3 ms·
You're assuming some kind of independence of thought and action by the Government. The problem is Government supports many of the dietary and lifestyle changes
by mobilefriendly 10y ago
You're assuming some kind of independence of thought and action by the Government. The problem is Government supports many of the dietary and lifestyle changes behind the obesity epidemic. For example, in my U.S. community, the government builds miles and miles of roads but almost no sidewalks or bike paths. Zoning here encourages the creation of low density subdivisions that are completely car dependent. Nationally, historically the government food scientists have pushed foods like HFCS, trans fat, skim milk, and low fat/high carb diets that newer research shows is part (most?) of the problem. If government didn't subsidize roads, meddle in food choices, and allowed health care insurance companies to charge the obese their actual risk-based cost, the obesity problem might not be as profound.
- fastbeef 10y agoSeeing how the free market tends to optimize for short term gains for private actors at the expense of long term costs to society I'd say government "meddling" is a must in this case. Coca Cola, the poster child for the free market, is selling sugared water which is one of the main causes of the obesity epidemic.
- wongarsu 10y agoObviously there are forms of government intervention that leave us better off than the status quo. The more interesting question is if the existing government intervention improved anything or if it is part of the problem.
- pkaye 10y agoThe government has meddled in many ways: Fat is bad for you. Cholesterol in food is bad for you. Eggs are bad for you. Oats are good for you. No eggs are not so bad. The benefits of oats are not that great. Butter is bad for you. Here eat some vegetable oil and margarine instead. Transfats are okay for you. Oops cholesterol in food has no impact on blood cholesterol. Transfats are very bad for you (sorry about that.) Now we know margarine is worse than butter. But really we don't know which fats are bad for you. Or are carbs worse than fats? Who knows... Really the government doesn't know enough about nutritional science. Neither do the scientists it seems. Nor can we trust the companies. Not sure who to trust.
- Joof 10y agoAnd yet we can probably agree on a few things. Calorie heavy softdrinks with zero nutrients are probably one of the most unhealthy things, but incredibly beneficial to resturaunts due to high markup, long storage times, easy transport and so on. Ordering water when you're out (in America) is often viewed as being cheap. I just prefer water, and not bottled water (it's bad for the environment). Even many waiters may treat you worse for ordering water (since they are paid by meal cost / commission). Our social norms suck.
- pkaye 10y agoSure softdrinks can be bad in excess. However the substitutes like fruit juice are no better (no pulp, sometimes more sugar added) and then there are things like tea and coffee to which people add excess sugar (hello Starbucks) to make it palatable. So it is not just softdrinks that are bad but a wide assortment of drinks with excess sugar.
- Joof 10y agoSoftdrinks and other calory-dense drinks with zero nutrients are bad in excess in the way that eating pure sugar is bad in excess. It becomes an excess very quickly. A small slice of chocolate cake contains more nutrition than a soda, but is more likely to be considered a dessert or unusual treat. Part of the problem is that it becomes a standard part of many meals.