Support NeoGAF

[andthebeatgoeson]

To say that one can simply walk away and make the choice to not dine at one of these fastfood places is like a person from the 70's saying that it's simply the choice of a person to not smoke; ignores the general social atmosphere that these giant corporations create as well as the chemically addictive nature of foods, particularly processed foods.

But nicotine is addicting and a drug. McDonald's may be hyped to be a drug but hasn't been proven to be addicting. Big difference.

 

[belgurdo]

Sunday was the first time I had McDonald's in three months (dbl. cheeseburger.) Tasted funny. Got sick in the middle of the night and almost shit myself. Thanked God for Subway

 

[Fusebox]

I both pity, and advocate the death of, any fool unable to come to common sense conclusions about health and safety, and who pressures society to create a bubble around him to save him from his own stupidity.

This goes for people who don't know that Maccas + no exercise will make them fat, people who do 200kmhs in their car without a seat-belt on, and people who smoke.

By all means, you have the right to do those things, but don't come crying to society when it all goes pear-shaped and you didn't have the brains to take action and avoid the easily-avoidable.

Fat people that blame Maccas for their weight problem are a perfect example of what is wrong with the world these days.

I say do away with warning signs and compulsory safety precautions, let survival of the fittest and smartest be the new attitude of the world, and lets watch nature take its course - together we can help stop dumb people breeding!

 

[kumanoki]

Arguments of the lazy:

1. Fast food is cheaper!
BULLSHIT. You can go to the grocery store and buy a head of lettuce, several veggies, two breasts of chicken, and lemon for the price of a super sized meal at McDinks. That's 3 MEALS worth of healthy-ass salad vs. one gut-bomb.

2. But I don't wanna make salads. McD's is easier!
Who's fvcking fault is that? McDonald's, for being easily accessible, or you for being a lazy bastard? Fine. Go to McDink's. They have salads. Buck the trend and order one. You may feel like a complete dork, but hey.

3. McDonald's is to blame for making me fat.
No, you are. McDonald's provides a service. McDonald's doesn't make you eat their food.

 

[AstroLad]

God I love salad. I eat a salad (well, just lettuce and some decent dressing usually) with every meal, be it a sandwich, chicken breast, fish, whatever. I go through a head of lettuce like every three days. People need to be careful with dressing though, too, some of that shit is loaded with sugar. I

 

[Boogie9IGN]

We watched this in my Physiology class the days before Thanksgiving, and I liked it. Personally I think it's social responsibility, but meh.

The movie made me want a McChicken and large fries, going to get them tomorrow after drill practice

 

[Loki]

I just wanted it to be known that I wasn't implicitly advocating government regulation of fast food or anything, I just feel that we need a better public-awareness campaign throughout society. Further, government should NOT be in the business of purchasing fast foods or soft drinks for public schools, as they do currently in some states. Perhaps we could also give tax breaks to purveyors of healthier fare as well as maybe running a message across the screen during fast food commercials warning of the inherent risks of overconsumption. Nutritional information should also be provided for all fast food in the stores and/or on the cartons. Education is key, however, and this should be done in the schools and in the communities. I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, but I also believe in people having the right to make informed decisions.


But I don't think that outright banning either fast food or their advertising is fair. Personally, I view this issue as just another manifestation of our intemperate culture, which is only exacerbated by our consumerist mentality (these are not equivalent, btw, though one can affect the other in both directions). We overindulge in EVERYTHING, not just fast food-- alcohol, our credit lines, sex etc. You need to fix the entire culture rather than just sticking an ultimately ineffectual band-aid over this particular problem.

 

[Zaptruder]

But nicotine is addicting and a drug. McDonald's may be hyped to be a drug but hasn't been proven to be addicting. Big difference.

If you want to put it this way, you can find/do studies in which the way they manufacture their food has certain addictive properties.

Maybe not directly chemically addictive like nicotine, but still a diet of mcdonalds daily can enact chemical changes that is akin to addiction.

---------

Again, to everyone else using the same old tired argument that a person should exercise self-control...

self control is all good and well... but you can't use that as the solution to all of society's problems. In fact, you can probably use it as the solution to none.

If everyone had strict self control, there wouldn't be any problems in the world today.

Look beyond 'self control' and recognize that there are real problems caused by the way we see things that really should be recognized as problems.

Like the average, some amount of self control is something that a good amount of people can be expected to have... but not all people can have it; solutions should come from a social front, but these social changes don't occur without some push and shove, sometimes necessarily from government/authoritating agencies.

 

[Zaptruder]

We watched this in my Physiology class the days before Thanksgiving, and I liked it. Personally I think it's social responsibility, but meh.

The movie made me want a McChicken and large fries, going to get them tomorrow after drill practice

I found it amusing the big mac lover guy they found was this relatively (to the other people in mcdonalds ) skinny hippy.

He only ate 2-3 bigmacs a day tho (rarely with chips or drinks)... and in pure caloric intake that's like 1500 calories a day... increase that to 1650 for whatever else he might eat and he's actually eating below the RDI of calories for the average guy... but of course it changes depending on daily activity, body mass, build and age.

 

[Zaptruder]

You need to fix the entire culture rather than just sticking an ultimately ineffectual band-aid over this particular problem.

ultimately maybe, but in the short and even medium term it can have decent effect, which can translate to billions of dollars saved in health costs and the direct increase in quality of life for many people.

But the One Solution that you speak so fondly of... it's a ways away... and patching smaller problems first may make it easier to tackle the whole social problem eventually.

 

[Fusebox]

self control is all good and well... but you can't use that as the solution to all of society's problems. In fact, you can probably use it as the solution to none.

If everyone had strict self control, there wouldn't be any problems in the world today.

And so why should we suffer for somebody elses weak character and lack of intelligence??

 

[Loki]

But the One Solution that you speak so fondly of... it's a ways away... and patching smaller problems first may make it easier to tackle the whole social problem eventually.

I actually believe the opposite-- that by all these quick fixes (however you'd like to go about it in this particular case), we neglect the real issue, and the more that real issue is neglected, the worse it will get. Our intemperance will just manifest itself with whatever is currently en vogue. Besides all that, however, there is the tiny matter of personal rights (yes, this applies to corporations peddling their wares); so long as it's not addictive (yes, I'm well-aware that processed foods create something of a craving, but it's not medically defined as an addiction in the same sense as nicotine is), how can we justly stop a company from selling/advertising their product? If you'd point to the greater social good that would obtain (less obesity etc.), I could say the same for many other things, including alcohol and cigarettes. But we know how well prohibition worked out. If you can advance a persuasive argument for curtailing the rights of companies to advertise and distribute their product, I'd certainly be inclined to listen to it-- because I don't want you to get the idea that I'm defending these companies, because I'm not. What they sell (to say nothing of their business practices) is horrible in every way. I just think the issue is a bit more complex than you give it credit for; it ultimately comes down to balancing between various groups' interests and rights. And, as in most such cases, rights > interests (so long as no addiction or coercion can be proven). In my opinion...


Imo, the biggest reason for the explosion of fast food isn't the marketing (though I agree that they increasingly target younger and younger children, who cannot make an informed decision, and then put pressure on their parents to go get some food), but rather the hectic nature of modern life, as well as the fact that families no longer eat dinner together most of the times. Though I do concede that their commercials etc. have become ubiquitous over the years.



There's no easy solution to this that takes into account the nuances of the issue, imo. I'd have to think more on it.

 

[AstroLad]

And so why should we suffer for somebody elses weak character and lack of intelligence??

Except under the current system, you are the one suffering through paying increased taxes to support the enormous health care burden imposed by people chowing down on McDonald's and its ilk every day, so you come up with a better way of allocating that burden, because the current system is probably the one under which you (meaning everyone paying taxes without reaping the benefit of subsidized medical treatment for their obesity) suffer the most.

 

[Fusebox]

Astro, thats easy.

Hmm, you're sick. Eaten much maccas lately?

Yep.

Exercised?

Nope.

I'm sorry then, you don't qualify for any Govt rebate on your health care, you're stupid.

 

[AstroLad]

Astro, thats easy.

Hmm, you're sick. Eaten much maccas lately?

Yep.

Exercised?

Nope.

I'm sorry then, you don't qualify for any Govt rebate on your health care, you're stupid.

As problematic as our health care system is, we still generally don't make it an explicit policy to leave people completely out on the street to die. And, for better or worse, I don't see that changing in the near future.

 

[border]

I'm sorry then, you don't qualify for any Govt rebate on your health care, you're stupid.

So you're saying that the government should to give rebate checks to people who claim to be exercising and not eating fast food? Yeah, there's no room for abuse there :lol

 

[Loki]

So you're saying that the government should to give rebate checks to people who claim to be exercising and not eating fast food? Yeah, there's no room for abuse there :lol

I think he's saying that government shouldn't be obligated to pay for (via medicaid/care etc.) health care costs which were almost certainly incurred due to lifestyle choices. Not saying that I agree with that stance, but it's a pretty prevalent view (though not on this board ). Should taxpayers foot the bill for some lifetime smoker's iron lung? On the one hand, it's ok to say that we're all "in this together" as a society and should support one another to whatever degree; on the other hand, while such a sentiment may be commendable, at some point society will have to look at how to minimize the "bad choices" being made by its citizens if it is to bear these escalating costs. It goes both ways, really.

 

[Dilbert]

How can we justly stop a company from selling/advertising their product? If you'd point to the greater social good that would obtain (less obesity etc.), I could say the same for many other things, including alcohol and cigarettes. If you can advance a persuasive argument for curtailing the rights of companies to advertise and distribute their product, I'd certainly be inclined to listen to it.

It's funny you should mention it -- the alcohol and tobacco industries are prohibited from advertising in certain venues, and I suspect that other types of products (guns?) may also be restricted in some way. Why wouldn't the same kind of logic apply to ANY potentially harmful product?

 

[border]

Well I think the only problem is that it would require a pretty complex and expensive system of auditing patients to determine whether or not their problems are lifestyle related or genetic or what. You can't really trust patients to give doctors an honest answer, particularly when they stand to save a few bucks. What's more is that medicare is only a piece of the puzzle....

EDIT: There haven't been cigarette ads on television for decades. Limiting advertising in the face of health risks certainly has a precedent.

 

[Loki]

It's funny you should mention it -- the alcohol and tobacco industries are prohibited from advertising in certain venues, and I suspect that other types of products (guns?) may also be restricted in some way. Why wouldn't the same kind of logic apply to ANY potentially harmful product?

It very well could; all I was saying is that I haven't given the matter enough thought to weigh in fully on one side or the other. As I'm sure you're aware, I'm no friend of corporations, nor of conspicuous consumption-- but I'm also a believer in personal responsibility and individual/business' rights, as far as they go. I suppose it would have to be determined on the basis of the degree of harm done, and the type of harm (i.e., is it addictive/does it impair you in some way? Is the "harm" inherent in the product?), since virtually any type of product can be harmful when used immoderately/inappropriately. Do I believe that fast food advertisement should be so pervasive, especially when it targets children? No, of course not. On the basis of a quick analysis, I'd be inclined to support a ban on all such TV advertising until after 8 PM or so, and also during any sort of children's programming. But the never-ending Disney tie-ins etc. means that there's big money to be lost on all sides, so I'm not holding my breath for government to step in and make it so.


The other side of the argument is this: where do we draw the line? Fast food? Processed foods? What's the difference, when it comes down to it? Both are terrible for you, but I'd suffer the same health consequences if I ate McDonald's every day as if I ate Entenmann's cakes or a carton of Pringles every day with a liter of soda. Saying that none of these companies can advertise is a bit draconian imo, though as noted, I would be amenable to doing so during certain time-frames when children are more likely to be influenced. When you think about it, though, it's not just children who are being affected here, but the whole of society. Adults seem just as unable as children to control their gluttony, and their children's emulation of their consumption patterns may be just as responsible as advertising is for luring kids into that lifestyle; so what is the solution? That's all I'm wondering; towards that end, I feel that we need to address the underlying intemperance that fuels all such social maladies rather than simply saying "you can't do kiddie product tie-ins anymore" or "you can only advertise after 8 PM".


I'm not defending anybody; like I said, if someone who has given the issue more thought than I have can put forth a persuasive argument as to why severe restrictions should be placed on these companies, then I'd be inclined to listen to it-- because it's obvious that we have an epidemic on our hands, and waiting for the corporations to exercise some self-restraint and social responsibility is like waiting for Larry Flynt to 'fess up to being a pervert.



I just haven't given the issue much thought, to be honest (beyond the broader issue of our rampant consumerism), and so will defer to those who have, provided that their opinions are well-reasoned.

 

[MIMIC]

I watched it, and it just made me stop going to McDonald's.

The next day, I got 6 tacos (two Chalupas, two taco supremes, and two regular hard shell ones) from Taco Bell.

I don't give a fuck. I'm only 148 lbs. and have normal cholesterol.

BTW, really great movie. I felt bad FOR him for eating all that food.

 

[Zaptruder]

I actually believe the opposite-- that by all these quick fixes (however you'd like to go about it in this particular case), we neglect the real issue, and the more that real issue is neglected, the worse it will get. Our intemperance will just manifest itself with whatever is currently en vogue. Besides all that, however, there is the tiny matter of personal rights (yes, this applies to corporations peddling their wares); so long as it's not addictive (yes, I'm well-aware that processed foods create something of a craving, but it's not medically defined as an addiction in the same sense as nicotine is), how can we justly stop a company from selling/advertising their product? If you'd point to the greater social good that would obtain (less obesity etc.), I could say the same for many other things, including alcohol and cigarettes. But we know how well prohibition worked out. If you can advance a persuasive argument for curtailing the rights of companies to advertise and distribute their product, I'd certainly be inclined to listen to it-- because I don't want you to get the idea that I'm defending these companies, because I'm not. What they sell (to say nothing of their business practices) is horrible in every way. I just think the issue is a bit more complex than you give it credit for; it ultimately comes down to balancing between various groups' interests and rights. And, as in most such cases, rights > interests (so long as no addiction or coercion can be proven). In my opinion...


Imo, the biggest reason for the explosion of fast food isn't the marketing (though I agree that they increasingly target younger and younger children, who cannot make an informed decision, and then put pressure on their parents to go get some food), but rather the hectic nature of modern life, as well as the fact that families no longer eat dinner together most of the times. Though I do concede that their commercials etc. have become ubiquitous over the years.



There's no easy solution to this that takes into account the nuances of the issue, imo. I'd have to think more on it.

And I believe the opposite of your opposite.

You say quick fixes, but ultimately the solution to any single problem, even if it doesn't stem from grand cultural shift takes a large amount of effort and public campaigning.

We've made 'quick fixes' for attitudes towards slavery, racial inequality, smoking, etc, etc.

At some point, these fixes will become a consistent attitude pervasive throughout the way we think and the way we think about things. Some can see it now... while others can't. But every example around that allows for a contrary view weakens the case for grand social reform rather than goes in favour of it.

As for where we draw the line... well we don't. Ultimately the campaign stops when the choice may be available, but isn't so pervasively in your face that neither you or anyone e lse is hypnotized into buying it and that healthy foods are a real and viable alternative for all people, not just limited to concientious eaters.
But the campaign is one step at a time.

 

[SickBoy]

I just wanted it to be known that I wasn't implicitly advocating government regulation of fast food or anything, I just feel that we need a better public-awareness campaign throughout society. Further, government should NOT be in the business of purchasing fast foods or soft drinks for public schools, as they do currently in some states. Perhaps we could also give tax breaks to purveyors of healthier fare as well as maybe running a message across the screen during fast food commercials warning of the inherent risks of overconsumption. Nutritional information should also be provided for all fast food in the stores and/or on the cartons.

I have no idea where it's at now... it's totally fallen off my radar, but I'm fairly sure new Canadian food labelling legislation is still in the works. Part of the law would require big restaurants (i.e: the ones who can afford to generate the info -- or that already have it) to post nutritional information (Calories, and possibly fat, IIRC) with their menus.

I think it's a great idea. Some fast food menu items can be pretty shocking in terms of their nutritional "value." I think it's ridiculous to say that you're surprised they're not good for you, but for people actually trying to consider what they're consuming beyond "this food is good, that food is bad," it's a good idea.

This is just a small portion of the law, the lion's share is to have Canadian packaging catch up and actually list mandatory nutritional info.

 

[XS+]

Arguments of the lazy:

1. Fast food is cheaper!
BULLSHIT. You can go to the grocery store and buy a head of lettuce, several veggies, two breasts of chicken, and lemon for the price of a super sized meal at McDinks. That's 3 MEALS worth of healthy-ass salad vs. one gut-bomb.

Where can you buy the above for under $5? Tell me. Chicken alone will run you $5

 

[Loki]

And I believe the opposite of your opposite.

You say quick fixes, but ultimately the solution to any single problem, even if it doesn't stem from grand cultural shift takes a large amount of effort and public campaigning.

We've made 'quick fixes' for attitudes towards slavery, racial inequality, smoking, etc, etc.

At some point, these fixes will become a consistent attitude pervasive throughout the way we think and the way we think about things. Some can see it now... while others can't. But every example around that allows for a contrary view weakens the case for grand social reform rather than goes in favour of it.

Fair enough. Makes enough sense.