manufactured and grown in the country.

Mind you, I also think that there will be a sea change in the way we eat because of climate change, and that the government will have to take steps to reign in things like factory farming and tilling.

Looking at what is promoted and why in the Ag bill would help quite a bit.

My belief is that since the Government has a role in protecting its citizens from bad medicine and tainted food; it also should have a role in making sure that horrifically unhealthy processed foods in this country are not made the go-to option by it's own subsidies.

The government's responsibility is to make the best possible effort to have healthy air and water. If a person chooses to drink a bottle of poison, well that's going to happen.

We have a farm economy that sucks up a lot of taxpayer dollars making "high fructose syrup" from corn and that correlated directly with obesity and diabetes. At minimum, we should stop funding that killing.

just cut those with diabetes by 50%, we'd save billions.

Remember a few years ago, when all the pizza chains started competing to see how much cheese they could load on and into a pizza? We get 10-cheese pizza with a cheese stuffed crust, topped with cheese.

What happened was that cheese consumption was down, because people were concerned about eating too much. So, the Agriculture Department made a deal with the pizza chains. If the chains would triple the amount of cheese they piled on pizzas, the government would pay for their advertising. So, your tax dollars are going to encouraging people to eat unhealthy foods.

Could I have a good link to back that up for future discussions? Thanks.

if you just google, "cheese pizza USDA"

Should we start from comparative anthropology and social science, from comparing obesity and health of non-statist societies such as indigenous peoples, and various forms statist governance?

Or in depth analysis how US government (totality of laws, labor practices, international policies etc. etc.) affects obesity and health?

I realize it is a complex problem, but considering the alarming increase in obesity rates during the past 10 years among both children and adults, there are some issues that are not that deeply rooted.

I like to go to the roots (lat. radix) of the problem.

Remember the slogan, problems cannot be solved on the same level of thinking they are created. So let's open spaces for thinking outside the box instead of jumping into frames and roles.

you spend all of your time researching, hosting committees, discussing, debating, etc. while the problem just gets bigger. I'm a pragmatist. We can find more immediate solutions while also examining the roots for even more lasting change.

From pragmatist point of view, do you have obesity problem yourself that could use outside help? How is your immediate environment and what can you do to make a difference, how ever small? Do you cook for a family, for example?

Or do you want to just discuss what government should be doing, and go into researching, hosting committees and debating in that frame?

At this time, scorn often accompanies advice despite the limitations in availability and opportunity.
Community cooking classes and improved options for low income people would be helpful.

the structures that create the situation and allow Monsanto & co to persist. Maybe bit of both?

I don't believe more and more top-to-down regulation and guilt tripping of individuals is solution or healthy as such. I believe that if given freedom to do so, primary producers will produce food that is wholesome and uncontaminated and not environmentally destructive. So what factors limit the primary producers freedom to do so?

That's what comes first to mind. When farmers are forced to farm for money instead of producing food that they can be proud of, that's a limitation of freedom.

Maybe idea of abandoning money all together is too radical at this point, but that doesn't mean something couldn't be done to take away some of it's power and increase freedom. Any ideas?

If one is guaranteed the necessities of life, and a modest few luxuries, one is then free to pursue the economic game in more creative ways, not being enslaved to maximizing profit or worried about ones ability to meet ones responsibilites in life because of some business failure. One can undertake "risky" ventures.

"Citizens salary" has been discussed in my country for a long time and opposition has been slowly eroding, also increasing number of conservatives starting to support the idea. It would clear out and simplify the mess of various social safety nets (unemployment, pension, student fees etc. and major effect, depending from the amount of CS, on labor negotiations in favor of working class.

As our current money creation system is unsustainable, not to mention other problems, I had the idea of combining the two, money creation through citizen salary. Just basic rudimentary idea, lot's of details to solve. It could work on any level including as single global currency, and can be started by anyone as e.g. Internet currency experiment.

national security issue (too many obese military members).

Education and incentives. Possibly also disincentives.

and he was dictating that they had to start the PT at a much lower level because too many were unprepared for such a vigorous program, which had been an acceptable standard in the past, and too many injuries resulted.

2 miles run in 15:54 or less
30 situps in 2 minutes
33 pushups in 2 minutes

This was my my age group back in 97. Which was 17-21. If memory serves. I think I remember reading that some requirements were added since the wars started, but could be wrong. I'm going to look it up.

it was the same during the Vietnam war years. The High Schools went on a fitness program to provide better cannon fodder to help out.

Please give some examples that would have a reasonable chance of being implemented.

of our Constitution covers it with, "promote the general welfare" clause.

This could include bigger subsidies for organic farming or stricter regulations on the use of antibiotics in meat and dairy production?

The government could offer exercise programs at public parks and on public television. Maybe advertise it with successful people losing weight, tell their story. This helps shape America's health, and results in less lost time work, diseases, lowers medical admissions, etc.

out of most of our foods including meats. Its almost impossible to find turkey meat without sugar in it.

When you look at how many people are getting diabetes and other ailments from sugar and then how they say pot is so bad and spend billions of dollars fighting the crime of it…makes me sick!

A lot of what you eat creates sugar, even if you are not spooning sugar down.

of poverty.

Micro-management of what people eat, drink, etc is the bunk & has very limited effects -- but it does have a bonus for the PTB, which is -- it splits people into 'sinners' and 'saved', divides them against each other, & allows classes of people to be demonized. These are always goals of the PTB, who seek to create & maintain such divisions by any means possible.

How substances affect us, what substances we use, our knowledge base, etc. are very much creations of context/situation/set/setting.

Examples of the kind of thing i'm thinking of: France/Japan have higher percentages of smokers yet longer lifespans and better health outcomes; studies on alcohol & drug consumption that show reactions to those substances are dependent on prior assumptions, to the point that many people will act 'drunk' even on placebo...etc.

Food banks here, reliably offer mac and cheese, and other boxed pasta dinners reliably. Sometimes frozen veggies but usually canned. In fact, lots of canned stuff. Fruit is rare.

Cooking and eating are such a matter of habit that it is difficult to change. Opportunities for learning without pressure should available. Government funding in that case would be useful.
_____

"France/Japan have higher percentages of smokers yet longer lifespans and better health outcomes; studies on alcohol & drug consumption that show reactions to those substances are dependent on prior assumptions..."

I wonder if they corrected for rate and level of consumption over time? I suspect there would be a difference. I think chugging contests and beer bongs are probably an American phenomenon.

they have a right. "opportunities for learning" implies people eat what they do because they haven't been properly educated and you know better.

create jobs and butt out of people's personal business.

and no, chugging contests & the like are pretty much universal. japanese drink more than americans too, but they live longer, are thinner, and healthier on average.

it's not about the substances, it's about the total environment. like the poverty rate and the percentage of people butting into poor people's business and treating them like they're defective. that makes people feel like shit, that makes them angry, that makes them depressed.

leave them the fuck alone and create decent paying jobs.

What do you think a nation is for? To run a hospitality suite for corporate bigwigs?

If you eat bad meat, and die ... too bad.

And on edit: There should be caps on lawsuits when this happens.

Sure, some people will die, but that's just the cost of doing business.

Frankly, I think the meat industry is awful even with the minimal inspections we do have and that is one reason I simply haven't eaten meat in 10 years.

... would be to modify SNAP to reflect policies more in line with the WIC program insofar as nutritious food.

Right now anything with "Nutrition Facts" written on the label can be bought on SNAP -- which means Red Bull, at a scary price per can, can be bought. And while Red Bull might not be the absolute worst drink on the planet (it has enough B vitamins that two of them cause a friend of mine to start going through a niacin flush), if you are looking for a nutritious fizzy drink, EmergencC is $12 at Harps for 30 packets. I always put one packet of it in a 16-oz bottle of water -- it's too concentrated otherwise for me, but look at the nutrient value:

Calories: 25 -- 6gms carbs, 5 of them are sugars

Nutrient content as percentages of RDA:

Vitamin C: 1,667%
B1: 25%
B2: 25%
Niacin (B3): 25%
B6: 500%
Folic acid: 3%
B12: 417%
Panthenic Acid: 25%
Calcium: 5%
Phosphorous: 4%
Magnesium: 15%
Zinc: 13%
Manganese: 2%
Chromium: 8%
Sodium: 3%
Potassium: 6%

------------

Yet even though it is a much more economical choice, and a much healthier choice insofar as sugar overload compared to Red Bull or soda, it can't be purchased on SNAP.... because it's listed with "Supplement Facts", not "Nutrition Facts".

WIC is a very good program in that it supplements dietary choices with healthy, nutritious food. I wish SNAP would start to follow more of those guidelines and eliminate soda as a good that could be purchased -- there's nothing in it but tons of sugar, which is not healthy at ALL on the pancreas and contributes to the onset of Type II diabetes.

They teach a number of things that will be largely useless over the course of adult life but don't really touch on something that everyone needs to know multiple times every single day.

And I don't mean some half-assed attempt at home-ec.

we have cooking classes ('Home economy') at high school level for all students.

Jamie Oliver tried a food revolution also in US, saw the beginning of the TV show.

But I did learn a few things about basics of cooking and sewing. I learned much more when my mom paid for sewing classes for me from a private source.

don't know squat about living a healthy life OR about budgeting, the costs of things, salaries, home mortgages, fixed vs. variable interest rates on your mortgage, etc.

Kids are totally dependent on their parents for that education. If they come from a family that is unknowledgeable about those things, or is too busy or just not present for the kids, the kids just don't get that education. And it affects us all throughout our lives, as much as reading, writing, and arithmetic.

etc. basic skills of self-subsistence. Not because they should, but to have that possibility instead of just dependence from money and wage slavery. And in case those skills come in great need.

agree with you, though I would say do it earlier than high school. 6th or 7th grade. Then again in high school. Two years of a nutrition instead of a health class.

It would be extraordinarily informative.

For years school lunch has reflected government policy with their nutrition standards. Currently, there is a strong emphasis on greater consumption of fruits and vegetables, and lower consumption of fat, salt and sugar.

All school lunches are subsidized to some extent by the USDA, not just free and reduced lunches. It makes sense to have school food be as nutritious as possible, while still being economical, to get the most bang for the taxpayer's buck. But it is also a chance to teach kids healthy eating habits. Though we're only a few weeks into this school year, the recent changes are already having an effect, especially on the younger kids - I see it every day as a lunch lady.

and let Big Business rob and poison us.

is caused by either genetics, medication, glandular issues, or stress, what do you expect the government to do?

Most people are obese because they eat too much and move too little.

That's ridiculous.

I'm not saying that those issues can't contribute. But they don't cause 99.9% of obesity in this country.

Start a thread that insinuates obesity is actually a person's own responsibility, and you'll see...

What about simple overeating and a sedentary lifestyle?

While I don't discount the factors you name, we now have more scientific verification for physical craving as a dynamic of food addiction than existed with regard to alcoholism and other drug addictions when they were first designated as substance use disorders. Junk food and fast food is addictive. Highly processed foods get us hooked through a combination of carefully engineered manipulations created in state-of-the-art laboratories. Please read David Kessler's The End of Overeating. He's the former FDA commissioner who is best known for his efforts to investigate and regulate the tobacco industry, and for his accusation that cigarette makers intentionally manipulated nicotine content to make their products more addictive.

Add this to the fact that junk food, not good food, is subsidized and thus made artificially more inexpensive and you have obesity becoming very much a class issue and an economic one.

I think there's a lot the government can do.

...as possible. Our food supply and health&beauty supplies are teaming with chemicals because those companies own so many Congresspeople. Disgusting.

The government has a long history of proteating the health and welfare of the population. From civil engineering projects that separate shit from drinking water to immunization programs, government leads the way in pubic health. We have a diabetes epidemic. It is a public health issue.

to promote good health, education, and a host of other things, for a better country going forward. It's in the country's best interest to have an educated, healthier citizenry, to compete globally, perform jobs, etc. It also affects cost of health care and insurance, which affects us all, including the government.

Public service ads are good. Healthy school lunches. Requirements to post calories and nutrition on packaging and in restaurants.

I think Bloomberg's large sugar soda ban was going too far. But I don't think it's a big deal.

color coded label. Red, yellow or green. Many do not carefully read ingredient labels and many foods are falsely labeled, like with "light."

A simple color coded label of red, yellow or green would allow even the most food-uneducated to make a wise pick. Red being, of course, the most unhealthy and green the best. If someone wants to eat all red labeled foods, then that's their choice.

Some of the red labeled foods are good, taste great, the label would advise don't eat/drink a whole lot of this, use moderation or not at all. BUT, this is too simple for USA, Inc. where only $$$ counts.

The government should not impinge if the individual would be self-motivated.

Would Hostess be banned from making Twinkies?

I'm not advocating for shutting businesses or products down, just more regulation for notoriously unhealthy products.

I don't like the nanny state telling people what they can and cannot consume.

After all, you can't prove it's bad for you. Ergo, the government should subsidize it.

in a sack and head for the river. And make Ronald and the Burger King watch.

I think a majority of people would like that too. Freedom from medical bankruptcy.

That would be step one.

The facts state that obesity has risen dramatically among Americans and that obesity causes many health problems for most people. Health care costs are already too high, and we are already trying to deal with the aging Boomer population putting unprecidented strain on our health care system as they retire due to their numbers. Something has to be done.

However, the wrong way to go about it is to punish individual citizens for being obese or to pass legislative mandates that individuals not remain obese. The correct way to go about this is to properly regulate the food and health care industries so that healthier options are not only available to all Americans, they are also desirable. Anything else will fail.

I don't know what the government should do though.

no mystery as to why obesity, diabetes, etc. are incredible problems for our nation & others...one word, Monsanto.
GMO foods cause inflammation which is at the root of disease. It's damned simple. Man was not meant to eat blended genes in foods for whatever reason, be it pesticide or otherwise. It is a proven fact that enormous numbes of animals, helpful insects, have died in the fields consuming these so called "food" products. The health consequences are enormous.

It's time to reclaim a gov't that works for the people. Why should we have to sacrifice health so that big agriculture profits? If we ever get lobbyists out of our gov't we might be on the right track. Agriculture has learned the evils of big pharma...patent, patent, patent, to hell with life. Profit trumps life in the corporate oligarchy.

More resources for those on assistance programs to allow more margin to make better choices.

Add nutrition to curriculum to provide more tools to more people at earlier ages to make better informed choices.

Make sure products are what they claim to be and are clearly labeled.

Keep the poison out.

Better quality school meals, with no point of sale cost.

Like most problems, the biggest impact is to reduce poverty. The second is to get money out of politics so lobbyist don't buy our representation that derails the public interests.The third is to increase buying power/wages so everyone has more room to make better choices.

We also need to understand how sedentary many of our modern jobs really are and restructure our days to allow exercises to balance this out some. Eight or more hours of sitting around plus commute isn't anywhere near natural, we didn't evolve from such lifestyles, our bodies are not designed for the modern workday that even a workout before or after work doesn't resolve. It helps but it doesn't work for everyone. Usually, it is the better resourced that benefit from such.

I leave for work between 8:30 and 9 and get home between 8:30 and 9:30 depending on having to stay late or if need to run an errand. My ass is trying to recuperate or catch up on what slides around the house and personally during workdays. It is tough schedule and energy-wise to make it happen A couple of 20 minute exercise periods a day would make a huge difference in my health and fitness even if it was just cardio and I had to handle my own weight time.
Just stirring up the blood and breaking a sweat a couple times a day would mean a lot to almost everyone. People that still have jobs that keep them moving would benefit from those same periods being used to exercises the brain some with reading, doing brain teasers, refreshing some mental skill. Folks in the middle that do repetitive movements need to break that up and engage in natural motion and put their minds elsewhere.

It could stop giving our tax dollars to to a very few, very large corporate farmers to grow a very short list of the specific agricultural commodities that are processed into junk food.(Only about 1% of the national corn crop, for example, is the sweet corn we directly consume.) The vast majority of these crops are processed into additives like corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and soy oils (which are frequently processed further into hydrogenated vegetable oils). These additives are the key ingredients of the food that is making us fat, and sick. And we're paying ConAgra to grow it, while growers of fruits and vegetables effectively get zilch

It could stop letting food industry lobbyists manipulate and control the discourse on food policy. It could grow a pair in standing up to Big Ag, Monsanto and the like, and allow real science, not industry paid "researchers" to determine how genetically modified foods, antibiotics and hormones are contributing to unprecedented increases in a host of diseases, including cancers, developmental disabilities, precocious puberty, asthma, allergies--you name it. Rising health costs exactly parallel the growth of Frankenfoods and the Standard American Diet (S.A.D.).

It could make manufacturers prove that additives, colorings, and other new chemicals are safe FIRST, not after the fact. It could start by labeling GMO--something up to 95% of consumers have repeatedly favored.

It could use our tax dollars to make school lunches good food, not junk food. It could control exposure to junk food advertising to children, but certainly in the schools. Mickey D is as insidious as the Marlboro Man.

There's a lot government could do. This is just a start. Or it could do nothing, and let health care costs grow to a quarter of our GDP by 2035.

I would add stricter regulation of chemicals in everyday household items, like plastics, cleaners, utensils, etc. Those things can leach chemicals into your food, and sometimes those chemicals are endocrine disrupters which have been shown to cause obesity in some animal studies. This is a complex problem that won't be solved until those with the money are no longer controlling the government.

That's the big issue in the plastics-BPA and phalates. They mimic estrogen and cause all kinds of problems that the scientific community has known about for years. These are banned in the EU, Canada, many other countries, but not the US, because yes, you're right, the money rules. I would argue, as another poster has, that this is exactly like clean air and water. What better use of government's powers than ensuring a safe food supply?

Thanks for reading. As is probably obvious, this is one of my hot buttons.