"The (U.S. government) favors dietary guidance that focuses on the total diet, promotes the view that all foods can be part of a healthy and balanced diet, and supports personal responsibility to choose a diet conducive to individual energy balance, weight control and health,"

"the WHO report did not adequately address an individual's responsibility to balance one's diet with one's physical activities"

What's wrong with that? Are you trying to say it's Bush's or the government's fault that people are fat?

OK, so there are a couple of hundred million fat people in this world of how many? Not saying that this isn't problematic, but aren't there a couple of hundred million starving people too. What about people who are at the right weight, whatever that is. What's the point? Seems to me like the UN is looking for someone or something to blame for people not taking responsibility for their actions. No one is forcing overweight people to eat that extra fritter. Step away from the table. And what does Bush have to do with this? It may have come from his administration, but doesn't he average a 6 minute mile in a 5K and didn't he run a sub 4 hr. marathon in his forties? At least he is leading by example in this particular area.

I do not know how you could interpret the govt's response to the WHO's report as a bad thing - unless you would be open to the govt telling you how, what, and when you should eat and exercise. I do not need anyone to "outline" that for me. I think I can handle it myself.

I agree with the point that I don't want anyone telling me how to eat.

I think where people are worried is that companies are further and further marketing to people who can't make informed decisions. McDonald's, for example, is well-known to target children under seven, people who cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction let alone healthy and unhealthy. Of course one might think that this is up to the parents to decide a diet for their children. True enough, but if that was working, McDonald's wouldn't be doing the campaign in the first place. It works, and it's been proven that the young kids are what brings the whole family to a restaurant. In any case, the problem is such that a number of countries around the world have banned all advertising to children in this age group.

On one hand, everybody should be able to pick what they put in their body without big brother's help, but on the other, people are getting just plain way too fat, and it doesn't look like things are going to change until somebody steps in. I'll just be happy when I can buy something healthy as easily and cheaply as a happy meal.

---

----
Aerosexual.

Well, my thoughts on this (FWIW) are the government is supposed to keep us free and reasonably safe (from ourselves and other countries who wish us harm).

The rest is up to us.

I don't like the feds advising me on my diet. I'd prefer they stick to the basic constitutional/bill of rights stuff and leave the rest to us.

There is such a thing as "over-governing".

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

"What's wrong with that? Are you trying to say it's Bush's or the government's fault that people are fat? "

I read a much better article about this today claiming that the Bush response goes against what science is telling us about obesiety and he's largely protecting junk food big business. I'll have to hunt it down. I'm on my way out for the weekend so can't get back right away. Anyways, we'll be hearing more about this in the next few days I'm sure.

out of our taxes, how much money goes to treating obesity/obese people etc...?
What about this new (maybe) law where an obese is considered a handicapped person and therefore should have (I forgot how much) in order to "restructure" his/her home/car/work place blah blah etc... to accomodate for their handicap?

Why is half the US overweight and most of Europe not overweight? Could it because the gov. is actually trying to adhere to the WHO guidelines?

I realize that these are mostly questions...I am truly asking them to myself...

First thoughts are that the WHO has some interesting guidelines where the only consequences are:
1. loss of money for companies such as McDo etc...and adv. companies
2. chance that people eat less
3. cut the money spend every year on diets
4. provided 2 works, less of our taxes goes to helping obese people (the only point I am sure of is that the more obese people, the more we pay more or less indirect taxes)

In any case, these rules are not limiting our choice in ANY way, they are merely removing "eating temptation" for our eyes...(which also, wouldn't hurt the landscape)...

....and another thing, as American corporate junk food chains expand into other countries (including third world countries) expect the same obesity rates as in the USA. Perhaps this is what the UN is (justifiably) concerned about.

Will be back to hash this out in a few days.

You're right. I liked Bush before, and this doesn't change my mind. Keep the government out of my grocery store and kitchen. I'd be ashamed of an American president that used my tax dollars to support a partisan, ill-informed, trans-national organization that tries to replace freedom of choice with social engineering.

I find ironic and mildly distasteful the frequent bashing of America / Bush on this forum. The irony stems from our collective love for competition and personal improvement, paired with the frequent criticism of a government that believes in the same. Should the WHO also be regulating what bikes we ride, sports drinks we drink, and clothing materials we wear? Many of us are underinformed on each of these topics, and so the argument goes, some may need protection from the horrible ills of aluminum, glucose sugars, and Speedos. Why not just get rid of this forum and replace it with the World Slowtwitch Organization, possessive of universal truths and declarations about how we should pursue our athletic interests?

The distateful part relates to the disrespect shown for a man of reasonable principles. The WHO believes that people need protection from themselves, and that government should provide it. In contrast, America was founded on the principle that people need protection from government, and Bush is acting consistently with that by opposing a moralizing, mildly authoritarian global institution. Seems reasonable to me.

No. Please don't come back and start any more dopey threads like this.

Hmmm, Francois, your insights are always very well informed. That is why I like to read what you write.

I was unaware of the WHO recommendations that are used in Europe. That is interesting.

Here is my fundamental issue though: At what point does the government's "jurisdiction" on our lives end? So many aspects of our life decisions are "governed" by our government.

The U.S. has serious problems. One of them is an individual reliance on someone else to do things for us. The compnay we work for is supposed to provide our health care, the government is supposed to advise us on our diet, the day care is supposed to raise our children.

We are becoming a nation that delegates all of our personal responsibilites and with it goes our personal freedoms.

We should have the right to be exposed to any dietary habits we want. IMO, the government shouldn't control McDonald's advertising, etc.

We should exercise the responsiblity to eat better. But we don't. God knows, I eat pretty crappy. At least I'm not overweight. I was when I was a kid, and our public school system helped me overcome it through physical education.

I guess I am contradicting myself. Over-governing is a concern of mine. I worry about it. But you make good points.

Damn, time to think some more........ Can I get back to you guys on this?????? Right now I have to go swimming.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

<<Why is half the US overweight and most of Europe not overweight? Could it because the gov. is actually trying to adhere to the WHO guidelines?>>

Look at the sports popular in Europe: Cycling, soccer, etc. What's popular in the U.S.? NASCAR, "Wrestling" etc.

A low fat, low calorie diet coupled with no exercise ain't healthy either.

Brett

---

"Du or Du not-there is no Tri" - Yoda

there is no bashing of america on this forum...bashing of Bush I agree...but nearly every single person who made comments about Bush (which incidently are not distasteful...they are perfectly ok...unless you want to get rid of the first amendement) have also said they loved this country...

Do people need protection from themselves? Not if their choices have absolutely no impact whatsoever on other people's lives. Unfortunately, as long as we live in a society, many of our every day actions have an impact on other people's lives. Always the conflict between individual freedom vs 'global freedom'.

Bush is indeed acting consistently by opposing most rules/ideas/laws that could have a positive impact on Health/Environment....
Does not seem reasonable to me.

Those of us who do not like Bush are entirely allowed to disrespect him. Remember that YOU think his principles are reasonable...this is not the case for everyone here. I respect your choice to like
his ideas/principle/person etc...and you should do the same with others who do not appreciate his choices.

"IMO the gov. shouldn't control etc..."

well, this is debatable. If people were rational and making the "right" choices (whatever right means) this would be perfectly legitimate.
However, we all know this is not the case.

For instance in France to limit drinking, commercials about liquors etc... are not allowed on TV/Sports arenas...So you may say: what's wrong with drinking...
well, what's wrong is that your choice kills others when you also choose to drive after...
consequence of the commercial cut was a 23% drop of deaths on French roads in 2003...

although the effects of obesity are not as bad, they are definitely not negligeable either.

Oh, yes. We need more people to die from unregulated things like ephedra. Good idea.

Ken Lehner

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

The USDA well intentioned "Food Pyramid" is a perfect example of why you don't want government in the mix. And this was not a Bush thing. The problem is that a whole lot of people get fat going on the recomendation of this "Food Pyramid". Has the government really helped anyone with this - quite the contrary. More fat people now than before.

If they just said, "weight is your responsibility - eat what you want and exercise or not" - a lot of people would have been better off.

And by the way I'm down about 60 pounds from my former obese self and it didn't have jack squat to do with anything government - one way or the other. And I don't blame the government for when I was fat.

France also cut the work week to 35 hours because "overproductive" people were costing others jobs. Guess what employers did when mandated that each worker is now less valuable? Hired fewer. Governments globally have unlimited capacity to get it wrong when it comes to social engineering.

I don't disrespect your right to think what you want about Bush. But I do disrespect what you actually think. People like you who believe in their, and their preferred government's, infallible insight into what's best for health / education / welfare are, frankly, a threat to the freedoms of those who would choose for themselves. Your arguments in favor of government control are wrong and disproven by the relative success of the U.S. (free market) versus Europe (social welfare states).

For whatever it's worth, a majority of Americans will probably side with me in election 2004. Content yourself that you're still smarter than the rest of us in your own mind.

hmmm...hadn't thought about that...
although at this stage, I am 100% sure we see more people dying from MI due to obesity than from MI due to Ephedra/Ma Huang etc.

Francois, you are probably here because our country has the freedom that allows you to pursue your profession as you desire. Presumably you left France because you can't do it there.

French growth rates are low and they will be losing population in a big way in the coming decades. Their only population growth comes from Muslim immigration, and it scares the ethnic French to tears. The French economy relative to the US is in a one way slide with no end in sight. France has a government that will soon be passing a low barring crucifixes and Jewish skull caps because they are intimidating. Those are the choices France makes, and they are so entitled.

In America we make the opposite decisions. We believe in freedom knowing that some will misuse it to their own disadvantage. Most will not. Our growth rates are high and our population growing with no end in sight. I for one am glad we have a government that doesn't take away our Twinkies or our crucifixes. By your actions, I figure your agree.

And what does Bush have to do with this? It may have come from his administration, but doesn't he average a 6 minute mile in a 5K and didn't he run a sub 4 hr. marathon in his forties? At least he is leading by example in this particular area.

TriDad ... Tsk Tsk ... What are you doing? You're not suppossed to point out anything positive a president does ... especially when you point out that he leads by example.

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

I'm with Tom and the others on this one ....

I'm in favor of living in a country where this little thing called "Liberty" is the call of the day and the way to live your life. It's about having choices. It's about making good decisions, but having the choice regardless.

There is a small faction of Americans that want fast food illegal or restricted just b/c they cannot say no. It's the government's fault they are fat, eat junk, smoke, drink, etc. There's no way it can come down to personal responsibility. It's teh government's fault from not regulating everything.

That line of thinking goes against everything our nation was built on. I think we need to re-read the literature written by the founding fathers and see that "choice" is the basis. I agree with this type of government and it's the place I want to live. We're already "too governed" in the land of "laissez faire" (sp?) [i.e. hands off government].

It really bothers me when blame is placed on the government for personal choices. It bothers me even more when pleas to the government for more control gain momentum. We might as well just go piss on Jefferson et al's gravesites (or tombs). Really. Not to sound over-dramatic, but both parties seems to be taking us down the road of "whatever the people want" rather than implementing and protecting "liberty". I'll stop there, before I start standing on the table yelling "Give me greasy fatty food or give me death!".

We are the land of excess where restraint is a word that has been removed from the dictionary. It's not "what we eat" that is the problem. It's "how much". McDonald's did not bring on the "extra large" or "super size" quantities ... it's the people that wanted them. We now eat fried from a small bucket and drink a gallon of soda. "Servings" of food have been replaced by "the whole damn thing". If it's in front of us, we eat it.

Here's our major problem in nutrition terms. You'll be alright if you eat a high-carb low-fat diet, or a low-carb, high-fat diet. The problem lies in the fact that many Americans eat a high-carb high-fat diet, AND a caloric surplus. Throw in too much salt and the wrong kinds of fat, and you got an obesity epidemic.

Rather than coddle obese people ... they should be placed in the same category as smokers. They should have much higher insurance rates, since obesity leads to numerous health problems that are a burden to healthy folks. Part of obesity treatment should be the introduction of exercise and diet modification rather than the quick fix of diet pills or stomach stapling. It should be more along the lines of habit changing rather than pill pushing. Again, I'll stop there before I get on the soapbox again.

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

Whether we're talking about legalized drugs, fast food, gun ownership, etc ... the question IS NOT "should this be legal", but rather "does this HAVE to be legal?". A free country sets up for some undesireable things. But, still, I'd rather have the freedom of choice than to be regulated as if I were an unintelligent child.

I think sometimes people forget what "freedom" really is. You are free to do anything unless it (or until) it impinges upon other's unalienable (inseperable) rights. We seem to be readily willing to give up freedom in place of individual responsibility. That REALLY bothers me. It really has me cautious of where this type of thinking can lead to. (Look throughout history at what happens in countries where people start giving away freedom ... It's not pretty).

Sorry if I got preachy about this. BUt, IMO, this is one area where EVERYONE should really look into this issue and decide how they want to live their lives. Free or regulated?

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

your rational is contradictory
you don't want to give up free speech (the 1st amendment in america) but you are more than happy to let the gov regulate our diet and excercise.
Using your rationale:
People say and do stupid things that are protected under the 1st amendment. If people were making all the "right" choices of words and actions this would be perfectly legitimate. However, as we all know, this is not the case (as many on this forum so clearly demonstrate). Therefore lets get rid of the 1st amendment

I hate the fucking leberal academia i have to deal with every day at school, now it's infiltrated this forum. go spend your time doing productive things, like spray painting BUSH or WAR on STOP signs.

Of course, because of underfunding, our schools have mostly cut their phys. ed. programs. Instead, they enter into contracts with junk food manufacturers and soda bottlers to stock their schools with crappy food in a vain effort to raise money. See NYC and Snapple, for instance.

Hell, where does the Constitution say anything about public education? Bag it. Only the wealthy should be able to get an education, like the good old days. And the environment? Bah.

We don't need no steenkin' regulations.

Ken Lehner

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

thing is with people like you, even though I tried to make an argumented comment, it always end up with some way to insult the other ("content yourself etc...")

I certainly do not believe in my "preferred gov" infaillible insight...and the rest is just non sense as you don't even know me.

I don't disrespect what you think on the other hand...you are entitled to think whatever you want....

as for me being a threat to freedom etc...dude, aren't you pushing this quite a bit???

the comments on the 35hrs are true...but they have nothing to do with this discussion...
the fact is : 23% less death...can you argue with this? no...

waiting for some other insults...

One of the main reasons people are more fat than ever can be traced directly back to the government's corn policy. By paying farmers to produce far more corn than they need, the price was driven down so much that high fructose corn syrup became the sweetener of choice, and is now found everywhere. Cheap corn is also the basis for our unhealthy "grain-fed" beef and that whole feedlot system, producing "cheap" fatty meat for us to consume. People are fatter because of the increase in calories taken in over the last 30 years, not because of the food pyramid.

Ken Lehner

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"