Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where does one draw the line? Hard drugs?
Yeah, sounds reasonable. Why draw the line there? Because hard drugs so directly impair the mind.
So does alcohol, which is generally considered a "soft" drug.
As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food
101–110 of 144 posts
Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
The downside is that you can't get cheap tasty meals from McDonalds.
On the one hand, everybody would end up healthier, smarter, more productive, more attractive, richer (less healthcare spending), more psychologically healthy (the gut is the 2nd brain, bad diet means bad emotional health), will live longer, have their friends and family live longer. On the other hand, people will be unable to satisfy their sugar addiction (sugar is completely unnecessary from a nutritional point of v…
[deleted]
Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food
#103“Can anyone seriously say that Vanuatu doesn’t have the right to exercise its health sovereignty in every way possible to protect its population from an epidemic of that scale?” I would usually say exactly that. It's up to individuals to make decisions about what they do and do not eat and live with the consequences. Foods that accurately state their nutritional content and contain only ingredients that can be safely…
You're conflating two different things: 1) whether a sovereign nation has health under its own jurisdiction, and 2) whether a sovereign nation should ban food, given it has the power.
I think there's a third issue, or at least two pieces to your number 2.
Whether a government should have the mechanism of banning foods that are safe to eat in moderation available to it is a different question than whether it would be good policy given that mechanism.
If the government should be in the habit of regulating nutrition, banning foods with exceptionally poor nutritional qualities is probably good policy, but is that the kind of thing governments should be regulating at all? I would argue that it usually isn't and should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances.
Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
did Samoa apply bans to unhealthy locally produced food too or just to unhealthy imported food? In general, countries like that don't have unhealthy, locally-produced food. And the article agrees with that assertion. We have a patent on junk food.
> In general, countries like that don't have unhealthy, locally-produced food. And the article agrees with that assertion. Patently false assertion. I'm ethnically a pacific islander who grew up on a small island in Micronesia and I can assure you that local island dishes are quite unhealthy.
Samoan traditional food isn't unhealthy. Fish and taro isn't going to make anyone fat in a hurry. About 15 years ago we would joke that Samoans only got fat when they came to New Zealand and discovered KFC.
Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
These two things could both be true: 1) Banning certain restaurants would have a positive net effect on society. 2) Any government with the authority to ban restaurants would choose which restaurants to ban incorrectly, due to honest mistakes, influence from lobbying, or other reasons, and the end net effect on society would be negative.
Ok. 1. I support ban/taxes on junk food. 2. Government doesn't do it, does something else. 3. I' still not satisfied, and still support ban/taxes on junk food. I have opinions. So do you. What the government does is irrelevant to what I believe.
I don't get it. Would you rather the government have the authority to ban restaurants, or not? "The government only banning the restaurants that ought to be banned" isn't an option, unless you have good ideas on how to structure government.
The opinion we're discussing is whether governments ought to be able to ban restaurants, so what governments do is absolutely relevant.
Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
A fat slob overflowing the seat next to me on an aeroplane has a direct effect on me and I would be perfectly happy for measures to be taken to mitigate it.
Or we could get rid of anti-discrimination laws and allow airlines to charge based on weight/have assigned seating types. But I imagine that wouldn't go over very well with the people who want to ban junk food.
[deleted]
Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
did Samoa apply bans to unhealthy locally produced food too or just to unhealthy imported food? In general, countries like that don't have unhealthy, locally-produced food. And the article agrees with that assertion. We have a patent on junk food.
> In general, countries like that don't have unhealthy, locally-produced food. And the article agrees with that assertion. Patently false assertion. I'm ethnically a pacific islander who grew up on a small island in Micronesia and I can assure you that local island dishes are quite unhealthy.
"Patently false assertion"?
Just a couple of quotes from the article that my assertion is based on fact.
Experts say the region’s health crisis is primarily driven by a decades-long shift from traditional diets based on root crops toward ones that are high in sugar, refined starch and processed foods.
It is so wrong what is being done to exploit these nations by providing a food supply that is not, in the long term, better for health,...
Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
A fat slob overflowing the seat next to me on an aeroplane has a direct effect on me and I would be perfectly happy for measures to be taken to mitigate it.
Or we could get rid of anti-discrimination laws and allow airlines to charge based on weight/have assigned seating types. But I imagine that wouldn't go over very well with the people who want to ban junk food.
There is no such anti-discrimination law in the USA. Obese people aren't a protected class.
Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or we could get rid of anti-discrimination laws and allow airlines to charge based on weight/have assigned seating types. But I imagine that wouldn't go over very well with the people who want to ban junk food.
There is no such anti-discrimination law in the USA. Obese people aren't a protected class.
Unfortunately, it has been pursued as though it is, which is a natural progression of the 'slippery slope' argument. For example, there was the relatively high profile Hooters weight discrimination lawsuit which was allowed to proceed and settled for an undisclosed amount, even though there was no legal basis of wrongdoing.
Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok. 1. I support ban/taxes on junk food. 2. Government doesn't do it, does something else. 3. I' still not satisfied, and still support ban/taxes on junk food. I have opinions. So do you. What the government does is irrelevant to what I believe.
I don't get it. Would you rather the government have the authority to ban restaurants, or not? "The government only banning the restaurants that ought to be banned" isn't an option, unless you have good ideas on how to structure government. The opinion we're discussing is whether governments ought to be able to ban restaurants, so what governments do is absolutely relevant.
Those distinctions are contrived and arbitrary.
I'm saying the government should ban it. You're arguing the government should, but shouldn't be able to. That only makes sense if you adhere to a set of arbitrary political "principles", which I view as nonsense. Government needs to solve problems, not obey imaginary rules.