Obesity should be regulated by the Government?

[minguita]

I believe that Obesity is a matter of education and government regulation to the food industry. Obesity is measured in terms of body-mass index. It means a person is considered obese if his weight is 20% over the recommended body weight for a person’s height. In recent years, Obesity in America has increased atrociously; making obesity related health problems the number two cause of preventable deaths in USA, according with a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC officials attribute poor diet and physical inactivity to the growing “obesity epidemic” as medical officials have called it. On the other hand, the power of the food industry and the marketing that its doing has a big impact in the people’s eating habits. As a result, the country is in need of an ardent government involvement, in order to educate the community and “help overcome an environment that is largely dominated by a food industry that cares only about profits, not health” (“Update: Obesity”).
Many people argue that obesity is more a matter of personal responsibility. It is true that people need to do far more physical activity and be more careful in what they eat. However, it is also true that people can be manipulated easily by the marketing power. Marketing can brain-washed people’s minds creating unhealthy habits that will last for long time. In addition, some folks also argue that people have the option to select their own food. Although, when vegetables, fruits and some of the healthier options are more expensive, people and especially low income families have difficulties buying them and they see themselves force to buy cheap and unhealthy food.
It is a fact, that the modern life encourages the society to become more sedentary. Technology, cars, computers and all the accessories that make life “easier” have cause that people do less physical activity and in consequence they are consuming farther more calories than what they are spending. Despite this, the food industry and especially the fast-food chains keep offering meals of 1300 calories, more than half of a person’s daily intake. The industry is not doing big efforts to help solve the problem and as Shannon Brownlee declared in an special interview with Issues & Controversies On File “the reality is, there are not enough hours in the day to exercise off all the excess calories that Americans are eating”, as a result is urgent to have more government involved to create programs to educate the populations and to regulate the food industry.
Despite the awareness of the health related problems with obesity, like heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer, high blood pressure and high cholesterol, the rate of obese people is increasing dramatically and Americans are fatter than ever. “Currently, 34% of U.S. adults are considered overweight, while an additional 31% are obese. Those numbers represent a stark increase from 1990, when 20% of adults were considered obese. Among children, 15% of youngsters aged six to 19 and 10%of children two to five are seriously overweight.”(“update: Obesity”). If the government is interested in the well being of its citizens, then these statistics call for drastic measures; these measures go from creating programs for schools to regulate food given to the children and ensure daily physical activity to regulating more the food industry trough taxes.
Education is the key to success, eating habits are establish in childhood, this means that a kid will eventually be pull towards what they have always been eating and if the school have burger king franchises, well they are not learning very good habits from the beginning. Furthermore, there is a need to educate parents that are ultimately the ones that are in charge of the kid’s health. In other words, if we educate children and parents to eat right, in the long term it will be more demand for healthy products and that will make the industry to rethink their businesses.
In the same manner, government participation can’t be just in education. Agricultural policies play a very important roll in what the population is eating. When meat and dairy are subside three times more than grains, and fat and oils have 20 times more subsides than fruits and vegetables, it contributes to the abundance of cheap and unhealthy products in the market (“Agricultural Subsidies”). Indeed, other countries where the food industry is not as develop, and grains, fruits and vegetables are cheaper than the process products, full of calories, the rates in obesity are lower. At the end, is a matter of prices, if the government doesn’t regulate them through taxes or other measures. People and especially lower income families will buy what is cheaper; they are just trying to stretch their income a much as possible and that is why a report issued by Surgeon General David Satcher shows how “lower-income families were found to be more prone to obesity than higher-income families”(“Surgeon General Warns about obesity”) .
Finally, Obesity is not just a matter of personal responsibility. Of course, people need to become more proactive by eating better and exercising more, but the truth is that if there is not control over the food industry; they will keep offering unhealthy food, full of calories. People will need to be rich to be able to buy the healthy options and will have to become human calculators in order to count every single calorie that they are eating so they don’t become overweight. It will be like swimming against the current when a person is eating healthy and then the fruit and vegetables prices go higher, the healthy options are rare and expensive, the restaurants and the food industry is full of high calorie products and marketing everywhere is trying to make you eat their products that are not very nutritious.

[Autolykos]

You're kidding me, right?

- Rob

[StrongHeartsWin]

I think Minguita is quite serious, Rob. Why don`t you address the points with a counter argument rather than just incredulousness? How has your reply propelled the discussion?

[Slevin57]

You argument is well thought out.

However, I don't see why the government should now begin regulating the food industry. I would venture to say that 90% of the food that American's eat that causes obesity were available in some form or another for over a century.

There has not been in an increase in unhealthy foods to correlate with the sharp rise in obesity. However there has been an increase in portions (serving size).


Don't get me wrong I agree with you for the most part. I just think the government should take more of an effort to educate the population about the nutrition facts.

I don't think we should rely on the government to keep us healthy. And I certainly don't think it should be at the cost of the taxpayers that care enough to eat healthy and exercise.

Companies have used buzzwords like "net carbs", and "lean" to make people think there products are healthy for them. There is nothing "lean" about a lean pocket for instance.

I do think that about 60% of the responsibility falls on the consumer. We are a consumer world. We purchase things that are "light" and eat double the quantity. That's been tried and tested. Our portions are going up with our size.

[fushigi]

I agree. Minguita has put a lot of time into preparing this argument, so I think it at least deserves a reasoned response.

Personally, I think a labeling system on food could go a long way towards fighting obesity:

A study in the Journal Of The American Dietetic Association found that “people who read food labels consume 6% less fat than those who don’t read them.” That may not sound like much,but it may be enough to decrease your risk for diseases like obesity and cancer.

Of course, this means we need to encourage people to read food labels - and teach them HOW to read them. One of the current problems is that the labeling is too complex - after all, people are buying hundreds of items, do they really feel like they have time to read all those percentages? There's a new initiative to simplify the process through a "traffic signal" labeling system:

Out of all the supporters the system, parents are some of the biggest fans. Almost 80% of all parents would prefer if food manufacturers used the "traffic light" labels. They take very little time to read and, unlike the more detailed labels that use the Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) system, no "real world" translation of the information presented is necessary. On top of that, even small children can get the hang of the color-coded system very quickly, which helps to teach them about nutrition, as well as to make taking them along to the store much easier.

Of course this system would increase packaging costs, but once the systems are distributed, they could save us much more in health care costs (providing we can motivate people to use them.)

fushigi

[Osborn F Enready]

Minguita said: Obesity should be regulated by the Government?

That is a powerful statement, but where is it being argued?

In the United States, we have rights as individuals and our foundation of law is based on that concept. To argue directly against that concept, one has to argue the entire concept of individual vs collective and the role of government.

Those matters aside, I will respond to the rest of the post.

Minguita said: I believe that Obesity is a matter of education and government regulation to the food industry. Obesity is measured in terms of body-mass index.

Body Mass Indexing is a form of measure that provides an incomplete picture, that doesn't weigh in other critical factors that determine health of the individual being measured.

Minguita said: It means a person is considered obese if his weight is 20% over the recommended body weight for a person’s height.

How reliable are these measurements when measuring the variety of body types which exist in the United States, when measuring for the actual "obesity" of a person, compared to a bodybuilder, powerlifter, amateur athelete or even a well muscled but heavy person, due to high fat intake? What other forms of measure are out there that could better derive a more accurate assesment of obesity?

Minguita said: In recent years, Obesity in America has increased atrociously; making obesity related health problems the number two cause of preventable deaths in USA, according with a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC officials attribute poor diet and physical inactivity to the growing “obesity epidemic” as medical officials have called it. On the other hand, the power of the food industry and the marketing that its doing has a big impact in the people’s eating habits.

Why would you directly attribute this to marketing and the power of the food industry, and not the consumers lack of desire for quality information and assesment of product based on nutritional values?

Minguita said: As a result, the country is in need of an ardent government involvement, in order to educate the community and “help overcome an environment that is largely dominated by a food industry that cares only about profits, not health” (“Update: Obesity”).

What would lead you to believe that the government would be more effective at an educational campaign? Government is force, so what force is provoking you to call in government force against them, specificly?

Minguita said: Many people argue that obesity is more a matter of personal responsibility.

There is a not only a lot of people who say that, but also a Constitution and Bill of Rights, that limits the government from attempting to do such things.

Are you familliar with the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights which limits the power of the government?

Minguita said: It is true that people need to do far more physical activity and be more careful in what they eat. However, it is also true that people can be manipulated easily by the marketing power.

Individual resistance/succeptability to marketing is a debateable subject.
People have choices that allow them to eat well if they choose to do so, both naturally, as well as using supplements and a choice between meat or vegetables or both.

The educational systems failures (due to state control), and bad parenting is what is causing the problem you are highlighting in my opinion, and would be an effective counter argument.

Minguita said: Marketing can brain-washed people’s minds creating unhealthy habits that will last for long time. In addition, some folks also argue that people have the option to select their own food. Although, when vegetables, fruits and some of the healthier options are more expensive, people and especially low income families have difficulties buying them and they see themselves force to buy cheap and unhealthy food.

Yes, it is true that there are sometimes different prices which affect our ability to purchase necessities balanced with luxuries. It is also true that parents have an obligation to provide for their children. If they can't provide for their children, it is a problem they need to rectify, not the state or federal governments problem. There is also extended family, friends and a host of charity organizations that are there to help meet those needs. There is no need for government involvement in this area, it is more an issue of individuals who neglect their indivdual responsibility, and expect others to provide a means of life for them they are not willing or able to provide for themselves.

[Osborn F Enready]

Miguita said: It is a fact, that the modern life encourages the society to become more sedentary. Technology, cars, computers and all the accessories that make life “easier” have cause that people do less physical activity and in consequence they are consuming farther more calories than what they are spending. Despite this, the food industry and especially the fast-food chains keep offering meals of 1300 calories, more than half of a person’s daily intake. The industry is not doing big efforts to help solve the problem and as Shannon Brownlee declared in an special interview with Issues & Controversies On File “the reality is, there are not enough hours in the day to exercise off all the excess calories that Americans are eating”, as a result is urgent to have more government involved to create programs to educate the populations and to regulate the food industry.

Mass ignorance is a product of the educational system, and the parents, not of the market in which they operate. If people were taught how to make educated choices and the values of a good diet, and they VALUED those choices individually, the market would bear that result.

You can't force people to eat well, legally, anymore than you can force them to eat poorly, legally.

There is no reasonable means of enforcement, nor is it a reasonable approach in a nation with laws based on individual rights.

Minguita said: Despite the awareness of the health related problems with obesity, like heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer, high blood pressure and high cholesterol, the rate of obese people is increasing dramatically and Americans are fatter than ever. “Currently, 34% of U.S. adults are considered overweight, while an additional 31% are obese. Those numbers represent a stark increase from 1990, when 20% of adults were considered obese. Among children, 15% of youngsters aged six to 19 and 10%of children two to five are seriously overweight.”(“update: Obesity”). If the government is interested in the well being of its citizens, then these statistics call for drastic measures; these measures go from creating programs for schools to regulate food given to the children and ensure daily physical activity to regulating more the food industry trough taxes.

I disagree in where you lay the responsibility of this "problem", and I disagree with your proposed resolution.

The causes are indeed easier lifestyles overall, coupled with more neglect toward food education and "preparation time" that comes with fresh prepared and multi-course meals.

Minguita said: Education is the key to success, eating habits are establish in childhood, this means that a kid will eventually be pull towards what they have always been eating and if the school have burger king franchises, well they are not learning very good habits from the beginning.

Perhaps it is adults and parents who allow taxpayer funded schools to put in Burger King or McDonalds franchises? Perhaps some parents have raised their children with a proper nutritional education, and don't rely on the state to do the job, and don't see why they, or their kids should suffer due to other peoples ignorance?

Minguita said: Furthermore, there is a need to educate parents that are ultimately the ones that are in charge of the kid’s health. In other words, if we educate children and parents to eat right, in the long term it will be more demand for healthy products and that will make the industry to rethink their businesses.

I agree, education is the key, as is availability.

Maybe we should ask why so much of our fresh food is being exported, for what reason it is, and who is profitting, and is it their right?

It is not however, the governments responsibility to do this. The educational books on Dietary Education are far and wide in selection, choices, prefrences and views on diet and exercise. Taxpayers already foot the bill for libraries, which parents and children are encouraged to use to access these types of books when they can't afford to buy them personally.

To blame the government, or look to government for the answer, is a false deduction when choices are available to educate people who seek to be educated, and make informed choices.

You are almost arguing from the perspective that you don't think individuals, like yourself, are intelligent enough on average to run their own lives. In that case, why would I waste time reading the thoughts of another individual, and taking the time to reply at length as I am?

Minguita said: In the same manner, government participation can’t be just in education.

Perhaps government shouldn't be involved in education at all, and this is why the problem has become this bad, because it has been?

Minguita said: Agricultural policies play a very important roll in what the population is eating. When meat and dairy are subside three times more than grains, and fat and oils have 20 times more subsides than fruits and vegetables, it contributes to the abundance of cheap and unhealthy products in the market (“Agricultural Subsidies”). Indeed, other countries where the food industry is not as develop, and grains, fruits and vegetables are cheaper than the process products, full of calories, the rates in obesity are lower. At the end, is a matter of prices, if the government doesn’t regulate them through taxes or other measures. People and especially lower income families will buy what is cheaper; they are just trying to stretch their income a much as possible and that is why a report issued by Surgeon General David Satcher shows how “lower-income families were found to be more prone to obesity than higher-income families”(“Surgeon General Warns about obesity”) .

So you are saying wealth should not play a role in individual health?

Why or why not?

Minguita said: Finally, Obesity is not just a matter of personal responsibility. Of course, people need to become more proactive by eating better and exercising more,

Or they could simply accept and deal with the results of not doing so?

Why not, it is their choice?

I am fully aware of the risks of smoking, but still smoke. It only affects me health wise, and I have seen many die from the effects of smoking. Why should anyone bear that burden but me?

Minguita said: but the truth is that if there is not control over the food industry; they will keep offering unhealthy food, full of calories.

What would lead you to that conclusion?

A more educated and caring consumer, on this issue, would cause the market to either provide the wanted goods, or go out of business to those that did.

Why do you think everyone is interested in living longer, especially those who don't have comfortable or wealthy lives?

Minguita said: People will need to be rich to be able to buy the healthy options and will have to become human calculators in order to count every single calorie that they are eating so they don’t become overweight.

This is simply not true, and I have proven so in my own experience.

For $29.00 you can purchase more wheyprotein in a 5 gallon jug than $50.00 of quality lean meat, vegetables or natural food.

The health food industry is a booming market, that the FDA is trying to squash through regulation, which it can't manage to keep up with, since the line of product development is so fast and in such high demand.

I can show any person how to eat better than "national guidelines" and cheaper than fastfood or junkfood over a one month period.

Minguita said: It will be like swimming against the current when a person is eating healthy and then the fruit and vegetables prices go higher, the healthy options are rare and expensive, the restaurants and the food industry is full of high calorie products and marketing everywhere is trying to make you eat their products that are not very nutritious.

I would like to see the data, and line of logic and reasoning used to deduct these answers.

I challenge the entire concept, for multiple reasons, some listed, some not.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Mass ignorance is a product of the educational system, and the parents, not of the market in which they operate. If people were taught how to make educated choices and the values of a good diet, and they VALUED those choices individually, the market would bear that result.

That's at least partially correct. However, our educational system is a part of the market and the market has its own educational purposes. Both the proverbial haves and the have-nots are misinformed as to what makes for a quality diet. I'm not saying I don't eat junk food myself, but the point seems undeniable.

I think people at least deserve quality information about health--the kind of information that cannot be found in corporate advertising. Even the food pyramid may be harmful to minorities, many of whom are lactose intolerant.

So yes, it comes down to choices, but they should at least be well informed. Otherwise, we'll see more hospitals "increasing efficiency" to expand what could accurately be called "the disease industry."

Grandpa h.

[ZNFYRH]

As far as I see it, obesity in others affects me in only one way: medical insurance.

I don't like the idea that my insurance company pays for a quadruple bypass for an obese smoker who caused his own problems.

I don't think the government is responsible for anything. People need to be responsible for themselves.

And if I happen to stumble across an insurance company that categorically denies policies to smokers and people who are obese due to their own lifestyles, I'll sign up.

[brien]

Osborn & ZNFYRH I say, well said. ZNFRYH, there are insurance companies who discount premiums for non smokers and those of us who aren't obese. I don't know how that compares to inlcuding those people in the insurance pool for coverage when thier health problems increase the cost of payouts for the insurance company. But I am with you, if you find an insurance company that discriminates against the inclusion of smokers and over eaters, I would also sign up as well. Somehow, I don't think you will find one though, due to equity in insurance law issues.

[ZNFYRH]

brien,

Indeed, on the law issues.

I'd think an insurance company would rather have healthy clients... less chance of ever having to pay out.

And I'd think they would charge out the ass for clients who have potential problems as a lifestyle choice.

"Lifestyle choice" is the key term. Someone can't help having a family history of cancer... but lung cancer due to smoking means they should pay significantly more than I do.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: brien ... if you find an insurance company that discriminates against the inclusion of smokers and over eaters, I would also sign up as well. Somehow, I don't think you will find one though, due to equity in insurance law issues.

Brien, such policies will be coming soon. And in fact, are already beginning to creep up in different places around the world. Once mainstream insurance companies see the profits these others are making from giving choices to healthy lifestyle customers, it will become common. Here:

It pays to be vegetarian
The Netherlands has become the first country where vegetarians can enroll in a discounted health-insurance plan. Introduced by insurers Agis Zorgverzekeringen and Stichting PreventiePolis, “VegePolis” operates on the principle that people who choose not to eat meat live healthier lives. The eating habits of these policy owners will be tracked and studied in contrast with their carnivorous counterparts. The insurers are also considering offering insurance policies for those who don’t smoke or drink. The program was the brainchild of Netherlands-based animal-rights activist and entrepreneur Niko Koffeman, quoted in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant (Dec 6, 2006) as saying it’s high time that people who live healthy lifestyles reap social benefits.

[fushigi]

Quote by: ZNFYRH And I'd think they would charge out the ass for clients who have potential problems as a lifestyle choice.

If you owned an insurance company, would you turn ANYONE away?

The higher the risk, the higher the premium. Someone else's obesity and smoking doesn't affect my premium as a healthy non-smoker.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: fushigi The higher the risk, the higher the premium. Someone else's obesity and smoking doesn't affect my premium as a healthy non-smoker.

On the contrary...

If you and Fatty McBackfat both pay $100 a month for your health insurance, that's a total of $1200 a year each.

You are healthy and go the whole year with only one cold. You pay your $15 co-pay, your health insurance pays the $85 difference.

They grossed $1200 from you and netted $1115.

Fatty is an obese smoker who overeats. He has a heart attack and needs triple bypass surgery. It costs approx. $20,000 (source: http://www.surgery-guide.com/bypass-...ery-cost.html).

They grossed $1200 from him and lost $18,600 total.

Add in your $1115, and they just suffered a $17,485 loss for the year.

How do they make back that extra money?

Trust me... it effects your premiums.

[fushigi]

OK first let me recover from that name. Fatty McBackfat! LMAO

OK, ahem.

The thing is, insurance companies have very accurate health data taken from many studies and calculated by risk assessment professionals. They know Mr. McBackfat and others like him represent a higher risk - MUCH higher risk - for payouts, and charge them and their fat accordingly.

Insurance companies work like gambling casinos - they know the odds better than you and they use them to make sure you never beat the house. The only time they really lose money is when they make unwise stock investments. Did you notice premiums increase in the early 2000s? Know why? It was because of payouts from 9/11 victims. It was the bottoming out of the stock market. Insurance companies are so leveraged with their investment portfolios that the premiums they make off you and me pales in comparison to their stock dividends.

[ZNFYRH]

fushigi,

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?

Premiums increased after 9/11 because of payouts.

That's exactly my point.

If I have an insurance carrier that has clients with high risk, when it has to pay for them it means that my premiums increase.

Your post basically reinforced mine.

[fushigi]

Sorry, I meant to say, "It wasn't because of payouts from 9/11 victims. It was the bottoming out of the stock market."