Had to start out with that in the subject to make it clear that I AM NOT REALLY ADVOCATING THIS. SARCASM IS OOZING OUT OF MY KEYBOARD, AND FORMING A THICK FILM OVER EVERYTHING, AS I TYPE.

If we really want to look after the poor, ignorant masses of people, there are more things to ban than junk food! Here are a few more changes we can make that would make a great dystopian novel.

1. Ban iPods. Do you know how many people are damaging their hearing? That can't be allowed to go on!

2. Ban running. Do you know how much damage runners do to their knees? And if they run along the street, they're inhaling car exhaust!

3. Ban cars too! Terrible, horrible things that put out exhaust! And with stereo systems so people can play loud music and damage their eardrums!

4. Enforce mandatory exercise - WALKING. It's good for you!

5. Too much sleep, or too little is bad for you. Mandatory national bedtime for everyone, based on when you need to be up for preschool - I mean work - in the morning! And a mandatory wake-up call, even on weekends.

6. If you have allergies, you can't be around the allergens. The Forces of Health don't care how much you LOVE Fluffy the cat, or whether you adore the sight of flowers - if you get the sniffles, we're taking it away for your own good. If you have really bad hay-fever, you're required to live in the desert.

7. Too much time in the sun is bad for you. Let's regulate that too. And regulate what percentage of your skin must be covered - not for decency's sake, but for your HEALTH. We just want what's best for you, whether you like it or not.

8. Oh, too LITTLE time outside is bad too, according to the latest research. Let's have a national minimum daily exposure to sunlight. Everyone MUST get outside for exactly the proper amount of time.

9. Stress is bad for your health too. Let's ban anything stressful, and if your stress level is too high anyway, you'll be force-fed tranquilizers.

10. Tight clothes cut off circulation, and high heels are bad for your feet, and some people wear flip-flops when they have flat feet and need support - let's set up a national mandatory dress code of what kinds of clothes you are permitted to own.

All of these things, plus banning junk food and maybe a few more things, and we'll have a healthy population - miserable sheep with no control over their own lives, perhaps, but HEALTHY. And the nanny government will be SO satisfied, as they look at these poor people they've rescued from themselves.

Now i have sarcasm all over my keyboard and hands. I'll see you in court.

blueshift:

Now i have sarcasm all over my keyboard and hands. I'll see you in court.

It's non-toxic, and it washes right off. Just use warm water and soap.

Don't forget it is all for the greater good. How can you be opposed to making people live longer better healthy lives?

"3. Ban cars too! Terrible, horrible things that put out exhaust! And with stereo systems so people can play loud music and damage their eardrums!"

In all seriousness, I wouldn't mind really doing this one. I know its not really feasible, but my life would definitely be better if cars did not exist. I would be free to walk and bike without fear of being sideswiped, and the air would contain far less polutants.

Nasty little disease vectors..spreading colds and flu hither and yon! Just think of the increase in productivity in the economy if working people weren't subjected to little children all the time!

Lock 'em up until they're 21, I say. Don't let them out in public until they're college educated and ready to be taxpayers.

The single difference between ALL your ten examples vs junk food is that NONE of the ten involve selling something that APPEARS to be one thing (food), but in fact is another thing (a food-like substance that is perceived as food--and even fulfills certain cravings BETTER than regular food--but is NOT food, and in fact is BAD for you).

Nobody drinks alcohol to quench their thirst--alcohol doesn't need to be regulated because there's no confusion about what it is or what it's meant for. LOTS of people drink Pepsi to quench their thirst, but in fact it only SEEMS to quench your thirst, and instead only makes you thirstier (because of the huge sugar content, plus a diuretic)--and it does this while addicting you to caffeine and a sugar rush. None of the items you mention contain such subterfuge and "traps" as junk food does.

Junk food should be regulated not because people need to be regulated into living healthy lives, but because it's a consumer fraud of a product: food that isn't food, drink that isn't drink.

StevieN:

Junk food should be regulated not because people need to be regulated into living healthy lives, but because it's a consumer fraud of a product: food that isn't food, drink that isn't drink.

With respect, I disagree with you. As long as the label clearly states what's in it - and people have easy access to information about what those things are and what effects they have - then there is no fraud. If someone is improperly labeling ANY food, whether it's Twinkies or whole-wheat bread, that's wrong and should be subject to penalties. If someone is lying or fabricating information or suppressing information about what effects some substance has when eaten, that's fraud too. But I, and every other adult, should be free to decide - knowing it's bad for me if I eat too much - that I want a McDonald's cheeseburger for lunch. No governmental entity should be able to tell me that I can't have it, or that I can only buy three per year, or some other limit.

Also, how do you differentiate junk food from "real food"? Is fruit juice drink? It can have a lot of sugar. Is cocoa, a simple substance that comes from a plant, food? Do you decide what's junk and what isn't based on some ratio of nutritional value (and how do you measure that) versus caloric content? Where is the line drawn?

If you don't want to eat junk food, fine. If I want it, I should be able to freely purchase and consume it, and if I have enough to cause harm, well, that's my own problem and I'll just have to deal with it.

I think I'll end here - I doubt I'll ever convince you, and you won't convince me, so let's just respect each others' views and acknowledge that they aren't changing.

E-girl,

I'm not necessarily trying to "convince." The point I'm trying to make (which has really only occurred to ME recently) is that I think people tend to skip over the logic of this too quickly. Perhaps part of the problem is the puritanical/protestant framework of American culture--at the root of everything is "original sin." Everything bad that happens is OUR fault--and WE show flaws of character or over-indulgence anytime we do something unhealthy, that we COULD have avoided doing.

My logic then, relates to the thing that makes this issue so different from all others: it concerns eating and drinking--other than breathing, the things most directly a part of maintaining life from day to day.

I would be willing to wager, for example, that if you offerred, cafeteria style, all the normal foods PLUS piles of pastries, candies, and sodas to a group of chimps, that you would end up with a group of hyper-obese chimps that subsequently consumed very little of their natural fruits and vegetables (and drank mostly soda rather than water). Are they "over-indulgent," or "lacking character?" No, they're just doing what comes naturally--what their bodies TELL them to do.

IMO there is reasonable logic that the corporations that produce millions of tons of junk food and sodas have done so by USING our natural tendencies to eat (and to eat what tastes fatty and/or sweet), and thereby supplied us with something HARMFUL.

BTW, you've mentioned elsewhere that junk food isn't "bad" if used in moderation. I would re-frame that this way: junk food is ALWAYS bad, but if used in moderation by a healthy person, the bad effects are mostly resisted. There is really NOTHING that we can eat that is benign (well, perhaps pure fiber): things we eat are either healthful or unhealthful. So, for example, ANYTIME we eat more than a tiny bit of refined sugar we are subjecting our bodies to physiologic responses they simply WERE NOT DESIGNED FOR.

You (or someone else) mentioned chewing coffee beans (or similar) to get caffeine. Well, such ripe beans would not be AVAILABLE year round--there is no way our bodies are designed for a heavy onslaught of caffeine, day after day, for a lifetime.

AND, finally, it's really only the last generation or two that has had the quantity and availability/ubiquity of junk food we now see. It may simply be a human fact that a healthy life is generally IMPOSSIBLE surrounded by so much junk food (with, perhaps a tiny few exceptions): our lives right now are a BIG EXPERIMENT in living on non-food foods. So far it seems very clear that the experiement is a serious failure.

[Big fun for me is looking at natural crowd scenes in movies. Looking at these in movies from before the 50's or so, vs recent ones, is a MAJOR SHOCK to the eye! Before the 50's you see MANY people who have almost no apparent body fat; today such a person is RARE--and the condition generally requires specilized effort to attain.]

StevieN,

Eating unhealthily can be cheap and/or simply pleasurable. A lot of people find that worthwhile. You may consider that unnatural behavior, and that's fine, but it's not a convincing reason to deny us the right to eat unhealthy foods ("junk foods") under the guise of fighting "consumer fraud."

I really think it has more to do with us being lazy bastards than with what we are "designed" to do.

For example, say you take a Native Alaskan, of the way-up-North living-in-igloos stereotypical seal-blubber-eating variety. Historically, for thousands of years, their diet has consisted of high fat and protein, and very little else. It had to; on the one hand, there is nothing else to eat, and on the other, the extremes of climate demand a huge amount of calories to keep the body running. For millenia, the Native Alaskans have thrived on a meal of, basically, animal fat.

Now take the same guy, and make him a computer programmer in San Francisco. In a milder climate, with a far more sedentary lifestyle but the same diet, our theoretical Native Alaskan would soon be fat as a tick.

Unless we are going to ban Asians from eating dairy, and, oh, "Old-World" peoples from eating potatos and corn, perhaps we should shut up about what people are "supposed" to be eating.

I am pretty fit, but I love good food, and I could get just as fat drinking stout while eating prime rib and salad covered in crumbled whole-milk feta and jasmine rice as I could eating chicken fingers and tater tots. I don't get fat because I watch my portions and exercise.

Maybe, instead of taxing my feta, we could just re-instate recess and PE as school requirements. Perhaps we should still teach nutrition in Home-Ec.

Grr. I am going to go eat some pork rinds out of spite.

Freki