![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsOver the past couple of weeks I've seen several references to the World Health Organization's latest major project, the Global Strategy on Health, Diet, and Physical Exercise, and how the Bush Administration is threatening to weaken or dismiss the WHO and cut off funding if WHO continues with what one white-coated government flunky has referred to as "junk science." And this is a case where while I agree with the Bush Administration's objectives, I'm aghast at their methods.
One of the basic premises in the WHO draft document is that goverments must take responsibility for the health and well-being of their citizens, and to this end should pass laws to restrict the advertisement of "unhealthy" foods and mandate food-labeling requirements at restaurants.
It doesn't take more than two brain cells to understand that eating a Big Mac and a shake, with a total intake of 1600 calories, is going to make you fat if you eat anything else that day. I believe people are smart enough to grok this, and I don't believe that the US Government has any business using its power to force people to behave contrary to their wishes.
The US Government is the only organization in America free to use the power of the gun without fear of retribution. When you, the citizens, give an organization that power, you should restrict its activities to only those that require the use of the gun. Anything else distracts it from its responsibilities, and overburdens you, the citizens, with distractions irrelevant to the use of force.
I do not want the only organization in America free to use power of the gun without fear of retribution deciding what I should and should not eat. Period. And I think the Bush Administration is exactly right in telling the WHO to stick it with respect to their legislative recommendations.
I'm aghast at the Bush Administration's tactics, however. They have lined up their bought-and-paid-for white-coats and have said that the WHO's food policies, even the voluntary guidelines, "are not supported by science." Who the Hell are they kidding? The International Journal of Obesity found that kids who ate fast food three times a week were 40% more likely to be fat than their counterparts that did not.
On the whole, this debacle is still a debacle. More on why, later.
One of the basic premises in the WHO draft document is that goverments must take responsibility for the health and well-being of their citizens, and to this end should pass laws to restrict the advertisement of "unhealthy" foods and mandate food-labeling requirements at restaurants.
It doesn't take more than two brain cells to understand that eating a Big Mac and a shake, with a total intake of 1600 calories, is going to make you fat if you eat anything else that day. I believe people are smart enough to grok this, and I don't believe that the US Government has any business using its power to force people to behave contrary to their wishes.
The US Government is the only organization in America free to use the power of the gun without fear of retribution. When you, the citizens, give an organization that power, you should restrict its activities to only those that require the use of the gun. Anything else distracts it from its responsibilities, and overburdens you, the citizens, with distractions irrelevant to the use of force.
I do not want the only organization in America free to use power of the gun without fear of retribution deciding what I should and should not eat. Period. And I think the Bush Administration is exactly right in telling the WHO to stick it with respect to their legislative recommendations.
I'm aghast at the Bush Administration's tactics, however. They have lined up their bought-and-paid-for white-coats and have said that the WHO's food policies, even the voluntary guidelines, "are not supported by science." Who the Hell are they kidding? The International Journal of Obesity found that kids who ate fast food three times a week were 40% more likely to be fat than their counterparts that did not.
On the whole, this debacle is still a debacle. More on why, later.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-04 06:50 pm (UTC)You have a good argument to limit what government should be allowed to do.
But one of the purposes of government is the limit the effects of inequality -- everyone equal before the law. So there's a question to answer: should MacDonalds' power to promote their product have some limit? They can afford to spend millions on advertising
It's at least comparable to the label on a packet of cigarettes. Although MacDonalds are more honest about the calories than the tobacco companies were about smoking.
A total ban would be wrong, but maybe the details of the advertising need to be examined.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-05 03:56 am (UTC)I disagree that "there should be limits on speech," any speech.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-05 07:29 am (UTC)Even on lies? Omissions?
Last I looked, MacDonalds do tell you how many calories, how much fat, etc. They don't put that in the adverts on the TV.
And not everyone is as well-educated as either of us.
I suppose I see things from a more European-Socialist PoV, but Freedom of Speech without some way of encouraging truth seems dangerous. And it's hard to shout loud enough to be heard. As an individual, how can I reach enough people to make a difference?
Though there was a report on BBC TV News last night from Finland, reporting what their government has done to counter the spread of obesity. It's something they've been doing for thirty years, and it probably is a better answer than banning advertising.
I don't think Finland has so many big companies lobbying the government, in a spirit of unrestrained capitalism. And I know I can't afford to wine and dine so many politicians, not unless I feed them on Big Macs.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-05 02:39 pm (UTC)Think about it. I don't care how big a corporation is; they cannot lie forever, not convincingly. We know for decades that tobacco was bad for you, the "government recognized official evidence" notwithstanding the common sense notion that putting smoke into lungs is bad for you.
Once caught in a lie, would you ever trust a corporation again? Honesty is one of the coins of the realm; risking it for cash is an understandable temptation, but it is also a road to ruin.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-06 02:28 pm (UTC)I think the rationale behind the WHO recommendation is that in most countries, the government, not private insurance companies, foots the health care bill. And if you're going to be paying for the medical care of people who literally eat themselves sick, perhaps you ought to have something to say about what they can eat. Obviously, in the US, where the government is highly selective about whose bills they pay and to what degree, this reasoning is far less politically persuasive. In addition, there is probably powerful lobbying going on from the food industry that is going to make the adoption of such policies highly unlikely. But the WHO is a global organization, not just serving the US. And not all governments (and definitely not all people) subscribe to the American philosophy of government. Actually, I would say most governments don't follow the American model as regards health care.
Réka (from outside The Empire)
Re:
Date: 2004-02-06 04:53 pm (UTC)And while I know that most governments pay for much of the health care in the nations over which they govern, I find that notion noxious for exactly the reason you cite: "If we are paying for your health care than we, and not you, are responsible for reducing the burden you may represent to the health care system, and we will dictate both what you can eat and what forms of recreation you may engage in." It's a slippery-slope argument fueled by accountants who will point out, year after year, new "dangers" to the economic health care system.
If individuals have full control over routine medical care, purchase and maintain their own catastrophic health insurance, and understand the consequences of the decisions they make, both they and the state will be better off.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-06 07:44 pm (UTC)But that's not how people work, in my experience. People don't (and more importantly, don't want to) have full control, and thus responsibility, over their own medical care. Furthermore, without private insurance companies, there is no way the average individual could even hope to meet the true costs of routine medical care, let alone emergency or chronic medical care. And I fail to see why the accountant at a private, for-profit insurance company is a better candidate to dictate the terms of your medical care than the accountant at the local government office where, at least ostensibly, you the average person have regulatory control.
This all comes down, in the end, to which model of government you subscribe to - a minimalist type government or the caretaker type government. Most countries in Europe are struggling to maintain the caretaker type government, precisely because they are in full concordance with the WHO premise that a government is responsible for its people. American government, and the American people, seem to contradict themselves on this issue - on the one hand, they get upset when the government tries to regulate things, but they also get upset when the government doesn't regulate things and thus services are disrupted. You can't have it both ways. Either you give the government the power to uphold standards, or you shouldn't expect standards. The cliche that comes to mind is "you can't have your cake and eat it too."