13 ms·
As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food
- Zak 10y ago“Can anyone seriously say that Vanuatu doesn’t have the right to exercise its health sovereignty in every way possible to protect its population from an epidemic of that scale?” I would usually say exactly that. It's up to individuals to make decisions about what they do and do not eat and live with the consequences. Foods that accurately state their nutritional content and contain only ingredients that can be safely eaten in moderation should not be banned under ordinary circumstances because overconsumption is unhealthy. The rate of increase in obesity-related disease, however is astounding and arguably justifies extraordinary measures.
- M_Grey 10y agoI think it has to be filed under, "The constitution is not a suicide pact." No social construct, no system of laws and rights trumps the need to be alive to enjoy them. Given the scale of the problem, they were looking at a situation with an outcome grimmer than most wars. I agree with you, this is extraordinary and requires consummate measures.
- Zak 10y agoI lend a lot of weight to the libertarian non-aggression principle, but I think it's generally a mistake to think about social issues in absolute terms. I really don't like coercion, but the NAP, also shouldn't be a suicide pact.
- noarchy 10y agoIf you're willing to set the NAP aside for junk food, your bar for setting aside the NAP is likely pretty low. But my own perspective is that of a person who scrutinizes what I put in my body. I've never felt that I needed someone else to make that decision for me.
- Zak 10y agoUnder normal circumstances, I'm not. In a public health emergency, I might be.
- M_Grey 10y agoIf someone released smallpox in NYC, it would be reasonable to quarantine the state (at the very least). There would be no argument about the government taking action to prevent the spread of virtually any pathogen, even the more pedestrian like multiple drug resistant TB. People loose sight of reality when they think pure choice is involved though. Food, smoking, drugs... a lot of things only make sense if you're particularly educated, have friends/family struggling with something, are particularly empathetic, or have experienced them.
- mirimir 10y agoWell, that's how I feel about the Drug War :) But I do wonder what the bloody hell is going on in Vanuatu! Maybe Polynesian populations have metabolic adaptations that don't work with high-sugar diets? It does seem so:[0] > Pacific people (especially Micronesian and Polynesian) have some of the highest rates of obesity and diabetes in the world that largely developed since the introduction of western culture and diet. Recent studies suggest that much of the risk relates to the excessive intake of sugar (sucrose) and carbohydrates, leading to a type of fat storage syndrome (metabolic syndrome). Here we discuss some of the environmental, genetic and epigenetic reasons why this group might be especially prone to developing obesity and diabetes compared to other ethnic groups. Indirect evidence suggests that the higher endogenous uric acid levels in the Polynesian-Micronesian population may represent a predisposing factor for the development of obesity and diabetes in the context of Western diets and lifestyles. Pacific people may be an ideal group to study the role of “thrifty genes” in the pathogenesis of the current obesity epidemic. That's arguably a good enough reason to ban junk food imports. 0) http://www.fizz.org.nz/sites/fizz.org.nz/files/2%20Fat%20Storage%20Syndrome%20in%20Pacific%20Peoples.pdf http://www.fizz.org.nz/sites/fizz.org.nz/files/2%20Fat%20Sto...
- nyxtom 10y agoThe headline seems a bit sensational given that the actual ban applies to government and tourist establishments. Seems reasonable that any government should be able to setup standards that have only the jurisdiction to apply to their own entities and/or functions. This doesn't prevent individuals from consuming things as they see fit. " planning to outlaw all imported food at government functions and tourist establishments across the province’s 13 inhabited islands. " Additionally most of these imported items inherently cost more than local foods in a lot of places anyways so it's not completely out of the norm.
- anigbrowl 10y agoIf it's up to individuals, can they not also choose to outsource that job to a governmental agency to establish sensible defaults on their behalf? Note I'm not proposing to prevent anyone who really wants to purchase shitty food from purchasing it, but I do think the costs should reflect the externalities.
- finid 10y agoIt's up to individuals to make decisions about what they do and do not eat and live with the consequences. True, but when that level of individual freedom has negative repercussions on the community, the government has to step in. Else the society will cease to be. Imagine if our (USA) govt allowed us to buy gas (fuel, petrol) with lead in it, ignoring the long term impact of lead in the environment. Individual freedom is not absolute. An one should not be allowed to engage in habits that harms the community in that fashion. Yes, there are things we can't avoid, but when necessary, the govt has the powers to regulate individual habits. Unfortunately for these countries, membership in the WTO does not serve their interests in this regard.
- Zak 10y agoThere's a significant distinction between polluting the environment, which harms other people directly and making unhealthy decisions in one's own life, which has only indirect effects on others.
- tqkxzugoaupvwqr 10y agoThere's the scale of economics. If only few people buy healthy food, supermarkets have no incentive to offer it at all. Even if they offer healthy food, the price is higher because they can't buy in bulk or else they waste much of it.
- lend000 10y ago> If only few people buy healthy food, supermarkets have no incentive to offer it at all. Then how come most grocery stores have healthy food? If it truly was a minority group that wanted to eat healthy food, what right do they have to force the majority to buy what they want to make it more economical? Although the premise is flawed, because the real reason 'healthy food' is expensive is because the foods considered healthy inherently cannot use many methods that increase yield like pesticides. And then some go so far as to claim GMO's are unhealthy/cannot be organic, further driving up the prices of foods that get to wear the healthy food labels. Increasing demand for healthy food would make it more expensive, certainly in the short term.
- smallnamespace 10y agoYou're conflating two different things: 1) whether a sovereign nation has health under its own jurisdiction, and 2) whether a sovereign nation should ban food, given it has the power.
- Zak 10y agoI think there's a third issue, or at least two pieces to your number 2. Whether a government should have the mechanism of banning foods that are safe to eat in moderation available to it is a different question than whether it would be good policy given that mechanism. If the government should be in the habit of regulating nutrition, banning foods with exceptionally poor nutritional qualities is probably good policy, but is that the kind of thing governments should be regulating at all? I would argue that it usually isn't and should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances.
- concinds 10y agoMcDonalds is actively making people less healthy, and profiting from it. Why should they not be banned? Where's the downside to banning them?
- slaveofallah93 10y agoThe downside is that you can't get cheap tasty meals from McDonalds.
- concinds 10y agoOn the one hand, everybody would end up healthier, smarter, more productive, more attractive, richer (less healthcare spending), more psychologically healthy (the gut is the 2nd brain, bad diet means bad emotional health), will live longer, have their friends and family live longer. On the other hand, people will be unable to satisfy their sugar addiction (sugar is completely unnecessary from a nutritional point of view, and harmful even at low doses). Nothing comes "free". If there is an alcoholic in the family, that lowers the whole family's nurturance level, degrades the marriage, increases the probability of divorce, and undeniably hurts the kids. Sugar addiction is no different from alcohol addiction. The addict isn't the only one who suffers. Similarly, if your social circle is fat, you're more likely to be, and stay, fat. Getting rid of junk food has no downsides, unlike getting rid of alcohol. Junk food is harmful even in low doses, whereas alcohol isn't in moderation.
- baddox 10y agoThese two things could both be true: 1) Banning certain restaurants would have a positive net effect on society. 2) Any government with the authority to ban restaurants would choose which restaurants to ban incorrectly, due to honest mistakes, influence from lobbying, or other reasons, and the end net effect on society would be negative.
- concinds 10y agoOk. 1. I support ban/taxes on junk food. 2. Government doesn't do it, does something else. 3. I' still not satisfied, and still support ban/taxes on junk food. I have opinions. So do you. What the government does is irrelevant to what I believe.
- jodrellblank 10y agoIn the same way that vehicles can move thousands of times faster than humans, and metal can be thousands of times stronger than human flesh, is there any good reason to think that marketing manipulation, or market forces, can't be (or become) thousands of times stronger than human willpower?
- nnd 10y agoCan someone explain why the article starts with "HONG KONG"?
- grzm 10y agoIt's a dateline[0], the locale where the author is writing the story. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline
- oddeyed 10y agoUsually that indicates from where the report was filed.
- Jtsummers 10y agoTypically it's where the author submits the story from, even when the story is about a different place.
- Zak 10y agoThe reporter is located there, which makes sense since it's a major city in the region under discussion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline
- dancing_shark 10y agoThis is the "dateline". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline
- mc32 10y agoProbably because Mike Ives is submitting the report from Hong Kong. I guess he could have flown in and done the reporting on-site, but probably was able to get all the information via other means and it didn't require him to go on-site.
- niftich 10y agoThe obesity situation on Pacific islands is a complex interaction of genetics, economics, and geography/geopolitics: a small genetic predisposition to larger frames and more efficient fat storage (described in multiple papers, like this one [1]), poor and underdeveloped economies increasingly unable to compete in a globalized world, and a shift [2] to energy-dense diets driven by affordability, convenience, and long shelf-life necessary to survive a long import journey and inexpensive storage for year-round availability. This, coupled with a "modern" lifestyle of less and less manual labor results in an overabundance of unspent caloric intake. As the article in [2] says, which specifically talks about Micronesia but is applicable elsewhere in the Pacific: "Micronesians are essentially selling their own natural food resources for a fraction of the true value, and then using the revenue to import nutrient-poor food (...) The FSM does not have the infrastructure to realistically compete in the global tuna market. Thus, the current structure of the Pacific tuna industry is an example of how lack of development (partly due to the U.S subsidies and U.S. dependence) has lead the FSM to continue to be dependent on foreign nations. The cash-economy stemming from the tuna industry contributes to the continued cycle of food dependence, imported-food, and poor diet, which is partly responsible for Micronesia's unhealthy, obese population." Edit: As with regard to Vanuatu specifically, you can read a report on their food, agriculture, and fishery situation here [3], authored by FAO of the UN. To paraphrase, widespread industrial fishing by foreign nations was prevalent decades ago, but has since shifted to other Pacific states. Subsistence fishing occurs, but the cash-based economy (i.e. where you buy your food, rather than catch it) is much larger, and the presence of tourism sites has priced most locals out of domestically-caught fish, while leaving imported chicken and domestic beef affordable, as well as imported canned fish. This report doesn't mention foods typically considered junk food, but calorie-dense imports of shelf-stable food are documented elsewhere. [1] http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v48/n9/full/ng.3620.html http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v48/n9/full/ng.3620.html [2] https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1744-8603-2-10 https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10... [3] http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/VUT/profile.htm http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/VUT/profile.htm
- toomanybeersies 10y agoFrom my experience with Polynesians (and since I live in New Zealand, I've met my fair share), it's a cultural issue more than anything else. It may have started for those reasons, but it's being perpetuated by culture. I know of Samoan families that have spent thousands of dollars on corned beef (the stuff in a tin) for weddings. Just the last night I was having dinner with a Samoan bloke, he ate 5 packs of instant noodles, 3 croissants, and half a chicken for dinner. I've seen him also eat 2 tins of spaghetti, 2 tins of corned beef, and half a loaf of white bread for dinner. He's in New Zealand, there's no shortage of fresh food and vegetables, and there's no reason for eating that much food (as everybody else near him points out). Now I'm not sure what made it a cultural thing to eat obscene amounts of food, but it's deeply ingrained, the majority of Polynesians in New Zealand are obese, they have a whole slew of health problems because of it.
- finid 10y agoIn 2011, as a condition for joining, the World Trade Organization ordered Samoa to eliminate the ban within a year. Eliminate a policy designed for the betterment of the population! So that's one of the aims of the WTO, to promote corporate interests, even when it's bad for the general population.
- pjc50 10y agoAnd people wonder why there's an anti-globalisation backlash.
- realusername 10y agoLast time I've tried to argue for the French ban of unlimited soda refills, I was called a "Stalinist" so I probably won't say much on this one. I hope it will help to reduce their obesity rates.
- StavrosK 10y agoThe free refills policy strikes me as very American as well. The other day I paid $3.50 for a 250ml coke at a restaurant when the main course cost $4 :(
- pjc50 10y agoHaving only one soda is definitely as bad as being in the gulag, I'm sure.
- urda 10y agoCan we drop the hyperbole, and no you don't definitely need to exaggerate.
- krisroadruck 10y agoHe wasn't exaggerating he was being sarcastic. He was in fact poking fun at the notion that defending a soda ban was compared to stalinism. Your outrage is misplaced.
- pkaye 10y agoWhy are they considering banning junk food from tourist establishments when it is really the locals with obesity issues? Or is the junk food primary sold in tourist establishments and the locals go there?
- kevin_thibedeau 10y agoThey have the money to subsidize local food.
- bluedino 10y agoStan Efferding, a prominent bodybuilder, powerlifter, and YouTube fitness celebrity does a great talk on how first changed on the islands after they started picking up on American food trends: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s86DJ1pVF0U https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s86DJ1pVF0U
- atomical 10y agoDo you own a cooler within a cooler?
- dropit_sphere 10y agoThis is totally cool. I hope this works for them.
- navs 10y agoIt doesn't help that there are little healthy options in local schools. Most schools have a single privatised canteen that offers a lunch option (typically chicken curry and rice or chicken chow mein) with the rest being soda drinks, chocolate bars or salty chips. I don't remember apples or bananas being an option unless you brought it from home. But you don't want to be the kid eating a banana when everyone around you is guzzling RC Cola (the supposedly healthier alternative to Coca Cola). Pacific Islanders like to eat. I think it's ingrained in their culture. Before you call me out and ask for a citation, let me just say this is based on my experience as a Fiji Islander. But maybe there's no problem with eating a lot, if what you eat is healthy. So instead of reaching for the local produce, the cheaper and more attractive "Western" product wins out. Plus, it's just a tad more cheaper. P.S. It's very easy to buy Singles or Loosies (sp?) in Fiji.
- iopq 10y agoEven if you eat healthy, eating too much is bad if you get fat.
- throwaway399 10y agoAs someone who went to NYC public school where all food options are extremely unhealthy, I can say that this has mostly to do with culture. Eastern European immigrants stayed thin. Chinese immigrants stayed thin. Immigrants from some other countries - mostly south america in my personal experience - all gained weight quickly. The food does make it much easier to gain weight.
- wengachang 10y agoAmericans need to lose weight, seriously. All climate change is caused by Americans eating Beef and Chicken all day long. Also, earth can not sustain human weight because of fat Americans.
- grondilu 10y agoWhy don't they raise taxes instead? At least if it doesn't work they'd make a hell lot of money. I mean, it seems efficient for tobacco in my country (France). I don't know why it couldn't work for junk food.
- true_religion 10y agoIn a lot of countries, it is easier to enforce a public ban than it is to collect taxes. A high tax on imports may simply lead to imports being smuggled in, and tax stamps being forged. A total ban can be trivially enforced---see a junk food container, its illegal.
- tomohawk 10y agoThat Sugar Film talks about the effect on Aborigines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tmNHs7gIc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tmNHs7gIc
- Noos 10y agoI don't know which is worse, moral busy-bodying in the name of religion, or moral busy-bodying in the name of health, or public transport, or many of the pet causes here.