US Corporations Evil Plot to Fatten the World for Profit.

[evildevil]

Make Them Eat Cake
How America is exporting its obesity epidemic.

With this summer's news from the United Nations that Mexico has surpassed the United States in adult obesity levels -- one-third of Mexican adults are now considered extremely overweight -- U.S. foreign policy has come into sharper, or perhaps softer, focus. Despite first lady

Comments

[the_physicist]

This article is good in highlighting the research on the corn replacement syrup for sugar being worse for people than sugar, as that's interesting, and in how the US is putting pressure on other countries that it would never allow to have applied to itself by other countries - to the detriment of other countries.

But besides that this article is just going for a very tired angle on a very complex social issue. Since obesity levels are rising across the world in many countries, and in many countries Coca Cola and co are made with sugar. In the UK for instance they do not just the corn syrup replacement, they use sugar. And yet the UK is constantly said to be the 'fattest' in Europe.

So I think it's hardly fair to pin all rise in weight across the world on this one product that is America's way of 'exporting obesity' or something.

There are many factors that come into the change in lifestyles that lead to weight gain that go hand in hand with other changes in society too - such as women no longer being chained to the stove.

Because just from changes in Europe you would actually have to conclude that it's not corn syrup, but the building of supermarkets offering frozen ready meals etc. And why are those a thing now? I very well remember a time (and place) when you could not buy frozen food, let alone frozen ready meals, easily when you went shopping for your food. Now? In that same country, you can buy those things - not to the same degree as in the UK, but then the percentage of women working is FAR higher in the UK. If you have women working, if you have shitty labour laws, if you have bad public transport systems, bad housing situations, poverty and so on, you will end up stuck with a huge number of families who do not have the time to cook and do not have the time to have their kids play outdoors all day long while supervised etc.

Part of what actually allowed some women in western countries who had kids to start trying to think about having some kind of work, even if part time while the kids are in school (which in many countries in Europe is still out of the question, as school times are only 8am-12noon) was automation of household chores and the availability of freezers so they could make food before hand and store it to heat up easily in 5 minutes when everyone got home to eat it.

The solution to me doesn't seem to be to get rid of ready meals or to force those who rely on them to spend all their time cooking, but to legislate for better wealth distributions in our societies so that more people can buy a ready meal that's a higher quality than the cheaper ones.

No to sugar tax and yes to better labour laws, ffs.

And in the vein of this article... no to the US throwing its might around to dominate other economies to such an extent that it can be detrimental to those economies finding a socially more acceptable and sustainable way of life that helps the poor, rather than relying on the American model. Because we know from some very rich countries in Europe that parents working all the time and eating ready meals and living very 'Western' lifestyles etc, that this doesn't have to lead to people only eating food that's full of HFCS and what not. Because if the society redistributes its wealth, all people can have a broader choice of food they eat.

[the_physicist]

Well, I guess I think such taxes aimed at high fat and sweet foods might curb the consumption of those foods if they are implemented fantastically, amazingly well(which is not what the case would be in reality anyway), but yeah, as you said, they'd come at a cost, and again, like you said, it's a cost that would affect primarily the poor, because if you take away cheap ingredients, you end up with pricier food, even more pressure on families, and if the only alternative is making meals designated as healthy from scratch, then you have to deal with dumping a huge time commitment on the poor on top of the financial squeeze.

I think the argument can be made a tax would work, I think it might very well, I just think it's a fucked up idea when it doesn't actually address the root of the problem, which is very complex. Heavily rose tinted views of the past don't help some people see this. :/