[rfceicizgm]

This study seems to think so.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/fea...jean-choi.html

[baronaaba]

I have seen a few things now about this subject.
Personally i would take the chance.

[goctorsurger]

Should we really be allowing the state to compulsorily medicate the population?

Why do we need it anyway? If people take care of their teeth properly there should be no problem.

[halfstreet]

Should we really be allowing the state to compulsorily medicate the population?

Why do we need it anyway? If people take care of their teeth properly there should be no problem.

Should we allow the state to tarmac our roads? If people drove 4x4s there should be no problem.

That makes as much sense as your post.

[Doctor-CTAC]

Should we allow the state to tarmac our roads? If people drove 4x4s there should be no problem.

That makes as much sense as your post.

It's your post that makes no sense. How does tarmacing roads equate to medicating the population?

[ketNavatutt]

Gnius seems pretty well versed on this topic. Maybe he can chime in.

[ftpsoft]

Should we allow the state to tarmac our roads? If people drove 4x4s there should be no problem.

That makes as much sense as your post.

Putting chemicals into human bodies can't be compared to paving roads. As much as it pains me to say it Bungle has a point. The government has no business adding chemicals to the water we drink. Maybe first they should also see about doing a good job filtering it. With the chlorine taste and minerals in my water I have to filter it before I drink it or use it in any device I have that uses water. The water at work is so bad that having a cup of it will make your cubicle smell like chlorine. It's like drinking pool water. So nasty.

But on topic, the government shouldn't be in the business of tamping with our drinking water. Whether it harms or helps is moot, it's not their place. Their job stops at providing clean drinking water.

[mGUuZRyA]

But on topic, the government shouldn't be in the business of tamping with our drinking water. Whether it harms or helps is moot, it's not their place. Their job stops at providing clean drinking water.

It's hardly irrelevant. If adding flouride to drinking water makes us healthier then the government has an obligation to do so. If it doesn't, then they don't.

[Quigoxito]

It's hardly irrelevant. If adding flouride to drinking water makes us healthier then the government has an obligation to do so. If it doesn't, then they don't.

There's a lot of things the government could do that could be said to be for our health. It still doesn't give them the right to do it. Just because you can make an excuse as to why something is good doesn't mean you have the right to do it. The government has no right to do this. It doesn't matter what their justification is.

[L8fGLM4d]

There's a lot of things the government could do that could be said to be for our health.

You mean like requiring drivers fasten seat belts, landlords put smoke detectors in hallways, and college students get immunized?

People bitch about every new health code, but I'm afraid no where in the constitution will you find it stated that the "government can't tell me what to do!"

[truck]

dudes.... you do realize that fluoride occurs naturally in ground water, and in some cases water has to be De-fluoridated.

also, we'll all have to stop drinking milk,cleaning our teeth with toothpaste and sprinkling salt on our meals as these too have quantities of natural/added fluoride.

[WepKeyday]

dudes.... you do realize that fluoride occurs naturally in ground water, and in some cases water has to be De-fluoridated.

also, we'll all have to stop drinking milk,cleaning our teeth with toothpaste and sprinkling salt on our meals as these too have quantities of natural/added fluoride.

I'm sure it depends on the quantity consumed. You aren't supposed to swallow toothpaste, but meanwhile I drink at least a gallon of water per day.

[bridsanaeds]

Fluoride might occur naturally, but I know extra is added in parts of the US. It's essentially a poison in the wrong quantities, and something I don't think people should be medicated with, without much choice.

[FoetAgerhot46]

This study seems to think so.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/fea...jean-choi.html

It's an interesting paper. Shame there's a mountain of publication bias in such a topic. Given that so many of the publications were basically rehashings from the same Iranian and Chinese research groups, I am not sure the n was as high as this meta-analysis used for the calculations, which is what allowed them to get a statistical significance out of a mean difference of 0.45 IQ points. Speaking of... a standard deviation in IQ is 15 points... that is a REALLY small difference. In a psychology or psychiatry publication that number would basically be laughable. Finally, quite a few of the papers included in the meta-analysis used fluoride concentrations much higher than are normally used by US municipalities, and that were the result not of deliberate fluoridation of the water, but rather of fluorosis that was secondary to either poor transmission lines contaminated with groundwater fluoride, or industrial pollution... both of which are huge confounding variables.

Look, I can agree that perhaps adding fluoride to the water for everyone isn't necessarily the best idea. This is especially true considering that so many people are dependent on bottled water these days, and would not get the benefit of tap water fluoridation (there are a couple of interesting articles from the past few months demonstrating how this may have contributed to the dramatic resurgence of caries in very young kids). However, the obsession with fluoride highly reminds me of the vaccine debacle.

[haudraufwienix]

It's hardly irrelevant. If adding flouride to drinking water makes us healthier then the government has an obligation to do so. If it doesn't, then they don't.

What about banning junk food? That would probably make people healthier. Should junk food be banned?

[radikal]

What about banning junk food? That would probably make people healthier. Should junk food be banned?

If banning junk fast-food were effective, yes, but an outright ban would be less effective in reducing obesity than other measures I've outlined elsewhere:

1. Tax fast food meals that do not meet minimum health standards by 300%.
2. Nationalize all supermarket chains and use revenue from fast food tax to expand co-ops and greenmarkets.
3. Ban all forms of fast food marketing that target specific urban or ethnic demographics.
4. Mandate healthy cafeteria servings for every school. No exemptions. Students can't bring their junk food from home.
5. Ban HFCS.
6. Ban the use of trans-fat in restaurant food.

[MegaJIT]

1. Tax fast food meals that do not meet minimum health standards by 300%.
2. Nationalize all supermarket chains and use revenue from fast food tax to expand co-ops and greenmarkets.
3. Ban all forms of fast food marketing that target specific urban or ethnic demographics.
4. Mandate healthy cafeteria servings for every school. No exemptions. Students can't bring their junk food from home.
5. Ban HFCS.
6. Ban the use of trans-fat in restaurant food.

or simply stop subsidising corn farmers, which makes HFCS more expensive, which in turn makes addicting fast food more expensive

less regulation, less taxpayer money spendt, same effect

[remstaling]

or simply stop subsidising corn farmers, which makes HFCS more expensive, which in turn makes addicting fast food more expensive

less regulation, less taxpayer money spendt, same effect

All that would do is drive up the price of corn-based products. Farmers grow corn because it is easy to grow and yields the greatest revenue per crop. Eliminate the demand for corn through regulation and they will have to turn to other, healthier produce.

[VewCoorkPow]

If banning junk fast-food were effective, yes, but an outright ban would be less effective in reducing obesity than other measures I've outlined elsewhere:

1. Tax fast food meals that do not meet minimum health standards by 300%.
2. Nationalize all supermarket chains and use revenue from fast food tax to expand co-ops and greenmarkets.
3. Ban all forms of fast food marketing that target specific urban or ethnic demographics.
4. Mandate healthy cafeteria servings for every school. No exemptions. Students can't bring their junk food from home.
5. Ban HFCS.
6. Ban the use of trans-fat in restaurant food.

The problem is that junk food is extremely cheap to produce. A gallon of purple drink is often cheaper than a gallon of water, and you can eat a meal at McDonalds for $2. Healthy food actually has elements of substance inside as opposed to processed waste products. Better education is the only way to improve the future generation's eating habits. I fortunately grew it up a very health conscious household, so I consider myself lucky. However if the only health education I received was from our public school system, I'd probably be 300lbs. "Sin" taxes will allow people a healthier lifestyle as much as the lottery helps improve education.

[Usogwdkb]

The problem is that junk food is extremely cheap to produce. A gallon of purple drink is often cheaper than a gallon of water, and you can eat a meal at McDonalds for $2.

Hence why I propose we tax the **** out of junk food to raise prices. Junk food should be an occasional indulgence, not a daily meal for the poor. It shouldn't be cheaper to buy a McValue meal than to cook a healthy meal at home.

Better education is the only way to improve the future generation's eating habits. I fortunately grew it up a very health conscious household, so I consider myself lucky. However if the only health education I received was from our public school system, I'd probably be 300lbs. Health education is a joke. We've had health education in public schools since at least the 1980s and obesity is still skyrocketing. It's a feel good measure that doesn't step on any toes. Human desire for cheap junk food is far too strong. Unless tougher measures are taken, nothing will change.