Warning: Your ass is too big!

[trumptman]

Big bottoms (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=422917&in_page_id=1774)

First it is sort of a strange warning in that the clothes do not cause their state, they simply remind them of their state.

Secondly, if you are buying certain sizes, do you not already know that you are heavy/obese?

Nick

[groverat]

The idea that the solution to obesity problems is to merely harangue fat-asses is short-sighted and lazy. There are very real reasons that we have an obesity crisis, and yelling at fatties is not going to solve that problem.

There is an obsession with making fat people feel responsible for their fatness. Are they? Sure. However, there are also biological reasons that certain people are fatter than others. There are biological reasons that certain people feel hunger differently than others.

The cultural focus shouldn't be on this mystical sense of "will power" being a creation of the mind; a simple choice like choosing wheat bread instead of white. It is good to have that idea for yourself on a personal level, but it simply does not translate to the world of public policy.

It is like people want to throw decades of scientific progress in understanding the human body out the window to satisfy aesthetic demands.

[Chris Cuilla]

The Nanny State strikes again.

:(

[SDW2001]

The idea that the solution to obesity problems is to merely harangue fat-asses is short-sighted and lazy. There are very real reasons that we have an obesity crisis, and yelling at fatties is not going to solve that problem.

There is an obsession with making fat people feel responsible for their fatness. Are they? Sure. However, there are also biological reasons that certain people are fatter than others. There are biological reasons that certain people feel hunger differently than others.

The cultural focus shouldn't be on this mystical sense of "will power" being a creation of the mind; a simple choice like choosing wheat bread instead of white. It is good to have that idea for yourself on a personal level, but it simply does not translate to the world of public policy.

It is like people want to throw decades of scientific progress in understanding the human body out the window to satisfy aesthetic demands.

Agreed. There are so many reasons we're fat-asses or think we are. An idea like this is ridiculous.

[MacRR]

Since I exercise regularly and keep in shape- it is hard for me to look at a fat person and feel like it's not their fault as they chow down and then go watch the view.

All people need to do is fukn exercise and watch what they eat. By far- the fattest people I've met are also the ones who practice neither of those behaviors. Throw in the fact that people drive everywhere and the most activity they see is walking to the fridge for the fifth time during prime time, what other physical outcome is possible? You see all these fad diets- and it all rests on eating. Exercise is never a component.

You want see obesity- go to Vegas. I've seen some of the craziest fat configurations on people's frames there. <shudder>

[SDW2001]

Since I exercise regularly and keep in shape- it is hard for me to look at a fat person and feel like it's not their fault as they chow down and then go watch the view.

All people need to do is fukn exercise and watch what they eat. By far- the fattest people I've met are also the ones who practice neither of those behaviors. Throw in the fact that people drive everywhere and the most activity they see is walking to the fridge for the fifth time during prime time, what other physical outcome is possible? You see all these fad diets- and it all rests on eating. Exercise is never a component.

You want see obesity- go to Vegas. I've seen some of the craziest fat configurations on people's frames there. <shudder>


While your first statement is hilarious, I have to disagree with you. People's metabolisms vary widely, as do their tendencies to store fat. In addition, our modern lifestyles make it very difficult not to be sendentary or darn close to it. You can criticize people for not exercising, but the reason they need to do that may be they spend two hours in the car every day getting to work, and another 8 hours behind a desk. When they get hom there are kids and responsibilities and what not. Often they're exhausted from work or what not. Now I agree, exercise would help. But it doesn't always work out that way.

Now let's look at nature. If you look at my brother and I, you'd swear we had different parents. He's thin and I'm fairly heavy. I wouldn't say he can eat anything he wants, but it's close to it. I have to struggle to lose weight. I've done it before, but it takes a lot of exercise and careful monitoring of the diet. Even then, I get to a point where the weight just doesn't go down. I way about 260 pounds now...and I've been as low as 205. At 210 pounds I look like a stick. At 230 I look pretty normal, yet according to the weight tables I'm techically obese. Moreover, my diet, while rich in carbs, is not terrible. I eat little for breakfast and have a reasonable lunh most days. I sometimes eat a little more at dinner. I'm not a huge fan of snacking, especially during the week. In other words, there are plenty of people that eat like I do and are a lot thinner. It's just my body type. In addition, I now have a bad back, which prevents me from walking for exercise or jogging, which I used to do. All I can do is a ride a bike, and in this weather that's not so appealing.

I'm just saying it's not that cut and dried. Some people can watch what they eat and exercise and still not really lose much weight. Add to that our lifestyles and the over abundance of food in Western countries and it's not hard to see why we're all lardos.

[MacRR]

I hear ya, SDW- it's partly our culture- shit, there's fast food EVERYWHERE. People buy food and eat the equivalent of four servings in a handful of bites.

I live in Marin county- and honestly- it is weird to see an obese person here. Everyone is very active in the outdoors (year round because of a mild winter), and fast food restaurants are pretty rare- the exception being the town San Rafael.

But the caveat to that is that most people in Marin are well to do. I think there is a huge correlation to wealth and weight- probably for a myriad of reasons. Being able to afford better quality food, having an infrastructure to incorporate exercise into daily activities- such as Marin where bike paths will get you all the way to Sonoma or to SF, time to exercise, psychological factors, education, etc etc.

I do see people who could be fat, but are just so active they can't be obese- just be large.

I think there is a big difference in someone who is naturally large and someone who is obese. I am trying to make that distinction.

[BR]

Several years ago I reached a peak weight of 260. 1 1/2 years after that I got down to 190. I'm back up to 215 now because my back went out on my severely a year ago and frankly although I'm not happy about it I have just lost so much of the willpower through repetitive injury that I find it nearly impossible now to stay on a strict diet and exercise schedule.

[MarcUK]

I'm just saying it's not that cut and dried. Some people can watch what they eat and exercise and still not really lose much weight. Add to that our lifestyles and the over abundance of food in Western countries and it's not hard to see why we're all lardos.

pile of delusional crock. There is a simple equation that what you put in must equal what goes out, and you stay the same. if you eat more than you burn up you get bigger, and if you eat less than you expend you lose weight.

The tooth fairy doesn't inject your ass with fat, when you're lying asleep in bed. It just aint true.

There were no fat people in Auschwitz

[shetline]

Since I exercise regularly and keep in shape- it is hard for me to look at a fat person and feel like it's not their fault as they chow down and then go watch the view.

All people need to do is fukn exercise and watch what they eat. By far- the fattest people I've met are also the ones who practice neither of those behaviors.
I've been on both sides of this, and learned that there's something a lot of fit people don't realize.

I exercised and watched my diet diligently for a period of around seven years, during which I was very trim and toned. I hadn't been enormously fat before that, and I'm not now, but I weigh a good bit more than I need to now, and definitely could stand to be in much better physical shape.

But I HATED exercising. Every fucking minute of it. It's very hard to do something you dislike five or more times a week for seven years. As soon as I lost part of my free time, when I suddenly no longer could work from home most of the time and had to commute to work, my exercise regimen fell apart.

Practically the only pleasure I ever took from exercise was the relief I felt when I finished a work out. Every once in a while I felt a tingle of goodness while exercising, but it was a pretty tiny reward for the overall unpleasantness and boredom and time taken away from other things I'd much rather have been doing.

I know I should get back into exercising for my own good, and I may even do so after I've recovered from a bit of surgery I have coming up soon -- starting now would be stupid when pretty soon I won't be allowed to do anything strenuous at all for a period of six weeks.

I'm fairly convinced that the majority of exercise devotees don't feel at all like I felt about exercise. I don't discount that there's always some need for discipline for almost anyone who does well at keeping fit, but I think the majority of those people who really stick with it simply enjoy it far more than I did or could. Further, they don't truly understand anyone else not enjoying it. They'll offer oh-so-helpful advice like "just find yourself something that's fun!", and never even consider that for some people there isn't any form or exercise that's fun -- at least a form that's really a proper, total workout that you can do all year round in any weather (without being the kind of adrenaline addict it takes to, say, go jogging or running come snow, rain, sleet, or 95% humidity on a hot summer day).

I enjoyed the results of the exercise such as being toned and trim, and feeling better in a physical sense during the times between exercise -- but I loathed the process. Seven years is a whole lot of loathing to push yourself through. And what's really weird -- because often exercise is recommended for people who suffer from depression -- I suffered from clinical depression while I was exercising, bad enough that I committed myself once for a couple of weeks. As I look back over that period of time, I had the worst depressions when I was working out the hardest, the first bad bout of it when I was forced to complete a phys ed requirement to finish up my degree. I've begun to wonder if I don't have screwy body chemistry that makes exercise have a negative effect on my mood.

The exercise fanatics of the world need to understand that there are plenty of us out there for whom exercise is drudgery at best, nothing but a pure burden of obligation to good health. It's not a diversion, it's not a hobby, it's not an entertainment. We don't all get adrenaline highs, we don't all enjoy "feeling the burn", we don't all love playing team sports.

[MarcUK]

well, there are only 2 choices, exercise or eat less. If exercise isn't your thing....

or you could go to cosmetic surgery - i've seen someone have about 2 stone of butt and stomach removed on tv...pleasant

or maybe try a course of coenzyme A
http://www.answers.com/topic/coenzyme-a
http://www.electronichealing.co.uk/products/coenzyme.htm

[MacRR]

I am no exercise fanatic, and if you are a gym rat- then of course it becomes monotonous.

Me? I mountain bike because it's fun for me, I also play soccer because it's a great time. When I am watching a DVD I do sit ups on one of those blow up yoga balls. I have a pull up bar in the door way of my bedroom that I hit when I wake up. There are literally hundreds of activities you can do besides lay on a couch with dorito crumbs all over your shirt.

You have to make it fun to stick with it. Eat fruits and veggies instead of potato chips.


And really, if you're active enough, you can pretty much eat anything and your body will burn through it.

But the fact remains- if you gain weight because you hate exercising, then the blame lies with you for becoming obese. loathing physical activity is not an acceptable reason to be obese (not saying you are).

I realize it's easier for some people than others. But most times it's outright sedentary lifestyle coupled with a junk ridden diet.

I've met a few people who straight eat everything in sight, will eat off other's plates... hey, your body is going to reflect that.

For me being tone and in shape is the only way i'd ever want to exist. I'd consider myself weak in every way if I wasn't.

[Chris Cuilla]

Isn't the real issue here whether the government (of any nation) needs to step in and tell people that buy certain product (or class of products) that they need to get help?

The debate can rage on and on about self control, diet, exercise, metabolism. But in the end...does the government need to be brought into this matter by mandating a certain kind of warning/instruction on the product?

What's next...people that buy expensive cars getting warnings that perhaps they need to see a counselor about their relationship with money, greed and materialism?

People that watch TV get warnings/instructions that they might want to see someone about how much TV they watch.

Obesity is an unfortunate situation and I hope that I never suffer from it, and that people who do are able to seek and find help (IF THEY WANT TO). But the government doesn't really need to harangue (thanks groverat) people about something they almost certainly already know about.

[gregmightdothat]

pile of delusional crock. There is a simple equation that what you put in must equal what goes out, and you stay the same. if you eat more than you burn up you get bigger, and if you eat less than you expend you lose weight.

The tooth fairy doesn't inject your ass with fat, when you're lying asleep in bed. It just aint true.

There were no fat people in Auschwitz
That's the equation for idiots.

The food you burn is a direct function of your metabolism, which is a direct function of what you eat.

In other words, changing your diet causes your body to compensate in wild, unintuitive ways.

I have a friend who's pretty fat. She literally eats toast for breakfast and a bowl of soup for dinner. That's it. She's starving herself, and her body is hoarding fat to compensate.

The problem is that people have no concept of nutrition, and in an attempt to lose weight, people often eat worse.

[groverat]

But the fact remains- if you gain weight because you hate exercising, then the blame lies with you for becoming obese. loathing physical activity is not an acceptable reason to be obese (not saying you are).

Acceptable?

Loathing physical activity seems like a perfect reason people are obese.

You are moving from logic to social aesthetics and your rage is taking you there.

[Chris Cuilla]

If it's effective than I say it's *good policy*

You anti-government types have a knee-jerk reaction to anything the goverment does, regardless of the merits of the policy.

Stop doing that.

But why must the government be the babysitter on every matter having to do with our lives, health, bodies, etc. That's just nuts. If I want to eat trans-fats at a restaurant in NYC...I should be able to. If I want to drive without a seatbelt or ride a motorcycle without a helmet I should be able to.

Let people be. This is the progressive, technocrat form of being the nosy neighbor from Bewitched. Let people live their lives.

These people know they are obese. They don't really need a reminder. The governmental involvement here is likely to be not effective in any meaningful way and quite likely offensive in some ways. It would be pointless.

Or perhaps I should say:

You pro-government types have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that is bad for people, regardless of the intrusion into people's personal liberty.

Stop doing that.

[Chris Cuilla]

*That's* what I'm talking about.

There you go.

Policy arguments.

More like this!

You seem to be (I could be wrong here) operating from the position that it is incumbent upon those that generally don't think that government needs to step into every area of people's lives to prove that a proposed government intervention is wrong/bad/worthless/etc. ... but it is not incumbent on those that generally think "there oughta be a law" and that the government's role is to "fix things" to prove why they should be stepping in in the first place.

[shetline]

well, there are only 2 choices, exercise or eat less. If exercise isn't your thing....
You really only have one choice... exercise. Attempting to reduce weight through reduction of calorie intake alone is a terrible plan that almost always fails.

Exercise is not very important for the calories you burn doing the exercise itself. The real benefit of exercise is that it builds muscle mass, and muscle mass, even when sitting idle, burns up a lot of calories. You're raising your resting metabolism. Ironically, what you do by exercising is make your body less efficient. You become sort of like a sports car, more powerful, but more wasteful of fuel (calories) at the same time.

By the way, while I'd certainly like to be more trim and tone, my last blood test showed that I have only a 40% chance of heart disease compared to other men my age, so I'm either doing something right, or not doing something so wrong that my basic physiology isn't able to cope with it pretty well.

[shetline]

Why would I think *policymakers* shouldn't

1) evaluate the effectiveness of a proposed or existing policy or
2) weigh sometimes competing rationales?

That's the kind of grown up outlook people on all sides of the debate should approach problems with, not "government shouldn't be doing this because any intervention is bad regardless of any other reason...."
Wow. I'm going to find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Chris on something here.

The "competing rationale" is using the force of law to force someone to meet an obligation that isn't reasonably their obligation. If I make a pair of pants, and you want to buy that pair of pants, that's between you and me. The only place the government should get involved is if I'm trying to cheat you and sell you inferior or dangerous goods.

I rather doubt the efficacy of a "if you're buying these pants, you're too fucking fat" sticker anyway. But even if I take it as a given such stickers would improve public health, such warnings should be voluntary, not mandatory. We have (or are supposed to have) free speech -- that's good enough a mechanism to get the word out.

[Chris Cuilla]

Why would I think *policymakers* shouldn't

1) evaluate the effectiveness of a proposed or existing policy or
2) weigh sometimes competing rationales?

That's the kind of grown up outlook people on all sides of the debate should approach problems with, not "government shouldn't be doing this because any intervention is bad regardless of any other reason...."

It is about presuppositions I guess.

If your presupposition is that government is good and is not only able to but obligated to fix things, then you will assume that the burden of proof of NOT doing a certain gov't policy is on the opposition.

If your presupposition is that government is bad and its actions generally infringe upon people's freedom, then you will assume that the burden of proof DOING a certain gov't policy is on the supporters.

I fall into the latter category. Perhaps you fall into the former.

[Chris Cuilla]

Wow. I'm going to find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Chris on something here.

***zips over to weather.com to check temperatures in hell***

Nope...all is normal there.

;)

[MacRR]

lol- rage?

i don't care if someone wants to be a fat ass and eat themselves into poor mobility and health.

I am just laying it out as it is.

:shrug:

Acceptable?

Loathing physical activity seems like a perfect reason people are obese.

You are moving from logic to social aesthetics and your rage is taking you there.

[MarcUK]

That's the equation for idiots.

The food you burn is a direct function of your metabolism, which is a direct function of what you eat.

In other words, changing your diet causes your body to compensate in wild, unintuitive ways.

I have a friend who's pretty fat. She literally eats toast for breakfast and a bowl of soup for dinner. That's it. She's starving herself, and her body is hoarding fat to compensate.

The problem is that people have no concept of nutrition, and in an attempt to lose weight, people often eat worse.


I wondered how long I could let that one pass,

well done you won today's prize.

As for your friend. I simply wont believe it, that effect only lasts for so long.

[Flounder]

I wondered how long I could let that one pass,

well done you won today's prize.

As for your friend. I simply wont believe it, that effect only lasts for so long.
I think his point may be that there are precious few people who can make it long enough to reach that point and loose a significant amount of weight. When your body thinks it's starving, it takes great pains to save it's energy stores as best it can.

I may not be correct on this point, because it's been a long time since I read anything on this subject (perhaps someone with better knowledge can agree with or refute me), but when someone is in a state of starvation, I think you'll actually loose a certain degree of muscle tissue before your body primarily goes for the fat stores (I think it goes back to the fact the muscle, even just sitting there, uses a relatively large amount of energy and it behooves the body to reduce this commitment).

As shetline said, loosing weight without a regimen of exercise is extremely extremely difficult.

[shetline]

How about a warning sticker on large pants that reads: WARNING! IF THESE PANTS ARE FAR TOO LARGE FOR YOU BODY SIZE AND YOU CONSIDER IT A FASHION STATEMENT TO WEAR THEM DOWN TO YOUR KNEES WITH YOUR WHOLE ASS HANGING OUT YOU ARE IN DANGER OF BECOMING A MORON.

[BRussell]

You folks are all taking this too seriously. This was just some guy making a silly suggestion. How many times do we hear someone say "nuke Iran!" or some other such silly nonsense?

A few points:

There's a reason people have gotten so much fatter in the last 25 years, and it's not because their metabolism has changed, or their genetics have changed, or that they've gotten lazier or now have less willpower. It's partially because of an increasingly sedentary life but, more importantly, it's the increased availability of cheap unhealthy food.

And the reason we are inundated with shitty food is that we have a culture that worships at the shrine of the almighty corporation: If they're making money, they have no other responsibilities. If we instead expected of them the responsibility of good citizenship, they might not feel quite so unconstrained to do whatever they want to make a buck for themselves, treat their employees like chattel, and fill our culture with noxious goods.

This is why people turn to government. People feel like corporations are damaging our societies, and so they turn to government to stop them. How about this: We won't need government to be our nanny if our citizens, including our corporate bosses, start taking some personal responsibility for their actions.

[MacRR]

on the other hand- that law that was just put on the books in NYC banning trans fat is welcomed. It's a harmful substance that has been used to mislead the public in the past into thinking they were eating a fat free product. Laws like that are far more useful then jumbo jeans with a proclamation of one's size.

the article also mentions putting in bike lanes so people can safely commute. That is a great idea- make it useful and attractive for people to exercise. Put incentives- like writing bicycle purchases off as tax deductible. Laws like that are useful- laws banning junk food commercials before 9PM and labeling clothes with a large size with a health warning is useless. You think a lady buying a size 46 dress has any illusions as to her state of being?

[groverat]

MacRR:

I am just laying it out as it is.

"Acceptable". You are attempting to translate your own personal aesthetics to larger moral and policy questions, which you do because of the way fat people make you feel when you look at them. Your mocking characterizations and generalization reveal what kind of feeling that is, as well.



BRussell:

This is why people turn to government. People feel like corporations are damaging our societies, and so they turn to government to stop them. How about this: We won't need government to be our nanny if our citizens, including our corporate bosses, start taking some personal responsibility for their actions.

But that does not work because of the sociological dynamics of large groups. You can either choose to learn the lesson of history and scientific study of human behavior, or you can shake your tiny fist at the oncoming train and pretend that your moral outrage will stop it before it turns you into soup.

We need less outrage. We need more common sense.

Furthermore, why should corporations have the right to prey on the weaknesses of the citizenry? Why do corporations deserve any rights at all? Why shouldn't they be regulated as heavily as we need to maintain our health and happiness?

[Chris Cuilla]

And the reason we are inundated with shitty food is that we have a culture that worships at the shrine of the almighty corporation: If they're making money, they have no other responsibilities. If we instead expected of them the responsibility of good citizenship, they might not feel quite so unconstrained to do whatever they want to make a buck for themselves, treat their employees like chattel, and fill our culture with noxious goods.

Let me see if I have this right...

Someone sells a product. Another person buys it voluntarily. The seller is the one responsible for the use, misuse or abuse of the product sold?

Is that right?

You talk about "corporate responsibilities"...but the reality is about individual responsibilities. McDonald's, et al exists (to the dismay of many) because...well people freely choose to eat there. No one is forcing anyone else to eat "cheap unhealthy food" in this equation. That is a personal choice. We are not lemmings and drones mindlessly doing whatever McDonald's tells us to do. People are free to choose. Some back bad choices (even when they know better). Some make good choices.

We won't need government to be our nanny if our citizens, including our corporate bosses, start taking some personal responsibility for their actions.

How about this...

We don't need government to be our nanny some people just think that we do.

[Chris Cuilla]

on the other hand- that law that was just put on the books in NYC banning trans fat is welcomed.

Wrong. It is a perfect example of the government being a day late and a dollar short...or leading by looking in the rear-view mirror. Trans fats are already on their way out. Customers have spoken and food providers are responding. You cannot walk down the grocery isles without seeing half the products with a little "No Trans Fats" badge on them. But even more important...what right does anyone have to tell me I cannot eat trans fats if I want to?

the article also mentions putting in bike lanes so people can safely commute. That is a great idea- make it useful and attractive for people to exercise. Put incentives- like writing bicycle purchases off as tax deductible.

Isn't being/staying healthy enough of an incentive for people? Do we need to bribe them too (for their own good)?!?! Crazy talk. Why should I have to pay extra taxes to bribe someone (with tax deductions, etc.) to do the things that they are not motivated to do on their own?

[shetline]

Furthermore, why should corporations have the right to prey on the weaknesses of the citizenry? Why do corporations deserve any rights at all? Why shouldn't they be regulated as heavily as we need to maintain our health and happiness?
If a company is actually misrepresenting its products, and exposing the public to health risks because of that, I'm all for government stepping in to do something about it.

I'm also in agreement, at least to some extent, that we should demand more from corporations. I'm all for getting rid of the notion of "corporate personhood" in the law. For one thing, it's all too clear that the corporations get too many of the benefits of being treated as a "person" without having the same risks and responsibilities. Further, incorporation is a bargain struck between a business entity and the public at large where the public agrees to take on much, if not all, of the burden of debt (by being subjected to losses from a corporation's unpaid debts) if the corporation fails. We should demand more in exchange for what we provide from our side of that bargain.

But I think enforcing nannyhood on our corporations for a public unwilling to control its appetites is going too far. If the public doesn't want what's being sold, they shouldn't buy it. Given the freedom to make bad choices, plenty of people will do so, but I'd rather deal with the consequences of that than a government that steps in and says, "Now, now! We can't trust you to take good care of yourselves, so we're going to decide what's right to keep you safe!"

All I really want government to do (apart some very tangential issues that are beside the point here) is to protect me from other people's bad impulses, not, once I'm an adult, my own. Making sure I'm not a victim of other people's bad choices, criminal behavior, and even their well-intentioned but unwanted interventions on my behalf makes sense. Even though I know we'd be better off in some ways by not doing some of things we choose to do to ourselves, I'd rather leave it to social persuasion and cultural movements, even if less than entirely effective, to try to improve such situations.

[Chris Cuilla]

Furthermore, why should corporations have the right to prey on the weaknesses of the citizenry?

What are the "weaknesses" that you speak of? If we are talking about free, honest and voluntary exchanges, how exactly is that predatory?

[BRussell]

Let me see if I have this right...

Someone sells a product. Another person buys it voluntarily. The seller is the one responsible for the use, misuse or abuse of the product sold?

Is that right?

You talk about "corporate responsibilities"...but the reality is about individual responsibilities. McDonald's, et al exists (to the dismay of many) because...well people freely choose to eat there. No one is forcing anyone else to eat "cheap unhealthy food" in this equation. That is a personal choice. We are not lemmings and drones mindlessly doing whatever McDonald's tells us to do. People are free to choose. Some back bad choices (even when they know better). Some make good choices.



How about this...

We don't need government to be our nanny some people just think that we do.What has caused the huge rise in obesity in the past several decades, Chris? Can you answer that as honestly as possible? Even if you did believe in evolution ( :p ), I doubt you'd believe that we have changed biologically in that time span. In my view, the only plausible explanation is that incentives have changed. When incentives change, behavior changes; it's the fundamental rule of economics. And those incentive changes have largely been brought about by "morally neutral" corporations who don't care, and aren't expected to care, whether their effect is negative or positive.

If you disagree with that, let's hear it. I have not at all endorsed the idea that the government has to step in and regulate. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that some people do stupid things and no one else has to stop them. But first I am interested in whether we're even on the same page as to the cause of the problem.

[edit] I'm not trying to be coy or rhetorical by asking that. I just wonder if you agree with me that 1) corporations have a large degree of control over our society's incentives, 2) that they are largely given free reign and are not expected to do anything responsible except make money, and 3) that the incentives they create can dramatically effect us for good or ill. If you do accept that, what do you think will happen in the long run? Do you believe our perceptions of the incentives will change for the good, e.g., people will see what's bad for them and change accordingly? Or do you take a kind of Darwinist approach, that only the dumb ones will get fat? Or do you just not care what happens? Or do you disagree that corporations have any influence on us?

[Chris Cuilla]

What has caused the huge rise in obesity in the past several decades, Chris?

My hypothesis is increased consumption of fat and decrease in physical activity.

When incentives change, behavior changes; it's the fundamental rule of economics.

More precisely, when the cost of X goes down, people will generally consume more of X and vice versa. To a limit (marginal utility and cost and all that).

If you disagree with that, let's hear it.

I don't disagree that cheaper and less healthy food has become more abundant if that is what you are asking.

I have not at all endorsed the idea that the government has to step in and regulate. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that some people do stupid things and no one else has to stop them.

OK. Cool.

But first I am interested in whether we're even on the same page as to the cause of the problem.

We might be.

I say that the cause is to do with people not considering the total (monetary, non-monetary, direct and indirect) costs of eating "cheap unhealthy foods" (as well as getting less exercise) and therefore making poor choices about diet and exercise.

I just wonder if you agree with me that 1) corporations have a large degree of control over our society's incentives,

No I don't. I think corporations primarily respond to customer demand.

2) that they are largely given free reign and are not expected to do anything responsible except make money,

Yes. That is the responsbility a corporation has to its investors.

and 3) that the incentives they create can dramatically effect us for good or ill.

If, as individuals, we choose to let them, yes. But again...the reason some place like McD's sells a gajillion burgers a year is because people want to buy them. As soon as people want to buy a gajillion salads a year, that's what they will sell.

what do you think will happen in the long run?

In the long run people will see the ill-effects of eating high fat and sugar foods and getting no exercise and choose (if it is important to them) to change their buy, eating and exercising habits.

Do you believe our perceptions of the incentives will change for the good, e.g., people will see what's bad for them and change accordingly?

I think we see it happening already. Not for everyone mind you. But for many indeed.

Or do you take a kind of Darwinist approach, that only the dumb ones will get fat?

I take the approach that people should be free to choose to eat what they wish. I take the approach that no one has the right to force another to eat (or not eat) some particular thing. I take the approach that we will (and do) have people (outside of government) that are concerned enough about these issues research them and to inform all of us about them.

Or do you just not care what happens?

Of course I care. But I don't consider it my right to tell people what to do.

Or do you disagree that corporations have any influence on us?

Influence? Probably. But really only to the extent that we choose to be influenced.

Control? Not so much.

Bottom line? People are not generally forced into the choices they are making. They are choosing them freely.

Those that are greatly concerned about those choices are free to use their freedom of expression to inform and educate all of us about the risks and then we can all make better informed choices (if we want to). I am also free to actively educate and inform myself (and family and friends). But I am not free to force anyone (well...I guess I can make my kids eat their veggies before their ice cream ;)) to do anything about it.

[dmz]

This is a very good example of attempting to solve a problem that operates at a moral/philosophical/mucho personal level, with a political solution. They're trying this in Iraq at the moment -- it won't work.

People don't learn from experience, they learn in terms of belief.

[groverat]

shetline:

If a company is actually misrepresenting its products, and exposing the public to health risks because of that, I'm all for government stepping in to do something about it.

Misrepresenting their products is exactly what fast/junk food companies do. It is the entirety of their marketing strategy.

But I think enforcing nannyhood on our corporations for a public unwilling to control its appetites is going too far.

Again, we get back to ignoring reality to satisfy anger against fat people for being so ugly. You say "unwilling to control its appetites" as if it is a simple matter of choice; paper or plastic.

It is possible to acknowledge a verifiable social weakness to resist certain things without abdicating all notions of personal responsibility. I would contend that we must understand as much as we can about why we do what we do before we can even begin to achieve true personal responsibility.

Do we want results or do we want to be satiated by our own moral outrage? What is it about a fat body that makes us turn off our minds?


Chris Cuilla:

What are the "weaknesses" that you speak of?

- The addictive nature of many modern "junk" foods that trigger neurological reactions.
- The specific, targeted marketing towards unprotected groups like children.
- The free use, by food makers, of horribly unhealthy additives and ingredients in the food they produce.

Those are just a few.

[Chris Cuilla]

Misrepresenting their products is exactly what fast/junk food companies do. It is the entirety of their marketing strategy.

You are reaching. Misrepresenting? Are they lying? Are people all just too stupid to see past marketing representations and claims? Is that it?


- The addictive nature of many modern "junk" foods that trigger neurological reactions.
- The specific, targeted marketing towards unprotected groups like children.
- The free use, by food makers, of horribly unhealthy additives and ingredients in the food they produce.

- Link?
- Unprotected? Which kids? Yours? Not mine.
- Don't eat it then. We have no self-control?

[MacRR]

Well, for sure I don't find obesity attractive.

So?

I am still not in a rage about it :).


And actually- people being healthy benefits everyone- not just themselves. See my response to Chris where I expound upon that.

MacRR:



"Acceptable". You are attempting to translate your own personal aesthetics to larger moral and policy questions, which you do because of the way fat people make you feel when you look at them. Your mocking characterizations and generalization reveal what kind of feeling that is, as well.

[Chris Cuilla]

And actually- people being healthy benefits everyone- not just themselves.

But this reasoning is not sufficient justification to limit another person's freedom to do what they wish with their own bodies.

[MacRR]

I totally agree with you. It should have been done a long time ago. I really adjusted my diet to completely avoid that and high fructose syrup a while ago, and it's nice to see companies catching up due to bad press raising awareness. Before that they just labeled their food fat free even though trans fat was in the product. Passing laws against it sort of raises the social conscious level about the food people eat. It had a halo effect- even walmart is selling organic labeled food. THE FDA really fucked up on this. But I am happy it's headed in the right direction. BTw- if you want to eat trans fat just to prove a point, that's ridiculous. BTW_ that no trans fat badge doesn't mean there is 0 in there. It just has to be below a very small amount to earn that badge. You really have to check to see if there is anything hydrogenated or partially so to really know.

Like I said earlier- I live in Marin county. Go look it up. It has all kinds of incentives to ride your bike to work- including an amazing system of bike paths that could take you to wine country. Most was built from federal grants and voter based tax initiatives. And it shows- on any given day- especially a nice sunny day- you'll see crowds upon crowds of people running, playing soccer in the many parks, biking- there are many state parks - including Mt. Tam to go and ride on trails- and it shows in how in shape people are around here. People are generally very friendly, happy and in great shape. The neighborhoods are amazing.

As far as extra taxes- they sure beat the medicare and disability taxes you end up paying to subsidize all these obese people's eating habits. Not only in cost, but in the health of our country.



Wrong. It is a perfect example of the government being a day late and a dollar short...or leading by looking in the rear-view mirror. Trans fats are already on their way out. Customers have spoken and food providers are responding. You cannot walk down the grocery isles without seeing half the products with a little "No Trans Fats" badge on them. But even more important...what right does anyone have to tell me I cannot eat trans fats if I want to?



Isn't being/staying healthy enough of an incentive for people? Do we need to bribe them too (for their own good)?!?! Crazy talk. Why should I have to pay extra taxes to bribe someone (with tax deductions, etc.) to do the things that they are not motivated to do on their own?

[MacRR]

Do you think heroin should be illegal?



But this reasoning is not sufficient justification to limit another person's freedom to do what they wish with their own bodies.

[Chris Cuilla]

Do you think heroin should be illegal?

Probably not. No.

[Chris Cuilla]

I totally agree with you.

I'm not sure you really do...

It should have been done a long time ago.

If you mean governmen intervention, I disagree.

I really adjusted my diet to completely avoid that and high fructose syrup a while ago,

See...that wasn't so hard. No government nanny required.

and it's nice to see companies catching up due to bad press raising awareness.

Once again...perfect. Companies responding to the market.

BTw- if you want to eat trans fat just to prove a point, that's ridiculous.

Perhaps. But what difference does it make to you, and what right do you have to forcibly prevent me from doing so?

Like I said earlier- I live in Marin county. Go look it up. It has all kinds of incentives to ride your bike to work- including an amazing system of bike paths that could take you to wine country. Most was built from federal grants and voter based tax initiatives.

Glad to here that tax money was taken from me to benefit you. Congratulations.

[SpamSandwich]

Do you think heroin should be illegal?

Currently illegal drugs should be made legal, but prohibited from sale to minors.

[groverat]

Chris Cuilla:

You are reaching. Misrepresenting? Are they lying? Are people all just too stupid to see past marketing representations and claims? Is that it?

If there is something to "see past" are they being honest?

Why should corporations have the freedom to be even slightly dishonest in the way their product is portrayed? This is the question you are avoiding. You want me to pretend that corporate marketing is something inalienable like an individual's right to practice religion.

Link?

Not that it will do any good, but here you go (http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/food/junkfood_addiction/).

Unprotected? Which kids? Yours? Not mine.

Kids in general.
Should we market pornography to kids? Guns? Cigarettes? Alcohol? If not, why not? And if not, why should junk/fast food be allowed?

You are for government regulation, and all your "nanny state" rhetoric is a mask behind which you hide when you don't want to bother thinking critically.

Don't eat it then. We have no self-control?

"Self-control" is not a universal concept that everyone has. Feelings of hunger are based in chemicals and many people do not feel hunger the same way. Some people <b>cannot</b> ever get the "full" signal. And there are spectrums from minor to extreme.

Why do people think the body is a simple machine that is produced like an engine on an assembly line, all working the same?

[Chris Cuilla]

If there is something to "see past" are they being honest?

I don't know. You're the one that made the claim. I am suggesting that I trust people to be able to see past anything that might be "misleading" without being an outright lie. Lies and direct deception are certainly a different matter.

Why should corporations have the freedom to be even slightly dishonest in the way their product is portrayed? This is the question you are avoiding.

Tell you what, you quantify "slightly dishonest" for me, then we might have something to talk about. Until then, you are hand-waving.

You want me to pretend that corporate marketing is something inalienable like an individual's right to practice religion.

Well, I think you are going straw man here. What I have said is that people should be free to engage in free, honest and voluntary exchanges. Should corporations be allowed to lie and deceieve and defraud. No, of course not. Nor should people...and after all corporations are simply a proxy for people (its investors).

Not that it will do any good, but here you go (http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/food/junkfood_addiction/).

I'll check it out. BTW...people are known to be addicted to both pornography and sex. Should these be banned or regulated as well? People get addicted to gambling as well. Alchohol (we tried banning that once...didn't work very well). Etc.

Kids in general.

Ah..."kids in general"...got it. :rolleyes:

Tell you what. I'll protect mine. You protect yours. Etc....

Should we market pornography to kids? Guns? Cigarettes? Alcohol? If not, why not?

I certainly think, reasonably so, that children are an execption to the idea that adults should be allowed to engage in free, honest, voluntary exchanges. Children certainly should be protected, and the guardian is the parent. Any adult attempting to enter into an exchange with a child would be violating this principle. Advertising to children doesn't really qualify. Unless mom and dad let junior have the credit card and free reign. Then it is really mom and dad that are responsible for abdicating their responsibiities for protecting their children.

You are for government regulation,

Well I am certainly not an anarchist. I do believe in a (much) smaller government than we current "enjoy". The primary function of government should be to protect its citizens and their property from violence, force, coercion as perpetrated by others. When you start moving beyond this, things get shaky quickly. I see the government having a role to adjudicate these kinds of violations and to protect the rights of its citizenry. When we get into things like banning trans-fats and mandating warning tags on clothing we've moved well beyond this...but it was wall quite predictable...because as soon as we decide that the government had a role in protecting people from themselves and regulating what they can put into their bodies, there are really no logical limits.

and all your "nanny state" rhetoric is a mask behind which you hide when you don't want to bother thinking critically.

Quite incorrect sir. But if it makes you feel better...go ahead and believe it.

In fact, I have been thinking critically about these questions for quite some time. I have been reading. Thinking. Trying to understand. In the end I find it difficult to find justification for me (or anyone else) to have the right to use the force of government to restrict the freedoms of people short of preventing them from doing direct harm to another person or their property. Most things that we regulate through the government these days don't really meet this criteria upon a closer...ahem...critical...evaluation.

"Self-control" is not a universal concept that everyone has. Feelings of hunger are based in chemicals and many people do not feel hunger the same way. Some people <b>cannot</b> ever get the "full" signal. And there are spectrums from minor to extreme.

I know...I know...we have to protect people from themselves.

[Chris Cuilla]

Not that it will do any good, but here you go (http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/food/junkfood_addiction/).

Please tell me that isn't the best you have to support the addiction claim?!?!

A handful of anecdotal stories. The one hard scientific thing (the dopamine angle) is qualified as follows: "It’s not clear, according to Volkow, if all this is the cause or the consequence of obesity."

:rolleyes:

In either case there are certainly other substances and/or activities (sex, porn, alchohol, shopping, money, etc.) that are addictive. Should we ban them? Restrict them severly? How? Where?

[Frank777]

Laws should be tightened so that ALL companies that offer food for sale have to show nutritional information on the packaging. Random checks by government nutrition labs accompanied by stiff fines for dishonesty or non-compliance should follow.

From there, we can let the Market sort things out, but certainly not before.

[midwinter]

This question is immensely complicated, and I don't think it's simply a matter of individual behaviors. The English reaction there (and that horrid jab at Dawn French! Poor Vicar of Dibley!) is tied into the national health service, and while dmz wants to claim it hopelessly unsolvable as framed, the fact of the matter is that the health care system in England means that the gov't IS involved in this, like it or not.

Our notions of weight are a moving target, and they are tied to assumptions about "moral fiber" and willpower and character and class. All but the last are relatively new, since weight and ideals of beauty have always been tied to class (rubenesque women are appealing in a culture where their weight suggests they have money and leisure; fit bodies are appealing now because they suggest someone has the leisure time to work out).

[Gon]

It is possible to acknowledge a verifiable social weakness to resist certain things without abdicating all notions of personal responsibility.Are you thinking of widespread personal weakness, genetics-tied biological weakness suffered by all or part of our species, or cultural weakness from lack of knowledge or unhealthy ideals? These are all very different things.I would contend that we must understand as much as we can about why we do what we do before we can even begin to achieve true personal responsibility.I have spent quite a bit of time with psychology, biology, elementary economics and game theory and introspection to understand why I do what I do, how I'm "wired". Are you suggesting that I can only be truly responsible after this process? If my previous understanding was insufficient, then I would think am at least responsible for actively furthering my understanding. If I wouldn't try to do that, I'd be responsible for my own ignorance and by proxy the poor decisions I make.- The addictive nature of many modern "junk" foods that trigger neurological reactions.Sugar has always triggered insulin spikes. Eating lots of carbs and energy in general has always made you fat unless accompanied by a huge energy sink such as physical labor. What's the crime of the current fast food - tasting good? You know that's addictive too.- The free use, by food makers, of horribly unhealthy additives and ingredients in the food they produce."Horribly unhealthy", huh. In an otherwise healthy lifestyle, will occasional fast food meals have a tangible downside to you? I think not.

[dmz]

This question is immensely complicated, and I don't think it's simply a matter of individual behaviors. The English reaction there (and that horrid jab at Dawn French! Poor Vicar of Dibley!) is tied into the national health service, and while dmz wants to claim it hopelessly unsolvable as framed, the fact of the matter is that the health care system in England means that the gov't IS involved in this, like it or not.

Our notions of weight are a moving target, and they are tied to assumptions about "moral fiber" and willpower and character and class. All but the last are relatively new, since weight and ideals of beauty have always been tied to class (rubenesque women are appealing in a culture where their weight suggests they have money and leisure; fit bodies are appealing now because they suggest someone has the leisure time to work out).
Here's something else -- you mentioned [British] health care. Let's through in the American attitude on health care -- doctors as pill fairies. I think there is a 'hey, I'm morbidly obese, so what, the docs can treat my diabetes, hypertension.....' attitude that is so American. 'If I want health, I'll just buy it' -- it's so hooked into things that you will never separate it from the problem.

[Aquatic]

You folks are all taking this too seriously. This was just some guy making a silly suggestion. How many times do we hear someone say "nuke Iran!" or some other such silly nonsense?

A few points:

There's a reason people have gotten so much fatter in the last 25 years, and it's not because their metabolism has changed, or their genetics have changed, or that they've gotten lazier or now have less willpower. It's partially because of an increasingly sedentary life but, more importantly, it's the increased availability of cheap unhealthy food.

And the reason we are inundated with shitty food is that we have a culture that worships at the shrine of the almighty corporation: If they're making money, they have no other responsibilities. If we instead expected of them the responsibility of good citizenship, they might not feel quite so unconstrained to do whatever they want to make a buck for themselves, treat their employees like chattel, and fill our culture with noxious goods.

This is why people turn to government. People feel like corporations are damaging our societies, and so they turn to government to stop them. How about this: We won't need government to be our nanny if our citizens, including our corporate bosses, start taking some personal responsibility for their actions.

That's another all-time best post I've ever read.

It's simple. Americans need to eat less bread and more lean meat and sub veggies for bread. The food pyramid is WRONG. Of course they also need to move more, but rom my reading so far it seems what you eat is even more important than excercising. And I don't LIKE lifting weights. But as someone else said, I do love doing things outdoors such as mountain biking. Life is what you make it. If you want to eat chips and watch TV, great. I just don't want to pay for your healthcare. Isn't obesity classified as a disease now? I wonder what implications that has upon the taxpayer, footing Medicare/Medicaid bills. I'm getting more conservative by the second...it's kinda scary. Am I a jerk? Maybe. It's actually easy to eat right though. Don't go in to the aisles in the grocery store. Stay at the edges; buy meat, produce, other fresh food. Yes, I just read The Zone, perhaps it's apparent! It's all about the carbs. You should eat 3 g of protein for every 4 g of carbs.
Another thing I heard is to eat 80% of what you WANT to eat. I've been doing that for a few weeks and it is working. After ten minutes, the delayed hunger sensor kicks in and tells you "OK, you're full." And I don't feel bloated. I've been eating 80% of what I would have been eating, for three weeks. I feel the same. Wasn't hard. Try it. It's hard for about 10 minutes and then you're in the clear.

[groverat]

Chris Cuilla:

Portraying fast food as part of an active, healthy lifestyle is "slightly dishonest". Having nothing but thin, upper-middle class people shown as customers is "slightly dishonest".

Nor should people...and after all corporations are simply a proxy for people (its investors).

You are fine with assigning human rights to an invisible, intangible, unaccountable proxy? Even when those rights conflict with the health and safety of actual humans?

Please tell me that isn't the best you have to support the addiction claim?!?!

What I find really amazing is that you left the last sentence of that paragraph off, which reads: " But what is clear, she says, is that obese people need to eat more to feel satisfied."

You chopped that last sentence off the paragraph, why? Because you are being dishonest in your characterization of the research.

Children certainly should be protected, and the guardian is the parent. Any adult attempting to enter into an exchange with a child would be violating this principle. Advertising to children doesn't really qualify.

You did not answer my question. It is "yes" or "no" followed by an explanation; instead you ran for cover and hid. Stand up and make your point.
Should we market pornography to kids? Guns? Cigarettes? Alcohol? If not, why not?

When we get into things like banning trans-fats and mandating warning tags on clothing we've moved well beyond this...but it was wall quite predictable...because as soon as we decide that the government had a role in protecting people from themselves and regulating what they can put into their bodies, there are really no logical limits.

So we should be able to sell anything that is ingestible?
Should I be legally allowed to sell bathtub meth to kindergartners? To adults?

Why not try answering one of these questions with a straight answer sometime?


Gon:

Are you thinking of widespread personal weakness, genetics-tied biological weakness suffered by all or part of our species, or cultural weakness from lack of knowledge or unhealthy ideals? These are all very different things.

They are all different things, and I do not understand why I can only choose one.

Are you suggesting that I can only be truly responsible after this process?

No, as I said much earlier, this kind of attitude is fine on a personal level, but it falls apart at the level of personal policy. I can make decisions for myself based on half-information and maybe get it right, but when it comes to making decisions that impact hundreds of millions, we had better do the research and think about it.

Sugar has always triggered insulin spikes. Eating lots of carbs and energy in general has always made you fat unless accompanied by a huge energy sink such as physical labor. What's the crime of the current fast food - tasting good? You know that's addictive too.

If only we used actual sugar.

Our perspective as a culture is completely screwed up; our attitude should be trying to help the actual physical people in our society, not haranguing them while trying our best to apologize for fast food and junk food producers.

"Horribly unhealthy", huh. In an otherwise healthy lifestyle, will occasional fast food meals have a tangible downside to you? I think not.

We do not lead physical lifestyles that allow fast food and health, how can you not see that? How can you see a nation drowning in its own fat, buying diet and self-help books as fast as they can be printed, and still think this is a matter of individuals making some different choices.

Our entire economy is geared to remove all physical labor from our jobs. Also, our economy is geared to have us work a whole lot of hours. Our whole system is geared to keep us sedentary and eating crap for food.

You can acknowledge the reality of the situation or you can shake your tiny fist at the oncoming train. Make a choice.

Why not heavily regulate fast/junk food to protect against the very real crisis facing our country? If you acknowledge that it is a problem, why not regulate the corporations?

Also, why is this false choice dilemma presented that either we regulate fast/junk food corporations or make cultural changes that lead to a healthier lifestyle. Let's do both!

[Chris Cuilla]

Portraying fast food as part of an active, healthy lifestyle is "slightly dishonest". Having nothing but thin, upper-middle class people shown as customers is "slightly dishonest".

And you believe that people are too stupid to see through any marketing and draw their own conclusions and make their choices about what to eat, how much and from where. Its really that simple. Deny it if you like, but that is the essence of what you are saying here.

You are fine with assigning human rights to an invisible, intangible, unaccountable proxy? Even when those rights conflict with the health and safety of actual humans?

You have erected this vague notion of "conflict with the health and safety of actual humans"...are corporations forcing anyone to purchase and use their products or are people voluntarily purchasing them and using them? NOTE: This same issue would exist whether it was a corporation or an individual selling the products.

What I find really amazing is that you left the last sentence of that paragraph off, which reads: " But what is clear, she says, is that obese people need to eat more to feel satisfied."

What I find really amazing is the rhetorical bait and switch you are attempting by trying to assume and/or imply that this applies only to fast food or some such thing.

Should we market pornography to kids? Guns? Cigarettes? Alcohol? If not, why not?

No. Because they are children.

Now my turn...many things can be addictive (sex, porn, alchohol, pharmaceuticals, TV, shopping, money, etc.) to some people, what should the government do about these things?

Why not try answering one of these questions with a straight answer sometime?

You first. ;)

[groverat]

Chris Cuilla:

And you believe that people are too stupid to see through any marketing and draw their own conclusions and make their choices about what to eat, how much and from where. Its really that simple. Deny it if you like, but that is the essence of what you are saying here.

I do not think it is a matter of stupidity, I think it is a matter of psychological training, practical pressures, and physiological imperatives.

You have erected this vague notion of "conflict with the health and safety of actual humans"...are corporations forcing anyone to purchase and use their products or are people voluntarily purchasing them and using them? NOTE: This same issue would exist whether it was a corporation or an individual selling the products.

You are creating a false choice: either corporations are "forcing" people to do something -or- they are to be held unaccountable. The line between being forced to do something and volunteering to do something is blurred by advertising and addiciton. My choice to not buy a PS3 is not the same as a heroin addict's choice to buy heroin.

Further, quitting bad food is not the same as quitting drugs, because you have to have food.

What I find really amazing is the rhetorical bait and switch you are attempting by trying to assume and/or imply that this applies only to fast food or some such thing.

What on earth do you mean by this?

No. Because they are children.

Should McDonald's and Coca-Cola be allowed to advertise to children? If so, why them and not RJ Reynolds?

Now my turn...many things can be addictive (sex, porn, alchohol, pharmaceuticals, TV, shopping, money, etc.) to some people, what should the government do about these things?

We already regulate pharmaceuticals, pornography, and alcohol.
I do not know what mechanism we would use to solve TV, shopping, money, or sex addition, and you have not made any case at all that those addictions present the danger to the health and safety of Americans that obesity presents.

Now answer my questions:
Should I be able to sell methamphetamines to adults? Heroin? Crack? AK-47s? Teenagers?

[Chris Cuilla]

I do not think it is a matter of stupidity, I think it is a matter of psychological training, practical pressures, and physiological imperatives.

Let me ask this straight out...do you believe that people are capable of making choices on their own regardless of what advertising might try and persuade them to do?

You are creating a false choice: either corporations are "forcing" people to do something -or- they are to be held unaccountable.

And you have now evaded answering twice.

The line between being forced to do something and volunteering to do something is blurred by advertising and addiciton.

You continue with this addiction red herring. We're getting nowhere.

What on earth do you mean by this?

Exactly why I said. You are attempting to make it about fast food...when it is really about food generally. Some people become addicted to eating or consuming food. OK. What are we (or the government) to do about this?

We already regulate pharmaceuticals, pornography, and alcohol.

But these things are all still (easily) available to people that might become addicted. So what is your point?

I do not know what mechanism we would use to solve TV, shopping, money, or sex addition, and you have not made any case at all that those addictions present the danger to the health and safety of Americans that obesity presents.

You haven't really made any case at all. But I see it is about the degree of addiction or what-not. This is really getting to be a pretty weak argument (well it started out that way and has really improved).

Why don't you simply admit the fact that this is all merely a smoke screen to disguise the fact that you are moralizing here and that you believe that you (through the government) feel you have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? That's really what this boils down to. I mean addiction or not, you have yet to make any coherent argument for the government's (or your) right to tell me what I can and cannot freely and voluntarily consume into my own body.

[midwinter]

Here's something else -- you mentioned [British] health care. Let's through in the American attitude on health care -- doctors as pill fairies. I think there is a 'hey, I'm morbidly obese, so what, the docs can treat my diabetes, hypertension.....' attitude that is so American. 'If I want health, I'll just buy it' -- it's so hooked into things that you will never separate it from the problem.

Indeed. That's a function of our increasingly mechanized view of the body—it's just a bunch of parts to be tuned up/fixed/repaired.

[shetline]

Indeed. That's a function of our increasingly mechanized view of the body—it's just a bunch of parts to be tuned up/fixed/repaired.
I wouldn't mind applying that view of the body at all, if only we we're far, far better at manipulating and fixing our bodies, and at a reasonable cost, than we are today.

[midwinter]

I wouldn't mind applying that view of the body at all, if only we we're far, far better at manipulating and fixing our bodies, and at a reasonable cost, than we are today.

Of course you don't mind it. You're in the middle of an age where it seems completely intuitive. ;)

But the implications are pretty serious: the body becomes a disposable object that can be abused/altered/changed/improved at will. A while back, Harper's printed an essay called "Dr. Daedalus" that was about this kind of thing—a plastic surgeon who wants to give people wings and stuff like that.

[MarcUK]

so what 'harm' would be done by goverments banning all the crap artificial chemicals that go into our food?

[Chucker]

so what 'harm' would be done by goverments banning all the crap artificial chemicals that go into our food?

It requires additional bureaucracy, such as officials that have to perform regular checks, which in turn costs everyone (including those who eat responsibly) more.

[MarcUK]

as i thought, it would be a case of adding a few cents to a loaf of bread in the short term, is this cost not offset by falling heath care costs related to obesity?

[Chucker]

as i thought, it would be a case of adding a few cents to a loaf of bread in the short term, is this cost not offset by falling heath care costs related to obesity?

That's quite possible, yes.

[MarcUK]

That's quite possible, yes.

so in actual fact, there is no harm in telling greedy faceless corperations that they aren't allowed to include toxic chemicals in food that slowly kill us?

[Chucker]

Yes, there is. I've pointed it out. Whether it outweighs other costs we currently have is another question entirely.

[MarcUK]

Chris Cuilla:

Why not heavily regulate fast/junk food to protect against the very real crisis facing our country? If you acknowledge that it is a problem, why not regulate the corporations?

Also, why is this false choice dilemma presented that either we regulate fast/junk food corporations or make cultural changes that lead to a healthier lifestyle. Let's do both!

Fast food, toxic food, is a bigger threat to national security than dopey arabs welled up in caves.

Corperations dont give a flying fcuk, if it were legal to use rat poison instead of flour they would use it if it added a few bucks to the bottom line.

Im sure certain people wouldn't see a problem with this, aslong as the concept of 'freedom to eat shit' was upheld.

[groverat]

Chris Cuilla:

Let me ask this straight out...do you believe that people are capable of making choices on their own regardless of what advertising might try and persuade them to do?

Absolutely, yes, but you cannot just say "Aha! People can make choices therefore let's shut down all thought and put it on their shoulders to fight whatever temptation and addiction might be thrown their way!"
The complexity of this answer comes in to the level of difficulty people have making certain choices (or, more importantly, avoiding poor choices) given a certain set of circumstances.

I think it is important that we examine the full nature of these choices and how different choices are influenced.

And you have now evaded answering twice.

You were begging the question by creating a false choice, which I pointed out. It is akin to me asking: "Do you rape puppies or children!?" and then accusing you of not answering the question when you (rightly) respond: "Neither of those options are correct, so I cannot choose them."

I do not know what you mean by "force", so I cannot answer the question. Further, any notion of "force" is irrelevant and a hyperbolic way to try and fling the debate into hysterical nonsenseland.

You continue with this addiction red herring. We're getting nowhere.

Are you saying that people do not get addicted to certain chemicals within food?

Exactly why I said. You are attempting to make it about fast food...when it is really about food generally. Some people become addicted to eating or consuming food. OK. What are we (or the government) to do about this?

But these things are all still (easily) available to people that might become addicted. So what is your point?

"Fast/junk food" is what I say repeatedly, actually, not just "fast" food. And the problem does not lie in food in general, it is the tremendous amount of additives used in fast/junk foods. Yes, some people will become addicted to normal, healthy foods, but the addition of the various chemicals increases that risk.

My proposal is simple: Much as the government does with other industries, regulate the use of chemicals in food and gear the regulation towards the idea of making sure that the food sold to the citizens of this nation is not dangerous and is as healthy as possible.

Why don't you simply admit the fact that this is all merely a smoke screen to disguise the fact that you are moralizing here and that you believe that you (through the government) feel you have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? That's really what this boils down to. I mean addiction or not, you have yet to make any coherent argument for the government's (or your) right to tell me what I can and cannot freely and voluntarily consume into my own body.

When have I mentioned what people are allowed to eat?

I have repeatedly talked about regulating the corporations and industries. Never once have I said that citizens should not be allowed to eat what they want. I want to restrict the rights of corporations, not people.


midwinter:

Indeed. That's a function of our increasingly mechanized view of the body—it's just a bunch of parts to be tuned up/fixed/repaired.

Our body is just a bunch of parts that work together to do stuff. We are a biological machine. An extremely complex and fragile biological machine, but a biological machine nonetheless.

[MarcUK]

people evolved to crave high-energy food, because for most of our history, there hasn't been much of a supply of this, the amount of chemical shit in food these days only seeks to enslave us to becoming addicted to our craving.

The 'freedom to chose' in this is BS. Addiction and cravings aren't freedom at all, its corperate assisted slavery for dollars.

[Chris Cuilla]

Absolutely, yes, but you cannot just say "Aha! People can make choices therefore let's shut down all thought and put it on their shoulders to fight whatever temptation and addiction might be thrown their way!"
The complexity of this answer comes in to the level of difficulty people have making certain choices (or, more importantly, avoiding poor choices) given a certain set of circumstances.

I think it is important that we examine the full nature of these choices and how different choices are influenced.

Examine away. I have no problem with that. No burying head in the sand. Inform away. That's great and should be encouraged! But the more the actual responsibility is taken away from people, the worse they will get at it. There is not a required role for government here.

You were begging the question by creating a false choice, which I pointed out. It is akin to me asking: "Do you rape puppies or children!?" and then accusing you of not answering the question when you (rightly) respond: "Neither of those options are correct, so I cannot choose them."

Don't be silly. It is a simple question...is anyone being forced to buy these products and services.

I do not know what you mean by "force", so I cannot answer the question.

:rolleyes:

Are you saying that people do not get addicted to certain chemicals within food?

Nope.

When have I mentioned what people are allowed to eat?

When you say that government must regulate what goes into food.

I have repeatedly talked about regulating the corporations and industries. Never once have I said that citizens should not be allowed to eat what they want. I want to restrict the rights of corporations, not people.

But this is merely indirect regulation of what people can/cannot eat.

[midwinter]

When you say that government must regulate what goes into food.

...

But this is merely indirect regulation of what people can/cannot eat.

Err. Doesn't the government already regulate what goes into food?

[MarcUK]

But this is merely indirect regulation of what people can/cannot eat.

no, it is saying, you can have your mcdonalds burger - but they are not allowed to lace it with shit that is known to kill you or make you seriously ill. It doesn't taste any different.

Who exactly loses out here?

[Chris Cuilla]

Err. Doesn't the government already regulate what goes into food?

Yes it does. But that is circular logic. It is using regulating something as justifcation for regulating something. I am trying to challenge the basic premise that the regulation is necessary in the first place. There seems to be a widespread, tacit presumption that "there oughta be a law!" or "the gov't oughta do sumthin'!". I am questioning this presumption.

Furthermore, using that argument simply lends creedance to the slippery slope argument which says that if you do X, eventually you'll do X + 1, then X + 2, etc. Well, when use the fact that you have already done X to justify X + 1...you are on the slippery slope.

[MarcUK]

Yes it does.

And would you remove these regulations so that a company could put whatever they felt like into food?

[midwinter]

And would you remove these regulations so that a company could put whatever they felt like into food?

Mmmmm. Razor blade pie......

[MarcUK]

Mmmmm. Razor blade pie......


a quick search revealed that "ephedra" and "sulfites" are banned from being added to foods, and some colour additives have restricted use.

Perhaps Chris would want to overturn the ban on sulfites so that people have choice and freedom to eat something that kills them?

but then every food manufacturer would use them, and thus the choice to select healthy food would be an illusion, and you would lose freedom from sulfite additives. So infact, having strict restrictions on junk food additives, increases your freedom and as a bonus helps to keep you healthier, while removing restrictions only serves to enslave you to chemical hell and make you ill.

I wonder why some people *always* get everything back to front? Is it a joke?

[gregmightdothat]

no, it is saying, you can have your mcdonalds burger - but they are not allowed to lace it with shit that is known to kill you or make you seriously ill. It doesn't taste any different.

Who exactly loses out here?
McDonald's burgers are laced with no such substances.

[MarcUK]

McDonald's burgers are laced with no such substances.

i was speaking metaphorically, and chose the first crappy food i could think of to make an example. :)

[Chris Cuilla]

*** sits back, scratches head...ponders the source of this paranoid delusion that there is a widespread, deliberate and active effort by companies to knowingly sell products that will kill their customers ***

[groverat]

Chris Cuilla:

But the more the actual responsibility is taken away from people, the worse they will get at it.

Acknowledging reality and creating effective policies to solve problems is a pretty good indication and positive responsibility.

But this is merely indirect regulation of what people can/cannot eat.

No, it is not, it is a regulation as to what can be produced. There is a difference.

*** sits back, scratches head...ponders the source of this paranoid delusion that there is a widespread, deliberate and active effort by companies to knowingly sell products that will kill their customers ***

Nice straw man!

Corporations routinely weight costs of lawsuits resulting from death against the potential costs of policy change. This happens all the time.

[gregmightdothat]

Yeah, it comes up in class actions all the time.

Erin Brockovich, too.
Really? I only heard of it in Erin Brockovich and with regards to the Ford Pinto.

[Chris Cuilla]

Acknowledging reality and creating effective policies to solve problems is a pretty good indication and positive responsibility.

But your assumption is that these must be government policies.

No, it is not, it is a regulation as to what can be produced. There is a difference.

Yes, it is. If you prohibit the production of something then you have effectively prohibited the consumption.

[Chris Cuilla]

The problem is that you "small-government" types don't always enter the discussion with an eye on problem-solving. You care more about maintaining the integrity of an absolutist ideology (small government at all costs) than about solving problems.

The problem is that you "government should fix our societal problems" types always enter the discussion with an eye towards government solving these problems. You care more about trying to achieve some perfect utopian society than about how individual liberties are incrementally eroded over time.

Chris, if you agree that a certain government program does a better job at solving a certain problem than leaving it to the private sector, would you support that program?

Yes.

[midwinter]

individual liberties


oh shit. It's Locke again. DON'T TELL DMZ!!!

[dmz]

oh shit. It's Locke again. DON'T TELL DMZ!!!
midwinter, I'm doing a Poli-Sci index -- don't even go there.

Locke’s fingerprints are all over the Declaration of Independence, whose author,
Thomas Jefferson, was heavily influenced by Locke. The idea that everyone is equal in the
state of nature, that people are born with natural rights, that governments are formed to
protect these rights, that individuals and not deities form governments, that governments
must derive their authority from the people they govern, that people have the right to
overthrow a government that fails to protect individual liberty—it’s all there, and it all
has its roots in Locke’s writing....

I will not be fit for man 'nor beast till it's done..... I hate indexes.....:devil:

[midwinter]

midwinter, I'm doing a Poli-Sci index -- don't even go there.

Oh, you wanna rumble, huh? YOU WANNA RUMBLE?!

Don't make me cap a syllabus in your ass.

:lol:

As an aside, I used to hold that academic arguments should be reduced to "Uh huh" and "Nuh uh." As as result of you, DMZ, I no longer believe that. Now, I believe that academic arguments should be totally gangsta rap posturing. Imagine it, at some conference on something: "And THAT, muthafucka, is why Derrida's argument that..."

Hilarity.

[dmz]

Oh, you wanna rumble, huh? YOU WANNA RUMBLE?!

Don't make me cap a syllabus in your ass.

:lol:

As an aside, I used to hold that academic arguments should be reduced to "Uh huh" and "Nuh uh." As as result of you, DMZ, I no longer believe that. Now, I believe that academic arguments should be totally gangsta rap posturing. Imagine it, at some conference on something: "And THAT, muthafucka, is why Derrida's argument that..."

Hilarity.

:lol:

I hear you....

[MarcUK]

Yes, it is. If you prohibit the production of something then you have effectively prohibited the consumption.

Who cares? You're prohibiting the unnecessary lacing of foods with toxic chemicals, you're not prohibiting the production of food.

here is a list of chemicals legally allowed to be added to food.
http://www.grokfood.com/additives/

You already have NO choice, NO freedom - everything you eat is laced with toxic crap, where is the choice to go into the supermarket and buy food that is natural and free from crap?

Until supermarkets put up big signs saying 'food in this section is full of toxic chemicals' and 'food in this section is free of toxic chemicals', then you have no choice and no freedom to make a decision.

[MarcUK]

stuff that fucks you up, but should be included to allow for the notion of choice and freedom.

http://altmedangel.com/additive.htm
http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm
http://www.opposingdigits.com/additives/

[shetline]

You already have NO choice, NO freedom - everything you eat is laced with toxic crap, where is the choice to go into the supermarket and buy food that is natural and free from crap?
Doesn't the UK have markets which sell "organic" foods which are more or less free of this "crap" you speak of, clearly labeled as such? Labeling requirements for food?

I realize those system aren't perfect (producers sometimes cheat, people argue whether the legal requirements for labeling something as "organic" are strict enough), but saying people have "no choice" doesn't strike me as true -- people just have to put more effort into watching what they buy, and often have to pay more for "organic" foods because those foods cost more to produce.

Until supermarkets put up big signs saying 'food in this section is full of toxic chemicals' and 'food in this section is free of toxic chemicals', then you have no choice and no freedom to make a decision.
There are and have been things put into our foods which aren't the healthiest things to consume. But I object to the underlying assumption that many people seem to make that pretty much anything we put in our food today that you couldn't have found on a rural farmhouse 300 years ago is TOXIC CRAP!!!!!

Average human life spans have been slowly and steadily increasing throughout the industrialized world right along with the development and increasing use of artificial food additives. Obviously many factors contribute to increased longevity, like improved sanitation and improved medical care, and I'm not saying that this stuff you call "toxic crap" is likely to be part of a great positive impact, but if the effect is negative, just how negative could it be? Are we being robbed of even greater and faster increases in life span? How would you know that's the case?

Consider further that many of the ill health effects we see from current life styles, like increased heart disease and diabetes, are maladies which afflicted the "indolent rich" of the past as well, and can largely be attribute to a combination of sedentary living and fatty foods -- even all "natural", completely "organic" fatty food. Much of the increase in cancer we've seen simply comes from living long enough to get killed by cancers which had the time to develop because infectious disease and malnutrition didn't kill us off first.

Things like trans-fats have proven to be bad. We probably should be more careful about what we put into food, directly and indirectly (the indirect stuff being things like pesticides, drugs and hormones fed to livestock), but I think that much of the furor over "toxic crap" in our food is driven by a completely irrational and unproven technophobic assumption "NATURAL = GOOD!!!, ARTIFICIAL = BAD!!!"

EDIT...

Another irony of modern health problems: it's now seeming very likely that many of the increases we've seen in allergy problems are due to too much clean living. Studies have shown that children raised in very clean environments fail to fully develop their immune systems as they should, and their bodies end up later in life having excessive overreactions to substances they'd otherwise have learned to recognize as harmless, or to fight off by better means (T2 immune system instead of a T1 reaction).

[Chris Cuilla]

Nice straw man!

So...which words would you eliminate to make it not a straw man?

"there is a widespread, deliberate and active effort by companies to knowingly sell products that will kill their customers"

widespread? deliberate? active? knowingly? kill?

[MarcUK]

Doesn't the UK have markets which sell "organic" foods which are more or less free of this "crap" you speak of, clearly labeled as such? Labeling requirements for food?

yes there are organic products. There are 2 problems with this.

1. they are vastly more expensive than the toxic crap and
2. the range makes up such a small proportion of your total shop, that any benefit of not eating toxic crap is lost by all the things you have to buy that do contain toxic crap. Its mostly psychological and profiteering.


I realize those system aren't perfect (producers sometimes cheat, people argue whether the legal requirements for labeling something as "organic" are strict enough), but saying people have "no choice" doesn't strike me as true -- people just have to put more effort into watching what they buy, and often have to pay more for "organic" foods because those foods cost more to produce.

there is no choice if you cant afford to pay the premium for safe food. There is no choice if you cant afford to invest the time in making the effort to source the safe food.

Frankly, it shouldn't need to be a choice whether you spend considerable time, money and effort sourcing safe food, or eating toxic crap. All food should be safe. Period.

Its the very people, the poor, undereducated, who least understand the issue, who are forced to eat this rubbish. Those who are least able to be able to afford financially the premium on safer food, can least afford the heath care that comes in fixing themselves up after years of dieting on toxins.

It should boil down to this - any person who wants to buy, say an Apple, should by default be able to go into any shop and buy an Apple that is not sprayed with carcinogenous chemical sprays - regardless of whether they are poor, uneducated, rich, famous or whatever.

Chris would want there to be an option to buy a poisoned Apple and a safer one. Why? Why? Why? You just want to buy an Apple - you shouldn't need to spend time money and effort making sure you're not buying an Apple that fucks you up. All Apples for sale should be safe and free of toxic crap. Its an option i'll happily go without thankyou very much.


There are and have been things put into our foods which aren't the healthiest things to consume. But I object to the underlying assumption that many people seem to make that pretty much anything we put in our food today that you couldn't have found on a rural farmhouse 300 years ago is TOXIC CRAP!!!!!

look through the list i gave above? Really, really, does 95% of that stuff need to be added to food? No. Precisely because there is a small niche market of safer food, that is bought to market just as well as the toxic crap, PROVES that all this stuff is unnecessary. And it exists just because it adds a few buck to the bottom line and because, in reality there is no real choice. You're forced into accepting the default.


Average human life spans have been slowly and steadily increasing throughout the industrialized world right along with the development and increasing use of artificial food additives. Obviously many factors contribute to increased longevity, like improved sanitation and improved medical care, and I'm not saying that this stuff you call "toxic crap" is likely to be part of a great positive impact, but if the effect is negative, just how negative could it be? Are we being robbed of even greater and faster increases in life span? How would you know that's the case?

If this trend in obesity continues, you will see that life expectancy starts falling. I dont have data - its obvious - fat people kill themselves early, now if the majority are fat...do the math. The problem here is that we are pumping people full of shit, and then pumping them full of shit to try to cure them. Its largely unavoidable if they weren't being screwed from the moment they opened their mouths.

There will always be fat people, lazy people, stupid people, uneducated people, poor people - you cant change that, what you can do is help the unfortunate by not assisting them in screwing themselves because of their inherited circumstances.

Some people will always stuff themselves with cake and get fat, its their choice - but we dont have to screw them even more by having 50 toxic chemicals that they become addicted to, in the cream just so the cake has a shelf life of a few hours extra. (allegorical argument)

Fine - have the cream cake - why should it be a forced option to invest considerable time, effort and money into buying a cake that doesn't fuck you. All cakes should be as safe as possible from the outset. Its a choice and freedom i'll happily go without.

I just wanted a cake, not the option to buy a safe cake or a toxic one.


Things like trans-fats have proven to be bad. We probably should be more careful about what we put into food, directly and indirectly (the indirect stuff being things like pesticides, drugs and hormones fed to livestock), but I think that much of the furor over "toxic crap" in our food is driven by a completely irrational and unproven technophobic assumption "NATURAL = GOOD!!!, ARTIFICIAL = BAD!!!"


is there any need for trans-fat? No, its just a way for companies to add a few bucks to the bottom line. It should be outright banned - they dont care if their product is killing people - why give a fuck if they are forced to use a slightly more expensive safer oily product if the goods require it.

The Mc donalds empire is not falling apart because a few countries have banned trans-fatty oils for frying their food. Now consider this - if I go into mcdonalds and they have a counter that sells food that is all cooked in trans-fat, clearly labelled that "this product contains trans-fats very damaging to your health" - and next to that is a counter that sells exactly the same product that is cooked in healthy oils and it is virtually the same price and it is marked up as such - which counter is near everyone going to go to? That is a 'real informed choice'

You dont really need these freedoms and choices. There is no value to them, because at the moment the choices are illusionary anyway.


EDIT...

Another irony of modern health problems: it's now seeming very likely that many of the increases we've seen in allergy problems are due to too much clean living. Studies have shown that children raised in very clean environments fail to fully develop their immune systems as they should, and their bodies end up later in life having excessive overreactions to substances they'd otherwise have learned to recognize as harmless, or to fight off by better means (T2 immune system instead of a T1 reaction).

completely agree.

[Northgate]

While your first statement is hilarious, I have to disagree with you. People's metabolisms vary widely, as do their tendencies to store fat. In addition, our modern lifestyles make it very difficult not to be sendentary or darn close to it. You can criticize people for not exercising, but the reason they need to do that may be they spend two hours in the car every day getting to work, and another 8 hours behind a desk. When they get hom there are kids and responsibilities and what not. Often they're exhausted from work or what not. Now I agree, exercise would help. But it doesn't always work out that way.

Now let's look at nature. If you look at my brother and I, you'd swear we had different parents. He's thin and I'm fairly heavy. I wouldn't say he can eat anything he wants, but it's close to it. I have to struggle to lose weight. I've done it before, but it takes a lot of exercise and careful monitoring of the diet. Even then, I get to a point where the weight just doesn't go down. I way about 260 pounds now...and I've been as low as 205. At 210 pounds I look like a stick. At 230 I look pretty normal, yet according to the weight tables I'm techically obese. Moreover, my diet, while rich in carbs, is not terrible. I eat little for breakfast and have a reasonable lunh most days. I sometimes eat a little more at dinner. I'm not a huge fan of snacking, especially during the week. In other words, there are plenty of people that eat like I do and are a lot thinner. It's just my body type. In addition, I now have a bad back, which prevents me from walking for exercise or jogging, which I used to do. All I can do is a ride a bike, and in this weather that's not so appealing.

I'm just saying it's not that cut and dried. Some people can watch what they eat and exercise and still not really lose much weight. Add to that our lifestyles and the over abundance of food in Western countries and it's not hard to see why we're all lardos.

I absolutely agree with you. And I feel your pain, brother. When I'm in the 200-210 range people think I'm sick. I look "healthy" in the 220 range. However, because I'm a film editor by trade, it means I sit in front of the edit bays for 8-12 hours a day. So it's no surprise that I balooned up at 300lbs. Thankfully, I only weight about 265 now and on my way down.

Basically, I had to give up carbs, sugar, dairy and peanuts. I'm on the Paleo diet. Meat. Fruits. Vegitables. That's it. Especially nothing harvested like wheat, corn or rice.

However, the bastard who works next to me eats McDonald's every day, drink four Starbuck's a day and pounds the peanut M&Ms. He probably weights 180 soaking wet. And he's constantly railing on "fatties" and their (my) supposed drag on our healthcare system.

[shetline]

there is no choice if you cant afford to pay the premium for safe food. There is no choice if you cant afford to invest the time in making the effort to source the safe food.
First of all, you say it "shouldn't" cost more to by "safe" food, but you've also already bitched that supposedly "toxic" ingredients are used just to save a bit of money.

Well, guess what? If you use more expensive ingredients, your products will cost more. If your farming techniques are most costly, because you use more difficult, labor-intensive pest control procedures rather than spraying insecticide around, your products will cost more.

I'm no utterly laissez-faire capitalist, but I'm not in favor of turning the entire food industry into a socialized government-run business (collectivized farming was such a success!), and unless you do that, I don't see how you expect to mandate your version of food safety (which, while you haven't come out and said so flat out, sounds like nothing but organically-raised food with little or no artificial ingredients allowed -- everything else being "toxic crap"), enough variety to keep consumers happy, and affordable prices. How's this idealized food world of yours supposed to work? Just pass a bunch of strict regulations and price controls on top of that and hope that it all works out?

Frankly, it shouldn't need to be a choice whether you spend considerable time, money and effort sourcing safe food, or eating toxic crap. All food should be safe. Period.
So I don't have to guess what you mean anymore, please define "safe". Please define "toxic crap".

I'll bet if you subjected "natural" foods -- paprika, black cherries, snow peas, oysters -- to the same kind of testing artificial additives get, like feeding rats the equivalent of 800 servings a day or listing every time 0.02% of the population has a bad reaction to those foods, you'd find that "natural" isn't hugely better.

It should boil down to this - any person who wants to buy, say an Apple, should by default be able to go into any shop and buy an Apple that is not sprayed with carcinogenous chemical sprays - regardless of whether they are poor, uneducated, rich, famous or whatever.
Are there any chemical sprays you approve of? Or all they all to be considered carcinogenic, or otherwise toxic, by default?

Have you ever even stopped to consider what would happen to world food production, and production costs, if the use of all or most pesticides was banned? Are you certain that the only distance between food as it is now and food as you think it should be is a bunch of greedy, predatory profiteering -- profiteering which can safely be cut leaving nothing but nice healthy food at exactly the same prices, feeding just as many people?

[midwinter]

I have weighed as little as 139 and as much as 194. In my 20s, I sat around 155-160, in my 130s, I'm in the 170s, although I ballooned last year to 194 and have dropped to about 182. I want to get back to about 160. I max out at about 175 for muscle weight (when I was 17) and was uncomfortable being that big; I couldn't put my arms down at my side without forcing them and I couldn't find shirts with an 18 inch neck.

Still trying to get the hang of my post-30 metabolism, although I dropped 14 pounds this past summer.

[SDW2001]

pile of delusional crock. There is a simple equation that what you put in must equal what goes out, and you stay the same. if you eat more than you burn up you get bigger, and if you eat less than you expend you lose weight.

The tooth fairy doesn't inject your ass with fat, when you're lying asleep in bed. It just aint true.

There were no fat people in Auschwitz


I really don't see why you are attacking me, nor do I think you understand my point. Some people watch what they eat and still are heavier than others. That is a fact. I know I am one of those people. I'll certainly lose weight as my diet improves and my physical activity level goes up, but I won't look like people such as my brother, for example. You're right concerning burning more than you consume and vice versa, but that's the whole point. People have naturally different metabolisms. Have you not seen skinny people that can eat nearly anything they want without exercising.....and still don't gain weight? I have. I also know heavier people that can't lose weight to save their lives. Exercise and diet are only part of the equation. To weigh 210 lbs, I have to eat almost no fat ,reduce my carb intake and run 3 miles a day. And, that's when I was 22. At 31 it's much harder. By the time I hit 27-28, my usual walk of 2-3 miles a day wasn't cutting it anymore. It's a fact that people's metabolisms are different....a fact that you cannot change just because you wish to view heavier people as fat and lazy.

[SDW2001]

If it's effective then I say it's *good policy*

You anti-government types have a knee-jerk reaction to anything the goverment does, regardless of the merits of the policy.

Stop doing that.

These are great suggestions here:


That's a ridiculous and misguided principle.

[SDW2001]

What?

"If it's effective then it's good policy." Is that statement out of context or is that how you meant it?

[SDW2001]

What do you mean by "reasonable?" My point is that we shouldn't do something just because it's effective. The government could outlaw all fast food and make people submit to daily weigh-ins under penalty of death....and they'd lose weight and get in shape....but would you support that? I realize that's an extreme example, but where is the line drawn when the only criteria for a policy is it's effectiveness?

[MacRR]

First- I'd like to say thanks to Chris (and everyone here) for your generous tax money in the form of Federal grant money to make my neighborhood and surrounding towns beautiful and allowing us to have such an elevated lifestyle that is healthy and happy. I'd highly suggest you take the same approach as my county in getting your own piece of the many federal grants that are awarded to various states so they can do beneficial projects such as build bike paths. It sure beats lawn mower races!

Second, as much as there seems to be a perceived lack of freedom because you might not be able to seek out and eat pure trans fat balls fried in margarine and encased in a twinkie, well, I am glad for it. Ironically, I deplore the loss of freedoms that come about due to warrentless wire taps and other such intrusions from my government.

but hey- I always did succeed due to my powers of prioritizing matters and such.

;)

[MarcUK]

fatties are an evolved mutant virus

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10837-your-gut-reaction-influences-your-weight.html

[SpcMs]

Look, it's one of both: either it's an individual problem, and so it's ok to judge the fat individuals, or it's a socio-cultural problem, in which case the governement is the most appropriate way towards a solution.
One more thing, please stop the 'it's biology' and 'it's different metabolism' bs. Open your eyes and you will notice the US is by far the fattest country around. The UK is catching up quickly, but they always had the most lousy food. Look anywhere else, and you don't see fatties wobbling around everywhere you look. And metabolism has nothing to do with that.

[MacRR]

I think that the distinction of an obese person and a large person needs to be made.

When you see a large person who has obvious muscle tone, but they are thick.... that is not obesity. That is genetics and metabolism.

When you see someone who has a crotch that is in effect a secondary beer belly and they are motoring by (nay- lumbering past it's designed capacities) in a scooter designed for the elderly to assist in mobility- that is obesity at it's sickest.

That is someone who eats the worst possible food in gross amounts and the only exercise they see is their arm lifting the next bon bon to their lips- that is unnatural. That has nothing to do with metabolism or genetics. That is gluttony.

And it happens on a smaller scale too often and you find people trying to excuse it. Sure it's a personal freedom to chow yourself into a grave- but I think it's irresponsible and it shouldn't be sugar coated (pardon the pun). It should be dealt with like the problem it is. Not excused for the problem it is in the way of taking the responsibility out of the obese person's hands (or mouth). And if the government removes harmful dietary foods out of reach and puts healthy alternatives in it's vacuum- that's a win win situation. And if the government funds an infrastructure that gives it's citizens the opportunity to be healthier and more educated citizens- that also is a win win situation.

For a government to sit back and do nothing when it could easily benefit everyone with win win situations it's a waste and nothing but lost opportunities. There is a great halo effect when your citizens are healthy and feel good about themselves. I see it in my community, and it is hardly an intrusion into anyone's freedoms. I'd say it offers greater freedoms.

[SDW2001]

Look, it's one of both: either it's an individual problem, and so it's ok to judge the fat individuals, or it's a socio-cultural problem, in which case the governement is the most appropriate way towards a solution.
One more thing, please stop the 'it's biology' and 'it's different metabolism' bs. Open your eyes and you will notice the US is by far the fattest country around. The UK is catching up quickly, but they alway