Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?

1246719

Replies

  • Posts: 479 Member
    Sooo while I don't quite believe this should be legislated against, it is interesting food for thought, or drink for thought.

    Pre high rates of obesity in the west, the primary beverage of choice was coffee or tea. They have done studies on this; the amount of coffee our grandparents drank dwarf what we consume today per person. The rates of coffee consumption decreased with the propagation and popularity of a new social beverage, the soft drink. Conversely, obesity rates started to steadily increase at this time.

    I believe this correlation is part causation, but it isn't the whole story. For example, Japan has a far greater breath of varieties of soda, and probably greater access, but they do not have the same issue. In this case, I think the variety really helps. Amusingly, this is slowly happening here, with new smaller brands making more niche seltzer and sodas, with lower calorie options. I believe this will at least partly sort itself out in a few decades with the changing market forces.
  • Posts: 1,894 Member
    :D
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/health/sodas-sugary-drinks-policy-statement-study/index.html
    Physicians' groups have long taken a stand against high consumption of sugary drinks in the United States -- and now they are calling for several policies to limit access to sugar-sweetened beverages among children and teens.
    The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association released policy recommendations on Monday targeted at federal, state and local lawmakers, encouraging them to implement policies that would reduce children's intake of sugary drinks, such as sodas, sports drinks and juice.

    Disclaimer: I know it's CNN which some have issues with, and some do not. I'd rather focus on the subject of the article which is in perfect keeping with this thread, rather than the source.

    OP, looks like you weren't the only one thinking this over.
  • Posts: 6,252 Member

    I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?

    More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.

    Like the 18th Amendment?
  • Posts: 3,982 Member
    FireOpalCO wrote: »
    Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)
    I work in a two story building where the large, wide staircase is front and center when you enter. The elevators are behind it. Even though it takes longer, I still see able bodied coworkers take the elevator over the stairs by preference.
  • Posts: 5,965 Member
    I agree it would be nice if restaurants were required to post nutrition content on their menu's. That would be nice for me and other calorie-aware people, I'm not sure it would really do that much for helping obesity in general. Sure it would also be nice to increase the walkability of certain areas, but what are they supposed to do with a large suburb like where I live? I think if you want to live in a walkable area, then move to a walkable area. I hate big cities, but I am jealous of my sister who lives downtown because she can walk anywhere she needs to go, or take the train thing.
  • Posts: 7,887 Member
    hesn92 wrote: »
    I agree it would be nice if restaurants were required to post nutrition content on their menu's. That would be nice for me and other calorie-aware people, I'm not sure it would really do that much for helping obesity in general. Sure it would also be nice to increase the walkability of certain areas, but what are they supposed to do with a large suburb like where I live? I think if you want to live in a walkable area, then move to a walkable area. I hate big cities, but I am jealous of my sister who lives downtown because she can walk anywhere she needs to go, or take the train thing.

    There are suburbs where I am that are quite walkable (have a village center with a good walkable shopping area, have trains easily available within a walk from many homes) or have walkable areas, as well as great parks, bike paths, etc. There are also suburbs here that are not only not aren't very walkable, but even seem to discourage walking by not having sidewalks.

    We could make most non-walkable areas more walkable if we wanted.
  • Posts: 2,545 Member
    edited March 2019
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »

    They don't NEED to pay for you to lose weight "naturally". You will "naturally" lose weight if you eat less. You don't need a dietitian for that. Just like you don't need a trainer to work out. If you want one, and can pay for it, okay...but it is not necessary. Even if you keep eating exactly the same food you eat now, if you eat less of it you WILL lose weight. Don't ask other people (taxpayers) to pay a dietitian to tell you what is pretty straightforward stuff.

    I will probably get flags, woos, and lots of nasty comments for this, but I don't care. I am going to give an honest opinion. You are "disgusted" that "they" (other people!) won't pay for YOUR dietitian? I am disgusted that you EXPECT other people to pay for something you can do yourself. Just eat less. If you really want to change WHAT you eat, there is plenty of free info online. This is part of being an adult.

    Spot on! Unless there is a specific medical condition,dietitian not needed.

    Eat less and/or move more.
  • Posts: 2,545 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »

    Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.

    What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?

    I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.



    I'm thinking penalties for speeding tend to slow down the traffic flow.
  • Posts: 3,376 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »

    I'm thinking penalties for speeding tend to slow down the traffic flow.

    You obviously don't live in the same area of the country that I live in... most speed limits are taken as suggestions to be ignored around here.
  • Posts: 2,545 Member
    ccrdragon wrote: »

    You obviously don't live in the same area of the country that I live in... most speed limits are taken as suggestions to be ignored around here.

    They are suggestions but the average speed of traffic would be much higher without threat of a penalty imposed .
  • Posts: 25,763 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »

    The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.

    There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.

    The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.

    Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.

    Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.

    This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.

    I'm still confused as to what laws you think we should repeal. Do you have specific laws in mind?

    I get that you're generally opposed to "nanny state" laws, but what specific laws do you think are making people fatter?
  • Posts: 41,865 Member

    Yes... my point was that the FDA doesn't require even the chain restaurants to send the food out for lab testing if they choose to use the nutrient databases, so why would they require it of the mom and pop restaurants.

    Even if they use the database method, it is done through a lab...the restaurant isn't getting on MFP to enter their stuff...they are still doing it through a lab.
  • Posts: 6,252 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »

    I'm thinking penalties for speeding tend to slow down the traffic flow.

    Capital punishment for doing so in the left lane.
This discussion has been closed.