5 ms·

Denmark and Switzerland have both banned Transfats. Also, various bans exist for genetically modified foods in Europe. Sweeteners such as stevia, meats with bov

Denmark and Switzerland have both banned Transfats. Also, various bans exist for genetically modified foods in Europe. Sweeteners such as stevia, meats with bovine growth hormone, etc. I'm surprised people are unaware of this. My apologies for not citing it in my comment, I thought everyone was aware of this, and so I found the original implication that banning foods leads to totalitarianism absurd.

jonhendry 16y ago
"Denmark and Switzerland have both banned Transfats" Presumably you can still gorge yourself on bacon and whole milk and sugary cakes, pies, and cookies; then drink alcohol until you die.
- archgoon 16y ago
  Really not particularly relevant. Funny, but misses the point that regulating food does not make you into a totalitarian state.
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    Misses the point that "regulating food" and "banning all the unhealthy foods" are not at all the same thing. As a libertarian, I'm amused since more statist folks usually accuse us of confusing regulation with totalitarian control.
wlievens 16y ago
AFAIK stevia isn't genetically modified at all. It's banned because of the sugar lobby.
Semiapies 16y ago
So, nowhere. I'm surprised you think "banning all the unhealthy foods" means nothing more than a NYC-style transfat ban. (Hint: GMO bans have nothing to do with nutrition.) I'm pretty sure that everyone else was aware of the difference.
- archgoon 16y ago
  So... we don't actually know where banning all unhealthy foods leads since no one has actually tried it? Apparently you are telling me this statement was meant to be a rhetorical fact-free statement, and I was not supposed to actually look at the real world because it isn't actually applicable because no one has ever done this in full. I suppose that it is true that if the US was able to pass laws like a Totalitarian State (arbitrary laws with no support from anyone [including commercial interests]), than yes, it is Totalitarian, but that would have nothing to do with the food ban itself. So, since that interpretation seemed to not be relevant, I assumed that if you were to actually look at a future where the US had banned foods, it would have had to gone through the standard process. You'd have the usual fake grass-roots movements, coupled with some legitimate ones, coupled with the standard conflicting commercial interests which would push for exceptions and loopholes, which over time gathered support and eventually would stop being a liability for a politician to support. At which point, you would either have it accepted by the majority, like transfats bans in applicable locations, or it would be felt to be overly restrictive and be rebelled against, like prohibition in the 1920's (existence of spectrums are of course acknowledged). None of these situations make the resulting state totalitarian (unless you want to claim that the US was totalitarian under prohibition). Creepy that people are being manipulated? Sure, but that's doesn't make a state totalitarian. So I looked at countries that had implemented _some_ amount of food bans (the 'real' reasons are irrelevant, politicians claim health, so if anything, is more representative of what we can expect to happen), to get an idea as to which way it would go in this case. It seemed like a reasonable way to answer the question 'Where does this road lead to?' My apologies if there was some other, more obvious interpretation, but that was how I read the sentence. I also apologize for not expanding in full my point earlier, since it seems to have been misintrerpeted.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    "Apparently you are telling me this statement was meant to be a rhetorical fact-free statement" The only thing I'm telling you that you're both full of shit and rapidly backpedaling. But you don't need to continue backpedaling, as I am not at all interested in your further noise.

jonhendry 16y ago

"Denmark and Switzerland have both banned Transfats" Presumably you can still gorge yourself on bacon and whole milk and sugary cakes, pies, and cookies; then drink alcohol until you die.

archgoon 16y ago
Really not particularly relevant. Funny, but misses the point that regulating food does not make you into a totalitarian state.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  Misses the point that "regulating food" and "banning all the unhealthy foods" are not at all the same thing. As a libertarian, I'm amused since more statist folks usually accuse us of confusing regulation with totalitarian control.

wlievens 16y ago

AFAIK stevia isn't genetically modified at all. It's banned because of the sugar lobby.

Semiapies 16y ago

So, nowhere. I'm surprised you think "banning all the unhealthy foods" means nothing more than a NYC-style transfat ban. (Hint: GMO bans have nothing to do with nutrition.) I'm pretty sure that everyone else was aware of the difference.

archgoon 16y ago
So... we don't actually know where banning all unhealthy foods leads since no one has actually tried it? Apparently you are telling me this statement was meant to be a rhetorical fact-free statement, and I was not supposed to actually look at the real world because it isn't actually applicable because no one has ever done this in full. I suppose that it is true that if the US was able to pass laws like a Totalitarian State (arbitrary laws with no support from anyone [including commercial interests]), than yes, it is Totalitarian, but that would have nothing to do with the food ban itself. So, since that interpretation seemed to not be relevant, I assumed that if you were to actually look at a future where the US had banned foods, it would have had to gone through the standard process. You'd have the usual fake grass-roots movements, coupled with some legitimate ones, coupled with the standard conflicting commercial interests which would push for exceptions and loopholes, which over time gathered support and eventually would stop being a liability for a politician to support. At which point, you would either have it accepted by the majority, like transfats bans in applicable locations, or it would be felt to be overly restrictive and be rebelled against, like prohibition in the 1920's (existence of spectrums are of course acknowledged). None of these situations make the resulting state totalitarian (unless you want to claim that the US was totalitarian under prohibition). Creepy that people are being manipulated? Sure, but that's doesn't make a state totalitarian. So I looked at countries that had implemented _some_ amount of food bans (the 'real' reasons are irrelevant, politicians claim health, so if anything, is more representative of what we can expect to happen), to get an idea as to which way it would go in this case. It seemed like a reasonable way to answer the question 'Where does this road lead to?' My apologies if there was some other, more obvious interpretation, but that was how I read the sentence. I also apologize for not expanding in full my point earlier, since it seems to have been misintrerpeted.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- Semiapies 16y ago
  "Apparently you are telling me this statement was meant to be a rhetorical fact-free statement" The only thing I'm telling you that you're both full of shit and rapidly backpedaling. But you don't need to continue backpedaling, as I am not at all interested in your further noise.