CKinnard wrote:Can we develop the issue further?
Probably. But not without wading further into a non-PC swamp.
CKinnard wrote:Food manufacturers argue against regulation on the basis that no one meal makes an unhealthy diet. Rather it is the total diet. The manufacturers argue they are not espousing people eat fast food for 21 meals a week, or even 7. Rather, they want to complement a healthy diet with meals superior in convenience (frozen meals or fast food).
Disagree with their whole premise. The way we fix the problem of addictive foods is to cut them out completely. As for convenience, you can make healthy food fast and convenient. Just that almost nobody does it because they make more sales and profits on addictive type foods. Currently the people who want to eat as healthy as me are a small fraction of a percent, since vegan in AU is 0.5% and I'm in a subset of that being WFPO and SOS free.
CKinnard wrote:If govt want to regulate unhealthy food out of society, they would have to ban lollies, chocolate, biscuits, cake, refined flour products, processed meats, etc, etc. These things are occasional treats for some, but compulsive regular binges for others. Further, they are not unhealthy until a certain threshold of intake is transgessed. Why should treat foods be banned, if they are only a problem for the uneducated or impulsive, in which case the source issue may be a mental illness?
They don't have to ban them. But they should label them better for the addictive problem foods that they are. They should have warning labels about the possible long term health effects, like cigarettes do. The government should be harder on manufacturers with levels of components in foods that are well known to cause harm like certain fats (trans in particular), sugars, salt, highly processed components, artificial sweeteners, artificial products, MSG, etc, etc.
Yes, it's up to the individual to decide. But why allow health harming processed and addictive foods to be worse than necessary.
CKinnard wrote:If government are concerned about things that damage our health, then they must also regulate as vigorously poor town planning (lack of green and recreational space for physical activity), house price inflation and the need for households to have two full incomes (this is a primary factor in reduced home cooking), poor public transport and congested roads (robs people of time for physical activity and home cooking time), hours worked per week, interest rates (higher mortgages = stronger need to work longer hours), unemployment (which can lead to depression and emotional eating).
Yet another can of worms. There are a lot of countries (particularly in parts of Europe) that have far more responsible governments than in AU. To me it appears like the AU government(s) puts tax income, jobs growth and property price increase above the welfare of the people. So it's no surprise to see them allow food industries (and others) do the same.
CKinnard wrote:When we talk about responsibility for education, where does the parents' stop and govt start? The govt make public very reasonable Dietary Guidelines that at least 98% of Australians do not respect.
It should at least extend to good school dietary education, school canteens and government controlled organisations.
CKinnard wrote:Libertarians would argue that individual has ultimate sovereign agency over their lives, followed by family. Therefore it is the responsibility of each individual (and parent) to prioritize what is most important to them, and select from the market what they want. Food manufacturers would argue the same thing. They don't want to not make a profit, so they only make stuff people will buy, ergo the consumer drives what is on the shelves and in fast food outlets.
But we both know that food industries have manipulated many things for generations to the point where marketing and deception have brain washed the majority (with the help of t he medical industry issuing excuses for bad health) to the point we're at now. It's and artificial environment caused from many factors. Attitudes need to change with individual responsibility for health or it's going to send the country broke. In addition to the huge amount of suffering that could have been avoided with a bit of education and a cultural change to individual personal health responsibility. If the government can slowly change our attitudes to drink driving and smoking, then they can try harder with diet and lifestyle too IMO.
CKinnard wrote:Government regulation is only necessary when individuals do not punish the free market (by not buying their unhealthy products).
Which is exactly where we're at.
CKinnard wrote:At the end of the day, any solution is going to require better parental education and discipline, because the govt cannot spoon feed a family 21 times a week!
As you know, this is where it all falls apart because parents often rely on schools to educate their kids. They are too busy with their careers, overtime and just getting the basic chores done to do anything that isn't absolutely necessary.
CKinnard wrote:So the question has to be asked, can government regulate what value system an individual has?
They already do this all the time. They define the laws that control conduct and if an individual acts outside them, they are punished. But I take your point that it would need to get much more intrusive and personal to have any significant effect. Maybe similar tactics to drink driving and smoking may work.
I a video recently which suggested that people are less obese in China because of the social stigma and Chinese people's attitude about being blunt with conveying judgement about it. Maybe our society is too PC for it's own good. We're all content pretending that no-one is fat to the point of being unhealthy and/or unattractive.
Actually there's a stigma with thin males in this country about being homosexual. I've been mocked for being a "poof" by the ignorant because of my weight. So apparently the only males that care about their weight in AU are homosexual. It happened again a couple of days ago. I'm standing beside the road waiting for the lights to change, when some loser yells out "poof" from a passing car.