-long association between the food and 'good times' that becomes a subconcious driver of diet.


You don't really love bacon, you love the memories.


ps. People who try to change their diet without creating new positive food associations are doomed.

QFT. If I have kids I refuse to take them to fast food joints.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The truely sad part about this is that any reasonably active person on the 2000 calorie daily diet can easily get away with a single fast food meal everyday with no problems.

How does anyone maintain a "reasonably active" lifestyle on 2000 kcal/day? I eat more than that, live a pretty couchified life (haven't exercised regularly this side of the millennium), and have a BMI of ~19.5.

(I've got a government pamphlet somewhere which recommends 2500 kcal/day for men with a "sedentary" lifestyle, which sounds more realistic to me.)

 

[civ_king]

The market decides. Blame the market.

Tax unhealthy foods and subsides for healthy foods the market will adjust to new price inputs , oh and kills corn subsides because most is used for feeding cows (and makes unhealthy beef) and for (high fructose) corn syrup which contributes too

 

[Shaihulud]

I feel that we cannot blame the consumer, people as a group are rather stupid so it would not be unfair, besides the consumers are the one suffering. I think the blame should be attributed to the companies if any, since they are making such a handsome profit from selling junk fast food.

 

[Patroklos]

but the state bears much of the blame too--not for letting people choose unhealthy foods, but for subsidizing their decisions through agricultural subsidies that make the ingredients for unhealthy fast foods cheap at the expense of the environment and the tax payer.

This makes no sense. Those subsidies in no way specifically target "unhealthy goods" and are probably going to have a far stronger price hiking effect on healthy foods in reality seeing as they rely very much on produce.

Subsidies should be eliminated for far more logical reasons, and the result will be a general hike in food prices across the board.

How does anyone maintain a "reasonably active" lifestyle on 2000 kcal/day? I eat more than that, live a pretty couchified life (haven't exercised regularly this side of the millennium), and have a BMI of ~19.5.

2000 is just a general standard, the actual nuetral calorie intake can vary from person to person but since most are too lazy to figure theirs out 2000 is a good start. It is very simple, if you eat less than your nuetral calorie intake you will lose weight. If you eat more than your nuetral calorie intake you will gain weight. If you eat right around that nuetral calorie intake you will maintain weight.

If you are attempting to lose weight via exercise then exercise while not increasing your calorie intake. Or if you are diligent in counting your calories you can exercise and decrease consumption, but you need to know your limits in this regard. If you are attempting to gain strength/train then you compensate calorie burn with proper increases in amount and type of food consumption.

Tax unhealthy foods and subsides for healthy foods the market will adjust to new price inputs , oh and kills corn subsides because most is used for feeding cows (and makes unhealthy beef) and for (high fructose) corn syrup which contributes too

I have to wonder if you realize the dystopia we would live in if you applied your hair brained schemes consistantly as opposed to just your pet peeves.

I feel that we cannot blame the consumer, people as a group are rather stupid so it would not be unfair, besides the consumers are the one suffering. I think the blame should be attributed to the companies if any, since they are making such a handsome profit from selling junk fast food.

Those poor sheeple

When people start making your decisions for you...

Depends. Most of the blame is on the consumer, obviously, but the corporate chains are rather insidious about creating an "experience" for children. When tobacco companies do this they get moral outraged all over TV, but no one things twice about "happy meals"

There are a lot of things that are bad for you in excess, and some things that are bad for you in any quantity. Fast food belongs to the first category, smoking belongs for the second. But so that we can discover whether or not you have that logically consistant arguement I mentioned earlier, are you willing to follow your arguement to its logical conclusion?

 

[The Last Conformist]

2000 is just a general standard

A standard for whom by whom? Apart from the fact that I, personally, couldn't live by it, it seems absurdly low compared to more detailed recommendations I've seen.

 

[Patroklos]

A standard for whom by whom? Apart from the fact that I, personally, couldn't live by it, it seems absurdly low compared to more detailed recommendations I've seen.

The FDA.

http://caloriecount.about.com/cc/2000-calorie-diet.php

You may be personally different, but the 2000 guideline is meant to be broadly applicable to ALL adults. And what makes you think you need more than 2000 a day when you are not an athlete?

 

[emzie]

This makes no sense. Those subsidies in no way specifically target "unhealthy goods" and are probably going to have a far stronger price hiking effect on healthy foods in reality seeing as they rely very much on produce.

Subsidies should be eliminated for far more logical reasons, and the result will be a general hike in food prices across the board.

Compare subsidies that go to beef and dairy production to the amount of daily recommended portion intake. While most of us agree that agricultural subsidies are a bad idea, when you subsidize foods that are, in excess, unhealthy, it's a bit worse. ~half of the subsidies going towards food go to beef or dairy, though imagine if half your diet was those two foods!

Dairy and beef are noticeably more expensive here compared to when I lived in Ohio and I expect it's to do with subsidies.

 

[woody60707]

A standard for whom by whom? Apart from the fact that I, personally, couldn't live by it, it seems absurdly low compared to more detailed recommendations I've seen.

Low? how is that low? Skip on the pop and you could eat 3 meals a day at McD's and be that 2000-2500.

It would be so high in fat it still wouldn't be good for you... lol

EDIT i only get about 1700-1800 cal per day. mostly because I always skip a meal.

 

[warpus]

There are a lot of things that are bad for you in excess, and some things that are bad for you in any quantity. Fast food belongs to the first category, smoking belongs for the second. But so that we can discover whether or not you have that logically consistant arguement I mentioned earlier, are you willing to follow your arguement to its logical conclusion?

Erm, fast food is *not* healthy in any quantity - if we're talking burgers, pizzas, fries, etc.

Earlier in the thread you said that a reasonably active person should be able to consume fast food every day and get by.. but.. even though this person might not get fat - something like that would not be healthy *at all*. Fast food is called junk food for a reason - its lacking in nutrients as well as being loaded with fatty junk. You sorta need these nutrients as a part of a healthy diet - and if all you're eating is burgers and fries every day - you are just not getting them and your diet sucks as a result.

 

[Labtec600]

The consumer.

Nobody else.

 

[warpus]

Unless a gun is being put to your head, or knife to your throat, or other sort of coercion, the responsibility of eating fast food lies totally with the consumer and nobody else. You don't have to go to McDonalds or Hardee's or Sonic or Smak's. You CHOOSE to. Just like with voting, eating is entirely on the private citizen and nobody else.

Yeah, but usually it's parents who instill bad habits in their children by taking them to fast food joints too often.

 

[emzie]

Yeah, but usually it's parents who instill bad habits in their children by taking them to fast food joints too often.

Blaming parents is so passé.