Thursday, June 14, 2012

There's not enough told you so in the 'verse

So the Guardian tries to blame obesity on Nixon.

Yes, really.

In their telling food changed dramatically due to Nixon buying off corn producers: More corn, more corn syrup, replacing fat with sugar and calling it low fat.

It'd be more compelling if there was more hard data to show such concentrations instead of hard assertions.

As it is it's a bit suspicious as the talk is about obestiy rates in the UK, the changes in food policy refer to the US. But being centered on the UK it shows that even having Universal Healtcare isn't a balm against mass obesity.

But as we'll see, it sure does offer some "solutions".

Though really if you're worried about too much of X in your meals here's a handy tip: cook your own damn food.

Reduce the times you go out and don't buy prepared meals. You'll be amazed at how food changes when you control what you make.

But hey, everyone that said the fatties will become the next smokers and the "Big Sugar" will become the next Big Tobbacco give yourself a pat on the back.

And being from the Gaurdian the article ends on a chilling note:

Anne Milton, the minister for public health, tells me that legislation against the food industry isn't being ruled out, because of the escalating costs to the NHS. Previous governments have always taken the route of partnership. Why? Because the food industry provides hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in revenue. It is immensely powerful, and any politician who takes it on does so at their peril. "Let's get one thing straight," Milton tells me, however. "I am not scared of the food industry."

And I believe her, because now, there is something far bigger to be frightened of. Eventually, the point will be reached when the cost to the NHS of obesity, which is now £5bn a year, outweighs the revenue from the UK snacks and confectionery market, which is currently approximately £8bn a year. Then the solution to obesity will become very simple.

Emphasis added. Am I alone in finding that to be a very scary way for the article to end things?

It also proves the old fear that goverment healthcare will lead to not only rationing of medical care, but rationing of food.

Its a prime expression of an aristocratic paternalistic ruling class that regulates the very food the proles can eat.

We told you so.

And I'm shocked that there's actually a fair bit of commenters that get it among all the cries against corporate profitering and mewling compliments to the color of the jackboots about to descend to their necks:
Oh yes, let's ban all sugar salt and fat -- not only taste but natural preservatives, too. Lots of aspartame type goodies can then replace them. So much more lucrative! Population all ill and going ever more gaga, but hey, isn't that a price worth paying for corporate profits and a flourishing health-stazi sector?"

Here's another that takes apart the article.

There's also other Brits that still know their Maths.

I have a foolproof diet that will guarantee you lose weight: Eat fewer calories than you burn. Everything else (exercise, sugar intake, raw v. processed foods) simply won't matter if you eat fewer calories than you burn. Elementary math.

Good grief - try watching "Secret Eaters" on Channel 4
Every episode features obese people who all claim to eat 1500 to 1800 calories a day and can't work out why they are fat. When they are filmed daily (with their consent) it becomes obvious they all eat 4000+ calories per day.

Anyone who thinks there is a complicated and subtle reason why so many people are obese is frankly in denial.

Though you gotta love the guy that wants to VAT all food save fruits and veg and phase it up to a 20% surcharge. ANd then brags about how it'll balance the bugdet.

But he has plenty of company with those that bemoan the lack of govermental power and cheer the idea of "the tobacco treatment" to companies that don't fall in line. And of course there's a nice vein of blame-America.

And speaking of cost, this guy points out that the argument of "the poor can't afford healthy food" just doesn't hold up.

Some might say that all this is irrelevant as if you live or work somewhere where healthy foods aren't sold, but I find it very hard to believe there are many people who are out of reach of a Tesco's, Sainsbury's, Aldi's, Lidl or ASDA - all of which offer very cheap prices for veg (including 1kg of carrots for no more than a pound).

I can't help but think that many people are using their poverty to bat away attention from the fact that actually, they can afford healthy foods, they just want sugary stuff. I could note that scandalous numbers of people who claim they're too poor to buy healthy food aren't too poor for iPhones or cigarettes or lengthy evenings down the pub, but I don't need to: the figures to support their claim just don't seem to add up.

And it's a person's right to do what they want with their body.

Well it was until the goverment picked up the tab for all your medical needs. Then what you shoved in your food-hole became their business.

Enjoy your free healthcare! At least until "the solution to obesity [has] become very simple."

Via Instapundit

Oh and Barron Bloomberg goes right out with the purpose of government is to improve the health of its subjects citizens.

So now being unhealthy is a subversive act?

No comments: