Guvment Diet

[Forty Two]

Indeed, just what we need the government to do, manage the placement of food products in private cafeterias,..

Not that I necessarily advocate it for food products, but they do this with tobacco here. There were probably a few libertarians that had a tantrum over it, but otherwise no one really cares.

Whether anyone cares about the particular product is not the main issue. It's the concept of the government bothering with the issue of where a cigarette pack is displayed on the wall.

[Forty Two]

One of the issues I have with this focus on "fast food" is the assumption that people are eating better than fast food at home. I mean, do we really think this? You can't have a hamburger, but you can make meatloaf at home? A hot dog is right out, but go full forward with the stuffed pasta shells full of ricotta cheese and sausage? That's "better" for you? On what basis?

What is actually going on out there? People would be eating fresh salads, steamed vegetables, and small side of broiled salmon everyday if it wasn't for the evil fast food companies?

Very misleading, these examples.

On average, fast food outlets produce food with less nutrition and more calories than home-cooked meals. That's where the argument lies, not with finding the inevitable exceptions.

Interesting assertion, but we'd need to have evidence of it. Do the studies take into account what people are actually eating at home? Hamburgers on the grill included? Pizza heated in the oven?

Is the chicken served at a fast food restaurant less nutritious and more caloric than the same kind of chicken cooked at home?

Here's a Perdue chicken leg nutrition -- http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calori ... zI3Mw.html 3 ounces, about 200 calories

Here is Church's Chicken Leg - http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calori ... 2NzA0.html 3 ounces about 200 calories.

Is the nutrition different?

[pErvinalia]

Indeed, just what we need the government to do, manage the placement of food products in private cafeterias,..

Not that I necessarily advocate it for food products, but they do this with tobacco here. There were probably a few libertarians that had a tantrum over it, but otherwise no one really cares.

Whether anyone cares about the particular product is not the main issue. It's the concept of the government bothering with the issue of where a cigarette pack is displayed on the wall.

No one really cares because no one is really bothered by the concept. It's widely accepted that cigarettes are damaging, so it's considered reasonable that they be in plain packaging and behind doors/covers with no advertising. It makes no difference to anyone's ability to purchase them.

[Forty Two]

Once the concept settles in, then the government reaches out to other products to save us from. It's in the nature of government. Some other group of teetotalers will start in on alcohol or candy. IMO, it just ought not be the business of government to waste time and money on telling Achmad where he needs to stack products at the 7-Eleven. What's next? All Dunkin Donut shops have to be in big white buildings labeled "Food That Is Bad for You." Donuts handed out the back in plain brown wrappers.... they're damaging, don'tchaknow.

[pErvinalia]

Once the concept settles in, then the government reaches out to other products to save us from. It's in the nature of government.

No it's not. Government doesn't inherently want to stifle commerce. These 'thin edge of the wedge' arguments from ideologues like you and Seth get really tiring. Governments are interested in one thing, protecting themselves and the corporate class. They have to be bludgeoned into accepting most of these things.

Some other group of teetotalers will start in on alcohol or candy.

So what? If the evidence is there to suggest that these products are extremely harmful, what's the problem? And note, alcohol is the top carcinogen on the WHOs list of cancer causing things.

IMO, it just ought not be the business of government to waste time and money on telling Achmad where he needs to stack products at the 7-Eleven. What's next? All Dunkin Donut shops have to be in big white buildings labeled "Food That Is Bad for You." Donuts handed out the back in plain brown wrappers.... they're damaging, don'tchaknow.

Your usual hyperbolic rhetoric. Not that it will come to that, but so what if Dunkin' Donuts had to be in a white building with no suggestive advertising? People who love donuts would still be able to get them. The difference is, like in the cigarette example, is that kids are indoctrinated into the normalcy of harmful products from infancy. Adults can research stuff out and do what they want.

And just to be clear, before you go on another hyperbolic rant, processed sugar is a different category of thing than cigarettes. As far as I am aware, you technically can't be addicted to sugar. Although, from my own perspective, I've felt addicted at times.

[Hermit]

Once the concept settles in, then the government reaches out to other products to save us from.

Which is a bad thing. A bad thing. Really bad thing. It's true. Believe me. It's true.

On the other hand, we voted that government into office, and we agree with the policy of discouraging the consumption of tobacco short of banning its sale. The death rate resulting from smoking cigarettes is several magnitudes greater than that of all illegal drugs combined. What's more, we go even further. We support our government's policies of making the sale of tobacco and alcohol to minors illegal. That's right. It's banned altogether! In short, we want our government to save us from consuming those products. And if we decide that all Dunkin Donut shops have to be in big white buildings labelled "Food That Is Bad for You" and packaged in plain brown wrappers, I'd be in favour of that too.

Now to meat. Though I am not a vegetarian, I'd approve of butchers wrapping the steak I buy in a package which reminds me that ten trees have been chopped down, or whatever, in order for me to be able to eat it.

Yep. Keep hammering that wedge. We are already compelled by law to do things to save us, like wearing seatbelts in cars, helmets on bikes and stop at red lights. We are also discouraged from doing things via excise, prohibition of advertising and conditions of sale, like smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol. Safeguarding our political freedom is not the only quintessential rôle of government. Being saved from things is another.

[Forty Two]

Once the concept settles in, then the government reaches out to other products to save us from.

Which is a bad thing. A bad thing. Really bad thing. It's true. Believe me. It's true.

I can make an argument as to why I think it could very well be or become a bad thing. But, foundational to the argument is the degree to which individual rights and liberty mean something to a person. If one comes from the perspective that being let alone is a valid and important interest to people, and that having a government which micromanages the details of individual lives could lead to a rather oppressive and stifling society, then one will see a risk the expansion of the Leviathan in that way.

On the other hand, we voted that government into office, and we agree with the policy of discouraging the consumption of tobacco short of banning its sale. The death rate resulting from smoking cigarettes is several magnitudes greater than that of all illegal drugs combined. What's more, we go even further. We support our government's policies of making the sale of tobacco and alcohol to minors illegal.

Certainly, but what we're talking about is the government determining where a shop stocks a product on its shelves. Third row to the left, or bottom row down the aisle?

There is something to be said, though, for questioning the propriety of the government's involvement in what unhealthy things you or I decided to put in our bodies. Where there is a direct impact on someone else - such as smoking in a public building or room, etc. - that's one thing, but to suggest that the government ought to be determining what leaves and potables are inhaled or imbibed by an individual otherwise, and determining which leaves and potables are to be encouraged or discouraged, seems to me to be beyond the ken of a government and beyond its expertise, much less any of its business.

That's right. It's banned altogether! In short, we want our government to save us from consuming those products.

If by "we" you mean "some people, including you" then yes. Other people may not be so willing to ask the government to save them from themselves.

And if we decide that all Dunkin Donut shops have to be in big white buildings labelled "Food That Is Bad for You" and packaged in plain brown wrappers, I'd be in favour of that too.

I'm not all that surprised that you would favor that. However, it's a rather oppressive and tyrannical thing to do to people, isn't it? I mean, donut shops? If an even-handed application of such a rule would be imposed upon any product that is as equally "bad for you" as donuts, well, then I think we'd see the overall landscape of our cities and towns taking on a decidedly, well, dystopian and totalitarian visage.

A rational application of the "stop what's bad for them" government policy would likely include the de-glorification of casinos, right? Many of them still allow smoking in them. That's got to go first. No smoking in casinos. Then, of course, there's alcoholic beverages served by hetero-normatively attractive females... can't have that. The alcohol is not good for you, and the hetero-normatively attractive females is sexist, transphobic and white, cisgendered patriarchy. And, of course, gambling is bad for people too, so we need to turn all the lights down, and the bells and whistles need to go. Turn the hotels into plain, brown buildings with no entertainment theme. If you want to play dice, do so quietly, and in embarrassment, in the corner of a bare room. No cheering.

Now to meat. Though I am not a vegetarian, I'd approve of butchers wrapping the steak I buy in a package which reminds me that ten trees have been chopped down, or whatever, in order for me to be able to eat it.

That sounds like a personal problem for you. You might seek therapy. You think you should be made to feel guilty for buying and eating meat, and that should be legislated, and that's a proper role for the government?

What of the negative health impact of the imposed guilt and embarrassment, and the anxiety? People with low self esteem will tend to be shamed by repeated guilt trips and embarrassment. This shame often causes them to develop even lower self-esteem and the cycle repeats, and can become clinical depression and such. But, you'd want the government doing that to people.

Yep. Keep hammering that wedge. We are already compelled by law to do things to save us, like wearing seatbelts in cars, helmets on bikes and stop at red lights. We are also discouraged from doing things via excise, prohibition of advertising and conditions of sale, like smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol. Safeguarding our political freedom is not the only quintessential rôle of government. Being saved from things is another.

Yes, we are already compelled by law to do things to save us. However, that doesn't mean that anything the government does to save us should be viewed as equally appropriate. It's that "we already have this and this, so why not go to that and the other thing" argument that needs to be guarded against.

There are plenty of things the government can do to safeguard health and welfare without getting involved in micromanagement. The governments have a hard enough time just managing the things that hurt other people. It's enough, in my view, that the government would regulate the production of hamburger meat to make sure that it isn't poisonous or contaminated. Beyond that, to regulate where it is displayed in the supermarket is rather a bit beyond its pay grade. Heck, I don't even think the government actually succeeds in reducing food borne contaminants by its regulation. But, at least there it's not trying to social engineer, but rather stop person A from poisoning person B, which I find to be a rather relevant distinction.

[pErvinalia]

On the other hand, we voted that government into office, and we agree with the policy of discouraging the consumption of tobacco short of banning its sale. The death rate resulting from smoking cigarettes is several magnitudes greater than that of all illegal drugs combined. What's more, we go even further. We support our government's policies of making the sale of tobacco and alcohol to minors illegal.

Certainly, but what we're talking about is the government determining where a shop stocks a product on its shelves. Third row to the left, or bottom row down the aisle?

Bit like regulations on how shops must display and secure guns. Or health regulations for restaurants. How dare the government presume it can regulate commerce!

..that's one thing, but to suggest that the government ought to be determining what leaves and potables are inhaled or imbibed by an individual otherwise,..

In the case of cigarettes, adults can still buy them. It's only the morally fragile libertarians and the like who take every little thing like that as a personal affront.

And if we decide that all Dunkin Donut shops have to be in big white buildings labelled "Food That Is Bad for You" and packaged in plain brown wrappers, I'd be in favour of that too.

I'm not all that surprised that you would favor that. However, it's a rather oppressive and tyrannical thing to do to people, isn't it?

Huh? People are still just as free to go and purchase donuts from the shop. Only in 42 world of spechul English and logic could that be "oppressive and tyrannical".

I mean, donut shops? If an even-handed application of such a rule would be imposed upon any product that is as equally "bad for you" as donuts, well, then I think we'd see the overall landscape of our cities and towns taking on a decidedly, well, dystopian and totalitarian visage.

More hyperbole.

A rational application of the "stop what's bad for them" government policy would likely include the de-glorification of casinos, right? Many of them still allow smoking in them. That's got to go first. No smoking in casinos.

Who gives a fuck? (other than morally fragile libertarians). Can people not gamble just as well without cigarettes? Can they not pop outside every now and then for a darb?

Then, of course, there's alcoholic beverages served by hetero-normatively attractive females... can't have that. The alcohol is not good for you, and the hetero-normatively attractive females is sexist, transphobic and white, cisgendered patriarchy. And, of course, gambling is bad for people too, so we need to turn all the lights down, and the bells and whistles need to go. Turn the hotels into plain, brown buildings with no entertainment theme. If you want to play dice, do so quietly, and in embarrassment, in the corner of a bare room. No cheering.

Your 'thin edge of the wedge' hyperbole knows no bounds. We've gone from mild regulation discouraging people (particularly minors) from smoking, to bland soviet era concrete jungles living under tyranny and totalitarianism. Do you even understand how utterly ridiculous you sound?!

Now to meat. Though I am not a vegetarian, I'd approve of butchers wrapping the steak I buy in a package which reminds me that ten trees have been chopped down, or whatever, in order for me to be able to eat it.

That sounds like a personal problem for you. You might seek therapy. You think you should be made to feel guilty for buying and eating meat, and that should be legislated, and that's a proper role for the government?

What's guilt got to do with it? It's information. I thought you free market types were in favour of the free flow of information. The better informed a market is, the better it will work for everyone. What could possibly be bad about informing consumers?!

What of the negative health impact of the imposed guilt and embarrassment, and the anxiety? People with low self esteem will tend to be shamed by repeated guilt trips and embarrassment. This shame often causes them to develop even lower self-esteem and the cycle repeats, and can become clinical depression and such. But, you'd want the government doing that to people.

FFS, you and the hyperbole.

Yep. Keep hammering that wedge. We are already compelled by law to do things to save us, like wearing seatbelts in cars, helmets on bikes and stop at red lights. We are also discouraged from doing things via excise, prohibition of advertising and conditions of sale, like smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol. Safeguarding our political freedom is not the only quintessential rôle of government. Being saved from things is another.

Yes, we are already compelled by law to do things to save us. However, that doesn't mean that anything the government does to save us should be viewed as equally appropriate. It's that "we already have this and this, so why not go to that and the other thing" argument that needs to be guarded against.

What needs to be guarded against is 'thin edge of the wedge' logical fallacies. We should be more interested in whether a particular regulation/taxation can be reasonably defended than getting apoplectic in fear of what could happen if a billion separate things come together to effect the liberal political doomsday scenario.

[Forty Two]

On the other hand, we voted that government into office, and we agree with the policy of discouraging the consumption of tobacco short of banning its sale. The death rate resulting from smoking cigarettes is several magnitudes greater than that of all illegal drugs combined. What's more, we go even further. We support our government's policies of making the sale of tobacco and alcohol to minors illegal.

Certainly, but what we're talking about is the government determining where a shop stocks a product on its shelves. Third row to the left, or bottom row down the aisle?

Bit like regulations on how shops must display and secure guns. Or health regulations for restaurants. How dare the government presume it can regulate commerce!

I don't recall the government telling a gun shop which guns it can display where. Gander Mountain doesn't have to follow Statute 104.53 regulating that guns must be placed in the back on the bottom row.

Walmart -- Don't have a conniption fit....

I can walk through Gander Mountain or Wal-mart and pass the gun aisle, and I don't even have a tinge of fear.



This store, located half way between Fort Lauderdale and Miami, probably needs a good dose of government shelf stocking regulation....

..that's one thing, but to suggest that the government ought to be determining what leaves and potables are inhaled or imbibed by an individual otherwise,..

In the case of cigarettes, adults can still buy them. It's only the morally fragile libertarians and the like who take every little thing like that as a personal affront.

Who said something was a personal affront? I just said it's not really a proper role of government. Are you responding to someone else here?

And if we decide that all Dunkin Donut shops have to be in big white buildings labelled "Food That Is Bad for You" and packaged in plain brown wrappers, I'd be in favour of that too.

I'm not all that surprised that you would favor that. However, it's a rather oppressive and tyrannical thing to do to people, isn't it?

Huh? People are still just as free to go and purchase donuts from the shop. Only in 42 world of spechul English and logic could that be "oppressive and tyrannical".

Well, telling someone who wants to run a donut shop, that they have to do so as persona non grata, in a brown paper bag is telling them that they can't so much as put up a sign that says "world's best donut." It's controlling their message, and limiting their point of view. So, at its heart, this kind of regulation is censorship, which is generally considered rather unpleasant. Further, it's the government telling a company specifically how to market and sell a product, which is not at all the same as that which is normally done.

It would be like making a law that you're "perfectly free to sell and buy soft drinks" but then requiring 7-Eleven to sell them only from a separate room with a curtain that says "terrible product - do not buy" on the front and served only in cups that exhibit an image of enlarged and diabetic spleens and livers on them. Oh, sure, you're free to buy the product all you want.

You may well be comfortable with these kinds of requirements, but I'm not, because I value individual liberty as an important concept. I also value personal autonomy as a pragmatic concern, where a healthy society is built on a healthy dose self-governance and independence. The more such independence and self-governance that is taken away, I think we find people becoming less able to take care of themselves, less able to handle adversity, and less able to think through for themselves what is good and bad for them, which dangerous thing for a society.

I mean, donut shops? If an even-handed application of such a rule would be imposed upon any product that is as equally "bad for you" as donuts, well, then I think we'd see the overall landscape of our cities and towns taking on a decidedly, well, dystopian and totalitarian visage.

More hyperbole.

Not really, not if we accept the premise being offered, and carry it to its logical conclusion. Why would the State target donut shops, but not Starbucks, McDonalds, and Ice Cream stands, and the list goes on and on? What non-arbitrary reason would there be to not include all such unhealthy locales?

And, pubs? Very unhealthy. Get the shamrocks and catchy slogans off the pub. It should just say "Den of Iniquity" on it and be a brown building with demon rum served in brown glasses.

A rational application of the "stop what's bad for them" government policy would likely include the de-glorification of casinos, right? Many of them still allow smoking in them. That's got to go first. No smoking in casinos.

Who gives a fuck? (other than morally fragile libertarians). Can people not gamble just as well without cigarettes? Can they not pop outside every now and then for a darb?

Well "who gives a fuck" means "i don't give a fuck." However, the proprietor of the establishment may care, and his customers might. I don't know if people can or can't gamble just as well without cigarettes. Maybe they don't want to. Maybe they like it. Do they need to justify their actions?

Then, of course, there's alcoholic beverages served by hetero-normatively attractive females... can't have that. The alcohol is not good for you, and the hetero-normatively attractive females is sexist, transphobic and white, cisgendered patriarchy. And, of course, gambling is bad for people too, so we need to turn all the lights down, and the bells and whistles need to go. Turn the hotels into plain, brown buildings with no entertainment theme. If you want to play dice, do so quietly, and in embarrassment, in the corner of a bare room. No cheering.

Your 'thin edge of the wedge' hyperbole knows no bounds. We've gone from mild regulation discouraging people (particularly minors) from smoking, to bland soviet era concrete jungles living under tyranny and totalitarianism. Do you even understand how utterly ridiculous you sound?!

You consider requiring donut shops to serve their products in brown paper bags out of bare-bones, non-descript buildingss a "mild regulation?" And, then you declare me to be engaged in hyperbole? How can I be engaging in hyperbole, when you've accepted some of what I actually meant as hyperbole to be "mild?" LOL. What's ridiculous here is that you would actually think that what I offered as an extreme example of overreach (and one that I couldn't imagine ever actually coming to pass) was a reasonable role for the government and a "ho hum, who cares? they can still buy donuts can't they?" thing.

If you were to suggest that a donut shop is so unhealthy that it warrants the "mild regulation" of stripping it of all marketing, name-recognition, and trappings of any kind and serving only out of brown paper bags like some kind of illicit product - if that's what you think is "mild regulation" - then on what basis do you claim that the government taking similar action to stop the issues associated with gambling to be "ridiculous" and "hyperbole?"

Now to meat. Though I am not a vegetarian, I'd approve of butchers wrapping the steak I buy in a package which reminds me that ten trees have been chopped down, or whatever, in order for me to be able to eat it.

That sounds like a personal problem for you. You might seek therapy. You think you should be made to feel guilty for buying and eating meat, and that should be legislated, and that's a proper role for the government?

What's guilt got to do with it? It's information. I thought you free market types were in favour of the free flow of information. The better informed a market is, the better it will work for everyone. What could possibly be bad about informing consumers?!

Why would the information required be negative?

What of the negative health impact of the imposed guilt and embarrassment, and the anxiety? People with low self esteem will tend to be shamed by repeated guilt trips and embarrassment. This shame often causes them to develop even lower self-esteem and the cycle repeats, and can become clinical depression and such. But, you'd want the government doing that to people.

FFS, you and the hyperbole.

Hyperbole? Do you mean you don't think that what's printed there can have a deleterious effect on the customers?

Yep. Keep hammering that wedge. We are already compelled by law to do things to save us, like wearing seatbelts in cars, helmets on bikes and stop at red lights. We are also discouraged from doing things via excise, prohibition of advertising and conditions of sale, like smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol. Safeguarding our political freedom is not the only quintessential rôle of government. Being saved from things is another.

Yes, we are already compelled by law to do things to save us. However, that doesn't mean that anything the government does to save us should be viewed as equally appropriate. It's that "we already have this and this, so why not go to that and the other thing" argument that needs to be guarded against.

What needs to be guarded against is 'thin edge of the wedge' logical fallacies. We should be more interested in whether a particular regulation/taxation can be reasonably defended than getting apoplectic in fear of what could happen if a billion separate things come together to effect the liberal political doomsday scenario.

Indeed, and when a person says "all I want is X regulation, and it's just a mild one..." the way to analyze whether there is a thin-edge-of-the-wedge issue to be concerned about is to explore whether there are many other situations which rationally fit the same description of X - which rationally merit the same treatment.

In other words, if you say we need to take action against X because of Y risks and harms, and there are a list of other things that also have Y risks and harms, then it is not an unreasonable question to ask whether those other things will also be subject to the same regulation. If not, why not? What aspect or feature of those other things will prevent them from being subjected to the same analysis later?

Some things actually are thin edges of wedges. Naturally, if you say "we need to make motorcyclists wear helmets" because they may fall and crack their skulls, it's reasonable to ask what other activities should likewise be similarly required to involve helmets. How far will it go? Will it result in there being laws requiring people to wear them riding bicycles, tricycles, skate boards, segways, or what about when riding a sled in the winter...? http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... eaded.html

As that article points out, the idea of bicycle helmets being required would have been generally seen as ridiculous back when I was a kid. Now, they're mostly required by law. Naturally, responses are often like yours "what's the harm?" or "what's the big deal, you can still ride, you just have to wear a helmet..." And, some times, regulations, of course, make sense. But, there is something to be said for thinking critically about these things, and not simply accepting every "because it's good for you" thing the government seeks to impose. There is something to be said for being let alone. There is something to be said for individual liberty. There is something to be said for individual responsibility and autonomy.

[Alan B]

Is the chicken served at a fast food restaurant less nutritious and more caloric than the same kind of chicken cooked at home?

Here's a Perdue chicken leg nutrition -- http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calori ... zI3Mw.html 3 ounces, about 200 calories

Here is Church's Chicken Leg - http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calori ... 2NzA0.html 3 ounces about 200 calories.

Is the nutrition different?

Yes.
Per 100 grams.
Perdue
262kcal., Fat 21.4%, Sat. Fat 7.1%, CHO 0%, Sugars 0%, Fibre 0%, Protein 15.5%, Salt Equiv. 1.31%
Church's
216kcal., Fat 11.8%, Sat. Fat 2.9%, CHO 5%, Sugars 0%, Fibre 0%, Protein 19.6%, Salt Equiv. 1.37%

Figures extracted from calorieking.com
The problem with this is that there is no reference (that I could see) to cooking methods particularly with the home cooking example.

[Scot Dutchy]

I would never and I repeat NEVER eat fast food. It is 40 years since I went into a McDonald's and that was to prove to my kids what rubbish it was. Thank goodness people are fed up of them.

[Forty Two]

Is the chicken served at a fast food restaurant less nutritious and more caloric than the same kind of chicken cooked at home?

Here's a Perdue chicken leg nutrition -- http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calori ... zI3Mw.html 3 ounces, about 200 calories

Here is Church's Chicken Leg - http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calori ... 2NzA0.html 3 ounces about 200 calories.

Is the nutrition different?

Yes.
Per 100 grams.
Perdue
262kcal., Fat 21.4%, Sat. Fat 7.1%, CHO 0%, Sugars 0%, Fibre 0%, Protein 15.5%, Salt Equiv. 1.31%
Church's
216kcal., Fat 11.8%, Sat. Fat 2.9%, CHO 5%, Sugars 0%, Fibre 0%, Protein 19.6%, Salt Equiv. 1.37%

Figures extracted from calorieking.com
The problem with this is that there is no reference (that I could see) to cooking methods particularly with the home cooking example.

Slightly different, but it doesn't seem that much different. Apparently the purdue has 21.4% fat compared to Church's with 11.8%, which appears to be a point in favor of Church's. Similarly, Perdue has 7.1% Sat. Fat, to Church's 2.9%. And, Church's has more protein. If anything, why wouldn't the Church's chicken be considered better?

[Forty Two]

I would never and I repeat NEVER eat fast food. It is 40 years since I went into a McDonald's and that was to prove to my kids what rubbish it was. Thank goodness people are fed up of them.

Good for you. Live your life as you see fit.

[Scot Dutchy]

They should be banned. They are costing the health care millions.

[Forty Two]

Indeed, and also, ban Frikandel, Friet & Mayo, witte spekje, Palingworst, boterkoek, suikerbeest, klapstuk.

That stuff has to go. It's horrible for people, and costing the health system millions...