White House Opposes UN Report on Obesity

The Bush administration is challenging a World Health Organization (news - web sites) report that outlines steps for nations to take to reduce obesity.
 
In a letter to the United Nations (news - web sites) agency that is meeting next week, Health and Human Services (news - web sites) official William Steiger questioned the organization's findings, said they were based on faulty science, and called for changes to the report.
The WHO report recommends eating more fruits and vegetables and limiting fats and salt. It also suggests governments limit food advertising aimed at children and encourage their citizens to eat healthier foods. Taxes and subsidies could be used to reduce the price of healthy food and make them more attractive to consumers, the report said.

-snip
Steiger said in his letter that the WHO report did not adequately address an individual's responsibility to balance one's diet with one's physical activities, and objected to singling out specific types of foods, such as those high in fat and sugar.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040116/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_obesity

So, hey, you *choose* to be addicted to cheap, fatty foods that are hawked everywhere and which you are carpetbombed by advertising to stuff your face with. You now will *choose* to eat tuna with mercury levels. You *choose* to be so exhausted from stress and overwork that you don't have the strength to exercise.

in woman. Something about increased cortisol levels and weight gain. I'll try to find the link.

I've tended to gain weight when I've had periods of insomnia.

Ya mean if I get more sleep I'll lose some weight? Sounds like a win-win to me!

are really screwed.

After all, large corporations have the right to spend huge amounts of money to sell you over-processed, sugar-coated, marshmallow-infested, cereal-like substance.

It's called freedom of speech.

Why isn't tobacco part of it? Why can't Bayer advertise Heroin then?
Why can a political spot be rejected?

They can say what they want about legal products if their claims are ACCURATE.

Of course a political spot can be rejected. Rejection is also an act of free speech.

I agree to a certain degree with you; free speech is a powerful argument.
Yet I don't see how healthy, good looking people advertising a fat and salt ladden product is "ACCURATE". The tobacco industry did the same thing for years after all.
As for free speech by rejection: In that case I wonder if the networks are sued as well, when an inaccurate commercial leads to undesired effects?

Are both things a body needs. A body does not need nicotine that comes from tobacco. How much an individual eats is purely a personal choice.

And why the ban on the f-word?

With regards to First Amendment rights of free speech, and commercial advertising is not protected speech under the First Amendment.

I advocate STRONG constitutional protections, not weak ones.

Take up your argument with them if you disagree.

The court changes rulings every time it changes its make-up.

This is a huge part, maybe the major part, of the trouble we find ourselves in now.

IIRC, the Supreme Court, in the 1890s or so, decided that corporations have the same rights as a person.

So they have free speech rights, and all the rest.

They don't deserve it and have abused it.

If we were to get a law, or an Amendment (I do think it's that serious) to fix that, we would go a long way to fixing a lot of things.

Free speech should belong to individuals and ... some bodies ... but not to profit-making corps.

and you have the right not to buy them.

why isn't the WHO working on world hunger??? isn't that a more pressing problem??? or has everyone forgot??? don't need any one to tell me what i need or don't need to eat.

Right?

Dang, got beat to it.

But, choices are getting fewer and fewer nowadays, it seems. These corporations keep consolidating- and almost ALL of the products that they are making are being made with cheap substitutes for what used to be real nutrition, like high-fructose corn syrup.

This "everyone has a choice" excuse doesn't cut it for me. That's like saying to someone, "Hey, you don't have to watch CNN for your news. You have other choices- Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, and the nightly news on all the networks.

Personally, I prefer the Lehrer NewsHour. But, you know, sometimes that just ain't enough......

of unprocessed food. Check out the produce, dairy, and meat counters.

on everything.
and it's wooden inability to work with anyone.

That is what I find most disturbing. (and the fact that they are pandering to corporations with this- heaven forbid Frito-Lay be offended!!!!!!!). GOd these people suck.

"The WHO report recommends eating more fruits and vegetables"

Lots of meat and veggies, no fruit

so many good things as far as vitamins and antidioxants go, I wouldn't ever cut them out of my diet.

(after the first two weeks) allow fruit.

and it deopends on the individual person.

But do not agree with his assessment on limiting fruit consumption. There's just too much research supporting the medical benefits of fruit.

But consider that it won't take you your whole life to lose the weight on Atkins, it might just take you a few months.

Not eating fruit for a few months isn't gonna kill you.

Especially if you eat lots of other low carb vegetables! Greens, broccoli, cabbage, salad, etc.

:grr: :grr: :grr:

For the love of God, there are more pressing problems on the planet than objecting to a WHO report! And, AND, what's the point of disagreeing with it?!? What are you hoping to accomplish by being so pigheaded about scientific research?!!

BushCo always finds it objectionable.

So sad and grotesque to see our once-free nation reduced to pathetic Imperial Footstool.

But that is exactly what has happened.

would be Corporations. Is there any doubt left by anyone that the government we have in power is now ruled by corporations? It's shameful.

the recommendations of the study, you would probably opt out of eating garbage and instead eat stuff that's actually good for you. This means of course that those gigantic companies (you know, Bush's political donors), would take a hit financially, and Bush cannot allow that to happen.....I mean, what are friends for?

Encouraging people to eat better and forcing them to are two very different things. I'm with the freepers on the whole "lifestyle police" thing, but not much else.

But the Bush Administration's opposition to this is nothing more than them going to bat for Junkfood Inc. Profits will always be more important to them than people.

I can hear the line now, "The WHO is biased and anti American. Keep eating as many Twinkies and Lays Potato chips as you want."

healthy? Right now, "approved" lunches have NO count of fat at all, just total calories. This way, Tyson and others can sell their floor sweepings to the government, who passes them on to school districts.

Dancing is very good exercise.

something like 300 calories per hour I hear.

:smoke:

that's what our government is doing now. Why do you think soda costs less than bottled water? They are PAID to use corn syrup!

if I was raising a child I wouldn't let said child get near any of those packaged kids lunches. yuck

that exposed Bob Dole's connection between creating the Food Stamps program and corporations (namely Frito Lay). I am absolutely NOT surprised by this latest embarrassment by Bushco. It has corporate interests written all over it.

The statistics cited in this report are staggering. "The International Obesity Task Force estimates that 300 million people worldwide are obese and 750 million more are overweight, including 22 million children under age 5. "

Anyone wish to venture a guess where most of these folks are?

I saw a Frontline documentary a few years ago that compared two Hispanic communities with close blood ties, one in Mexico, one in Texas. The Mexican Hispanics were healthy. The American Hispanics were grossly obese. Each had similar lifestyles, but the major difference was their diet -- the American Hispanics largely ate processed and fast foods, whereas the Mexicans ate a traditional Mexican diet.

There are a myriad of serious chronic health problems caused or aggravated by obesity. Rates of childhood diabetes are skyrocketing due to the obesity epidemic, and these poor kids are doomed to a lifetime of debilitating illnesses. Want to make a bet that these are the same people who are least able to pay for the health care that they will urgently require? Our system doesn't work as it is -- just wait until this rise in disease due to obesity adds further stress to the system.

What a radical extremist group WHO is! Just look at their outrageous recommendations: "The WHO report recommends eating more fruits and vegetables and limiting fats and salt. It also suggests governments limit food advertising aimed at children and encourage their citizens to eat healthier foods. " Yeah -- the Bush Administration is so right in calling them on their bad science. /sarcasm off

"Choice." The way these pigs are always mouthing this word makes me sick. They have no decency. We have, or will soon have, a major crisis on our hands -- and this is their response. It's insanity.

The horror! The horror!

It's only common sense. All the diets that are out there agree on one thing: Eat your vegetables.

Unless it has to do with a woman's right to choose, same-sex marriage, oh let me see, what else....

This administration is full of itself, it's pathetic.

Of course we have ot take steps to correct the obesity problem. Playing ostrich won't work!

All bushco read was "UN Report says...." and they stopped reading any further - just ran off another of their mindless "objections".

These people currently hijacking our government "don't need no stinking science".

They already know what they have or want to know, end of discussion.

Another day, another outrage. The only difference is in the severity of the outrage.

Sigh.

Perhaps the White House can issue their own report on "Faith-Based Steps to Reduce Obesity".

Pray that all those Twinkies, sodas, chips, cookies, cake, and burgers 'n fries won't make you fat.

Get your exercise by going up and down on your knees to pray.

They might encourage people to reduce intake of McDonald's and other fast food places exported from the US, including Coke Pepsi et el.

180

Considering that our biggest "cultural" exports are Coca Cola and McDonald's.

one just opened in Paris today.

Back in the '80s, a UN study showed that the French use the least soap per capita in the developed world. The French attacked the study, not the BO.

Why would a bunch of Texans who pride themselves on their Lipitor consumption behave any differently?

There are countries in Africa today where soap is the single most important element the population lacks for disease prevention. France has for centuries produced excellent olive oil based soaps. I suspect your fable was inspired by conditions in the country prior to its reconstruction after World War II. Things have changed a bit over the past half century.

How many other nations have complained about the science?

Is an article of faith for knee-jerk conservatives.

They complain about science that shows the earth getting hotter.

They complain about science that shows teaching people about safe sex curtails the spread of STDs.

They complain about science that casts doubt on the biblical creation story.

And now they complain about science showing that stuffing your face full of greasy, sugary foods leads to obesity.


Conservatives complain about any science that challenges their ideas and preconceived notions.

Our scientists know it all!

because they are overladen with calories and sugars. Further, snacking, has taken over as an accepted habit. Second helpings, also. Portion sizes are way too large and it is a pride to frequent a restautant that piles on oversized portions.

I could not figure out the objection here when I read this report. Why would anyone buck this? I came to the conclusion that the corporations are running us again--all of the prepared foods laden with starches and sugars, and all of the advertising to make it acceptable to snack, continually almost, are the melieu of the food corporations.

We need only three, and some people say two, meals a day. We need only modest servings and there should be no need for second helpings.

We do not need snacks.

We do not need sugar added to almost every food and we do not need prepackaged, prepared foods.\


We need basics--perfectly healthy basics.

on the two or three meals a day. Some people must eat every few hours to control their blood sugar. Of course, you don't eat full meals if you eat that often. There are studies (and many Prevention magazine articles over the years) that recommend "grazing" - eating small amounts throughout the day as the best way to maintain health and body weight. If you think of it, it certainly is reasonable that small, frequent meals are better assimilated than one or two large meals a day.

There. I said it.

Did anyne else see that special last month on telly ? If we could just restrict ads aimed at kiddies, as is done in many other nations, we might stem the tide of early adolescent obesity that will cripple our medical system in years to come... here in the US we have seen a huge rise in childhood obesity, with many elementary school kids showing the clinical signs of obesity - high blood pressure at age 12 ? Ugh.

The last time we tried to restrict this kind of advertising (in the 70's) the lobbyists threw a fit and the govt responded by actually talking about disbanding the FCC !!

I wonder how many fast food junkies there were amongst the more than 900,000 Tutsis slaughtered in just 3 months or so in Rwanda?

Oh, that's right, they're all dead and chopped into little pieces; the UN isn't able to run an opinion poll anymore.

:(

I have to agree with the point made in other areas of this thread about eating being a choice.

Having battled obesity with some success most of my adult life, I can attest to the role choice plays in fueling obesity through fast food. The greatest inroads I've made against obesity and the health complications that accompany it have come when I ditched fast food altogether, even the "healthy" fast food offered up by more and more outlets and established a sensible eating pattern with more whole food for small meals or snacks. Having been preached, poked, and proselytized to about weight, I'm not advocating what worked for me as a panacea for anyone else; I simply would comment that from personal experience my own struggle with obesity did not turn in my favor until I made choices: Choices to fore go fast food, choices to educate myself about a healthy diet, choices to educate myself about an exercise program, and choices to stick with my plan. So to the people saying that it's all about choice, I agree.

On a related strand of thought on this topic, I think this is an interesting confluence of choice and science. I've read through the Department of Health and Human Services memo to the WHO where HHS bitches about the shaky basis of "sound science" in the WHO report:

<http://www.commercialalert.org/bushadmincomment.pdf>

In many places they make good points. That these points somehow "debunk" the WHO report and its recommendations is ridiculous. These comments are for the most part editorial in nature, not challenging the foundation of the science behind the report. Truth is a decent technical writer with a background in scientific writing could have cleaned this up in a weeks' time. Note to WHO: Pay some money for a good technical writer/editor! It'll save your ass when you decide to cross swords with the corporate whores inside the Beltway these days.

The premise of this critique of the WHO report is that it is somehow based upon "bad science." That critique coming from any office of the Bush administration carries about as much weight as a high school auto-painting student saying Michaelangelo's work sucks. In our lifetimes we have not seen a bigger bunch of half-assed, brain-addled hypothesis whores in Washington than we have seen in the Bush administration. Science to them is like their political direction: For sale to the highest bidder.

So, what I'm trying to get at is this: While I do agree that your personal choice is the most fundamental way to break the cycle of obesity, choice as a reason in no way, shape, or form absolves the Bush administration from shitting on what is commonly accepted, scientifically-determined general health practices and advice that you would receive from any accredited nutritionist.

The report urges governments to educate people about food choices, telling them honestly that certain foods are not good for them.

All this talk about personal responsibility, all "they" have to do is stop stuffing their faces, etc, is beside the point. The U.S. gov't and the corporations are insisting that we don't have a right to be educated about our food choices.

It isn't about "freedom of speech;" if anything, the freedom of speech of health advocates is what's being abridged here. The situation is similar to that of health care workers who aren't allowed to mention the possibility of abortion. Our government is refusing to let health care advocates speak truthfully in materials (paid for by taxpayers) that are meant to educate the public about healthy eating choices.

Personal responsibility is just that: Personal.

What is thoroughly-investigated, well-vetted nutrional science has sweet FA to do with personal choice. That our administration blatantly wants to quibble over editorial issues with the report and call it "bad science" is absolutely beyond the pale, which means it's just another stock-option bragging day in the Bush Beltway.

I think you are unfortunately very correct with your analogy to abortion; our state board of health (it doesn't deserve capitalization any longer after this past week) provided its guidance on the disgustingly-named "Womens' Right To Know Act," including the stipulation that women seeking an abortion in Texas must provide identification in order to undergo the procedure. Given some of the recent events in Texas where identification of contractors working on a new Planned Parenthood building in Austin was used to publically blackball them by a Christian fundamentalist contractor in the area, this stipulation has nothing to do with anything beyond pure intimidation by the state government.

We are going to do nothing about solving the problem, becasue
there are two actual problems at work.

Since this only solves half the problem, we refuse to endorse it.

Last time I checked. Solving fifty percent of anything with one stroke of the pen is a good start.