After reading an article on the "double whammy", a dangerous KFC sandwich, I felt to receive a direct face: Ontario to ban thought this sandwich ... Public Health would have precedence over individual rights?
This "double whammy", considered to be monstrous because it contains 540 calories, 30g fat and 1.74 g sodium , is not extraordinarily decadent, when compared to 100g of Tostitos (520 calories, 26 g fat, 0.4 g of sodium) accompanied by 100 mL of salsa on the market (which contains 0.9 g of sodium). I also think my pierogi, I had the indecency to sauté in butter and serve with sour cream. What then of upscale restaurants that serve french fries cooked in grease, cream sauces and pastries 35% pure butter (they boast). Should we ban the Tripple Whopper, with its 1,250 calories, the trio chicken nuggets at McDonald's (516 calories for ten pieces of chicken, 560 calories for the fries to large size and 230 calories for a large iced tea) and The St. Honore cake to 1131 calories per serving? What about our hearty holiday meal, sugar shack and all other feasts that mark the events of our lives? The management of public health should it go down to me to throw my lard?
To my knowledge, alcohol and gambling destroy many more lives than the consumption of fatty foods. We therefore prohibits certain products that could be more harmful than others? Do we hesitate to advertise on them (of course not, they are corporations)? The state has set his mind to settle the case Smoking: No advertising, banning smoking in public places, deterrent messages on the packages and now the packets must be hidden under the display. I'm questioning myself whether it is best seen in Quebec smoking a joint than a cigarette? There is one problem, the fast food is also a public health problem has reached alarming proportions. It is even possible that future generations will live shorter lives than their parents. I ask the question: Should the state taxing junk food as it does with tobacco products? If we push this logic, people who do no sport should they pay a fee of inertia?
Frankly, I do not know what to think over the question of choice, except that the current situation should be corrected. I do not quite agree with the principle of a totalitarian state, which tells me what's good for me ... it seems indeed that the North Koreans, Cubans, Chinese, Laotian and Vietnamese are paying the price (not to speak Burmese, Afghan, Belarus and so on). Furthermore, free-choice means being properly informed about the products we offer and we can understand this information. When you know that 38% of Quebecers suffer from some form of illiteracy , we can be right to worry. The current situation suggests to me that a campaign could be beneficial.
I would hear you and I look forward to your opinions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment