Topic awaiting preservation: The World's Fattest Nation.. (Page 1 of 1)

quote:

---

US questions global obesity plan

Weight-related deaths are likely to double in 20 years
The United States is challenging a strategy by the World Health Organization (WHO) to tackle obesity.
Some scientists accuse President Bush's administration of planning to water down proposed junk food regulations, in order to protect big business.

---

quote:

---

Leading scientists accused the Bush administration last night of putting the interests of powerful American sugar barons ahead of the global fight against obesity.
Professor Kaare Norum, leader of the World Health Organisation's fight to prevent millions developing diet-related diseases, has sparked an international war of words with a highly critical letter to US Health Secretary Tommy Thompson. In it he tells of his grave concern over American opposition to the WHO's blueprint to combat obesity. He accuses the US of making the health of millions of young Americans 'a hostage to fortune' because it has failed to take action over the fat epidemic as a result of its business interests, particularly the sugar lobby.

Since 1990, successive US governments have blocked WHO calls for action, claims Norum, professor of medicine at Oslo University.

'Obesity rates have risen so that now one in three Americans bears the burden of the very high health risks associated with this condition, with the poorest and most vulnerable worst affected,' he says. 'Obesity rates among American children have risen by 50 per cent.'

Norum is the most senior scientist involved in an attempt to formulate a worldwide policy to fight heart disease and diabetes resulting from a junk food diet. An estimated 60 per cent of disease worldwide is now due to cardiovascular illness, which causes 47 per cent of deaths.

The letter from Norum will put Bush under intense pressure at home to show that he is serious about tackling the epidemic. More than half of all Americans are overweight, and in some states, including Bush's Texas, nearly one-third of the population is classified obese.

The President insists fighting fat is a matter for the individual, not the state. But today The Observer reveals how he and fellow senators have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from 'Big Sugar'. One of his main fundraisers is sugar baron Jose 'Pepe' Fanjul, head of Florida Crystals, who has raised at least $100,000 for November's presidential re-election campaign.

Norum's letter is an angry response to the Americans' decision to submit a 30-page report, criticising the WHO strategy for its lack of sound scientific evidence. It will be discussed at a key meeting of its executive board in Geneva on Tuesday.

The Bush administration, which receives millions in funding from the sugar industry, argues there is little robust evidence to show that drinking sugary drinks or eating too much sugar is a direct cause of obesity. It particularly opposes a recommendation that just 10 per cent of people's energy intake should come from added sugar. The US has a 25 per cent guideline.

Another leading obesity expert supported Norum, describing America's position as a scandal. Professor Philip James, head of the International Obesity Task Force, a thinktank for experts worldwide said: 'People are far more tuned into what is now a much bigger obesity crisis and are more aware of some of the dangers such as diabetes. When they begin to see children developing these severe health problems, it brings home to people that this is not some vague risk in the future - it is happening here and now.'

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3401715.stm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/index.php?newsid=5366

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1125769,00.html

Bon Appetit!


[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 01-20-2004).]

Like the denial of global warming this also seems completely nuts to me.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

unbelievable. I recall seeing a few articles many months ago on this subject as well.

The thing that is so frustrating is that there are *tons* of American organizations who have constantly taken the stance against all the processed sugar and junk that people eat here, and the number of people living very healthy lifestyles is certainly not small.

But we are doomed by decisions such as these.....

How can he ignore the recommandation of the *World* Health Organization and the conscequences on the population ?

quote:

---

Bon Appetit!

---

Merci!

You know what? I'm not a fat ass because I pay attention to what I eat and I exercise. I don't sit around all day doing nothing wondering why I have to buy new pants every 6 months when my fat ass won't fit in the old ones. If I become a fat ass it won't be because I was victimized by the "sugar barons" and the Bush administration.

Did anyone ever consider that people should take some responsibilty for their choices? If you choose to stuff your gaping maw with twinkies all day, pardon my not giving a fuck if you die of a heart attack by the age of 40.


:::11oh1:::

That's right. More deep fried twinkies and snickers for the rest of us.

krets: You're damn right, alas many people don't realize their passive way of life will effectively shorten their life. Sometimes the people need to be taken by the hand.



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 01-20-2004).]

I'm with Krets. That's just plain gay.

quote:

---

The President insists fighting fat is a matter for the individual, not the state.

---

Damn right. The government or any organization for that matter has no place sticking its noses in peoples personal lives and decisions.

What ever happened to personal responsibility? Everyone nowadays thinks they are a VICTIM of one thing or another, but when it comes down to it, your life is the cumulative effect of the decisions YOU have made. Don't blame the tobacco companies when you get lung cancer, and don't blame food makers for your obesity.

Poi:
Sometimes the people need to be taken by the hand = CONTROL
You are right in a sense, there are plenty of dumbasses out there, but let their friends and family take them by the hand, not the government or WHO.



[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 01-20-2004).]

I dont think I want those fat dumbasses crowding my gene pool thank you. Survival of the fittest I always say.

quote:

---

alas many people don't realize their passive way of life will effectively shorten their life

---

Good... lets start lessening the population one spherical coffin at a time.

Seriously though, I'm with Krets and Ramasax on this one. Why the hell should I feel the need to force care on someone who has no interest in taking care of themselves? It isn't my place on a personal level and it certainly isn't the place of the government. The last thing I need is uncle sam in my refrigerator. I personally like the occasional pile of junk food. I'd like to keep that choice, thank you very much. Supply of nasty foods is not the issue here... Demand is. Removing the supply will only increase the demand of something else. D'ya think they'll just continue banning foods until we're eating that slop from the matrix? Are they going to start rationing our food when we go to the store? Hardly.

What the WHO should be doing, and any other group wanting to increase standards of living, is pushing education instead of trying to take things away or stop people from doing certain things. Education and intellectual advancemnet increase standards of living by default. (e.g. Educated women (particularly in third world countries) has been shown to lead to fewer children)

Sources
GD Issue: Is Education the Best Contraceptive
UNFPA
Planned Parenthood

I digress somewhat. I hold that education is the key. Granted there are other concerns and issues but to remove personal responsiblity for said persons actions is to turn help into coddling, a very poor place for any government or world organization to put themselves. This has the same flavor as all of the Mamby Pamby PC bullshit that's flying around. It's all crap. Be responsible for what you do, be tolerant of other things and people. Don't remove from sight that which bothers you, it isn't illegal leave it alone. Have some guts, toe the line, and do what you know you should.



[EDIT]Fix Tag[/EDIT]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 01-20-2004).]

quote:

---

but let their friends and family take them by the hand, not the government or WHO.

---

While I do sincerely agree with that, and wholeheartedly agree that such things are the responsibility of the individual, there is a problem. The people currently taking the less intelligent (and even some of the more intelligent) people by the hand are the corporations who sell this shit, and have their hands in all kinds of places they don't belong in addition to the commercial advertisements all over the place.

I completely agree on the principle that it should be up to the fat of the land to unplug their fingers off their a** and take care of themselves. Alas it seems a huge part of the population couldn't care less. Shall the goverment ignore the situation and let a third/half of its population suffer/die from obesity ?

Ramasax: I understand that your example about tobacco companies is just an example and that's a quite different from the food industry. But we shouldn't forget that during a long time these companies denied ( and paid some scientists to faslify some studies ) the implication of tobacco in the lung/throat/larynx cancers and made some studies to make the filters deliver a certain dose of nicotine sufficient to be addictive. Fortunately, now these companies recognize the risks of their products.

[edit]
GrythusDraconis: Yep, education is certainly the solution ... for the next generations, but something must, also, be done for what happens (t)here and now. It's certainly not an uncle Sam in the fridge, but puting some guidelines to the food industries to lower the % of fat, increase the use sacarose (? diet sugar), lower the amount of salt, ... and obviously communicate on the problems linked to obesity and weigh problems.
[/edit]



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 01-20-2004).]

Except that health organizations already do that. Hence the existence of sugar substitutes, low sodium or low fat alternatives, and revised dieting plans. If you educate the people on what they shouldn't be doing they (hopefully) will try to do what they should. Lots of places are serving food that caters to those on the low carb diet now... no one forced restaurants to make the decision to offer these foods, they just followed the market. Until people change what they want to eat, companies aren't going to stop making it. Forcing companies to stop making it isn't going to change the fact that people don't seem to understand that ANYTHING in excess isn't healthy.

quote:

---

World Health Organisation Mission statement

To achieve safe, sustainable and health-enhancing human environments, protected from biological, chemical and physical hazards, and secure from the adverse effects of global and local environmental threats.
To facilitate incorporation of effective health dimensions into regional and global policies affecting health and environment, and into national development policies and action plans for environment and health, including legal and regulatory frameworks governing management of the human environment.

---

It seems that their purpose is not to really control but to educate society and influence for good. But when the leading government seem to be going in the opposite direction.. well that's just plain crazy and seems to reveal that their peoples interest is not in their hearts but that again money and it's influence is the controlling factor. Aren't they supposed to lead by example? Like alcohol and tobacco.. sugar and fat have powerful friends..

Having said that I just roasted a whole chicken and am about to devour the entire thing.. by myself.. cos.. ..my pants are too baggy anyway

I have just a couple of comments to add to this discussion...

I have to agree that the responsibility ultimately falls on the shoulders of the person shoveling the junk food in their mouths and not moving off the couch for hours at a time.

But, I also feel that the government has a responsibility to try to protect it's people... even from itself. Even if it is simply preventing the population from having to bear the financial burden of those who make bad choices. I resent the fact that I have to pay higher premiums on my insurance, simply because people are too interested in their own self-gratification and expect someone else to pay the financial cost of the consequences.

The change has to come through education. Some 30 years of misleading (not necessarily intentionally) nutrition information has to be undone. There's a scary mentality out there that thinks if it doesn't contain fat, you can eat as much of it as you like. The answer does not come with sugar substitutes. Part of the predicament is the over-abundance of highly processed foods. If people will stop buying the crap, the food makers will stop producing it. Simple (and as complex) as that.

I'm all for the education, the more the better. I agree wholeheartedly with those above who mentioned that solution. Make the people better aware of the choices they make, BUT if they still choose to make them, so be it, let them eat cake, so to speak. (That was pretty lame, huh?)You can't hold people's hands, then you just end up with a nation of whining imbeciles dependent on their government for everything.

There are already too many of those to begin with. :P

[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 01-21-2004).]

GrythusDraconis:

You asked- "Why the hell should I feel the need to force care on someone who has no interest in taking care of themselves?"

The answer is because we, as a society, have finite healthcare resources. And no matter how well you take care of your self, the day may come when you or someone you care about is in need of those resources.

Like it or not, we are all in the same boat and that boat will float better without all the extra weight......

Unless I totally missed something (which is always possible...), nobody is even hinting at the government actually controlling how much junk food anyone eats....

The WHO isn't some totatlitarian-mind-control organization, and nobody is suggesting that the government hold anyone's hand and make them "eat right".

The problem, as I see it, is all based on the fact that corporations ahve control of a large percentage of politicians, and politics in general. This means that legislation is often passed directly in favor of said corporations - as opposed to being in favor of the people as a whole - and that the corporations are allowed almost free reign as to what they openly reveal to the public, and can advertise as they see fit with little or no repercussion for what often falls into some *really* grey areas in the realm of false advertising.

Now, as has been said, it is the responsibility of the individual to make the decisions on how to care for themselves.

But with such bobmardment of bad information, there are a great many people who lack the intellect and/or the motivation to begin making an informed decision.

And I think the real point here, is that it is just insane for a government to simply disregard information that is for the good of the people, simply for the sake of extended and continued profit.

Not anything to do with the government contolling what we eat.

quote:

---

The problem, as I see it, is all based on the fact that corporations ahve control of a large percentage of politicians, and politics in general

---

No way, politics and corporations are legit all the way, there is nothing going on behind the scenes.

I think I agree with some of what every person has said so far on this issue.

Bascially, the government should not be our nanny, individuals are ultimately responsible for their own actions, corporations are ammoral entities, many politicians do their bidding, and it would be nice if the government took steps to educate the feckless hordes in the hope that a few will respond.

. . : slicePuzzle

And a timely article riding on Norm's input:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/conditions/01/21/obesity.spending.ap/index.html

Wow.. for the first time I agree 127% with DL-44's statements.. hahah, like those words came out of my own head.. even the phrasing... (spooky!).. that's a good omen... maybe it's going to be a nice day.. Yep, I was not thinking about our right to be fat tooth decayed, artery clogged, piggies, but rather the way te government is thinking and behaving.. as usual.



[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 01-23-2004).]

My $0.02:

I see this as more of an economic issue than a simple health issue. My husband and I live on a small income and I spend a great deal of time over menus and grocery lists each week to minimize the amount of money I spend, but maximize the food we can get. I've noticed, over the last few months, that the items that show up on sale each week are junk foods and processed foods. The grocery industry consistently pushes foods that are less healthy in sales & coupons. If you don't believe me, sit down with your local grocery sale paper and take a look.

Personal choices are often limited by outside factors. Yes, it is a person's choice to buy what they buy and eat what they eat, but prices are tailored so that the processed foods and junk foods are more available to people who can't afford better. If you haven't noticed, the foods that are better for you also cost a great deal more. If I want to eat healthy one week, I'll spend somewhere between 75-80 dollars just for me and my husband. If I care more about the amount I'm spending, I can load up on processed foods and junk foods for about 50-55 bucks for the two of us. Even eating out is cheaper if you aren't concerned about nutritional value. Compare prices from Mc D's to the local health food restaraunt. I actually prefer to eat healthier, but I just can't always afford to.

Let's not forget the influence TV advertisements have on people's food decisions. I'm constantly amazed at the way advertisers push unhealthy foods and junk foods. Whether people want to admit it or not, they are affected by these things. There is a lot more of our private lives being controlled than most people can realize. I know, I know... it borders on conspiracy - but think about it a little and see what conclusion you come to.


Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 01-23-2004).]

DL is spot on there - we taxe cigarettes and alcohol partly to pay for massive impact they have on the nations health and partly to dissuade people from overindulging.

One of the things that always annoys one of my friends is that in supermarkets you can buy chips for deep fat frying (British style - not the American word for crisps) cheaper than you can buy potatoes - now how does that work out?

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

^ Absolutely. That's a perfect example of what I referred to above.

{edit - emp snuck in, as usual. the comment above was meant for Bodhi's post, but also applies to emperors

Now, as far as why it's cheaper to buy proccessed foods than the real deal? That's simple enough. The company buying the potatoes to cut up and bag buys millions of pounds of them at a time - with that volume the price is quite low. The lower price can be partially passed on to the consumer. The average consumer might buy 5-10 pounds at a time, and as with any product, the price will be higher at such low volume - due at least in part to the extra handling and packaging involved in selling smaller volumes, as well as the simple fact that the corporation has the power to negotiate where the consumer is largely left at the whim of the retailer in regard to prices.

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 01-23-2004).]

DL: Hmmmmmmmmm partly but the supermarket is also buying their potatoes in bulk too (pos. even more than any one chip manufacturer). I suspect in the case of chips that it is largely due to all the extra frozen water they pump in (they do the same to boost the weight of frozen chickens).

The general answer to why bad food is cheaper is because of the vile things food manufacturers do to the food - see my old chicken nuggets thread. DNA tests of chicken nuggets reveal that they have been adding pork because pork can absorb more water for its weight than chicken can, etc., etc.

Thats why we need to legislate - if companies could be trusted or this information was more widely available then perhaps we could leave it up to the individual. There are also people looking at stopping the advertising of fast food during children's TV shows and pos. stopping them targetting children with free toy dals tied into their favourite characters.

That said I'm not too sorry for people if they just stuff themselves with stuffed crust pizzas but........

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

I doubt any grocery chain is out buying companies making "chips", since it's their primary product usually, whereas the gorcery chain has so many others.

The poor quality and shady practices in food processing is certainly a factor, and water must be as well - as you said.

But the volume buying, and in particular issues relating to quality when you talk about the volume a company will buy for the sake of chopping and freezing - they don't need to look or even taste good when you're going to chop, freeze, and plaster with preservatives. The average consumer would want a piece of procude to at least look fairly good.

^Yep, what he said!^

I know I go for the freshest, least bruised produce I can find in the grocery store. I hate cooking frozen or canned veggies. And being vegetarian, I eat a lot of them! But prices are high on all fresh produce. I mean, green bell peppers can be as much as 1.69 apiece! Let's not even discuss the nice colored Holland peppers at 1.99 - 2.19 each. ONE pepper, mind you.

And a bag of fresh potatoes isn't bad, in relation to frozen "chips" (fries to me...) the difference is about a dollar or so. But I can get probably 10 servings of home fries out of a 5lb bag of potatoes, and maybe squeeze 4-6 servings out of a bag of frozen fries. Some of that stuff isn't too bad pricewise if you look carefully before you buy. But still, the overall cost of say, a box of Hamburger Helper vs. the ingredients to make the dish yourself is freakin' amazing!

When I look to cook a meal from non-processed ingredients, I can spend up to 10-15 dollars for the individual ingredients, where buying the processed version would save me 8-12 dollars, depending on what else I would be having with it. I must say I was flabbergasted when I noticed that's what was going on. This is something I've just started paying a lot of attention to in the last 6 months. We've been struggling on one income for a year, and it's played havoc with my budget. So I started doing weekly menus, because if I know what we're gonna eat, I save money at the grocery store. I consider myself responsible for the Li'l Debbies and potato "crisps", but for your general fodder, there shouldn't be this kind of difference!

And on a related note this guy turned himself into a MacDoanlds guinea pig and suffered for it:
http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/16393.htm

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Was there a time in the past when most people knew that "junk food" was just that? Have we always had such ignorance in our population that a large number of people would think they could eat this type of food and be healthy? I have to believe there was a reason society dubbed this type of food as "junk" in the first place.

If there were a time when people were more informed about this food, then what have we lost that we are now talking about the government, of all entities, having to educate people? Could it be the breakdown of the family? Could it just be indifference? Poor parenting? What?

. . : slicePuzzle

The American Dream is wealth and luxury. Pure Hedonism. Junk food is an indulgence that people simply take too far. If there's one thing Americans really know how to do, it is how to blow something completely out of proportion. If we do nothing else, we will carry a thing entirely too far. The end result is not always a good thing.

Kind of sad, really.

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 01-24-2004).]

Bugimus - what we've lost is perspective.

The things I ate as a child were less healthy and more processed than those my parents had available, and the things my children eat follow the same pattern.

This is simply because of the mass marketing and easy/low cost methods of processing food as mentioend above.

However, as each generation goes, the perspective of what is "good" is more likely to slip a little further down. It's kind of like the 'copy of a copy' syndrome.

What it takes to combat is certainly twofold -

the individual must take the responsibility to determine what is best for them. The family must work together to instill the 'right' mindset in their children and in each other to make sure that ignorance doesn't become an excuse.

But again - the government is already involved in the miseducation of the people!

It is not a matter of whether or not the government becomes involved - it is a matter of changing and controlling what the government's role in this will be for the better.

Good points. The problem I have with the government getting involved is that it is the least effective method of effecting changes for the better. It certainly can work but I would prefer the family unit to be stronger because I believe it is many times more effective than the government. I am sad that we've gotten to a point that we're even talking about needing the government to fix this.

Where the government is actively involved in hurting people must be opposed strongly. But that requires an educated public that is also active in the political process. But with the amount of political apathy I see in many people I know, I am not optimistic.

. . : slicePuzzle

There's lots of things that need to be fixed, not the least of which is the strength of family that seems to be slipping away at an alarming rate. However, our public education system is tied into the federal government through the school boards and local governments. The government says what we should and shouldn't be teaching our kids in school. Lobbyists to the government influence officials to add certain criteria to that curriculum. Such as the Dairy Assns. Food Pyramid... The government is far more involved with people's local, private lives than most folks know or care to admit. They tell us what they think is right, and they tell us what they think is wrong. Depending on who's giving them the most money for it.

Yes, individuals should ultimately be responsible for what they put into their bodies, but there are several issues that need to be attacked at once for the society as a whole to be successful. One must admit, there is a lot of money to made off of an obese population... Look at the healthcare costs, look at the costs of exercising (gyms, equipment, personal trainers, etc...). Not to mention the companies profiting off of processed and junk foods. These industries have a lot of reason for like-minded politicians to get elected to and stay in certain governmental offices. Hell, NC's Agriculture Commissioner was indicted this past autumn for taking bribes from vendors for spots on the Fairway at the NC State Fair. If the right money's involved, you can talk a lot of people into doing what you want them to do.

The entire system need some sort of overhaul - but it'll be decades in coming, if ever. In the meantime, read nutritional labels carefully, moderate your refined sugar intake, and get some aerobic movement away from your computer for at least 30 minutes a day!

quote:

---

that we're even talking about needing the government to fix this.

---

But again - that's not what we're talking about.

What I am saying is that the government is already very heavily involved, in a negative way. What needs to be done - in part - is for that involvement to change for the better.

Or perhaps change the goverment completely..?

I think the government involvement in our personal lives has become excessive and it should be rolled back. Unfortunately, while the Reps favor smaller government, they actually just favor less "big government" compared to the Dems. So I think we're stuck with it and therefore I would have to agree with DL that we need to modify it for the better.

X, I don't think we've come to that just yet Things could be far far worse. We've actually got it pretty dang good if you compare our present situation with the rest of human history.

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 01-31-2004).]