It's not a mystery. America's corporations invest billions of dollars promoting unhealthy food in unhealthy quantities, and more billions in promoting drugs of dubious therapeutic value direct to consumers. It's not a bug, it's a feature of the country's light approach to regulation and its core fallacy that what's good for private equity is ultimately good for everyone.
I agree- but I don't know how to fix it. Any attempt to regulate this would be unpopular with the public. It boils down to waiting for public outrage. Change is slow.
They need to tax the shit out of added saturated fat and sugar so it slowly dies off economically like cigarettes.
Imagine a near future where bioterrorists threaten to destroy the world economy by releasing a highly infectious virus that genetically modifies the infected so that they no longer crave unhealthy garbage food.
Would be kind of crazy if the world's first large scale bioattack was done for altruistic purposes.
>Any attempt to regulate this would be unpopular with the public.
I don't think it would. I think we're limited by our leadership and what they're willing to talk about publicly, given their obligations to corporate lobbyists. In part, that's why populists like Trump and Sanders have so much support. For all his (many, many) flaws, if Donald Trump had suggested single payer healthcare, his supporters would've eaten it up as long as he used his own terminology for it. And of course, Bernie does advocate for it. Yes, he lost the nomination, but I really don't think that his stand on healthcare was a significant reason.
It’s not being stubborn it’s a strong distaste for government overreach and meddling.
Bloomberg is one of the biggest “Karens” of our time. His failed presidential run made it very clear how little appetite the average American has for his nanny state we know better than you policies.
I’ll eat and drink what I damn well please thank you very much.
> It’s not being stubborn it’s a strong distaste for government overreach and meddling.
> I’ll eat and drink what I damn well please thank you very much.
I would agree with these statements, if it weren't because not everyone is informed enough to actually eat and drink what they _want_, e.g. this makes a great case for using gutter oil in restaurant kitchens.
The difference is that asbestos or lead exposure are much more dangerous and they are easily replaced with other materials that provide near identical functionality.
In moderation sugary and fatty foods and drinks are completely safe. Also, the substitutes available either taste completely different or are of dubious safety themselves (aspartame, margarine, etc.).
One approach is to punish everybody because a few people over consume these foods and another approach is to provide robust and accurate nutrition labels and warnings, and ensure that adults are properly educated to understand how to read them. You may disagree, but I value freedom and find the latter preferable to the former.
> The difference is that asbestos or lead exposure are much more dangerous and they are easily replaced with other materials that provide near identical functionality.
But that's not the issue.
Asbestos insulation could be perfectly safe too, as it is lead in paint, mercury in thermometers, etc. But societies deemed the risks greater than the benefits.
You may not mind living in a house coated with lead. I'm glad the government has banned it.
> ... another approach is to provide robust and accurate nutrition labels and warnings, and ensure that adults are properly educated to understand how to read them
This is unrealistic and naive, starting with the fact that "robust and accurate" nutrition labels must be enforced by the government. If we were to get rid of such regulations, corporations have proved over and over again that they see no incentive in providing better products over higher profits.
Also, your argument presupposes that every single consumer has the tools and capabilities to receive and benefit from such "education", which is, obviously, not true for e.g. older adults, or people with certain disabilities.
I agree that directly dictating the market this way is heavy-handed, and people resent it. But some commonsense regulation of advertising would go a long way, and may even be more effective as well as better received. The reality is that while we all think we're doing what we damn well please, a lot of what we do is driven by pervasive marketing. Freed from predatory marketing and left to our own devices, I think we would be much healthier.
> They need to tax the shit out of added saturated fat and sugar so it slowly dies off economically like cigarettes.
What is the appeal of the nanny state? Why would I want or need big brother to tell me what to eat?
I wholeheartedly disagree with everything about this. Let the government ensure that nutritional data is accurate and robust enough to empower me to make healthy decisions. Provide us with the necessary education to be able to read these warning labels. However, why is it the government’s job to prevent a grown adult from making unhealthy choices?
If I want to eat ice cream for breakfast, deep fried cheeseburgers for lunch, and have a 6-pack of beer for dinner, why can’t I? Who am I harming other than myself?
This is the slipperiest of slopes. Where do we draw the line then if we’re talking about personal decisions that make it more expensive to care for you in the future?
Should the government prevent people from being sexually promiscuous since contracting HIV would harm others by making it more expensive to care for you in the future?
Should they sterilize women after a certain age since the likelihood of pregnancy complications gets higher the older they get?
Maybe we should limit couples to having only one child. Safe child birth and pre- and post-natal care is very expensive.
Is just wearing a cloth mask enough? Maybe we should wear an N95 mask and full universal precautions PPE everywhere we go just to make sure we don’t harm others.
The government dictating that I can only eat in a healthy manner at all times is one of the most dystopian things I can imagine. Many evils have been unleashed upon society with the justification that it is for the greater good.
You are expanding the scope of the original suggestion to make it seem more extreme. Taxing activities that damage society as a whole (and funneling that money towards mitigating that damage) seems to me like a good solution.
What about if the government made it illegal for food producers to use the worst offenders e:g adding high fructose corn syrup to food, giving cows growth hormones, spraying glyphosphate? So the consumer's freedom would be un-curtailed, but businesses have to abide by certain ethics. Does that make things work for you, or still no good? :). (I mean , maybe you should still be allowed to buy a bottle of corn syrup and add it yourself if you really really want to.. although perhaps parents shouldn't be allowed to feed their kids that).
I disagree that this is a slippery slope. The line should be drawn by the people living in the society that draws it. As that society (and the cultural, technological, and environmental context around it) changes, the position of that line might change as well.
Many in the USA would choose a world with more expensive junk food and socialized healthcare than the reverse.
(I'm assuming your questions are rhetorical. Each of them has their own set of trade-offs.)
It's not just "light regulation." Much of the regulation that does exist is the product of regulatory capture and actually makes things even worse (for example, agriculture subsidies).
28 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 77.9 ms ] threadI agree- but I don't know how to fix it. Any attempt to regulate this would be unpopular with the public. It boils down to waiting for public outrage. Change is slow.
They need to tax the shit out of added saturated fat and sugar so it slowly dies off economically like cigarettes.
Would be kind of crazy if the world's first large scale bioattack was done for altruistic purposes.
I don't think it would. I think we're limited by our leadership and what they're willing to talk about publicly, given their obligations to corporate lobbyists. In part, that's why populists like Trump and Sanders have so much support. For all his (many, many) flaws, if Donald Trump had suggested single payer healthcare, his supporters would've eaten it up as long as he used his own terminology for it. And of course, Bernie does advocate for it. Yes, he lost the nomination, but I really don't think that his stand on healthcare was a significant reason.
One of the big things a lot of people remember from Bloomberg's time as mayor is this. Americans are a stubborn bunch
Bloomberg is one of the biggest “Karens” of our time. His failed presidential run made it very clear how little appetite the average American has for his nanny state we know better than you policies.
I’ll eat and drink what I damn well please thank you very much.
> I’ll eat and drink what I damn well please thank you very much.
I would agree with these statements, if it weren't because not everyone is informed enough to actually eat and drink what they _want_, e.g. this makes a great case for using gutter oil in restaurant kitchens.
I’d rather die in my 60s enjoying a life of eating and drinking what I want instead of living to be 100 eating Soylent Green.
That's not how any of this works. "Education" would not have saved you from asbestos in the roof or lead in the paint.
You are making the point that it is acceptable for people to die from preventable issues in ignorance, as long as you get your fix.
If so, well, maybe you are the one not fit to live in a society after all.
In moderation sugary and fatty foods and drinks are completely safe. Also, the substitutes available either taste completely different or are of dubious safety themselves (aspartame, margarine, etc.).
One approach is to punish everybody because a few people over consume these foods and another approach is to provide robust and accurate nutrition labels and warnings, and ensure that adults are properly educated to understand how to read them. You may disagree, but I value freedom and find the latter preferable to the former.
But that's not the issue.
Asbestos insulation could be perfectly safe too, as it is lead in paint, mercury in thermometers, etc. But societies deemed the risks greater than the benefits.
You may not mind living in a house coated with lead. I'm glad the government has banned it.
> ... another approach is to provide robust and accurate nutrition labels and warnings, and ensure that adults are properly educated to understand how to read them
This is unrealistic and naive, starting with the fact that "robust and accurate" nutrition labels must be enforced by the government. If we were to get rid of such regulations, corporations have proved over and over again that they see no incentive in providing better products over higher profits.
Also, your argument presupposes that every single consumer has the tools and capabilities to receive and benefit from such "education", which is, obviously, not true for e.g. older adults, or people with certain disabilities.
What is the appeal of the nanny state? Why would I want or need big brother to tell me what to eat?
I wholeheartedly disagree with everything about this. Let the government ensure that nutritional data is accurate and robust enough to empower me to make healthy decisions. Provide us with the necessary education to be able to read these warning labels. However, why is it the government’s job to prevent a grown adult from making unhealthy choices?
If I want to eat ice cream for breakfast, deep fried cheeseburgers for lunch, and have a 6-pack of beer for dinner, why can’t I? Who am I harming other than myself?
In a society where the price of healthcare is set by market forces alone, perhaps you should have unlimited freedom to make bad decisions.
It seems like a lot of people would prefer socialized healthcare over that unlimited freedom.
Should the government prevent people from being sexually promiscuous since contracting HIV would harm others by making it more expensive to care for you in the future?
Should they sterilize women after a certain age since the likelihood of pregnancy complications gets higher the older they get?
Maybe we should limit couples to having only one child. Safe child birth and pre- and post-natal care is very expensive.
Is just wearing a cloth mask enough? Maybe we should wear an N95 mask and full universal precautions PPE everywhere we go just to make sure we don’t harm others.
It really isn't.
Drinking and eating crap is a choice. One may as well be addicted to it, but addiction may be treatable.
You are comparing a biological drive like sex and reproduction, with a desire for Coke, cigarettes, and fatty beef.
Also, societies will survive without sugary drinks. Without sex and children? I doubt it.
Many in the USA would choose a world with more expensive junk food and socialized healthcare than the reverse.
(I'm assuming your questions are rhetorical. Each of them has their own set of trade-offs.)