Skeptic Project

Do you want them to tell you what you can and cannot eat?

"Do you want them to tell you what you can and cannot eat?"

OMG STRAWMAN!

Ed didn't say that.

Matt, pointing out something is a strawman is an ad hominem attack.

The reason I asked is because I think the government is playing it safe by staying out of the subsidization.

Why should more healthy foods be cheaper? What exactly is healthy? I think most would agree that vegetables and fruits are healthy, but what type? And what happens when the government gets involved in paying for food production? Will they demand measures that pose serious risks, IE cloning bananas?

There are a lot of variables that are easily avoided by not getting involved.

Bananas are cloned because it saves money. By subsidizing food, I imagine the government would want to go with cheap measures.

"By subsidizing food, I imagine the government would want to go with cheap measures."

So... you're saying that government subsidies lead to cloning?

What exactly do you base this on?

Ed, do you think the government is doing enough to educate the population on healthy eating?

The way you phrase it, it sounds like people are aware of generally what's healthy and are choosing to avoid those options.

"So... you're saying that government subsidies lead to cloning?

What exactly do you base this on?"

I'm saying the government subsidies lead to cheaper methods of production. [citation needed]

Would they subsidize dark chocolate for its antioxidants?

"So what?

Are you saying cheaper methods of production are inherently bad?"

No, but some methods are.

If Ed thinks the population is being efficiently educated as to what is healthy and what is not, I don't see why they need to jump into a grey area such as subsidizing healthy foods. Certain foods are obviously more healthy than others, but where do you draw the line? Do you only subsidize fruits and vegetables? Some people survive better on protein diets, eating very few grains, fruits, and vegetables. Would humanely-raised meat get subsidized, too?

Aaron, I think you are being silly.

We know that people eat too many unhealthy, fatty, salty foods. We know that most of the population would benefit greatly if they ate more vegetables. Now education is certainly something they should do, but my point is that even with education fresh vegetables are still very expensive, practically a luxury item for many families.

Its the same with transport, you can't tell people to use public transport and ditch their cars when they make it so prohibitively expensive to do so.

Eating crap makes you sick, this means more work for the NHS, so I see no reason why they shouldnt try and help make it financially easier to afford healthy fresh vegetables. We have to pay for the NHS anyway, so either way we'll pay for it.

No he isn't, because it isn't always a choice issue but an economic issue from the start.

In a way, yes, it is a choice. I can choose to buy frozen broccoli over fresh broccoli because it is much cheaper. But I don't make that choice because I enjoy frozen broccoli more than fresh broccoli, I make that choice because frozen broccoli is cheaper.

I see your point, but I just don't agree with it.

Matt are you talking to me or Aaron?

Ed, I agree with subsidizing education on healthy eating; and I'm grudgingly ok with subsidization for healthy foods if they are economically out of reach for a significant number of people.

The reason I brought up the confusion over what is healthy and what is not is because it isn't black and white. Like I said, dark chocolate can be very good for you depending on the quality. Would the government subsidize the top quality? Lower qualities are less healthy, so would they be left out?

I think it's great for the government to give people access to information, including the evidence for and against the benefits and negatives of all foods. It's a lot less messy than messing with price control.