9 ms·

I think regulatory thinking has failed to keep up with health issues. We need to treat excess sugar consumption like we do smoking. Its amazing to me how you ca

I think regulatory thinking has failed to keep up with health issues. We need to treat excess sugar consumption like we do smoking. Its amazing to me how you can walk into a supermarket and be consistently advertised things that are bad for you, a 'sharing' pack of M&Ms 2-for-1. Want to buy a single ice cream? Too bad its actually cheaper to buy a pack of 4, and most singles are out of stock .... Another issue not widely discussed is that 20% of patents are responsible for 80% of the cost. If you look at said 20% more often than not you'll find consistent failure to intervene early enough while the illness is easy to treat.

cies 4y ago
Deep frying, processed meat, air pollution and lack of supersize. But then I believe everyone it entitled to their vice. So please no "forbidding" (as with recreational drugs) but some heavy taxes. The forbidding lead to smth else becoming very dangerous for public health: US police.
- looseyesterday 4y ago
  Yes I agree. I love a good deep-fried chicken and chips as much as anyone. But it should be an occasional treat rather than the cheapest / easiest option to get. Eating healthy is expensive, so its not surprising that most people dont. Tax could help a lot but so could choice architecture, putting fatty / sugary foods out of reach and healthy alternatives at eye level could help alot
  - cies 4y ago
    > Tax could help a lot but so could choice architecture, putting fatty / sugary foods out of reach and healthy alternatives at eye level could help alot I dont like too much govt intervention. Taxing something into oblivion, and forbidding ads seems to me the most acceptable things a govt should be able to implement. Bit like smoking (as OP said).
    - looseyesterday 4y ago
      The thing is there is already company intervention in all this. Supermarkets charge money for the best shelf space. Companies put items with high sugar / fat /salt content on easy to reach items because they are more addictive and lead to further purchases. The consumers are not making an informed choice but are being heavily influenced to do something that is bad for them.
- navane 4y ago
  Sure everyone is entitled to their vice, but should we provide healthcare to people that are consciously, actively destroying their own health? Should we treat lung cancer in smokers? Should we treat diseases in anti-vaccers? Taxing vices makes them proportionally more expensive for the have-nots, without solving any issue. No one gives up smoking or drinking because they don't have the money for it. I say don't forbid, don't tax, but let there be consequences. It must be very frustrating for medical personal to deal with anti-vaccers and heavy smokers. You buy sigarets? Just sign this waiver. Don't get vaccinated? Don't get a check in the system for future treatment.
  - cies 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - ciphol 4y ago
      > Haha... Seriously? This is the narrative that was pushed indeed. Now it turns out that many people ravaged their health with these untested mRNA treatments. Search for myocarditis (even my GP now knows about this). Conspiracy theories much? Myocarditis is extremely rare after mRNA vaccine. Since it's much more common after covid infection, and mRNA vaccines have a significant (though not perfect) preventative effect against infection, these vaccines have significantly decreased the incidence of myocarditis, not increased it. And mRNA vaccines weren't "untested" in 2020 - they'd been under development for nearly 50 years at that point, and the covid ones had been through a series of clinical trials (aka "tests") before becoming available to the public.
      - cies 4y ago
        But then myocarditis is not the only side effect they've hidden from the public. The test data they were eventually ordered to publish (they wanted to hide it for 75 years) show very shitty testing standards. For me that's untested. >they'd been under development for nearly 50 years at that point if they'd been tested okay 50y ago, they'd been on the market then. tested and approved are two different things.
    - 4y ago
glandium 4y ago
In Japan, it's interestingly rarely cheaper to buy packs than to buy the same number of individual items.
- cameronh90 4y ago
  In Japan, packs often seem to contain individually wrapped items. Not sure if that has anything to do with it...
- looseyesterday 4y ago
  In many wester countries there's guidance on how much sugar / fat / salt and individual should have in a single serving. Companies get around this by wrapping two or three single servings into a larger item 'to share' e.g. sneakers are often split in two and the packaging says sharing pack. I am guessing japan has more sensible regulations in this respect.
  - fomine3 4y ago
    Japan have guidance but no regulation, so perhaps they don't need to have 'to share' pack.
pjc50 4y ago
Awful lot of people focused on moralizing about diet when the thing you're most likely to pick up at the store that has an adverse health outcome is the airborne pathogen.
- lm28469 4y ago
  Meanwhile 40+% of american are obese, with most of the western world following the same trend with a bit of delay.

cies 4y ago

Deep frying, processed meat, air pollution and lack of supersize. But then I believe everyone it entitled to their vice. So please no "forbidding" (as with recreational drugs) but some heavy taxes. The forbidding lead to smth else becoming very dangerous for public health: US police.

looseyesterday 4y ago
Yes I agree. I love a good deep-fried chicken and chips as much as anyone. But it should be an occasional treat rather than the cheapest / easiest option to get. Eating healthy is expensive, so its not surprising that most people dont. Tax could help a lot but so could choice architecture, putting fatty / sugary foods out of reach and healthy alternatives at eye level could help alot
- cies 4y ago
  > Tax could help a lot but so could choice architecture, putting fatty / sugary foods out of reach and healthy alternatives at eye level could help alot I dont like too much govt intervention. Taxing something into oblivion, and forbidding ads seems to me the most acceptable things a govt should be able to implement. Bit like smoking (as OP said).
  - looseyesterday 4y ago
    The thing is there is already company intervention in all this. Supermarkets charge money for the best shelf space. Companies put items with high sugar / fat /salt content on easy to reach items because they are more addictive and lead to further purchases. The consumers are not making an informed choice but are being heavily influenced to do something that is bad for them.
navane 4y ago
Sure everyone is entitled to their vice, but should we provide healthcare to people that are consciously, actively destroying their own health? Should we treat lung cancer in smokers? Should we treat diseases in anti-vaccers? Taxing vices makes them proportionally more expensive for the have-nots, without solving any issue. No one gives up smoking or drinking because they don't have the money for it. I say don't forbid, don't tax, but let there be consequences. It must be very frustrating for medical personal to deal with anti-vaccers and heavy smokers. You buy sigarets? Just sign this waiver. Don't get vaccinated? Don't get a check in the system for future treatment.
- cies 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - ciphol 4y ago
    > Haha... Seriously? This is the narrative that was pushed indeed. Now it turns out that many people ravaged their health with these untested mRNA treatments. Search for myocarditis (even my GP now knows about this). Conspiracy theories much? Myocarditis is extremely rare after mRNA vaccine. Since it's much more common after covid infection, and mRNA vaccines have a significant (though not perfect) preventative effect against infection, these vaccines have significantly decreased the incidence of myocarditis, not increased it. And mRNA vaccines weren't "untested" in 2020 - they'd been under development for nearly 50 years at that point, and the covid ones had been through a series of clinical trials (aka "tests") before becoming available to the public.
    - cies 4y ago
      But then myocarditis is not the only side effect they've hidden from the public. The test data they were eventually ordered to publish (they wanted to hide it for 75 years) show very shitty testing standards. For me that's untested. >they'd been under development for nearly 50 years at that point if they'd been tested okay 50y ago, they'd been on the market then. tested and approved are two different things.
  - 4y ago

glandium 4y ago

In Japan, it's interestingly rarely cheaper to buy packs than to buy the same number of individual items.

cameronh90 4y ago
In Japan, packs often seem to contain individually wrapped items. Not sure if that has anything to do with it...
looseyesterday 4y ago
In many wester countries there's guidance on how much sugar / fat / salt and individual should have in a single serving. Companies get around this by wrapping two or three single servings into a larger item 'to share' e.g. sneakers are often split in two and the packaging says sharing pack. I am guessing japan has more sensible regulations in this respect.
- fomine3 4y ago
  Japan have guidance but no regulation, so perhaps they don't need to have 'to share' pack.

pjc50 4y ago

Awful lot of people focused on moralizing about diet when the thing you're most likely to pick up at the store that has an adverse health outcome is the airborne pathogen.

lm28469 4y ago
Meanwhile 40+% of american are obese, with most of the western world following the same trend with a bit of delay.