Posted on 08/31/2012 10:03:51 AM PDT by Altariel
What if candy stores were closed on Sundays? What if you needed a license to open a doughnut shop?
As America's weight problem gets bigger, some health researchers say instead of relying on individual willpower alone, it may be time for some new community-level policies.
Deborah Cohen, a physician and public health researcher with the RAND Corporation, suggests that some of the policies we use to control alcohol consumption could help beat back obesity.
"People realized this a couple hundred years ago, that alcohol was a problem," Cohen said. "So they developed all kinds of regulations to make it less convenient and reduce the odds that people will drink all the time and get drunk."
Perhaps now it's time to rein in our easy access to food, Cohen said.
"Choices and decision making are influenced by the context," she said. "It's the environment that really determines our behavior and we just don't appreciate that enough."
Shaping the environment to discourage overeating could include warning labels for foods high in fat and sugar, or maybe restrictions on where in the grocery store foods are displayed to curb impulse buying.
There could be unintended consequences, warns Jeff Stier, an analyst with the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Ushering in another Prohibition?
"I don't want to sound extreme, but these are Prohibition-style interventions. I mean do we really need to create a black market for burgers and fries?" Stier said.
"I think we need to teach young people how to enjoy fun foods responsibly, not to teach people that fun foods are bad," Stier said.
Cohen said education is not enough.
"What we underestimate is the power of food, of it being there and easily accessible to trigger our desires and cravings," she said.
Stier acknowledges the obesity problem but says some people are crying "obesity emergency" to justify the roll-out of untested laws and taxes.
He reviewed Cohen's analysis, which appears in the journal Preventing Chronic Diseases.
"I think we have to be clear this was not a scientific study, this was kind of a mind exercise, and in her mind these types of interventions would be a good idea," Stier said.
When asked the effectiveness of the control policies to fight obesity, Cohen said, "We have to start trying them and see if they work or not."
Cohen said one of the most promising ideas is to standardize serving sizes so consumers can better gauge the calories they are consuming.
For example, Cohen says she likes New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to ban the sale of large-sized sugary drinks. About 60 percent of that city's residents oppose the plan, according to a New York Times poll released this week.
Oh, pulleeaassseeee.....what is needed is the teaching of "self control"...(would affect out of wedlock births, and many other issues) but of course, that is banned by liberals....too MEAN!
Notice how they never take on the entertainment and media industry?
Using leftist thinking - I think its clear they are greatly responsible for Obesity in the USA. If leftists agree with even micro-managing people’s weight, why not start with looking at the entertainment industry?
Alcohol and alkaloids intoxicate and affect operation of equipment, and needs regulation. Cigarettes and donuts do not affect judgment. Leave them alone, its a personal choice, not a danger to others.
This is idiotic. Alcohol control laws do little or nothing to keep people from getting drunk, and do absolutely NOTHING to keep alcholics from getting drunk. A drunk will always manage to get booze, one way or another.
In the same way, sugar control laws would only make it less convenient for people who don’t have a problem with eating too many sweets. Those the laws would “help” will still get their fix, by stocking up on sweets, getting them on the “black market” (sound so silly when referring to pastries) or baking them themselves.
This seems very similar to the way muslims cover up women to “eliminate” sexual temptation (though rapes are very common anyway).
We can’t remove every temptation from the world. Instead we should work on strategies to encourage and help people to resist them.
Ms. Nanny needs to do some research-many, if not most of the laws regarding the sale of alcohol were passed to please religious groups, like so-called “blue laws”, etc-and that doesn’t make them any more sensible than this proposed idiocy, by the way.
I believe it is logical to expect adults to take personal responsibility for their actions, and not enact laws to take the place of that.
Well said, thank you.
This is absurd beyond the pale.
Want to fight obesity? Lift the tariffs on cane sugar and get rid of High Fructose Corn Syrup. I think what they are saying in defense of HFCS is propaganda.
I know if you wean yourself from it by being VERY careful about what you eat you will feel a LOT better. It is very difficult to do though because the stuff is in everything from catsup to Coke and everything in between.
This is absurd beyond the pale.
Want to fight obesity? Lift the tariffs on cane sugar and get rid of High Fructose Corn Syrup. I think what they are saying in defense of HFCS is propaganda.
I know if you wean yourself from it by being VERY careful about what you eat you will feel a LOT better. It is very difficult to do though because the stuff is in everything from catsup to Coke and everything in between.
I thought the RAND Corporation used to make typewriters?
At least they need to hire researchers who are more up to speed on current conditions. Our liquor laws have been steadily liberalizing since the repeal of Prohibition. Even here in Puritanical Pennsylvania you can now buy booze on a Sunday.
Do candy stores still exist?
Totalitarian control is always the answer, from totalitarians. Did someone from the Rand (as in Ayn?) actully say this stuff?
This is the typical liberal approach—focus on the inanimate object to deal with a social problem. To curb crime, regulate guns. To eliminate graffiti, regulate marking pens. To deal with methamphetamine abuse, make it hard for cold sufferers to get pseudoephedrine. And on, and on.
Uh, you DO need a license to open a doughnut shop, and a gas station, and a dry cleaners, and any other business including, recently, lemonade stands run by kids.
What if liberal elitist busybodys minded their own damn business?
Does anything good come out of the Rand corp.?
They'd have to give up making you pay them to save you from yourself and get real jobs.
HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) is the same as table sugar: about 50% glucose and 50% fructose.
The problem isn’t the chemical makeup of HFCS, the problem is it is cheap—ultra cheap. Consequently:
1) Manufacturers can afford to put sweetener into products that never had sugar; even vitamins and medicines now contain sweeteners.
2) Manufacturers can now afford to put more (way more) sweetener into existing products; for example, anyone old enough to remember pre-HFCS Coke knows that modern Coke is waaaay sweeter; that’s because it contains more sugar.
About 20% of the typical American’s daily calories come from one item: HFCS—sugar! Do you think that in 1900 20% of the typical American’s calories came from sugar? No, not even close.
Americans have a high demand for sweet products. The food industry is meeting that demand by producing sweeter foods and cheaper sweeteners. The problem is on the demand side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.