5 ms·

Oh? What should we do?

maxxxxx 9y ago
Stop subsidizing junk food. Stop advertising junk food to children (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food). Subsidize healthy foods. Tax sugary drinks. Do you want more?
- taneq 9y ago
  Also stop normalising excessive portion sizes.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food). Those two things are pretty much completely unrelated. It is certainly bad for children to be exposed to deliberate behavior-mabipulation efforts pushing unhealthy food choices, but that's not in any way related to whether or not it's bad for them to hear words currently viewed as naughty.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads. Same thing. Nobody can talk about first amendment or other concerns.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads. That's even more wrong than the more literal version: restricting unpopular words takes zero political courage and has very little difficulty (and, in fact, provides political cover for advertiser-friendly actions commercial outlets would be inclined to take on their own.) Banning advertisement that established moneyed interests engage in, OTOH, faces actual political difficulty.
      - maxxxxx 9y ago
        Legally it's possible. The only thing that's missing is courage.
- gozur88 9y ago
  There's no evidence any of this actually works, and most people aren't interested in a government that tries to dictate what they should eat.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    Corn is being subsidized right now. This means that the government is dictating already what to eat. At a minimum get rid of subsidies.
  - MarkMc 9y ago
    > There's no evidence any of this actually works, There's plenty of evidence that taxing a product reduces demand for that product > and most people aren't interested in a government that tries to dictate what they should eat. That's true, but it just underscores the ancestor comment: Social acceptance can make most any evil the norm. People accept that the government should regulate what we drink and smoke, but not what we eat - this is partly due to cultural acceptance of obesity
    - gozur88 9y ago
      People accept that the government should regulate what other people drink and smoke. The smoking prohibitions didn't come into effect until the number of smokers was small enough they couldn't stop them, and alcohol prohibition was always the cause of teetotalers and ex-alcoholics.
      - chiefalchemist 9y ago
        Yes. But as things are going it's going to be a long time before over weight ppl are the minority. It's also not politically correct to talk about such things. Thanks Oprah.
    - chiefalchemist 9y ago
      Agreed. We've normalized the abnormal. Furthermore, it's not PC to mention, even in passing, that someone is hurting themselves, and in a social sense others as well. Long to short...we want healthcare as a right, but zero responsibility related to that right (i.e., personal health). This isn't working out well.
flying_kangaroo 9y ago
calories in vs. calories out in around 99% of cases.
taneq 9y ago
Eat less.

Stop subsidizing junk food. Stop advertising junk food to children (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food). Subsidize healthy foods. Tax sugary drinks. Do you want more?

taneq 9y ago
Also stop normalising excessive portion sizes.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food). Those two things are pretty much completely unrelated. It is certainly bad for children to be exposed to deliberate behavior-mabipulation efforts pushing unhealthy food choices, but that's not in any way related to whether or not it's bad for them to hear words currently viewed as naughty.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads. Same thing. Nobody can talk about first amendment or other concerns.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads. That's even more wrong than the more literal version: restricting unpopular words takes zero political courage and has very little difficulty (and, in fact, provides political cover for advertiser-friendly actions commercial outlets would be inclined to take on their own.) Banning advertisement that established moneyed interests engage in, OTOH, faces actual political difficulty.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      Legally it's possible. The only thing that's missing is courage.
gozur88 9y ago
There's no evidence any of this actually works, and most people aren't interested in a government that tries to dictate what they should eat.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Corn is being subsidized right now. This means that the government is dictating already what to eat. At a minimum get rid of subsidies.
- MarkMc 9y ago
  > There's no evidence any of this actually works, There's plenty of evidence that taxing a product reduces demand for that product > and most people aren't interested in a government that tries to dictate what they should eat. That's true, but it just underscores the ancestor comment: Social acceptance can make most any evil the norm. People accept that the government should regulate what we drink and smoke, but not what we eat - this is partly due to cultural acceptance of obesity
  - gozur88 9y ago
    People accept that the government should regulate what other people drink and smoke. The smoking prohibitions didn't come into effect until the number of smokers was small enough they couldn't stop them, and alcohol prohibition was always the cause of teetotalers and ex-alcoholics.
    - chiefalchemist 9y ago
      Yes. But as things are going it's going to be a long time before over weight ppl are the minority. It's also not politically correct to talk about such things. Thanks Oprah.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Agreed. We've normalized the abnormal. Furthermore, it's not PC to mention, even in passing, that someone is hurting themselves, and in a social sense others as well. Long to short...we want healthcare as a right, but zero responsibility related to that right (i.e., personal health). This isn't working out well.

flying_kangaroo 9y ago

calories in vs. calories out in around 99% of cases.

taneq 9y ago

Eat less.