The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Should Food Companies be held accountable for selling foods which harm others? Options
Chazlee
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2016 5:07:16 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
The company, Hostess, is starting to sell "Deep Fried Twinkies." They are described as being "Battered and partially fried before being frozen, the Twinkies need to be finished for a short time in the oven, toaster oven or frying pan."

"At nine grams of fat and 220 calories, the vanilla flavor of the Deep Fried Twinkies compares to 4 grams of fat and 130 calories in a regular Twinkie. One expert says Americans still like a sugar fix, typically at the end of the day."

Ok, why is it ok for food manufacturers to get away with making and selling products which they know are hurting people (obesity is a problem in America) and which will likely be eaten by children with no age limit to buy the product, when it is not ok for alcohol or cigarette companies to do the same?

For some reason, even though we all know these junk foods are causing people to have many health problems, which may even one day lead to death, they are free to create the most unhealthy products and sell to anyone they choose. While I know some people will say that one Deep Fried Twinkie will not kill someone, one alcoholic drink or one cigarette will not either. However, one drink or one cigarette can ultimately lead someone to develop an addiction, and so can eating high calorie junk food.

I think food companies which sell completely unhealthy food should be stopped from selling it to people under a certain age, just like we do with other unhealthy products. Do you agree or disagree with my thoughts on this issue?

Please share your views.

Peace.

https://us.yahoo.com/finance/news/hostess-launches-deep-fried-twinkies-first-frozen-treat-050434051.html

twinsonic
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2016 11:46:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/18/2009
Posts: 356
Neurons: 1,315
Deep fried Twinkies are not "hurting" people. They are not nutritious, but they are not poisonous either. Any food product provides calories, which are a unit of energy, so even a Twinkies will do that. A Twinkies now and then won't harm you! 220 calories is less than many candy bars. Are you suggesting all "unhealthy" foods, aka fried, fatty, sugary, be banned or restricted to adults only? Children do little household shopping, so it shouldn't be an issue. In the US schools don't sell the junk food they used to. But, I wouldn't want to legislate what underage children can or can't buy with their allowance money. It's a parents job to decide what their own children eat.

Alcohol and cigarettes are not comparable to fatty or sugary foods!
Elan
Posted: Friday, August 12, 2016 11:51:16 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/21/2014
Posts: 11
Neurons: 60,122
Hi.
I believe people need to learn making decisions and taking responsibility for their own health. And the earlier to start, the better. If we hand our lives over Boo hoo! to the companies (et al.), it may not really be a legislation problem. After all, there are differences from person to person what they can eat and how healthy they stay after that.
Chazlee
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2016 12:51:58 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
twinsonic wrote:
Deep fried Twinkies are not "hurting" people. They are not nutritious, but they are not poisonous either. Any food product provides calories, which are a unit of energy, so even a Twinkies will do that. A Twinkies now and then won't harm you!

While I do agree with you that a Twinkie now and then won't hurt anyone, the problem is that addicttion happens gradually for many people. Yet it is that first smoke, or drink of alcohol or bit of junk food which starts the ball rolling.


220 calories is less than many candy bars.

Yes, but that is not a good reason to allow deep fried Twinkies. While I may be wrong, you seem to be saying since we already have unhealthy food, so another unhealthy food product makes no difference, which may or may not be true.

Are you suggesting all "unhealthy" foods, aka fried, fatty, sugary, be banned or restricted to adults only?

Actually, yes restricted, since a ban won't work. However, if we limit the amount of junk food which is allowed to be sold in stores, and making sure that those who buy them are a certain age, then I believe we may cut down on the rate of obesity, and other health related problems in the US.


Children do little household shopping, so it shouldn't be an issue.

I am not talking only about children. Teenagers buy a lot of junk food, and they can do that without their parents. So, to put an age restriction on who can and can't legally buy these food products will make a positive difference in our nation's overall health. The problem is that people generally don't see these food products as inherently dangerous to one's health, so talk of regulating them is seen as silly or unrealistict to try to do.

In the US schools don't sell the junk food they used to. But, I wouldn't want to legislate what underage children can or can't buy with their allowance money. It's a parents job to decide what their own children eat.

That is not always the case, and it should not be.

Alcohol and cigarettes are not comparable to fatty or sugary foods!

Obesity and other health related issues caused by eating certain types of food has cause problems just like alcohol and cigarettes have done.


mactoria
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2016 3:32:47 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/13/2014
Posts: 490
Neurons: 944,634
Location: Stockton, California, United States
Chazlee: While I agree that stuff like Deep Fried Twinkies are probably very harmful, particularly for people who eat them frequently, it's a free country literally and figuratively. If Hostess didn't create this monstrosity (it doesn't even sound appealing to me but I guess some people will chow them down), people would find something else to eat....you can deep fry just about anything besides air, and some people and some regional cultures in our country have been doing so for eons. As far as we know, Deep Fried Twinkies aren't toxic. Human bodies either need or can tolerate oils and fats and carbs, and so it's the excessive eating of junk like these Twinkies that's problematic. We control use of alcohol not because it's unhealthy but because it has been shown to be dangerous to others around us ie drunk driving accidents. At some point any substance, liquid, product, drug, etc. can be addictive to someone, but which ones?


As a supposedly free society we can't prevent everything that people will harm themselves with. We have picked those things most damaging (alcohol, smoking, certain kinds of drugs, poisons) and either ban them, control them, or tax them heavily to reduce use and/or pay for expenses to society due to the damage they do e.g. diseases or injuries caused by these substances which our larger society winds up paying for in Medicaid/Medicare or higher insurance premiums. For those junk foods that overuse can lead to disease, we have to depend on personal choice, social pressure, and public education. There just isn't a big enough appetite (pun intended) to tax, ban, or age-limit foods deemed unhealthy if over-used. I do think gov't shouldn't subsidize foods or substances scientifically or empirically shown to be unhealthy. I think lunches served by our schools should be nutritionally balanced. Not because we're a "nanny state," but because public monies should be used prudently and not for things that will cause damage to citizens or increase our public expenditures.
Chazlee
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2016 9:36:47 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
mactoria wrote:
Chazlee: While I agree that stuff like Deep Fried Twinkies are probably very harmful, particularly for people who eat them frequently, it's a free country literally and figuratively. If Hostess didn't create this monstrosity (it doesn't even sound appealing to me but I guess some people will chow them down), people would find something else to eat....you can deep fry just about anything besides air, and some people and some regional cultures in our country have been doing so for eons. As far as we know, Deep Fried Twinkies aren't toxic. Human bodies either need or can tolerate oils and fats and carbs, and so it's the excessive eating of junk like these Twinkies that's problematic. We control use of alcohol not because it's unhealthy but because it has been shown to be dangerous to others around us ie drunk driving accidents. At some point any substance, liquid, product, drug, etc. can be addictive to someone, but which ones?


As a supposedly free society we can't prevent everything that people will harm themselves with. We have picked those things most damaging (alcohol, smoking, certain kinds of drugs, poisons) and either ban them, control them, or tax them heavily to reduce use and/or pay for expenses to society due to the damage they do e.g. diseases or injuries caused by these substances which our larger society winds up paying for in Medicaid/Medicare or higher insurance premiums. For those junk foods that overuse can lead to disease, we have to depend on personal choice, social pressure, and public education. There just isn't a big enough appetite (pun intended) to tax, ban, or age-limit foods deemed unhealthy if over-used. I do think gov't shouldn't subsidize foods or substances scientifically or empirically shown to be unhealthy. I think lunches served by our schools should be nutritionally balanced. Not because we're a "nanny state," but because public monies should be used prudently and not for things that will cause damage to citizens or increase our public expenditures.


mactoria,

I can't argue against anything you have written in your post, and I do agree that the government should not subsidize foods or other products which are proven to have little value other than a person thinks it tastes good or desires it. This is especially true in schools where children/young people will frequently chose tasty items over healthy ones, if they are given options.

Peace.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.