America, your belly is too big

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

anitram

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Mar 13, 2001
Messages
18,918
Location
NY
Title shamelessly stolen from a Morrissey song.

Last month, the highly influential journal "Science" printed a paper titled "Public enemy number one: tobacco or obesity?"

You do not need to look hard for accompanying evidence.

Science, in a February '03 editorial said this:

In 1998, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States found that 97 million U.S. adults (55% of the U.S. population) were considered obese or overweight. The Surgeon General issued a "Call to Action" on the obesity problem, but it drew a lackluster response from the responsible federal agencies, and Americans continued to consume an average of 3800 calories per person per day, or about twice the daily requirement. It is now estimated that over two-thirds of U.S. adults are overweight.

They also argued that:

U.S. dietary styles and food habits have been exported so widely around the world.

...

Europe...Mayans in Guatemala, South Africans, aboriginal Australians, and Pacific Islanders also show patterns of emerging obesity.

In a paper titled "The Ironic Politics of Obesity", Marion Nestle argues that

Food companies are well aware of the economic implications of reversing the obesity epidemic, as are government agencies. Economists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) calculate that "large adjustments" would occur in the agriculture and processed food industries if people ate more healthfully. That threat is one reason why food producers contribute generously to congressional campaigns, and why federal agencies have failed to take the obvious first step: a national obesity-prevention campaign in response to the Surgeon General's 2001 Call to Action.

In Journal Watch ("An update on the obesity problem), Komaroff argues that:

For now, faced with a biological drive and a marketplace that encourage us to overeat and underexert, the best hope for dealing with the obesity epidemic might be political: restrictions on marketing junk foods, particularly to children; taxes and calorie labels on junk foods; and changes in the farm subsidy laws to encourage production and consumption of grains, fruits, and vegetables. One can assume that resistance to such changes will be enormous.


So, what, if anything can be done here? Are people simply free in a free society to literally eat themselves to death, or should the government step in? Is it moral to consume twice the daily caloric need when people elsewhere are starving? Should the government divert funds to battling obesity given that there is an argument put forth in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) saying that 435,000 Americans die per year of obesity, while comparatively speaking, 400,000 people die of tobacco exposure? Why is it that there are anti-smoking ads everywhere, photos of underdeveloped premature babies, rotting teeth and black lungs yet there is a McDonald's on every corner, crap at the grocery store and a Double Big Gulp with 46 tablespoons of sugar at the local 7-11?
 
I reckon it's kind of ludicrous to expect or ask the government to not step in. If approximately 97 million people are not making wise decisions regarding their eating habits, it is only a matter of time before an individual's problem becomes one for society and the government. But then, America does not have much in the way of assistance in health care. So if Americans are happy to keep eating such shitty food, then suck up the costs of your health care as your government sure as shit wont help.
Someone has to pay, for the effects bad eating has. Individuals eventaully pay with their health or their lives, but the cost on society is huge. Per capita, Australia is just behind or even just ahead of America with obesity. We're a nation of boomsticks. Sport is our religion, and we don't have the wide range of bad food America does, but somehow we're still as fat as a Life Be In It advert.
 
anitram said:
Is it moral to consume twice the daily caloric need when people elsewhere are starving?


Actually, the fattening food is much more readily available and cheaper. If you try and eat right it costs a lot more.
 
Angela Harlem said:
I reckon it's kind of ludicrous to expect or ask the government to not step in. If approximately 97 million people are not making wise decisions regarding their eating habits, it is only a matter of time before an individual's problem becomes one for society and the government. But then, America does not have much in the way of assistance in health care. So if Americans are happy to keep eating such shitty food, then suck up the costs of your health care as your government sure as shit wont help.
Someone has to pay, for the effects bad eating has. Individuals eventaully pay with their health or their lives, but the cost on society is huge. Per capita, Australia is just behind or even just ahead of America with obesity. We're a nation of boomsticks. Sport is our religion, and we don't have the wide range of bad food America does, but somehow we're still as fat as a Life Be In It advert.

From what I have experienced, Australians drink more beer than anyone on the planet.:wink: Maybe that explains it.
 
Ha, Aussies do consume a rather large amount of the worlds beer supply but we have also started to eat crap as well.

The local shopping centre near me has just added 100 shops including
* a gigantic pretzel shop (not the normal kind of pretzel, these things are all floor and sugar)
* a donut shop
* upteen coffee shops that make huge creamy coffee food/drinks
* a takeaway cake shop - they serve little boxes of individual cakes in them
* a Baskin and Robbins or whatever its called ice cream shop.
* a KFC

etc

We didnt used to have all these crappy choices before. I think it says something. The shopping centre is obviously expecting this kinda crap to sell.

They did also add a Subway, a noodle house and an Indian restaurant but all of these are outside so if its too hot or is raining you cant get to them.

I agree with the comment that junk food is cheaper than good food. It is.

I dont know how this trend can be reversed except for encouraging shopping centres to put the healthy shops on the inside of the centre and the crappy ones on the outside instead of vice versa.
 
Last edited:
Many years ago when I was at University my taxation law lecturer suggested that the system of determining an individuals tax payable was unjust. It doesnt encourage savings.

He suggested that we should be able to look at the size of a persons beer gut and tax them more the bigger their gut was.

Not a bad idea really.
 
I'm sorry but I'm afraid I can't get too worked up about topics like this, especially when you realise what the literature considers 'obese' (ie. you can be perfectly fit but simply the wrong shape and/or height, you'll be classed as morbidly unwell).

Worry about terrorists or something. Oh, that's right, we already do.
 
a couple of days ago it was announced in the news over here that dutch supermarkets will make a conscious effort to try and shift at least part of their marketing campaigns on fruits and vegetables instead of on beer, chips and other fattening food because they recognize their contribution to increasing obesity

it remains to be seen whether they will indeed stick to this and what the effects exactly will be
but at least it's sending out the right signal

it is a problem society should attack
and if society isn't willing then the government should step in because of the effects this has/will have on our populations health and - perhaps to a lesser extend - in the long run on our healthcare system and economy
 
Last edited:
Angela Harlem said:
Sport is our religion

Watching sport is our religion.

Have you heard about the debate in Brisbane about the 90+ kg under-11 footballer whose team had to forfeit ... because the other teams were worried he might hurt the smaller kids? If that kind of thinking doesn't turn people who really need the exercise off sport, I don't know what does.

And another person who wrote a letter to the paper today about why doesn't the government subsidise gym memberships? Fair enough, but I think we need to get past the idea that gyms are the only places to get exercise. Walking or jogging are free, you can do them anytime and it doesn't even have to be considered "exercise" - take a nice stroll along the beach, walk to work one day, etc.

I agree, there are too many fast-food shops and too much junk food advertising on TV, too many enticing things to watch on television, too many computer games to play, it's always too hot, it's always too cold, it's always raining ... I believe that governments can make an effort to tackle to obesity issue, but in the end it has to be a personal decision.
 
I think something has to be done. Obesity not only contributes to many deaths, it makes other health problems like arthritis worse. I've lost 25 lbs. since June of last year. I did it with a high-green (especially lettuce), low fat, low cholesterol (since my doc was on my case about my cholesterol and I didn't want to get arteriosclerosis) diet and exercise. It wasn't the easiest thing I ever did, but I did it. They could have public service advertisements and such about education about good eating habits, encourage exercise, and more. I think it's worth it.
 
I think the government should interfere in this one. Not something Im normally for but in this case, yes. It would be good if the government could tax McDonalds and other creators of health problems the same way tabacco companies are taxed.

I work in safety & health and we really do so little health. If we do ever run a seminar etc its usually poorly attended.

I think most people know that they should be eating their greens and not so much crap but at the end of the day takeaway food is a nice release from household chores.

If good food was somehow cheaper than bad food then perhaps, over time, some people may switch.

Oh and some employers are now salary packaging gym membership as a recognition that their staff will have less sick days off work if they are fitter. But its still not as wide spread as it could be.
 
Last edited:
Is it moral to consume twice the daily caloric need when people elsewhere are starving?

It's like the old comment, don't waste your food there's kids starving in other countries! But it's not like we can bag it up and take it over to them. My aunt won't run her air conditioner when she's suffering from the heat because she feels guilty some people don't have one. If you get into that, is it right for some people to have millions of dollars when many of us can't even make their monthly bills?

I am a food addict, the way some people are drunks or drug addicts. I use it as a comfort, a pleasure, a consolation. I look forward to it. I know that's not the way you're supposed to be but a lot of people are not the way they're supposed to be and the government can't force everyone to be a certain way. Taxing McDonalds won't help, they'll only run their prices up and pay their workers less but they will make their profit. Cigarette taxes, and recent high gas and milk prices prove that paying more doesn't stop anyone anyway.

There are lots worse things a person can do than get fat, or eat too much. There are many more people who need to be stopped or controlled for much worse things than eating and being fat. Cheer up, maybe it won't end up to be a burden on anybody, us US overeaters might not last long enough. We might all just drop dead in the floor and you'll only have to worry about who's going to pick up the old carcass and haul it off.

(footnote: in the last year, I know 2 women personally, friends of the family, who were 55ish and overweight and literally dropped dead in the floor, one at work, one at home) :(

I don't think it's 'morally right' to resent health care for people who got sick because of their lifestyle choices. It's not just food, the booze and cigarettes do a lot too, not to mention drugs and casual promiscuous sex that can cause AIDS and deadly forms of hepatitis. Why is it only the fat people who are deemed unworthy of health care because of lifestyle?
 
Last edited:
beli said:
I think the government should interfere in this one. Not something Im normally for but in this case, yes.

It's always interesting how people are so vehemently opposed to the government in personal lives when it's something they don't want to happen yet it's okay if it suits you and doesn't offend you. It can't be both ways. Either the government sticks its nose into our personal lives, or it doesn't.
 
I dont think anyone here is against health care for overweight people as such, more it is voicing concerns on the heavy cost on society. As for the other examples you listed, they are doing their fair bit to strain as well, but not half the population.

Buffalo was that person by any chance against personal health cover too? That is a handy lure by MBF et al to get more people in. The government will never match what these big insurance companies offer, simply because our government is not a business who's sole aim is to milk us for cash - well not precisely anyway. That said, the govt don't want to fork out for the long arsed list of problems associated with obesity either like mature onset diabetes, liver, kidney and heart disease, high cholesterol, strokes, heart attacks etc etc etc. Medicare is already crippled so it might not be a choice soon for the govt.

But this is about America, not here. We all need to get off our fat arses and do some simple excercise. If we dont, we wont have to worry about terorists as we'll already be dead. Maybe Hussein should have opened an Ali Burger chain.
 
U2Kitten said:


It's always interesting how people are so vehemently opposed to the government in personal lives when it's something they don't want to happen yet it's okay if it suits you and doesn't offend you. It can't be both ways. Either the government sticks its nose into our personal lives, or it doesn't.

Its the sheer numbers, thats why. Most other 'things' are no where near on the scale of obesity.

The other alternative is deny them health care - which is a bit rough. A former clients wife had a lung transplant - and continued smoking, something that I thought was completely unjust. If she wanted a new lung and the option of living it should be on the basis that she stopped smoking.

I feel the same way about most things. If you want health cover then you should do your best to make the best of it.

I used to work in workers compensation and we have had cases where the claimant has complained about their own doctor telling them that their injury would improve faster if they lost weight. So instead of listening to their choice of doctors advice, they would whinge about the doctor. If I was the insurer I would cut their funds then and there.
 
mcdonalds isn't the problem. YOU are looking the problem straight in the face right this very moment. you're sitting down staring at a screen talking to people, where as 20-30 years ago you would've had to actually get up and WALK somewhere in order to talk to new people. why should kids go to the park and pretend to be michael jordan when they can throw in a disc and BE michael jordan...
22072003215337_156_4-10.jpg


video games have gotten so insane that people actually sit in front of their computer simulating a person sitting in front of a computer...

caddy-pointing.jpg
 
Last edited:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/05/04_400.html

The Congress already outlawed "frivolous" lawsuit about companies marketing unhealthy foods (thanks majority party).

Eating Away at Science

The Bush administration took an extraordinary step early this year to defend the interests of U.S. sugar producers and the packaged-food industry, both of which count top executives among the president's biggest fundraisers.



In January, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent a letter to the World Health Organization with dozens of objections to the scientific findings that underlie the WHO's effort to issue anti-obesity guidelines. Only eight months earlier, U.S. sugar manufacturers and other food industry groups had called for "the personal intervention" of HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson and urged him to challenge the WHO's scientific findings about obesity?most notably a dietary recommendation to limit consumption of sugar.
 
Last edited:
U2Kitten said:
Why is it only the fat people who are deemed unworthy of health care because of lifestyle?

Not that I've seen this anywhere on the board, but I would say that smokers, alcoholics, drug users are all looked at a lot more harshly than obese people, who at this time are dying in greater numbers than smokers.

In "Supersize Me" there was a professor, I think, who was asking how is it socially acceptable to call a smoker disgusting and tell them they are killing themselves, but it's not socially acceptable to tell an overweight person that they are fat and to stay the hell away from dessert.
 
U2Kitten said:
Why is it only the fat people who are deemed unworthy of health care because of lifestyle?

Tisnt. My drivel that I wrote in the middle of the night (and I apologise for the way it was written) refers to smokers. I think obese people get off rather lightly on this matter.

Maybe if we had some kind of user pays health system that still permitted people who have genetic illnesses and accidental illnesses to receive health care but the people who drink, smoke, and eat themselves to death paid higher premiums, then watching obese people shovel a fist full of MacDonalds fries into their mouth may not be so revolting.

I dont like my taxes paying for these people. I would rather my money go to genetic and accidental illnesses.
 
Headache is on to something, but I think it goes further than that. Obesity in America isn't just about eating too much and exercising too little. It's about why are we eating too much and exercising too little. So many reasons, all working in a complex way that makes this problem hard to solve.

I think one of the main reasons (and there are others) is that Americans are overextended. Everyone's got too much to do and not enough time to do it. I know very few people who actually cook a healthy meal from scratch even once a week, let alone three times a day. Cooking a healthy meal from scratch, from buying all the groceries you need to washing dishes afterward, is a lot more time-consuming than just putting something in the microwave. And being overextended means you're too damn tired to exercise when you're done working overtime and taking your kids to five million activities and doing all the other things we feel obligated or pressured to do. All this leads to stress, which makes a lot of people turn to food for comfort. Or they become depressed, making them less likely to exercise and care about their health. One thing leads to another, and I see it all as being very complicated.

Other reasons include our consumer culture, our obsession with technology-based fun (i.e., sitting in front of the blue crack all day), the fact that so many of us sit at desks for 8 hours a day instead of doing physical labor...the list goes on and on.
 
HeartlandGirl said:
So many reasons, all working in a complex way that makes this problem hard to solve.
I agree, but I tend to thhink that the more difficult the problem the more important it becomes to start at least doing the things you actually can do

and taxing fattening food just like + for the same reasons as you tax cigarettes and alcohol would be something that can be done fairly simply (when you look past the fundraising bit)

food companies will react to this and increase their efforts to get us to eat more healthy when they feel the economic pressure to do so
 
I agree with Salome.

I also think the average Joe can still do a bit him/herself. There are less hours in the day to do things like shopping and cooking but people can still choose what they put in their mouths when purchasing takeaway meals.

eg

Coke vs juice
MacDonalds vs a purchased sandwich
Fries vs a side salad
Pizza Hut vs a local 'proper' pizza
Chocolate vs an apple

The exercise bit is more difficult. Incidental excercise is relatively easy to fit into your life
eg taking the stairs instead of the elevator, turning off the tv manually rather than via a remote control etc.

But if the excercise is still not enough to shift the weight than a change in diet is required. ie eat less.

One of the problems I see is that junk food is cheaper than healthier take away. A MacDonald meal set thingie with a burger, fries and a coke is cheaper than the cost of a Subway alone. And then you still need a water/juice.
 
i dont agree that junk food is cheaper. $20 will get you a dominos delivered with a pepsi and garlic bread, but you can cook a 3 course meal at home for that. if you know how to shop properly.
mcdonalds costs...i dont know how much for a burger + coke + fries, but a sandwhich is only about 3-4 bucks. mcdonalds cant be cheaper than that. or maybe it can.
 
I meant MacDonalds is cheaper as a takeaway.

Cooking your own meals is the cheapest but if people are purchasing takeaways then the crappy ones are the cheapest. You can get a whole lot of crap for $2.95 at MacDonalds.

Sorry if that didnt make sense the first time around, or in fact this time.
 
I think junk food/fast food is cheaper and easier than healthy food when you're single. I love salads, but never eat them because vegetables always go bad before I can eat all of them and the pre-packaged salads are expensive and also end up wilted before I've been able to finish them. Also, I can't cook to save my life, so I live on Pot Noodles, crisps, and chocolate. :sigh:
 
I agree that there are lots of things individuals can do to take care of their own health, and there are most likely things the government can do to reverse the obesity trend. I know I said the problem is complex, but I didn't mean to imply that it is unsolvable. Personal responsibility in regard to this problem is an important factor.
 
I have to add to this thread by saying that a friend of mine was recently told that he is grossly obese by his doctor. He is over 6 feet tall and he weighs 200 pounds. I wouldn't call that grossly obese...yeah he has a bit of a belly but heck he still looks great. I think some people have gone bonkers with what they consider obese...but as a person that struggles with weight, yeah bad eating is definately a problem in the states. I think a lot of it has to do with the lifestyles most of us lead. I know that when I am working 80 hours per week and I only have 20 mins between going to clients' houses sometimes I only have time enough to grab a candy bar or some other such junk before I pass out from hunger.
 
Back
Top Bottom