all 50 comments

[–]sidwood 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Stop subsidizing corn, meat, and dairy so heavily so foods full of fat and sugar are more expensive (like they used to be). Place a tax on high-sodium, high-sugar, high-fat processed foods to force the industry to come up with a way to make processed food healthier. Begin subsidizing healthy foods and institute a program to provide incentives for the private sector to build grocery stores in "food deserts." Increase funding for WIC and similar programs so the most vulnerable can afford to eat real food. Increase the focus on nutrition and exercise in schools.

Problem solved.

[–]theorymeltfool 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think your first point is enough to solve this problem.

[–]NotKiddingJK 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

End corn subsidies. Subsidies healthy food to make it more affordable. Educate the public. Label unhealthy food.

[–]schnuffs 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's simple economics. It's cheap to eat at fast-food places and expensive to eat healthy. Evidence seems to suggest that there's a strong correlation between obesity and income/social services. Add to that an increasing wage gap and a decrease in social services, and you'll find the rates of obesity going up.

Solving the obesity problem needs an economic solution. In other words, we shouldn't focus on obesity itself in a health capacity because the causes of the obesity epidemic aren't about being "unhealthy" by choice.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ever since 2005, there is no longer a linear relationship between poverty and obesity. Being wealthy is not nearly as protective against obesity as it used to be.

Obesity is a problem across demographics, and it needs to be treated as such.

There are specific factors that makes obesity a problem in low-income neighborhoods, and they need to be part of a much larger public health effort to reverse these trends. Just reducing the wage gap and increasing social services will not be enough to address obesity.

[–]schnuffs 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In terms of what the government can do it is. Though, I do think that adequate preventative healthcare for everyone is essential to solving the obesity problem as well. But the best solution for healthcare is another discussion altogether.

[–]midsummernightstoker 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So the idea is to improve the economy to a point where even the poorest Americans are above the poverty line?

[–]dablya 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you wish to combat obesity, and you accept the premise that those below the poverty line are obese because they can't afford healthy food, then the idea would be to make it so even the poorest people have access to healthy food.

[–]schnuffs 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, there will always be poor people so long as we live in a free market economy. But we're talking aggregate numbers here, not the bottom 5-10%. Reduce poverty to a reasonable number (along with other things) and the epidemic will subside to a manageable degree.

[–]midsummernightstoker 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Even the 90% mark is going to be impossible. Virtually all wealth gains of the past 30 years have only gone to the wealthiest Americans. How is anyone supposed to be pulled out of poverty?

[–]schnuffs 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So we should give up and just accept it? There is nothing that can be done to help the economy and reduce the income disparity?

[–]midsummernightstoker 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh hell no we shouldn't give up, I'm just saying that in its current form improvements to the economy aren't going to help income disparity.

[–]danarchist 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Get business out of government. Lock the revolving doors, bar the lobbyists from taxpayer funded offices, no more freebies for the staffers and bundles of cash for the campaigns. Then revoke the charter for the monopolies like DuPont, Big Pharma co's, Monsanto - anything dangerous to public health or the economy. Legalize hemp.

This would go a long way toward ending income disparity.

[–]DevsAdvocate -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If the economy improves, then the poverty line simply moves up with it.

[–]midsummernightstoker 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That hasn't been the case for the past 30 or so years.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's cheap to eat at fast-food places and expensive to eat healthy.

Totally false. Try spewing this ridiculous claim over on /r/fitness and see what happens.

[–]Rakajj 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not false at all.

You, and the people at /r/fitness, fail to account for the cost of time.

[–]Loki_SW 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This graphic shows that Americans are choosing to eat more unhealthy items. How can the government combat this?

It's not the government's job to force you to buy spinach over Doritos. They already tax alcohol, tobacco and other unhealthy items to try to economically coerce you into healthy living. Not to mention various public service ads.

At the end of the day it's up to the individual to take responsibility for what they're eating and to make the right decisions.

[–]abowsh[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As much as I agree with that in theory, the financial cost makes me rethink it.

Medicare and Medicaid are always going to be there. As the rate of obesity increases, the costs of these programs will increase exponentially. This becomes a spending problem if you allow it to spiral out of control.

[–]repmack 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The fact that people make really bad choices about health is an argument to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid or at least have less of that and government control. It isn't an argument for more control.

[–]Loki_SW 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

NYC is trying to control peoples dietary habits with their soda size limits but that won't stop people from just getting free refills. The biggest problem is that it's much cheaper to eat at Mcdonalds than to make a salad at home and much of the obesity is with lower income families.

I've made a few personal changes to eat healthier such as using ground buffalo instead of beef for various meals I make. However, I pay $10/lb for a package of ground buffalo while beef is nearly 40% less, I can totally understand someone going the more cost effective route.

[–]midsummernightstoker 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The biggest problem is that it's much cheaper to eat at Mcdonalds than to make a salad at home and much of the obesity is with lower income families.

How are individuals supposed to make the right decisions if they can't afford to?

[–]Loki_SW 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

One of the best suggestions is to buy in bulk and buy unpackaged. You offset the higher retail price from doing the work yourself. Most groceries stores sell entire chickens, salmon and large cuts of pork and beef which are much cheaper than the pre-portioned and individually wrapped cuts. The same goes for fruit and veggies.

Plus as much as I'd hate to say it, shop at Wal-Mart. From a price end they simply can't be beat and they do save the average consumer A LOT of money and make eating healthy a very viable option.

[–]bittercupojoe 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

NYC is trying to control peoples dietary habits with their soda size limits but that won't stop people from just getting free refills

No, it won't. But people that study the psychology of eating and food have found, over and over again, that if you add a step in between, people are less likely to overeat. If you have to go for seconds, rather than having twice as much food on your plate, you are less likely to do so. If you're given a smaller serving, you're about as likely to be satisfied with that serving, rather than ask for another plate.

There's a great book on the subject called Mindless Eating. It's worth reading before decrying "pointless" measures like the one Bloomberg is trying.

[–]naryn 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The government haven't tried to control it before, and the country spiralled into obesity, though the US isn't alone it is one of the largest nations, both physically and geographically. If the government did get involved then I would think it would be on the form of tax, similar to alcohol and tobacco, though I personally believe it should focus on the fast food in America, though I live in the UK when I visited America I went to Washington D.C., not especially known for it's unhealthy living at least from what I'm aware of but on every street I saw at least 2-3 fast food places.

With the obesity problem, maybe it's time to add restrictions on sugary and fast foods, similar to the alcohol market.

Though maybe it's not a government issue, it is a national problem, and that to me suggests the government needs someway to combat it

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Do you know of any successful efforts in the UK to reduce obesity?

Is there anything specific that the government is doing in terms of public health policy? Have you heard anything good or bad about these programs:

Public Health Responsibility Deal

NICE guidance

[–]naryn 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The UK's obesity problem is fairly large, excuse the pun, whilst not as much of a problem as America I think Britain have just become the most obese nation in Europe.

The major strategies focus on school and homelife for children, rather than adult obesity, and through Jamie Oliver's (TV Chief, not sure if you know him in America) Health Eating programme in schools means most schools have now stopped serving chips, pizza etc or at least cut down on it in favour of salads, wraps and generally more healthy meals. The 2 programmes you've mentioned I've never really seen as having a great impact, as for NICE, I've never even heard of it.

British Obesity I think comes mostly from similar reasons to the US, too many fast food places, it's cheaper to eat unhealthily etc

[–]FetidFeet 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

At the end of the day it's up to the individual to take responsibility for what they're eating and to make the right decisions.

Everyone has a different take on what the purpose of government is. At the end of the day, one would hope that taxes on an issue would balance out with the public costs (externalities) of that issue.

We hate to tax food because it really hits the poor. On the other hand, the poor are often the ones with the least-healthy diets for a huge variety of reasons. Maternal obsesity is a HUGE (ha ha) problem that leads to severe problems for the child, mother, and huge costs for society that are not properly accounted for by the individual.

Additionally, government often takes a role in regulations where the public is not deemed educated enough to compete with the folks trying to sell to them (banking, medicine, etc.) It's fairly clear that consumers are not doing a great job at the moment acting in the their own self interest. I don't know that it requires huge regulatory efforts, but at least think about ways to level the playing ground such that children are not being manipulated by Madison Avenue.

[–]midsummernightstoker 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They already tax alcohol, tobacco and other unhealthy items to try to economically coerce you into healthy living

That's not even remotely true. Sure, alcohol and tobacco are taxed but it has nothing to do with health: it's just a reliable source of revenue (and in some cases puritanical holdovers). Hell, in some states tobacco taxes are actually used to subsidize tobacco farming.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Which states are they? That sounds like a ridiculous public policy.

Also, I thought farm subsidies were distributed almost entirley at the Federal level. Is that incorrect?

[–]midsummernightstoker 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was fairly certain North Carolina was one, but I can't find anything about tobacco taxes being directly allocated. I'll have to retract that part of it.

Even so, with the millions in tobacco subsidies it's hard to argue that tobacco taxes have anything to do with promoting health.

[–]AuGuy 19 points20 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How can the government combat this?

Tell the govt to shove it! It's not their damn business!

[–]VerbalJungleGym 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It is when they subsidize the corn and corn syrup that ends up in many foods and practically all junk food type foodstuffs.

[–]HonorAmongSteves 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So stop subsidizing corn. Problem solved.

[–]VerbalJungleGym -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

One tiny piece maybe, but the brilliance of the resilience of the systems operating act like scale armor, diffusing the force amongst several scales and thus preventing systemic change.

[–]mondaytuesdaywednesd 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They also put a tariff on sugar imports. If they didn't, sugar would be cheaper than even subsidized corn syrup.

[–]skarphace 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's arguable, but I generally agree. The main problem with processed/factory foods is that most people don't know how awful it is for them.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Even if they know, it's hard to change people's habits.

Our food culture has eroded somewhat, and people have gotten lazy about what they eat. It might be a result of our working hours, but it's just as easy to blame it on the availability of ready-made processed food. It's cheap, fast and appeals to our taste for fat and sugar. A lot of times that's enough for people...even if they know it's unhealthy.

[–]skarphace 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

User name relevant. It bothers me that nobody knows 'how to cook' anymore. If it's not Kraft mac-n-cheese or ramen, people think I'm a god.

[–]abowsh[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yep. I think everyone is aware that Doritos are terrible for you. But people are also aware that Doritos are delicious. Most people care more about enjoying the moment than they do about their long term health.

[–]Learned-Hand 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Personal health choices are a cultural issue, and we can't legislate it away. Think of the temperance movement leading to prohibition. Programs like Move First are the proper role of government because they educate people and persuade them to make healthier choices. Laws like the NYC ban sodas over 18 oz. are counterproductive and an overreach of government authority.

[–]swiheezy 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The government cant do anything against a problem it has caused. It has subsidized high fructose corn syrup into oblivion which makes it a cheap thing to make most fast foods and quick foods with. In this high speed world the fastest foods are eaten the most and instead of being somewhat healthy they are barely healthy if at all.

The government can fix it by getting out of the way.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The only thing that the government can do that I would be okay with is to limit what foods can be purchased with food stamps.

[–]FazzyOzzy 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I wrote a paper in business ethics class about the topic of obesity related to consumption of obesogenic foods. Simply stated adult obesity is a problem but child obesity is an even bigger problem which withing the next 20 years will being to take its toll on health care.

The solution I proposed was to give power to the FCC, FTC, and the FDA to regulate marketing and advertising of obesogenic foods and beverages to minors. Europe has already begun to do this, we should follow.

In my personal opinion, this will be the battle of our generation. Similar to the way smoking was such a huge dilemma for the previous generation. The government came down hard on big tobacco, it will have to do the same to big food or the consequences will be just as bad.

[–]killien 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Another huge problem with government controlled healthcare. Your personal habits are now subject to the government since they pay for it. What is wrong with a society where my neighbors are not forced to pay for my lung cancer when I smoke my whole life?

What can the government do to help fix this problem?

Start by rolling back 90% of the laws since 1960. Get rid of the tax loop holes for health insurance, so you buy it like life or home insurance and not through your job. Replace medicaid with universal catastrophic insurance + $5k to every person who is below poverty line (this would be cheaper than current system). Replace medicare with a tax free savings account to you can save up for end of life health expenses. Insurance is completely inefficient when the probability is 100% (everyone gets old and dies, usually running up medical bills)

Finally, make the FDA focus on safety, not effectiveness. 75% of drug costs are incurred after phase I (human safety study). Let doctors and consumers figure out if it works and is a good deal, like every other product we buy.

[–]mrhymer -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Here is the solution to this particular problem. Stop all collective health care spending. If you eat wrong and you have to pay for your own care then you are not anyone's problem but your own.

[–]Rakajj 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well now that we have all the non-ideas out of the way...the discussion can begin.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The government can combat this by having rigorous planning efforts at the local level to make walking, cycling and public transit legitimate options for people. In areas that are already built out with sprawl, they can allow land to be re-zoned, allowing for increased density and mixed use development.

Our school lunch programs can be much better then they are. A lot of the current standards are driven by efficiency rather then nutrition. Frankly, if kids want to eat junk food at school, they should have to bring it in their lunch box. There would be a lot of protesting at first, but just changing people's environment to make being healthy easy is a great way to shape people's habits.

Neither of these are a panacea of the problem, but they are two areas where the government already has a role that needs improvement. I'm all for individuals being responsible for their choices, but our environment shapes our decisions...and our government has a role in shaping our environment. There's a role for government in this issue...even if people disagree with what specific actions need to be taken.

[–]mclenins -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Simply saying that it is not the government's business is not only overly simplistic, but is not progressing debate at all. I'm am curious as to what the full Libertarian rationale against government intervention in nutrition ought to be when considering all of society, not just those individuals who can afford to actually make decisions about what they eat.

Obviously the problem has many facets. On the public policy side, the government should absolutely stop subsidizing corn, or at least to the extent that it currently does. This provides an economic incentive to mass produce corn. The corn needs to go somewhere, so it is used to create high fructose corn syrup which appears in nearly all processed food products. Now, hfcs has not been shown to be any more harmful than sugar but then again, fructose isn't good for you at all. Furthermore, I think that it is acceptable for the government to ban unhealthy foods in public schools because schools often defer to the cheap option of selling processed foods as opposed to nutritional ones which establishes unhealthy eating habits among the country's youth. Since this money is coming from the government, it ought to be able to decide where that money is going.

The government can also work to subsidize healthy foods. This is not the same as simply taxing unhealthy foods. Taxing unhealthy foods does not make it any easier for Americans to buy healthy foods. Rather, the prices of healthy foods should be made to be more equitable to unhealthy ones so that it becomes an issue of choice when buying processed foods as opposed to an economic necessity. This can be done by taxing unhealthy foods and then using that money to subsidize vegetables etc.

Next, the government should either create supermarkets in food deserts or provide incentives for private businesses to open supermarkets in low income areas. I volunteer in some of the worst neighborhoods in the US and one common theme is that people regularly have no option but to shop at their local convenience store. This is because that's all they have access to due to a lack of stores and adequate public transportation options. If I am a private business, why would I ever choose to open a business in a low income neighborhood over a wealthy one? I doubt that anybody can live a healthy lifestyle on goods purchased at 7/11. A Libertarian friend of mine said the solution to this was that those people should move. I don't think I need to explain why that response is ludicrous.

A final thought would be to mandate that people of a certain weight be forced to see a nutritionist. Some people legitimately have no clue as to how to eat healthy and their obesity and subsequent health issues, as OP stated, ends up costing the taxpayer. There are more reasons, but those are just my immediate thoughts.

tl;dr Liberty is wonderful but it only exists for those who can afford it. To solve the problem of processed foods, the government should decrease corn subsidies, ban unhealthy foods in public schools, make healthy foods comparably priced, increase access to supermarkets, and require the obese to see nutritionists.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The cost of meat has dropped significantly; adjusted for inflation, pork chops cost 37 percent less than they did 30 years ago. That probably has a lot to do with why we’re spending less on meat: We can get a lot more of it for each of our grocery dollars.

Uh, no. When the price of something goes down, people buy more of it, not less.