Against the Law to be Fat in Japan?

[heart]

What do the folks here think of this?

A good idea or bad idea?



Japan, seeking trimmer citizens, decides to measure millions of waistlines (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/13/asia/13fat.php)

...But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. "I'm on the border," he said.

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.

Those exceeding government limits — 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, which are identical to thresholds established in 2005 for Japan by the International Diabetes Federation as an easy guideline for identifying health risks — and having a weight-related ailment will be given dieting guidance if after three months they do not lose weight. If necessary, those people will be steered toward further re-education after six more months.


To reach its goals of shrinking the overweight population by 10 percent over the next four years and 25 percent over the next seven years, the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments that fail to meet specific targets. The country's Ministry of Health argues that the campaign will keep the spread of diseases like diabetes and strokes in check...

[Night]

Sounds like a variant form of Anti-Dysgenics.

After reading the article a bit further, it appears proponents argue that the initiative will ultimately reduce the soon-ballooning health care costs for senior citizens.

Opponents argue the expectations are unrealistic and would actually counter the financial premise set forth by the program.


As an ideal, I think the program is ultimately an exercise in futility. It seems unlikely to me that forcefully installing a weight loss regime would produce any long-term health benefits.

What disappoints me is the lack of creativity associated with this line of policy grafting. Instead of social handcuffs (which will likely only serve to reinforce certain psychological anomalies that led to overconsumption in some), it seems more operant to attack the root cause of overeating.

Thus, it might be wiser to evaluate the catalysts. A good start would be to analyze the genetic links between overeating and hormone production in certain demographics; insert social programs to alleviate the psychological temptation of overconsumption; summarily reduce dependency on Western fast food agencies (thereby reducing physical consumption while increasing domestic production of "healthy" alternatives) by offering education programs for those who might otherwise choose to eat fatty, low-output foods.

Obesity isn't a necessarily consequence of overeating. As such, implementing a counterstructure that only targets overeating is probably going to do very little to curb national trends in Japan.

[Lateralus]

I've stated my opinion on the issue in other threads and I'm not surprised, at all. Big Brother.

The ministry also says that curbing widening waistlines will rein in a rapidly aging society's ballooning health care costs, one of the most serious and politically delicate problems facing Japan today.

[Mort Belfry]

I just don't understand this current wave of wanting-everybody-to-be-healthy that's circling the globe. What is the goal here? To have as many people as healthy as possible all around the world? Who is that going to help? All these enviromental problems we blame ourselves for are as a result of there being too many people on the planet.

We're constantly told from one quarter that we as humans need to minimise our effect on the planet, and from another quarter that we need to be as healthy as possible. These two ideas completely oppose each other. Surely the best way to minimise human effect is to MIMINISE THE HUMANS!

If governments enforce people to gain an extra ten years on their lives, that's just more resources they're going to take and a larger trail of shit left in their wake.

I saw a commercial a while back that said something like, "By the year 2020 there will be an estimated eleven billion people on the planet, we here at (random corporation, I forget now) will be here to serve those new customers, etc." I just remember thinking, "What? We're just going to sit back and let that happen? We're alright with that? We know it's going to happen and we're doing nothing to stop it?"

This is why I don't recycle, this is why I don't care about the planet, because I figure all the great strides we make are going to be watered down when shared amongst a larger group of people. And there's already too many people on the planet, you can't walk down the street without seeing another human. Where the fuck are we going to store all these new people? Underground?

Rant over.

[Abhaya]

I've stated my opinion on the issue in other threads and I'm not surprised, at all. Big Brother.

That is what it sounds like to me too. :steam: This Big Brother stuff is getting out of control.

[proteanmix]

I don't know if this is the case in Japan, but I've read about such things as "food deserts," where people don't have access to grocery stores to buy fresh fruits and veggies, the staples of a healthy diet. These areas also have higher incidences of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Maybe they could look and see if the areas where people tend to be obese are also areas where food options are limited. If they find that to be the case then maybe the best step is to give these areas more access to healthier food choices and see if that produces a change in waistlines.

I don't know, I mean there's a problem at least they recognize it and are being proactive about it. What is the Japanese reaction to this? Does Big Brother scare them as much as it does Americans?

[Lateralus]

What is the Japanese reaction to this? Does Big Brother scare them as much as it does Americans?
I could see this leading to discriminatory hiring practices.

To reach its goals of shrinking the overweight population by 10 percent over the next four years and 25 percent over the next seven years, the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments that fail to meet specific targets.
If a company employs more than its share of overweight people, it might have to start trimming the fat, literally, in order to avoid financial penalties. But that's only your job.

Will local governments start forcing overweight people to go to 'Fat Camp'? What if that doesn't work? Prison?

[heart]

I don't know, I mean there's a problem at least they recognize it and are being proactive about it. ..

Are they crossing a personal boundary here? Do people have the right to be fat or unhealthy if they chose to be so?

[Abhaya]

Are they crossing a personal boundary here? Do people have the right to be fat or unhealthy if they chose to be so?

Abso-F***ing-lutley! and I wouldn't trust anyone that says otherwise.

[CzeCze]

I can see something like this happening in Japan and perhaps 'working' as far as getting a positive response -- meaning enough people actually go along with it to have some of the health benefits it wanted.

I doubt per capita Japan has the same problems with obesity that the states has though I think it does have the same/bigger problem with an aging population and not even younger people to fill the wage earning gap.

Japan and many east asian countries are more 'communal minded' societies where individuals are able to sublimate their individuality for the greater good.

So it's a different sense of 'personal boundaries' versus community responsibility/citizenship, etc.

[Abhaya]

Japan and many east asian countries are more 'communal minded' societies where individuals are able to sublimate their individuality for the greater good.

So it's a different sense of 'personal boundaries' versus community responsibility/citizenship, etc.

Don't get me wrong, being communally minded and a responsible citizen are good things. But I think it is way out of line for a government to mandate these types of things. Especially when it relates to an individual's body. You or God own your body not the government.

[6sticks]

That article is much more interesting to read while listening to Big in Japan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFojdQ8d7DY)

[Victor]

Australians are the second most long lived people in the world - the Japanese are the most long lived.

And Australians are the most obese.

[Falcarius]

Hang on, I thought the Japanese were into Sumo wrestlers and the like? Next they are going to ban the Dragon Ball Z hairstyle.:shock:

[proteanmix]

Are they crossing a personal boundary here? Do people have the right to be fat or unhealthy if they chose to be so?

It may be crossing your or an American personal boundary, but is it crossing a Japanese personal boundary is what I'm asking. If they don't feel like their rights have been violated you can't make it be violated for them. That's why I'm curious about their reaction to these mandates.

[Lateralus]

It may be crossing your or an American personal boundary, but is it crossing a Japanese personal boundary is what I'm asking. If they don't feel like their rights have been violated you can't make it be violated for them. That's why I'm curious about their reaction to these mandates.
Don't you believe rights are universal?

[proteanmix]

Don't you believe rights are universal?

Wow, what a loaded question. :rolleyes2:

I'm not going to answer you, not because I don't have an answer but because I know your arguing style and how you tend to twist people's words into something they completely didn't say. I also believe you have a little vendetta against me because of that other thread. I'm not getting sucked into your foolishness.

[prplchknz]

Cross cutural is tricky, Cultures do have similarities, but also their are quite a bit of differences. What might not work here might work there and vice-a-versa. I don't know enough about Japanese culture to decide if this is a good idea. My first reaction,was this is terrible, I'm against the government controlling the people when it comes to things like this. I hate the smoking ban for the same reason, but majority like it, so I guess I'll live.

Do I know if this will work? Nope, but I am going to keep up with this and see what happens. Now only if I knew Japanese I could read local papers.

[proteanmix]

According to the article, it doesn't seem like the Health Ministry expects it to work either. What they want to do is get people to lower their weight to defray future health care costs due to their aging population. Even lowering weights a little bit may have far-reaching consequences. Maybe what looks harmful on one end will be beneficial on another.

Anyway, I think this topic in general is pretty interesting. I suppose the underlying argument is should you be forced to do something that is ultimately good for you.

[prplchknz]

According to the article, it doesn't seem like the Health Ministry expects it to work either. What they want to do is get people to lower their weight to defray future health care costs due to their aging population. Even lowering weights a little bit may have far-reaching consequences. Maybe what looks harmful on one end will be beneficial on another.

Anyway, I think this topic in general is pretty interesting. I suppose the underlying argument is should you be forced to do something that is ultimately good for you.

I guess for me, I don't like people making me do anything whether or not it's good for me. I have to decide on my own, otherwise I'll go along but will be miserable. I'm sure other people would perfectly happy going along with something like this, but I do think losing weight needs to be more of a personal decision then a communal one.

[InaF3157]

The country's Ministry of Health argues that the campaign will keep the spread of diseases like diabetes and strokes in check. The ministry also says that curbing widening waistlines will rein in a rapidly aging society's ballooning health care costs, one of the most serious and politically delicate problems facing Japan today.
I am missing something . . . The old people cost too much money to take care of, so they want to make sure that they are thinner and live longer. Age is not a disease. However, it is a more expensive way of being. The thinner old people will rack up health costs in other ways besides stroke and diabetes, and will live longer and be able to rack up [ ka-ching!] higher health costs.

[Edahn]

It's about time.

[nozflubber]

The thing with Japanese culture (China's too) is that just about everyone will go along with it if it's for the greater good of the people. This is how they are able to pass stringent measures such as this without any outcries of injustice.

As for the right to be fat, sure why not, but don't expect everyone and everything to be the same for your fatass, like airplane tickets - I honestly hope they do add in that extra fee for overweight passengers on flights. I have the right to be an asshole on these boards in a lot of ways, and I indulge in it, but I'm not naive about it and think that everyone is going to treat me the same way as a nice guy like Jeffster. (of course medical conditions are an exception to this, like gladular disorders and diabetes)

As for the efficacy of health care costs, I think that's a moot point for reasons mentioned and probably just politic rhetoric to get it passed. The REAL issue here about overweight people is how energy inefficient they are (in food costs, not just fuel) and how we cater to the sins of sloth in this country. I'm so tired of seeing fat people, as well as perfectly fit ones, ride the elevator up two stories when it would be better for them, as well as others, to just suck it up and take the stairs and get that extra bit of excercise. Walk instead of driving a half mile to the corner station or liquor store. It's not that hard, but people feel so entitled to do the bare minimum because they have a "right to be fat". Fine, be overweight, but don't be pissed when the whole that carries thier own weight and costs better than you do want to tax you for your extra burden. I hope Japan gets it passed.

[Lateralus]

Is this an example out of control Fe? ;)

[JAVO]

Big Brother wants to remain Big Brother.

[nozflubber]

Big Brother wants to remain Big Brother.

This isn't about telling people how to think and/or behave, it's about creating incentives to NOT be a wasteful citizen. Efficiency is important

[booyalab]

This issue was already exposed by Upright Citizens Brigade. YouTube - Fat Nazi Neighborhood Association (http://youtube.com/watch?v=a_vX0t6imfk&feature=related)

[JAVO]

This isn't about telling people how to think and/or behave, it's about creating incentives to NOT be a wasteful citizen. Efficiency is important
Read that again with emphasis on the Big in Big Brother. ;) :D

[proteanmix]

Does the concept of Big Brother even exist in Japan?

[heart]

It may be crossing your or an American personal boundary, but is it crossing a Japanese personal boundary is what I'm asking. If they don't feel like their rights have been violated you can't make it be violated for them. That's why I'm curious about their reaction to these mandates.

What they pass there may well seep over here and excite the control fanatics who live here. Now many American corporations try to push the before work mandatory exercises on their workers.

FYI, I said nothing about trying to make it a violation of their boundaries, I merely asked if it was.

[CzeCze]

I guess you can also look at it in terms of reward and punishment. In a communal society where there's already a lot of unofficial channels and incentive to be harmonious and in sync with the group, the threat of punishment or worse, the threat of shame and ostracization and social backlash can really motivate people.

In a more individual centered society where people are focused on getting ahead by themselves and people are very aware of individual freedoms and rights -- benefit is the way to go. Especially in a highly litigious culture like the states.

Businesses are already enticing employees into healthier lifestyles. Quest Diagnostics (the ginormous blood testing center) has a special program where they do 'glucose tolerance' tests and basically screen for diabetes and other health risks. Businesses pay for the tests and the benefit for employees is discounts in health insurance for healthy folks. Some businesses also give cash incentives, paid vacations, etc. as a reward for keeping in good health.

Businesses also offer more comprehensive health care plans to employees focusing on PREVENTATIVE care as well as alternative therapies (massage, acupuncture, chiropractor-ship?) and mental health.

Lots of businesses also offer free or reduced gym memberships to employees.

[nozflubber]

^ that's probably the best way to do it - with positive incentives instead of negative - but what about everyone else? small businesses, government employees, college faculty, etc?

[booyalab]

proteanmix, what reason do we have to believe that Japanese employers might welcome being fined for the employees that they chose to hire? If they agreed with the governing body that says these employees were "unfit" for their positions, why would they have them on the payroll in the first place?

[01011010]

First and foremost, Japan has the highest percentage of underweight people out of all developed nations. It's at 12% or so. They have diet ads everywhere for women around 100lbs, to lose and be in the low 80's to 70's. Yes, they promote being thin in an extremist manner. The stigma of being "fat" (being 20-30 lbs overweight is obese, in their eyes), is probably the most lowly thing any Japanese could ever be.

So, this outlook is already in place on a cultural level. It's been conditioned very strictly into society way before they decided those restrictions in the first place. Knowing that information, it's really no surprise they decided to proceed with regulations, in the manner they did.

[CzeCze]

^ that's probably the best way to do it - with positive incentives instead of negative - but what about everyone else? small businesses, government employees, college faculty, etc?

I think because health is a for business venture and 'good health' translats into $ignificant monetary value -- non-profits can get in on this as well. As long as the insurance field stays the way it is always having to stay competitive, insurance companies and anyone who has to use insurance to cover employees will find ways to save money and entice employees to save them money.

[werewolfen1984]

Doesn't Japan also revere and honor their prized Sumo wrestlers who are also disgustingly obese ? Anyway , check this out...earlier this year 3 Mississippi House of Representatives tried to pass a bill banning restaurants from serving obese patrons Mississippi Pols Seek To Ban Fats - February 1, 2008 (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0201081fat1.html) , though it didn't fly, it shows that we are going into an Orwell 1984 type scenario where the Government will try to control and micro manage every facet in our lives, also- I've always suspected for many years that one day Big Brother would try to charge the masses a tax on the air we breath> RealClearPolitics - Articles - Taxing Us for Breathing (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/taxing_us_for_breathing.html)

[Mondo]

This is stupid.
If people want to be disgustingly obese, people should have the right to be so.
This is assuming that people are too stupid to know they need to lose weight on their own.
The question is: Are people too stupid?

[Mozzes]

This is stupid.
If people want to be disgustingly obese, people should have the right to be so.
This is assuming that people are too stupid to know they need to lose weight on their own.
The question is: Are people too stupid?

If people in Japan make the choice to be morbidly obese then at the very least they should waive their right to government subsidized health care. But maybe we're being a bit short sighted. After all, they'd fuel a surge in the cosmetic surgery industry. Could be good for the economy. Well as long as it's not subsidized by the government.

Though as for that I don't think I've ever heard "obesity" included amongst universal human rights. Care to expound upon your reasoning?

[Lateralus]

Though as for that I don't think I've ever heard "obesity" included amongst universal human rights. Care to expound upon your reasoning?
Are you saying that all rights must be explicitly granted by the government. If they're not explicitly granted, the government can take them away at any time? If the government decided that playing computer games was harmful to your health, would you be okay with a ban on that activity? What about motorcycles? Sky diving? Procreation?

[Mozzes]

Are you saying that all rights must be explicitly granted by the government. If they're not explicitly granted, the government can take them away at any time? If the government decided that playing computer games was harmful to your health, would you be okay with a ban on that activity? What about motorcycles? Sky diving? Procreation?

Are you saying that the ability to damage one's health through a combination of overeating and under-exercising should be a guaranteed right?

What I'm saying is that the government has as much power as you give it. If the government is going to subsidize a nation's health care then it has a fiscal responsibility to keep that cost reasonable. If you read my post carefully you'd see that I never stated the government should have the right to dictate personal behavior.

There's an awful lot of talk about rights these days but what about personal responsibility?

[Lateralus]

Are you saying that the ability to damage one's health through a combination of overeating and under-exercising should be a guaranteed right?

What I'm saying is that the government has as much power as you give it. If the government is going to subsidize a nation's health care then it has a fiscal responsibility to keep that cost reasonable. If you read my post carefully you'd see that I never stated the government should have the right to dictate personal behavior.

There's an awful lot of talk about rights these days but what about personal responsibility?
You seem to be missing my point. I agree that the government has a fiscal responsibility if it's subsidizing health care. Overeating is not the only unhealthy activity that individuals engage in. Sitting in front of your computer playing WoW is also unhealthy (I saw your post). If the government can ban overeating, they can ban WoW. The list of 'unhealthy' activities they can ban are infinite. The question is, where do you draw the line?

I'd rather keep the government out of the business, entirely, but most people don't seem to agree with me.

[Wyst]

While I don't agree with any county pronouncing regulations on its people's physical stats, I can understand its desire to want to curb a developing trend.

Let's take America, for example. What did Americans, look like 50-60 years ago? I'll bet that, for the most part, you had healthy people. Maybe an occasional overweight person but not the 1 out of 3 statistics we are starting to hit now.

What happened? The explosion of fast food and quick food. Restaurants and junk food, if you will. Junk food and fast food is now full of empty calories that are harmful to the human body - no wonder more people are getting cancer.



So Japan. 50 years ago nearly ALL Japanese people were skinny skinny skinny and looked like they needed to gain some weight. What happened? After WWII the western culture came like a deluge into their country and a couple of decades later the introduction of McDonalds and all kinds of chain stores from the West.

Japan isn't stupid. I think they just don't want things to go the way they are going for us in America. Too bad the way they're going about it isn't something isn't respecting people's freedom and privacy but I can certainly understand their motivation.

Remember all the fat people in Wall-e. Couldn't even get back in their chair without help from a robot. That isn't so unbelievable the way it would have been 60 years ago.

[Modern Nomad]

NYC and LA both banned transfat or something like that.

a lot of things are possible overseas that isn't possible here.

For instance, overseas, democratic countries regularly call for impeachment of presidents that are corrupt or don't listen to the will of the people. even presidents that have strong ties to the military. and yes, there are MASSIVE protests, where hundreds of thousands of people will gather and protest together for an impeachment of a corrupt president with strong ties to the military.

such a thing is unthinkable in the US today. cultural, letter of the law, doesn't hold that much of a distinction for me.

[Modern Nomad]

33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women

lol

why is the guideline for men stricter than the women? haha

but it seems like u just get reminded to lose weight and have to attend programs.

its like unemployment in the US. u get a reminder to look for a job from the gov't if u are unemployed etc... or help in looking for a job.

also, i believe Japan has a national health insurance plan... so there may be different concerns.

[Modern Nomad]

I'd rather keep the government out of the business, entirely, but most people don't seem to agree with me.


i dunno. some industries u need gov't regulation.

for instance, food in china isn't regulated by the gov't very well.

-_-

[heart]

why is the guideline for men stricter than the women? haha

Baby got back...

[Modern Nomad]

Baby got back...

lol

u and ur one liners!

:yim_rolling_on_the_

[nolla]

This is an interesting topic. Too bad it was in "Health and Fitness"... I don't hang around the gym that much. Never know what's happening here. Ok, first some quotes and then I will make a point that should be there...

My first reaction,was this is terrible, I'm against the government controlling the people when it comes to things like this. I hate the smoking ban for the same reason, but majority like it, so I guess I'll live.

Yes, my first impression also.

Are they crossing a personal boundary here? Do people have the right to be fat or unhealthy if they chose to be so?

I smoke, but I have no objection to limiting smoking to the smoking areas. It's not for my good, but for other peoples well-being and convenience, so I don't argue. I still get plenty of cancer to inhale.

Japan and many east asian countries are more 'communal minded' societies where individuals are able to sublimate their individuality for the greater good.

So it's a different sense of 'personal boundaries' versus community responsibility/citizenship, etc.

Good point to remind.


We're constantly told from one quarter that we as humans need to minimise our effect on the planet, and from another quarter that we need to be as healthy as possible. These two ideas completely oppose each other. Surely the best way to minimise human effect is to MIMINISE THE HUMANS!

If governments enforce people to gain an extra ten years on their lives, that's just more resources they're going to take and a larger trail of shit left in their wake.

Anyway, I think this topic in general is pretty interesting. I suppose the underlying argument is should you be forced to do something that is ultimately good for you.

As for the efficacy of health care costs, I think that's a moot point for reasons mentioned and probably just politic rhetoric to get it passed. The REAL issue here about overweight people is how energy inefficient they are (in food costs, not just fuel) and how we cater to the sins of sloth in this country. I'm so tired of seeing fat people, as well as perfectly fit ones, ride the elevator up two stories when it would be better for them, as well as others, to just suck it up and take the stairs and get that extra bit of excercise. Walk instead of driving a half mile to the corner station or liquor store. It's not that hard, but people feel so entitled to do the bare minimum because they have a "right to be fat". Fine, be overweight, but don't be pissed when the whole that carries thier own weight and costs better than you do want to tax you for your extra burden. I hope Japan gets it passed.

Here we are getting close to my way of thinking. It's not that it bugs me that people are lazy, what bugs me is that the food is running out. It has lots of reasons, partly tied to the fuel prizes and biofuel and so on, but also on meat consumption. This is a major issue. I dont care if people are fat-asses, thats not a big deal. If they die younger, all the same. But if some folks don't have enough to eat because the country on the other side of the world has people three times bigger eating all the food... now, that is not fair.

Dont get me wrong, Im not that big a world-saver. I eat meat. But I wouldn't have any problem with not eating it if no one else will either and it saves some people somewhere. I wouldn't have problem with one-child-policy if it keeps the world overpopulation in control. Just give me the right reasons for this kind of policy and I'm behind it.

[booyalab]

But if some folks don't have enough to eat because the country on the other side of the world has people three times bigger eating all the food... now, that is not fair.
are you serious? Do you honestly think this is logical?

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I remember reading in a Newsweek or Time article somewhere... God, someone help me remember which article this was... that if Americans earning something like $250,000 or above donated just 10% of their earnings to a properly-run resource allocation charity, they'd cut world hunger by 30 or 40% or something... I don't remember the percentages, but it was astonishing.... even if the percentage of world hunger reduced was 10 or 20%, wouldn't it be worth it?!?!??!?

The Islamic edict of zakaat, the universal donation of [Edit: 2.5%...]* of one's wealth to the poor, would be an excellent principle for people of all groups to follow, Muslim and non-Muslim, theist or atheist, alike.

* I'd originally written 10% and was corrected.

_________________

As for the drive to reduce obesity in Japan, I think it's a good idea... as long as it doesn't become draconian, like the beastly Indira Gandhi and her "labia-lipped" (thanks Rushdie) son's, Sanjay Gandhi's, crazy forced sterilization campaign.

[runvardh]

I guess my question is, who pays for medical over there?

[heart]

I smoke, but I have no objection to limiting smoking to the smoking areas. It's not for my good, but for other peoples well-being and convenience, so I don't argue. I still get plenty of cancer to inhale.

This law in Japan is more like if they came into your private home and said you couldn't smoke there.

Here we are getting close to my way of thinking. It's not that it bugs me that people are lazy, what bugs me is that the food is running out. It has lots of reasons, partly tied to the fuel prizes and biofuel and so on, but also on meat consumption. This is a major issue. I dont care if people are fat-asses, thats not a big deal. If they die younger, all the same. But if some folks don't have enough to eat because the country on the other side of the world has people three times bigger eating all the food... now, that is not fair.

Dont get me wrong, Im not that big a world-saver. I eat meat. But I wouldn't have any problem with not eating it if no one else will either and it saves some people somewhere. I wouldn't have problem with one-child-policy if it keeps the world overpopulation in control. Just give me the right reasons for this kind of policy and I'm behind it.

The people who like to control others will always come up with some kind of dire dialectic that makes it seem all reasonable and rational to follow their edicts.

They won't necessarily die younger either. My MIL is obese and way into her late 70s, my brother was a string bean his whole life, dead at 51 from diabetes complications and stroke. Genetics plays as large a part in degenerative diseases as lifestyle habits.


As for the drive to reduce obesity in Japan, I think it's a good idea... as long as it doesn't become draconian,

It is already dracionian when employement is tied to it. When they can order you measured and harassed at work.

[Little Linguist]

I still think this is classic! :shock:

[heart]

I remember reading in a Newsweek or Time article somewhere... God, someone help me remember which article this was... that if Americans earning something like $250,000 or above donated just 10% of their earnings to a properly-run resource allocation charity, they'd cut world hunger by 30 or 40% or something... I don't remember the percentages, but it was astonishing.... even if the percentage of world hunger reduced was 10 or 20%, wouldn't it be worth it?!?!??!?

The Islamic edict of zakaat, the universal donation of 10% of one's wealth to the poor, would be an excellent principle for people of all groups to follow, Muslim and non-Muslim, theist or atheist, alike.

_________________

As for the drive to reduce obesity in Japan, I think it's a good idea... as long as it doesn't become draconian, like the beastly Indira Gandhi and her "labia-lipped" (thanks Rushdie) son's, Sanjay Gandhi's, crazy forced sterilization campaign.


I don't understand how the argument becomes about affluent people being selfish, frequenty people with the poorest grocery budgets end up overweight because they don't have enough money for produce and low fat and end up filling up on more fattening, unpreshible, processed foods.

[Lateralus]

I remember reading in a Newsweek or Time article somewhere... God, someone help me remember which article this was... that if Americans earning something like $250,000 or above donated just 10% of their earnings to a properly-run resource allocation charity, they'd cut world hunger by 30 or 40% or something... I don't remember the percentages, but it was astonishing.... even if the percentage of world hunger reduced was 10 or 20%, wouldn't it be worth it?!?!??!?
That would increase unemployment, domestically. That would also serve to undermine farmers in those nations where there are food shortages. And even if hunger was reduced by 10-20%, I don't believe it would be 'worth it'.

Publications like Newsweek and Time are pretty left-wing. Their ideology tends to lean toward what seems 'right', rather than what actually works. In other words, intent is more important than results. The only situations where giving aid actually works is with catastrophes. That's where organizations like the Red Cross step in. People who categorically support giving aid to third world nations don't seem to take economic expectations into account.

The Islamic edict of zakaat, the universal donation of 10% of one's wealth to the poor, would be an excellent principle for people of all groups to follow, Muslim and non-Muslim, theist or atheist, alike.
Is it really 10%? I thought it was closer to something like 2%.

[nolla]

are you serious? Do you honestly think this is logical?

As I said there are other factors, like fuel. When fuel goes up, the farmers will pay more to produce food. This means that there will be more and more people not able to pay for it.

If we didn't have the luxury stuff like meat every day there would be a lot more grain and such. World hunger would be very much lower without us rich feeding our beef with food of the poor.


The Islamic edict of zakaat, the universal donation of 10% of one's wealth to the poor, would be an excellent principle for people of all groups to follow, Muslim and non-Muslim, theist or atheist, alike.


Yes, but I think this should be done on government level. It is hard for a private person to get generous.

The people who like to control others will always come up with some kind of dire dialectic that makes it seem all reasonable and rational to follow their edicts.


I think it is very important to see if the reasons are right. If they do it only for to get their businesses more productive it is not that right. But there is a limit when individual rights are overrun by some more important issues. World hunger is one of them. If we wait until the oil is so expensive that the rich countries start to suffer, its too late. Then it will be no rights or freedoms for anyone.

I don't understand how the argument becomes about affluent people being selfish, frequenty people with the poorest grocery budgets end up overweight because they don't have enough money for produce and low fat and end up filling up on more fattening, unpreshible, processed foods.

Yeah, Ive heard about this. Its absurd that it is more expensive to buy healthy food in the states... I really cant comprehend...

[Viv]

I assume that it's mostly for practical reasons. I mean, it's pretty pragmatic to pass on a law like that, especially since their healthcare system is universal. It would make sense to require that people stay within a healthy range in order to prevent diseases such as obesity/diabetes, which in the end, cuts down on medical costs.

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I don't understand how the argument becomes about affluent people being selfish, frequenty people with the poorest grocery budgets end up overweight because they don't have enough money for produce and low fat and end up filling up on more fattening, unpreshible, processed foods.

I wasn't saying they were selfish. This was a value-neutral assessment of how much raw wealth would be required to drastically cut down on malnourishment. The talk of the wealthiest Americans was merely a way to put it all in perspective. If they gave you a massive number in the tens or hundreds of billions, the quantity wouldn't be nearly as easily grasped as with the analysis they gave. And it's one report. Economics is notorious for producing ten answers to one question, all with impeccable calculations based on shaky or controversial variables and constants.

That would increase unemployment, domestically. That would also serve to undermine farmers in those nations where there are food shortages. And even if hunger was reduced by 10-20%, I don't believe it would be 'worth it'.


I think this is a poor argument. The food would go to people who are starving and to whom those poor farmers aren't sending their crops! These are the people who don't get anything, who have distended bellies and can't even think about a minimal 2,200 calorie-a-day diet.


As for zakaat, pardon my complete mess-up of the figure... I was basing the 10% figure on hearsay (surprisingly from a Muslim friend)... it's actually about 2.5% and it's only incumbent on people who have the werewithal to give it.

As for which policies work, none of the right (political spectrum) policies have been working either. So it's worth a try.

[Lateralus]

I think this is a poor argument. The food would go to people who are starving and to whom those poor farmers aren't sending their crops! These are the people who don't get anything, who have distended bellies and can't even think about a minimal 2,200 calorie-a-day diet.
This is such an idealistic stance that has no basis in reality. I've already explained the problems with your perspective, but if you just ignore what I said, there's nothing else that's worth saying.

As for which policies work, none of the right (political spectrum) policies have been working either. So it's worth a try.
We (western first-world nations) have never allowed the third world to develop on its own. To say that 'right wing' policies haven't worked is true only in that we haven't tried them. We keep intervening, either out of self-interest or self-proclaimed altruism (which is really just self-interest).

[nolla]

We (western first-world nations) have never allowed the third world to develop on its own. To say that 'right wing' policies haven't worked is true only in that we haven't tried them. We keep intervening, either out of self-interest or self-proclaimed altruism (which is really just self-interest).

You are right about the altruism not being real altruism. But I doubt that the dying people care if it's real or not.

For how long has the western world been doing everything it can to get the most out of those countries that are poor? I think its "ok" to give something back, or at least try not to spend it all too quickly. The Japanese way sounds very practical, actually, to get the consumption down. If it went global, it could easily save many lives.

Ok, here's some numbers. I got them from this place: Calories Per Day Calculator - Basal Metabolic Rate (http://walking.about.com/cs/calories/l/blcalcalc.htm). I don't know how reliable this is, but the results are so dramatic that even if it isn't accurate, it should give a message.

My daily need of energy at the moment is 2281 calories. If I was two times bigger, my consumption would be 3289. Basically that means that there are 1000 more calories to go around in the world. You see what this means on the big scale? Everyone who eats more than they need is responsible for the food prices going up. The same goes for eating overproduced food, or food that is shipped long distances. 1000 calories is a huge difference to those starving.

[heart]

. The Japanese way sounds very practical, actually, to get the consumption down. If it went global, it could easily save many lives.

How is that going to solve the problems that lead to food rotting in warehouses and governmental red-tape, unemployment, oppression that lead to the hunger problems to begin with?

[nolla]

I'm not sure I know what country you are talking about, but still, the main problem (globally) is that there is not enough. I think we have a better chance changing the eating habits of the democratic countries than replacing bad governments.

[heart]

I'm not sure I know what country you are talking about, but still, the main problem (globally) is that there is not enough. I think we have a better chance changing the eating habits of the democratic countries than replacing bad governments.

Just two articles out of a multitude:


India: Politics of Starvation - Social and Economic Policy - Global Policy Forum (http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/2002/1112starvation.htm)

That so many are hungry despite overflowing granaries is a damning indictment of the government’s public distribution system (PDS). The PDS is a network of about 460,000 ration shops across the country through which grains, sugar, cooking oil and so on are sold at subsidized rates.

However, most of India’s poor, such as those who starved to death in Orissa and Rajasthan, cannot afford to buy the grains even at these subsidized rates. Many of them do not possess the Below Poverty Line (BPL) cards that entitle them to purchase at subsidized rates in ration shops. In several cases, the desperately poor have mortgaged their BPL cards to moneylenders or local traders.

Besides, the process of identifying the poor is severely flawed. An article in Outlook magazine points out that in Dharavi, Asia’s largest slum, situated in Mumbai, just 151 families are identified as BPL. Millions of poor across the country are categorized in government records as Above Poverty Line (APL).

Food policy experts say that the pricing of foodgrains for APL and BPL categories is far too high. They have pointed out that the price of grain is sometimes cheaper in mandis (local markets). Consequently, the PDS grains have few takers and state governments have been unwilling to lift the grains they are allocated. This means that foodgrains in government warehouses remain unutilized. Because of poor quality and inadequate storage facilities, millions of tons of foodgrains are eaten up by rats or simply rot.

According to Planning Commission statistics, a third of the surplus food stocks (31 percent of the rice, 36 percent of the wheat and 23 percent of the sugar) in the government warehouses that is meant for the PDS is siphoned away by a nexus of politicians, officials and traders into the black market. One study indicates that 64 percent of rice stocks in Bihar and Assam, and 44 percent and 100 percent of wheat stocks in Bihar and Nagaland respectively "disappear" from the PDS. More at link


How to manufacture a GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS: Lessons from the WORLD BANK - Alternatives (http://www.alternatives.ca/article3787.html)

How to manufacture a GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS: Lessons from the WORLD BANK
Saturday 24 May 2008 by Walden BELLO

(A shorter version of this piece appeared in the June 2, 2008, issue of The Nation.)

When tens of thousands of people staged demonstrations in Mexico last year to protest a sharp increase of over 60 per cent in the price of tortilla, the flat unleavened bread that is Mexico’s staple, many analysts pointed to biofuels as the culprit. Owing to US government subsidies, turning corn into ethanol had become more profitable than growing it for food consumption, prompting American farmers to devote more and more of their acreage to it, in the process sparking off a steep rise in corn prices.

The diversion of corn from tortillas to biofuel was certainly one of the proximate causes of the skyrocketing prices, though speculation on likely trends in biofuel demand by transnational middlemen may have played a bigger role. (1) However, an intriguing question escaped many observers: How on earth did Mexicans, who live in the land where corn was first domesticated, become “dependent” on imports of US corn in the first place? More at link.

[nolla]

Interesting... Especially the Mexico part. If I remember right, the crude oil has same sort of weird cycle around there. It is pumped in Mexico, shipped to the U.S., refined, shipped back to Mexico, subsidized and sold. Mexico pays a lot of money to get their oil refined, and the funny thing is that many Americans drive across the border to fill their cars with the gas.

The India example seems like a big mess-up that includes greed and corruption of "normal people" while the Mexico case is more calculated greed of the big companies.

[heart]

The last article describes similar situations in the Phillippines and Africa. There's more politics to the food shortage problem than actual shortage of food. :shock: