http://news.msn.com/world/study-finds-deregulation-fuelling-obesity-epidemic Study finds deregulation fueling obesity epidemic The WHO is urging governments to do more to prevent obesity happening in the first place, rather than risking the high human and economic costs when it does. LONDON — Governments could slow or even reverse the growing obesity epidemic if they introduced more regulation into the global market for fast foods such as burgers, chips and fizzy drinks, researchers said on Monday. A study published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization suggested that if governments took firmer action, they could start to prevent people becoming overweight and obese — conditions with serious long-term consequences such as diabetes, heart diseases and cancer. "Unless governments take steps to regulate their economies, the invisible hand of the market will continue to promote obesity worldwide with disastrous consequences for future public health and economic productivity," said Roberto De Vogli of the University of California, Davis, in the United States, who led the study. The WHO is urging governments to do more to try to prevent obesity happening in the first place, rather than risking the high human and economic costs when it does. Suggested policies include economic incentives for growers to sell healthy, fresh foods; disincentives for industries to sell ultra-processed foods and soft drinks; cutting subsidies to growers and companies who use large amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, chemicals and antibiotics; and tighter regulation of fast-food advertising, especially to children. Related: Concerns emerge over calling obesity a disease The research analyzed the effect on obesity of deregulation in the economy over time, including in the agriculture and food sectors, and the resulting increase in so-called "fast food transactions" - in other words, the number of times people bought fast food. The researchers compared the number of fast food transactions with body mass index in 25 high-income countries between 1999 and 2008. They found that, as the average number of annual fast food transactions increased from 26.61 to 32.76 per person, average BMI increased from 25.8 to 26.4. Someone with a BMI of 25 or more is overweight, while a BMI of 30 or more is considered obese. Vogli said that, while the research was based on data from wealthy countries, its findings were also relevant to developing countries. "Virtually all nations have undergone a process of market deregulation and globalization - especially in the last three decades," he said. The average number of fast food transactions per person increased in all 25 countries. The sharpest gains were in Canada, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand, while the lowest were in countries with more stringent market regulation - such as Italy, the Netherlands, Greece and Belgium. Francesco Branca, director of the WHO's Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, said the findings showed how important public policies were in addressing obesity. "Policies targeting food and nutrition are needed across several sectors including agriculture, industry, health, social welfare and education," he said. "Countries where the diet is transitioning from one that is high in cereals to one that is high in fat, sugar and processed foods need to take action to align the food supply with the health needs of the population."
While I'm not in favor of telling people what they can and can't eat, I do think more education will help. I don't know if warning labels are rgw solution, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that they help discourage smoking. Considering that obesity is basically as bad or worse for your health as regular tobacco use, one might be able to justify labeling junk food the same way we do cigarettes. I do feel like more industry regulation is necessary and I'm against subsidies for foods of little nutritional value, but I'm not sure what kind of government intervention would be practical or effective. Tough issue.
The free market knows what's best! If people want healthy meals, they will demand it with their pocketbooks! Unhealthy business models will never be sustainable! Competition will force healthier options more efficiently than the government can! Regulation will inhibit job growth and create poor unhealthy people!
Nice rant except for the fact that government subsidies/tax breaks are helping to create the corporate winners here & in doing so helping create the market. The government can fix the problem it's helping to create.
Pete and Roger should stick to writing music. They might have something worthwhile to say about drugs, but I don't think they have much experience with good food, what with being from England and all.
People educate themselves. When government educates people you get bad info such as Spoiler or Spoiler both of these diets will make you fat. The top more so.
Government subsidies corn, which is a big part of fast food. The government also subsidies wheat and soybean oil. We need less government involvement.
I assume this is sarcasm, though with so many market fundies, applying their simple market knows best to every policy issue, you never know. I would also like to add that with more government regulation obesity would not be a problem; people will just starve. See North Korea. q.i.d. Markets always rule!!! You can never violate immutable laws.
I realized I forgot to comment on the article when I originally posted it. I think there is a lot of truth to this especially when it comes to poorer countries and neighborhoods. Leaving large food businesses to their own will certainly drive them to pursue the cheapest and least common denominator food, things with a lot of sugar and fats. Further as history has shown without regulation food businesses will also find short cuts regarding processing and providing food. (Again The Jungle should be required reading) At the same time as some other posters noted in countries like the US there is a problem with government intervention regarding crop subsidies that is also distorting the market to unhealthier food. What we need is to change how we regulate and move away from supporting Big Corn and Big Sugar and other subsidies to ways of supporting more local and diverse food sources.
Corn is not cheap anymore because of ethanol. Which I hate with a passion. It kills engine, gets worse MPG and makes our cars more expensive. Sugar and fat sells product, I'm not sure what deregulation refers to in the title. Sounds like they are arguing for new regulations. It isn't a breakthrough that if you force a population to eat healthier you can reduce obesity.
The day the government starts micromanaging the food I am able to eat, then I know that government has gotten way too big. (I know it happens already, but the regulation is still reasonable) I'm all for regulation, but this might be too much.
I would prefer incentives to provide and make better choices than I would regulating what people are free to choose to eat. A change in subsidies might be a good part of the answer that does a little of both.
I agree with this personally, while recognizing that obviously that isn't enough for many many people and the situation is such that many are indirectly encouraged to not eat healthily.
This. People are making a conscious choice to eat unhealthy food. The marginal utility from sating their desire for fast food vs. keeping their body healthy is enough for them to make that conscious choice. Of course I acknowledge that there are some people who might not have a choice.
