The governments should regulate the fast food industries
Debate Rounds (3)
Good luck, and please state your first argument.
Well an quite sensitive topic, isn't it? Why, probably because people think that every regulation that a government makes is bad. Because its everywhere, well this is quite true, but its not needed to believe that this is bad as long as people live in a democratic country. so some countries simply have a full control. But a big government can also be quite good like the Nordic model. But now let get back to food regulation. It is good that we live in a free, modern and accessible society, but since the monopolisation and rise of the food and agricultural industry, there have been many impacts on our way of living. Before I begin, you should know that I'm fully aware that this can hurt the economy, but is money realy more important than lives? The first effects of the food industry rise. Giant fields became owned by corporations, food became cheaper and more accessible and small companies died, because of the impossible prices. Many people stopped starving and there was even some basic development in it. For the first time people stopped starving and began dieing of eating too much. This hasn't changed even today, in fact corporations disuse the globalization, and at the same time many undeveloped countries report mass starvation. The idea of Absolute no regulation, would be jet worse since corporations would totally role the foods. The problem comes also because many people today cant buy real food (fruits, real meat...), the middle and the lower class are getting poorer and they can buy only these cheap products, this makes the smaller companies weaker and the bigger stronger. We all know that the worst case is McDonald's. Another alternative was propaganda by the government (amazing right), and TV,Radio and Hollywood. Did you ever notice an advert on the TV of burgers with gifts for children from cartoons. This sounds evil, but it was the best way how to get money, get children on ya" side.Now we come to the biochemical part: Since the first nutrition scientists have began reporting the bad properties of fat, companies found a another way: More sugar instead of fat, and adding first chemicals. Also genetically engineered food (Me personally, I think that this is good since these products are better, but we should label them, and avoid from nature and corporations). It took quite some time before the labeling got more serious, and some still fight against it. I don't get it ,Labeling food is a serious right of information, very important. Then we come to the Chemistry-era. Since people learned about Fat,Sugar and calories, the companies said that they will reduce all that. Like Coca-cola Zero (it doesn't contain much, but it does contain many liver-dangerous material). About that poisons can be found even in potatoes. And after that corporations began to advert less fat, put more sugar in it, but what sugar. They say that its a new sugar but usually its only a different compound of the sugar molecules (like fructose's and lactose's). And some even removed 10 Kcal (that is literally nothing). But about sugar. It is a quite good alternative, but mind this sugar can cause organ failure, diabetes (type 2 at children!) and do you know what the body does with excessive glucose's? Yeah, it transformes it via. insuline form the pancreas (its an basic hormone) into FAT. so eating less fat, and more sugar (if too much), than you literally made no progress. Oh and about calories, you can eat a candy 100g of full sugar or a bean 50g of protein and 30g of fat and 10g water(imaginary composition). So saying that you have to move and to eat less isn't enough. Chemistry is a good, but misused thing in the food industry.
About science. If a company hires an food scientist and gives him like 500000$/"..., than how high is the possibility that the scientist made theories on the money"s side? We can defeat the food industry just like the tobacco industry, just imagine. And I cant white much more: Good luck.
Golfer15 forfeited this round.
Well, since you didn't state your argument, I cant deny any of your statements, so we might continue in comments.
Well, relying on the food industry monopolies is bad. Some say that the worst monopoly is the government. But what would you like more a democratic government or a money thirsty industry. The problem is in capitalism itself, in the search for profit there are no real limits,or? Yes, its the public, but if you mislead your public, use propaganda and buy your enemy you rule your territory. Its the control, when the society gets relied on you. If someone like me denies it, then He's automatically a communist. Just like people call obama a socialist (I don't support him or hate). But this isn't the only thing. The government is subsidising large corporations, like the programme of Romney. But the government is supposed not to be connected with corporations. Well like Michele Obama's lets move, and companies actually connected with the idea, but nothing was done, except saying that there was some progress.
The food industry hurts the Society,Environment,misuse the Science and Small companies. The WHO (World health organisation) is trying to ban fast food adverts. But why is there no progress, because of money. This is dangerous.
Monopolisation is bad, since every food gets controlled by a company. I have similar problems with Google play store, since I disagree with them, but there is no other store and I am not able to download.
Influence on society. Since the low and middle class are getting poorer, people buy only cheap junk. The societies world-wide are dieing, but the few are living great. For the first time people will die younger then their parents.
We can stop the food industry, just like the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry denied scientists and doctors, but today we know that smoking is bad. So the same way we could do with the food giants.
Industry of fast food has to be regulated. And just like in Austria, the world should support small, local and organic farms.
The amazing ability of our nature is that it can adapt to its chemistry, so chemicals in food cant last long, this is visible as bacteria are slowly evolving to get immune against antibiotics.
Nice movie: Fed Up
Good'y luck for the last argument of yours.
I cannot deny any of those facts.
My argument is that McDonald's had over 440,000 employees in 2012 which I'm sure has drastically increased. Most of the people working for them have no college education due to the fact that they couldn't afford college. I believe that if we regulate fast food industries it will affect the economy in a bad way, and it will also lead to all other businesses being regulated. What happens when they regulate car industries, and other big corporations.
IN my opinion government interference is never good.
Thank you for debating this with me. My apologizes again on forgetting.. Gotta love school haha.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: ff, con never proves that total regulation is bad
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.