Usually caused by the sadly completely normal media bullshit nowadays.
They link stuff in multiple locations with different headlines, try sub headlines as links, or simply rotate through several headlines of an article within the first few hours of it being online to see which is the most effective clickbait. Because that’s all that matters.
I read it. Seems to target franchises only. So if you’re a privately owned taco truck serving high calorie fried food, or a sugar-laden ice cream parlor you’re a-ok. But if you’re a franchise salad place you’re screwed.
My point being that it’s a slippery slope to target businesses based on “feelings” instead of facts. Taxing high calorie foods, or added sugars, or fried foods, or any number of health-related measurable things would probably be more productive than aiming at “fast food” or “franchises”.
People got your point the first time, it’s just rubbish. Your stance of superimposed neutrality is what led in a race to the bottom in a lot of countries’ cuisine. We can’t act like every food is equally valid just because some outliers might fall through the cracks, thus protecting international mega corporations. Any regulation would be a net benefit for the population’s nutrition.
I’m not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the proposal but to quote the article (translated into english)
However, the study notes that the sector owes much of its growth to the opening of new outlets rather than to restaurant attendance, which has actually declined slightly. This is precisely one of the arguments put forward by Green Party lawmakers in their amendment to curb the opening of fast-food restaurants.
Which seems to me more like a factually based proposal than one based on ‘feelings’.
However I’ll agree that if the purpose were to tackle health issues stemming from nutrition there would be better ways to tackle the issue. On the other hand, even while not necessarily the best way to deal with this, coming from a health issue related viewpoint, a decline in growth of big fast food chains like McDonalds, would inadvertely aid in health related issues either way.
Either way I doubt the main goal of this proposal is to improve on health issues though, to me it seems to come from a ecological background.
Did you read the article? Because it gets clarified in there.
I don’t know what’s up with the thread name though, the article seems to have a different headline?
Usually caused by the sadly completely normal media bullshit nowadays.
They link stuff in multiple locations with different headlines, try sub headlines as links, or simply rotate through several headlines of an article within the first few hours of it being online to see which is the most effective clickbait. Because that’s all that matters.
I read it. Seems to target franchises only. So if you’re a privately owned taco truck serving high calorie fried food, or a sugar-laden ice cream parlor you’re a-ok. But if you’re a franchise salad place you’re screwed.
My point being that it’s a slippery slope to target businesses based on “feelings” instead of facts. Taxing high calorie foods, or added sugars, or fried foods, or any number of health-related measurable things would probably be more productive than aiming at “fast food” or “franchises”.
People got your point the first time, it’s just rubbish. Your stance of superimposed neutrality is what led in a race to the bottom in a lot of countries’ cuisine. We can’t act like every food is equally valid just because some outliers might fall through the cracks, thus protecting international mega corporations. Any regulation would be a net benefit for the population’s nutrition.
I’m not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the proposal but to quote the article (translated into english)
Which seems to me more like a factually based proposal than one based on ‘feelings’.
However I’ll agree that if the purpose were to tackle health issues stemming from nutrition there would be better ways to tackle the issue. On the other hand, even while not necessarily the best way to deal with this, coming from a health issue related viewpoint, a decline in growth of big fast food chains like McDonalds, would inadvertely aid in health related issues either way.
Either way I doubt the main goal of this proposal is to improve on health issues though, to me it seems to come from a ecological background.