Frankly, I don’t consider obesity to be a problem for me as long as I manage to 1) not be obese myself, and 2) remain sufficiently attractive to the opposite sex so that my partner doesn’t have to be, either. I am more than willing to take responsibility for both of these goals.

Any argument for government concerning itself with obesity is a direct result from the government overstepping its bounds in assuming responsibility for health care in the first place. You will never convince me that one inappropriate government activity makes a second one more compelling.

Think about things like Zagat Surveys and Consumer Reports–these are private businesses that make money by objectively rating other businesses. And they work exceptionally well.

And what about journalists? There used to be a time when they were objective and not interested in always finding government solutions to problems–if a lot of people were getting fat to the point that they couldn’t squeeze themselves into their SUVs, don’t you think some pioneering journalist might say, “Hey, fatasses, I did some research and it turns out eating 5 Big Macs a day makes you fat!” Why do we need the government involved in that?

Why are you assuming that private companies wouldn’t step in to fill the “void” of credible information? Your concerns clearly demonstrate that there would be a market for such enterprises…

A few problems. The education you speak of requires the state to steal money from the people. Private sector education is completely voluntary, on the other hand, and thus, infinitely more efficient. Second, earlier, you claimed to be seeking objective information by which to make your decisions. However, as I’ve stated before, one look down K Street can tell you that the government has no interest in telling the unbiased truth. They have no incentive to do so, because they have already taken your money, and hope to get more money from special interests; whereas the private sector does have that incentive to tell the truth, since they must earn your money/trust, rather than take it by force. Again, infinitely more efficient.

“I’ll ask again though – if we get government totally out of public health education, does anyone step in to fill that void?”

Of course they do. They already have. Been to a bookstore lately? Typed in “health” or “diet” or “nutrition” at Google? Been to a gym in the past 10 years? Health and nutrition is big business, and unlike the government, these private insititutions have a vested interest in making you healthy: your money. As I said, the government gets to steal your money regardless of how they perform, so what incentives do they have to keep you healthy?

In this age of latent new-deal-ism, people have come to depend on the government for many things that the free market can provide better. However, due to the fact that the government has been providing these things for so long, they don’t know or can’t remember what the free market can do. The fact is, all one needs to do is look outside the public sector, and you will see that, in almost all the areas which the government provides goods or services (with the exception of those areas in which they enforce a state monopoly), the free market has gone above and beyond the call of duty, in order to garner profit & success.

“And if no one does, what does information on health and nutrition look like in twenty years? How would such a change impact my ability to make rational choices on health and nutrition issues?”

This culture yearns for information, especially health and nutrition related information and services. They are, as we can see, willing to pay BIG money to get it. I pay ~$60/month for a gym membership. I pay ~$25/yr for nutritional magazines. I spend various amounts on supplements like protein, vitamins, and creatine.

The health & nutrition industry is a massive cash cow, especially in this country, where people are becoming more and more health conscious every year. So, if there are millions of people with trillions of dollars just waiting to be spent on this stuff, why in god’s name would nobody “step in to fill the void”???!! They already HAVE! You have nothing to worry about, MLW. Nothing at all.

Well, I don’t think government is the ultimate and total answer. It’s more of a voice in a larger debate. I’d prefer it to be limited to advocacy and education vs. actively pursuing legislation, and I prefer it be balanced by other competing voices, including, say, those who want to sell me hamburgers.

I’ll ask again though – if we get government totally out of public health education, does anyone step in to fill that void?

And if no one does, what does information on health and nutrition look like in twenty years? How would such a change impact my ability to make rational choices on health and nutrition issues?

The problem with government bullshit is that they have no incentive to tell the truth. The truth doesn’t get them elected. And it’s not like the American voting public would ever actually retaliate for being lied to. They take it all in stride, they expect it.

Private sector bullshit, however, has real, tangible repurcussions. Whereas we only have several (bad) choices in government elections, we have infinite choices in the private sector. If someone produces a product and tells me it’s healthy, and it turns out to be unhealthy, then I will take my dollars elsewhere. If someone gives me nutritional information that claims that apples have 15 grams of saturated fat, then I will not trust them, and will take my business elsewhere. Unlike the public sector, the private sector actually has an incentive to tell the truth. Surely, sometimes, there are incentives to lie for certain companies. But the checks, as I illustrated in my last post, are in place to deal with that. The tyrannical acts of the majority are foisted upon us involuntarily, whereas the private sector has to compete for our dollars.

So, have no fear, the private sector bullshit is nothing like the public sector bullshit.

MLWJones:

The crux of your argument seems to be that humans need an objective, unbiased source of information, and that the government is the place to get it.

Well, then, let’s compare the government health guidelines (the “nutritional pyramid”) with the various private sector health and diet authors. For years, the government has pushed the nutritional pyramid, with a top-heavy carbo-loading theme. Now, the private sector has debunked that pyramid, and the government is forced to re-evaluate it. Objective? I think not. The government, like the private-sector food providers, are biased. Their bias comes from various special interest lobbies. Surely, the grain industry lobbies for the FDA to put bread & grains at the top of the list. This is not an objective process.

At the same time, let’s look at the private sector which you criticise so much for providing inaccurate information and suppressing data in the name of profits. There are 2 problems with this assertion. First, customer loyalty is important. A consumer wants to be able to trust the provider. Therefore, if a company misleads its customers, it most certainly faces a backlash. This is one check against malicious misinformation.

Second, while there are private-sector producers who might provide goods about which it might benefit them to provide inaccurate information or suppress data, there is also another subsector of the private sector, and that is, the consumer informant/protection sector. For instance, take Consumer Reports. They do not benefit from pushing inaccurate information or suppressing data. Their reputation and customer base depends wholly on their dependability and reliability in the consumer info market. So, it’s the exact opposite. Rather than finding profit in misleading the public and suppressing data, they find profit and success in providing the consumer with accurate and objective data and ratings. This is the second check that we have on misleading information from producers in the private sector.

Third, we have a wealth of information at our fingertips, that no culture in human history has ever had. And all of the sources are competing for your attention. It would not serve them well to claim that twinkies and cigarettes are good for you, would it?

You say, “I believe it’s your choice to make, but it’s a very poor choice indeed. If there’s no voice around to tell you that – or worse, many voices suggesting otherwise – how are you to know?”

Given that everyone’s body is different, the only way for you to “know” is to try. I am a bodybuilder, and I eat for my lifestyle. 8 meals a day, lots of calories, lots of protein. This might not work for everyone, but it’s taken me a whole lot of research and a whole lot of experimentation to find the right diet for me. I never relied on one single source for my information. But there are certain free-market sources that provide me with accurate information. Bodybuilding.com has a FREE nutritional database with the detailed nutritional information of nearly every food item, macro- and micro-nutrient, on the planet. This is not a government service, it is a private-sector product. What incentive does bodybuilding.com have to provide me with false information? None. And, so, while nobody can ever have a completely objective data set, the free market undoubtedly provides us with enough information to find the best plan for our own lives.

What makes you think that gov’t is the answer?

I agree with you that it is not “wise to be so optimistic about the general intelligence of the average American voter these days? Too many voters are swayed by the most baseless of accusations, the most superficial of attributes, the most flimiest of rationales”

This also applies to a great number of our elected officials.

And a lot of what my mama still tells me is total crap because she’s read it from a source she can’t recall or is just basing it on intuition. Dubious sources and gut instincts aren’t the basis of rational decisions.

“Do we need civil servants and tax-supported industries wasting money on this kind of nonsense? They should put some of that energy into finding solutions to valid issues.”

Well, we don’t need tax-supported industries, period. As for ensuring that valid scientific information on health issues exists and is available, I do see that as a solution to a valid issue.

If we strip this power away from public health, who, if anyone, fills the void? I don’t see an answer here, and I see huge ramifications if the only alternative is ignorance.

“You are saying that many Americans are too stupid to know, without government hectoring, that Twinkies, poutine, and a cigarette aren’t a good breakfast, but that they are *smart enough* to pick their leaders based on the policies potential leaders recommend on extremely complex economic, military, regulatory, etc., issues?”

Is it wise to be so optimistic about the general intelligence of the average American voter these days? Too many voters are swayed by the most baseless of accusations, the most superficial of attributes, the most flimiest of rationales. A third of the population still thinks Saddam had a direct role in 9/11…and if you saw Leno’s Point/What’s Your Point bit last night, you’d be appalled at how deep the delusion is.

Frankly, the average voter is easily swayed by bullshit. If the only information available on health and nutrition is equally well-spun bullshit, we’re in a lot of trouble.

“I certainly hope one of these days we’ll see our elected officials really looking after us, and telling us as it is.”

Telling us at it is, sure. Looking after us is way too far. I want access to quality information to make rational choices, but I’d rather not have the government make that choice for me. Sometimes a bit of poutine is a good thing, after all.

I know this, sure, but from what source? Certainly not McDonalds – the only industry I can think of that’s funding advertising against consumption of its own products is tobacco, and that’s by force. Hardly the right solution – it’s just bizarre.

McDonald’s has a vested interest in promoting Big Macs as God’s gift to the food chain, and I don’t expect them to do any less. I also can’t expect their spin to be 100% true, and I would like a second opinion.

Much of this second opinion, like it or not, has been funded by public health interests and not-for-profit charity groups, who in some cases receive and/or are complimented by public funds (e.g., funds from NIH to complement American Heart Association research funding).

I’m simply asking that if this disappears, who steps up, if anyone? If no one, can I truly make a rational choice with partial and biased information plugged by a snazzy marketing campaign supported by the very people who have a vested interest in selling me crap that’s no good for me? I doubt it. They have a vested interest in telling me precisely the opposite, and do on a regular basis.

I think there’s a difference between public health advocacy and regulation. I don’t want the government to step in and say the hamburger I had for lunch should have 6g of fat and no more. That would not only be excessive, it’d lead to disgusting hamburgers.

But I should also know that if I ate two or three a day, I’m not doing myself any favors. And Harvey’s not only did not tell me this, they deliberately targeted the subconscious of my testosterone-addled brain to subvert any hope of rational choice. Fire. Meat. Good. Great slogan. Good burgers for a chain too.

However, gravy on french fries is wonderful.

On a humorous poutine-related note, This Hour Has 22 Minutes, (sort of the Canadian version of The Daily Show) really went to town during the 2000 elections, playing pranks on the candidates. One of their best stunts was to talk to Bush at a campaign stop (posing as Canadian TV reporters) and tell him that “Canadian Prime Minister Jean Poutine” had endorsed his candidacy. He actually made a little speech thanking “PM Poutine” for his support. I was living in Canada at the time, and my roommates and I nearly died laughing.

I don’t miss poutine a bit, but I definitely miss 22 Minutes and Talking to Americans.

You are saying that many Americans are too stupid to know, without government hectoring, that Twinkies, poutine, and a cigarette aren’t a good breakfast, but that they are *smart enough* to pick their leaders based on the policies potential leaders recommend on extremely complex economic, military, regulatory, etc., issues?

I see…

“On a more serious note, what is the solution to obesity outside of public health campaigns?”

The solution is that there is no real problem that requires any solution at all! I knew McD’s was bad for me long b4 govt told me so, as I sure you did. I am almost in shock right now at how ingrained this type of thinking is becoming in peoples mind…in the same breath that you said you agree that govt regs aren’t needed you bought right into the whole BS of comparing food to cigs!!!!!!

I guess if you say something enough times and say it loud enough, people start assuming its true…

(i.e. “this is hard work; these are dangerous times;… and so on and so forth)

You state that junk food and smoking “isn’t exactly good for you,” but that if there’s no one telling you, “how are you to know?” Please. Your mama told you from the time you could crawl that a lot of crap in this world isn’t good for you. Do we need civil servants and tax-supported industries wasting money on this kind of nonsense? They should put some of that energy into finding solutions to valid issues.