4 ms·

Like many of the posters here, I realize that much of the food and drink sold is unhealthy. On the other hand, I don't think that nanny state regulations are t

Like many of the posters here, I realize that much of the food and drink sold is unhealthy. On the other hand, I don't think that nanny state regulations are the answer. Plenty of unhealthy things abound (when overused): chips, candy, pizza, fast food, cookies, ice cream, video games, television, etc. Maybe some of the same marketing tactics used to sell the unhealthy things can also be used to counter them with healthier alternatives.

wpietri 11y ago
That's a pleasant thought, but it seems unlikely. Food advertising gets circa 1000x as much money as healthy eating [1]. I think the simple step here would just be to ban advertising of unhealthy food the same way we've banned advertising of tobacco products. Citizens would still be free to produce and consume junk food, but corporations would no longer be allowed to indulge in industrial-scale manipulation of consumers' habits. That won't happen either, of course, because there's an enormous amount of lobbying money from those industries (and from the advertising/PR/marketing industries). But I can dream. [1] http://consumersunion.org/news/food-industry-advertising-overwhelms-campaign-to-fight-obesity/ http://consumersunion.org/news/food-industry-advertising-ove...
kw71 11y ago
Under a socialized healthcare regime, every sick person is a problem for the whole society in that we have to pay for it. So, being careless with your health is a crime against the people. If you are in the USA, consider that you have been funding healthcare for some of the worst offenders for decades by paying taxes which fund hospitals. Now with the healthcare reforms in mind, which have itemized your contribution to social healthcare separately from your taxes, take a walk around Walmart and consider all the preventable health issues you see in the crowd. Do you really want to pay for that? I feel like you and I should have the freedom not to, and our collective freedom not to is more important than any individual's freedom to eat and drink his way to costly, lifelong illness.
- hugh4 11y ago
  Which is precisely why some of us are opposed to socialised healthcare. Once you have it, every little decision you make becomes everyone else's business.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    You make "socialised healthcare" sounds like we have a NHS food police tracking us and sending us off to a health re-education camp if we don't eat 5 bits of fruit and veg a day.
    - adventured 11y ago
      And even if that were true, they're obviously not doing a very good job of restricting bad food intake given the UK's own obesity problems. If the NHS were following everyone around, they'd have to be stuffing people full of low quality food to get the present outcome.
  - unethical_ban 11y ago
    I completely agree. This is why I've been skeptical of socialist healthcare - your business becomes everybody's business. We MUST have a private option; a way to opt-out of public benefits for healthcare, if we are to maintain the option of freedom.
    - puredemo 11y ago
      That's why the "public option" was such a decent choice. Before it was killed to sell-out to insurance companies.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  It's easy to advocate for collectivism when you think you are in the majority. I am a proponent of universal healthcare, but your comment has me reconsidering. Throwing individuals or subgroups under the bus so disdainfully is just as damaging to our social fabric as eating unhealthily, if not moreso. We need to unify and enlighten ourselves, not look for more excuses to feel morally superior. So whatever solution we can find to obesity, it has to be one that uplifts, not one that alienates.

wpietri 11y ago

That's a pleasant thought, but it seems unlikely. Food advertising gets circa 1000x as much money as healthy eating [1]. I think the simple step here would just be to ban advertising of unhealthy food the same way we've banned advertising of tobacco products. Citizens would still be free to produce and consume junk food, but corporations would no longer be allowed to indulge in industrial-scale manipulation of consumers' habits. That won't happen either, of course, because there's an enormous amount of lobbying money from those industries (and from the advertising/PR/marketing industries). But I can dream. [1] http://consumersunion.org/news/food-industry-advertising-overwhelms-campaign-to-fight-obesity/ http://consumersunion.org/news/food-industry-advertising-ove...

kw71 11y ago

Under a socialized healthcare regime, every sick person is a problem for the whole society in that we have to pay for it. So, being careless with your health is a crime against the people. If you are in the USA, consider that you have been funding healthcare for some of the worst offenders for decades by paying taxes which fund hospitals. Now with the healthcare reforms in mind, which have itemized your contribution to social healthcare separately from your taxes, take a walk around Walmart and consider all the preventable health issues you see in the crowd. Do you really want to pay for that? I feel like you and I should have the freedom not to, and our collective freedom not to is more important than any individual's freedom to eat and drink his way to costly, lifelong illness.

hugh4 11y ago
Which is precisely why some of us are opposed to socialised healthcare. Once you have it, every little decision you make becomes everyone else's business.
- arethuza 11y ago
  You make "socialised healthcare" sounds like we have a NHS food police tracking us and sending us off to a health re-education camp if we don't eat 5 bits of fruit and veg a day.
  - adventured 11y ago
    And even if that were true, they're obviously not doing a very good job of restricting bad food intake given the UK's own obesity problems. If the NHS were following everyone around, they'd have to be stuffing people full of low quality food to get the present outcome.
- unethical_ban 11y ago
  I completely agree. This is why I've been skeptical of socialist healthcare - your business becomes everybody's business. We MUST have a private option; a way to opt-out of public benefits for healthcare, if we are to maintain the option of freedom.
  - puredemo 11y ago
    That's why the "public option" was such a decent choice. Before it was killed to sell-out to insurance companies.
nitrogen 11y ago
It's easy to advocate for collectivism when you think you are in the majority. I am a proponent of universal healthcare, but your comment has me reconsidering. Throwing individuals or subgroups under the bus so disdainfully is just as damaging to our social fabric as eating unhealthily, if not moreso. We need to unify and enlighten ourselves, not look for more excuses to feel morally superior. So whatever solution we can find to obesity, it has to be one that uplifts, not one that alienates.