Blog

1

This is a serious question, although definitely hypothetical in nature: if you were made "Kings for a day" with full powers (as Sancho Panza was once promised to be by El Quijote) , which foods would you forbid, based on their devastating effects on human health: Pizza, pasta, sodas, whisky, hamburgers, chips, or what?

flag
id go with trans fat – Payam Dec 17 2010 at 3:55
16 
 This is going in the wrong direction. What are we? Vegans?? – modderbaard Dec 17 2010 at 7:54
Hey now. Nothing wrong with whiskey. Plus one to modderbaard's comment. – Jennie Jan 28 2011 at 18:36
I agree, modderbaard. Leave the dogma and myopia to the vegans. – Chickenosaurus Rex Jan 29 2011 at 0:39

closed as subjective and argumentative by Patrik♦♦ Jan 29 2011 at 19:08

16 Answers

20

I would ban the entitlement mentality in my kingdom--

You can eat, drink or smoke whatever you want, but you pay for the damage yourself.

link|flag
4 
 I like this answer, Ed. This is a huge issue. The general public might actually be healthier if they simply took responsibility for what they put in their own bodies. – Cheryl White Dec 17 2010 at 12:00
4 
 Exactly. I don't want anyone to take away my red wine. Some people feel it's poison, but I'll take it over bread every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Literally. – wjones3044 Dec 17 2010 at 14:14
Good in theory, but what about the reality of healthcare costs, not to mention higher fuel costs for planes and use of resources in general as well as the need for supersizing seats, ambulances, etc... – Marina Jan 29 2011 at 3:58
People are attacked with dozens of misleading and confusing data each day, when they try to be responsible and eat "healthy", it doesn't help much. The best would be to stop preach to people and telling them what to eat, and especially treat fat people like lost children. – Yoannah_offca Jan 29 2011 at 4:15
11

The very fact that kings can decide what the subjects can eat or not is the reason for the creation of the US Govt. "food pyramid" and the subsequent health catastrophe. I would just leave everyone alone and listen to my own body.

link|flag
Very insightful! – Aaron Curl Dec 17 2010 at 11:55
8

First my serious answer: I wouldn't ban anything. I would end all subsidies and restrictions and only enforce truth-in-labeling laws.

But if I were King, I would ban raisins. Raisins are nothing more than the turds from Satan's pet bunny rabbit.

link|flag
@Carl, RE raisins, ROFLMAO! – Ed♦ Dec 17 2010 at 13:59
I will never look at raisins the same way again. – wjones3044 Dec 17 2010 at 14:15
HA! I have hated raisins since I was a little kid and have probably said worse things about them. One really convenient thing about not eating sugar anymore is no longer feeling bad about looking deflated when I bite into a cookie I thought had chocolate chips in them only to find out it is actually raisins and making my relatives or friends feel bad. – amanda Dec 17 2010 at 19:20
LOL!! I hated raisins that were baked in anything, as a kid. – gilliebean♦ Jan 28 2011 at 5:47
Funny! But now I have the "Kill da wabbit" song going through my head because I'm thinking about the Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd opera cartoon. :-)) – Chickenosaurus Rex Jan 28 2011 at 17:11
5

I'd add unnatural sugar in general like table sugar. Of course, people would probably just compensate by sucking down unnatural amounts of honey instead. I guess that's why rules can never substitute for knowledge and commitment.

link|flag
Very well put, Eva. – amanda Dec 17 2010 at 3:49
3

The Four Horsemen.

Wheat

Fructose

Soy

Vegetable Oils.

link|flag
Stephen would you also forbid olive oil? I think that one is pretty healthy... – Philosopher Dec 17 2010 at 3:38
Yes these four for me, plus corn and the billion chemicals made with it! – Aaron Curl Dec 17 2010 at 11:56
Olive is a fruit. I wouldn't cook with it tho, a very low smoke point – Stephen-Aegis Dec 17 2010 at 18:34
3

I would ban corn as a food substance for humans or animals.Unfortunately,banning things really only leads to black markets and crime.Can you picture someone buying Fritos and a soda in a back alley,looking out for the cops?

link|flag
I forget where, but I read recently that there are more black market cigarettes sold in NYC than "legitimate" cigarettes. – Ed♦ Dec 18 2010 at 13:34
Last I heard,they were nearing ten dollars a pack there, so not surprised.That's fifty to one hundred dollars on cigarettes a week,depending on how much you smoke. Tobacco is another example of society not grasping the concepts of self control,common sense and personal responsibility.Smoking pure tobacco,not treated with chemicals,on occasion,can be very enjoyable.But three packs a day of cigarettes loaded with toxic, addictive fillers?Duh that's a bad idea, and probably won't have pleasant results. – bittykitty Dec 18 2010 at 15:35
3

You can ban it, but if someone really wants it they will get it or find some alternative that is just as bad or worse. I agree with some to let people make their own choices and I wouldn't ban anything. Personal responsibility is a lost art in society and I wouldn't want to add fuel to that fire.

link|flag
2

corn, and everything derived from it.

link|flag
2

Alcohol. Killed my sister, kills tens of thousands, ruins lives. Yep, alcohol, that's what I'd ban. Sorry.

link|flag
I'm sorry for your loss. That's kind of like saying guns kill people though, isn't it? – Aaron Curl Dec 17 2010 at 11:58
I was not kind of like saying guns kill people. In fact they do, with people pulling the triggers, just like alcohol, with people pouring it down their throats. – Cacktus Wayfinder Dec 17 2010 at 15:11
Thanks for your answer Looska, I am sorry about your sister. I think in our imaginary kingdom there could be a good case to forbid, at least high grade alcoholic beverages, such as whisky,ron,gin or vodka. But I would never ban wine or beer, again, in such hypothetical situation – Philosopher Dec 17 2010 at 16:32
2

Well since this is a paleo site - wheat. That would take care of a lot. OK, maybe corn, too.

link|flag
2

I would ban partially hydrogenated oils. They are pointless and nobody actually wants to eat them. People won't really care if it disappears from the food supply.

link|flag
2

I wouldn't ban anything. Instead, I would step down immediately and pass out copies of "Yertle The Turtle" to all that I could see.

link|flag
1

Tobacco

High fructose corn syrup

White flour

Bakeries

Anything deep fried

link|flag
Forgot to mention concentrated unfermented Soy. – Garett Mar 12 2011 at 17:07
1

If we're banning foods then I'd go with bread, which is probably the most widely consumed of unpaleo foods and is eaten habitually (not just occasionally, like hamburgers) and displaces large amounts of actual food from people's diets. If we're allowing food substances then I might be tempted to go for vegetable oil, rather than wheat, because it allows the creation of innumerable processed monstrosities and without it people wanting to eat fat would have to go for animal sources (as McDonalds did until relatively recently).

link|flag
1

Unfermented soy. Wheat and corn tend to be a problem in large amounts, but soy is much more insidious and is generally believed to be more of a health food than even whole grains, which makes it even more dangerous. Not to mention that it causes damage more quickly and in smaller amounts than almost any other food or food-like substance.

link|flag
1

beside the evils, i m very cautious on sweet fruits. and any mass farmed fruits.

link|flag

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.