Government Mandated Eating Habits?

As if to back up my feelings from my last posting that the government would attempt to force people waiting for buses to exercise, I just read this article where a politician is proposing the government stop with their “voluntary” eating healthy policies and start using force.

Obesity poses as big a threat to our nation as terrorism, Government adviser warns

By James Chapman
Last updated at 8:13 AM on 15th August 2008

obese

Crisis: Half of Britons could be obese by 2032

Obesity poses as grave a threat to Britain and the NHS as terrorism, a Government adviser has warned.

Public health expert Professor David Hunter criticised ministers for failing to take ‘bold action’ to tackle the growing crisis.

Experts have already warned that if trends continue, half the population will be obese within 25 years, causing life expectancy to fall for the first time in two centuries.

Professor Hunter, of Durham University, said that since the 1970s governments have done little more than ‘tinkered round the edges’ of the emerging health crisis.

‘They have been talking about it for four decades but that never seems to be enough,’ he said.

‘The Government was quick to move for things like ID cards or 42-day detention without trial – now it needs to show similar leadership in public health.

‘The threat to our future health is just as significant as the current security threat.’

Although Government initiatives were having some impact, he added, these were on a ‘piddling’ scale.

‘Lots of the initiatives are under a voluntary agreement – but it has just come to the point where things like these are simply not working,’ Professor Hunter said.

© 2008 Associated Newspapers Ltd

Read the FULL STORY here.

Of course the argument here is mostly about the costs of treating so-called “obesity-related” diseases, and how it cuts about 9 years off your life (as IF this world were so great right now that anyone would want to live longer?). The argument falls flat when you factor in long life = higher medical costs for “age-related” diseases such as all cancers, heart problems, bone problems, dementia, alzheimer’s, etc.

More disturbing were the majority of comments to this story were downright nasty. The level of intolerance from people who think just because something doesn’t affect them that it is perfectly acceptable to condemn is appalling. They think just because they eat well and healthy and are active to over-active that they are immune from such intrusions into their choices. It will be interesting to watch them when the [fill-in your hatred here] police come after them; and they will for no one is perfect OR immune from anyone else’s personal hatred.

Earlier this year I read this:

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 – Page updated at 12:00 AM

Medical costs higher for thin, healthy folks

The Associated Press

LONDON — Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn’t save money, researchers reported Monday.

It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

“It was a small surprise,” said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands’ National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. “But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more.”

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are higher than those of either fat people or smokers.

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the “healthy-living” group (thin and nonsmoking), obese people and smokers. The model relied on “cost of illness” data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the highest health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

~snip~

Van Baal described the paper as “a bookkeeping exercise,” and said that governments should recognize that successful smoking- and obesity-prevention programs mean that people will have a higher chance of dying of something more expensive later in life.

“Lung cancer is a cheap disease to treat because people don’t survive very long,” van Baal said. “But if they are old enough to get Alzheimer’s one day, they may survive longer and cost more.”

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

Read the FULL STORY here.

What is interesting is that the arguments, zeal, and solutions are pretty much what has worked for the Tobacco Control attack on smokers (and yes, it IS the smokers they attack NOT the corporations). It’s like they took the TC template for success and changed smoking to obesity, fiddled the numbers a bit more so as not to be a complete mirror-image and are using the same emotional blackmail. And once again, the passive, brainwashed sheeple are lapping it all up and going along with it.

The UK is also looking to involve social services when children are fat and may threaten to remove the child from the home (as has been done in a couple of isolated cases already – see here, here, here and here).

Town halls warn that Britain is becoming the ‘obesity capital of the world’

LGA press release – 15 August 2008

Social services will increasingly have to step in to deal with cases where the welfare of dangerously overweight children is put at risk if the UK’s obesity epidemic continues to grow, town hall leaders are warning today.

The Local Government Association (LGA), which represents over 400 councils in England and Wales, is calling for a national debate about the extent to which dangerous childhood obesity could be considered as a factor contributing to parental neglect.

Council social services have only become involved in isolated cases until now, where it has been judged that children’s health is being put at risk by their parents. However, the LGA is warning that as obesity increasingly becomes a problem, it is likely that local authorities will have to step in more and more to deal with the problem, normally through offering help and advice to parents and keeping the welfare of children under review.

Local Government Association

Read the FULL STORY here.

Science is being done by press release these days and by politicians it seems. Here’s a piece from Junkfood Science about this and why it is a real problem.

August 17, 2008

Maybe, we’re overlooking a problem

~snip~

It has been argued that politicians don’t do science, and political science is not a hard science. But irrefutably, medical licenses are not required to practice politics or economics. So why are we listening to politicians and political analysts and letting them decide health care policies that affect all of us and our children, families, businesses and way of life?

This past week, obesity hysterics hit a new high. And not a single claim or health policy proposal was based on a lick of credible evidence. Each worked from the most biased of underlying assumptions.

Fat people = terrorists

Fat people = stupid

Fat people = diseased burdens (and) Cancers are your own fault

Fat children = child abuse

Read the FULL STORY here.

Makes you kind of wonder if all those conspiracy theory nuts aren’t really on to something. Doesn’t it?

Advertisements

~ by swfreedomlover on August 19, 2008.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: