9 ms·

“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 epidemi

by 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      Under normal circumstances, I'm not. In a public health emergency, I might be.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        If 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 ago
Well, 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 ago
The 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 ago
If 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 ago
It'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 ago
  There'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 ago
    There'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 ago
You'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 ago
  I 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 ago
McDonalds 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 ago
  The downside is that you can't get cheap tasty meals from McDonalds.
  - concinds 10y ago
    On 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 ago
      These 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 ago
        Ok. 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 ago
In 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?

by Zak 10y ago

M_Grey 10y ago

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    Under normal circumstances, I'm not. In a public health emergency, I might be.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      If 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 ago

Well, 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 ago

The 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 ago

If 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 ago

It'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 ago
There'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 ago
  There'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 ago

You'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 ago
I 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 ago

McDonalds 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 ago
The downside is that you can't get cheap tasty meals from McDonalds.
- concinds 10y ago
  On 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 ago
    These 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 ago
      Ok. 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 ago

In 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?