"Corpulent Exemption"
 

An (AFAICT) anonymous view from the "other" side of the obesity issue in the Western world. This should be interesting. [URL=http://corpulentexemption.blogspot.com]Corpulent Exemption[/URL]

If someone wants to overindulge in anything, whether it be food, tobacco, liquor, whatever, their "rights" must necessarily be circumscribed where they infringe on others'. You can walk around your own home bombed out of your skull, but driving drunk on public roads or beating your spouse in a drunken rage is another matter. So if someone wants to overeat, fine, but don't expect much support from me when it comes to subsidizing your habit - which is objectively bad not just for your health but also for the environment, BTW, just as most forms of overconsumption are - whether such subsidy comes in the form of subsidizing the health-related costs of obesity, or healthy-weight people helping to pay the excess transport costs of heavy folks flying. (I've always thought it perfectly sensible to charge all fliers a fuel-component cost based on weight, just as the postal service does for shipping packages.)

Next thing we'll have a civil-rights movement of "equal corpulent opportunity" where the obese demand government pay for vouchers for their excess caloric consumption.

A comparison with "discrimination" against smokers might be useful. There seems to be overwhelming support for government levying "sin taxes" on booze and cigarettes - why not on sugar sodas and fast foods? Why should smoking be treated as a taxable vice but overeating as a "disease" involving no voluntary component? In other words, why the double standard where smokers are seen as perpetrators of their own vice but overeaters clamor to be viewed as helpless victims?

For the record, I'm normal weight (in the sense of "old" normal, not new), nonsmoker (college bong parties aside), moderate drinker. Forcing myself to do at least 30 mins of vigorous exercise (simple brisk walking for starters) each day helps keep the poundage off, although I also eat less than in my younger days, when the engine was set on a higher idle, as it were.

If we're keen to clamp down on economic drains on society due to some people taking more out than they put in, I say let's start with the real "fat cats": top directors of banks spring to my mind here.

Alright, maybe that's facetious. But I tend to sympathise with overweight people, whose lives are often made extra difficult - in addition to their health problems - by other people's attitudes in a manner which is disproportionate to any slight extra air fares those others might have to pay to compensate for their fellow passengers' extra weight in a plane.

Some "encouragement" to diet and exercise is certainly in order, and I see nothing wrong with taxing fast food in the way that extra tax on tobacco and alcohol may be implemented. I have no objection either to helping to fund help programmes for people who have difficulty losing weight and who are not in a position to fund it for themselves.

Obesity is a public health problem, just like smoking and drug addiction also are. It requires a publicly funded solution.

I can't resist linking this, by the way. Any fans of the Little Britain pair's "Come fly with me" will remember it.
:rofl:
[YOUTUBE]USYaPFih7VI[/YOUTUBE]

LOL, now they've put up an article lamenting the sizes of public toilet stalls...among other things, apparently there is a problem with being "suctioned to the seat like a kiss from a large-lipped suitor" or some such. Quite bizarre.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;324820]If we're keen to clamp down on economic drains on society due to some people taking more out than they put in, I say let's start with the real "fat cats": top directors of banks spring to my mind here.

Alright, maybe that's facetious. But I tend to sympathise with overweight people, whose lives are often made extra difficult - in addition to their health problems - by other people's attitudes in a manner which is disproportionate to any slight extra air fares those others might have to pay to compensate for their fellow passengers' extra weight in a plane.

Some "encouragement" to diet and exercise is certainly in order, and I see nothing wrong with taxing fast food in the way that extra tax on tobacco and alcohol may be implemented. I have no objection either to helping to fund help programmes for people who have difficulty losing weight and who are not in a position to fund it for themselves.

Obesity is a public health problem, just like smoking and drug addiction also are. It requires a publicly funded solution.[/QUOTE]

The fundamental problem is that fast food (so-called "junk" food in general, perhaps?) went from a once-in-a-while treat at the time of its introduction (e.g. my father remembers enjoying a weekly treat of Kentucky Fried Chicken (long before it was KFC) in the 1960s after that chain's introduction in Australia) to an acceptable substitute for one or more meals, often on an everyday basis. I have heard similar accounts of McDonald's being a once-a-week or less treat for families in this country back in the '50s and '60s.

Kids grow up on chicken nuggets, pizza, burgers, and mozzarella sticks with a regularity that changes only on the whim of the monthly school lunch calendar. My mother has often recounted to us her school lunches (Washington, DC, 1958-1971): actual honest-to-God meat patty, two or three vegetables, fruit, and milk every single day. No monkey shines at the table or wasting food either, but that's another story for another time. And it only cost a quarter or 35 cents! Why can't we feed kids that well for the two, three, four dollars a day that parents shell out for school lunches today?

Here in the States (probably in the rest of the West, as well, and who knows, maybe even in China by now), you'll see these ads where hyperactive children run into a house, just about knock their mother off her feet, and start rooting through the refrigerator (making disparaging remarks about the healthier choices in their way) for a bag of oversalted, overgreased pizza bites, chicken nuggets, or other snack with little nutritional value and high calorie content. How can we expect children to develop good eating habits when poor quality food is being thrust upon them in large quantities while being made out to be desirable, exciting, and cool? And we wonder why these children grow up with behavior problems, weight problems, and generally lousy health that is almost guaranteed to carry over into adulthood.

Think about restaurant menus. [URL=http://www.longhornsteakhouse.com]LongHorn Steakhouse[/URL] is a middle- to high-end, popular American chain. They are heavy on the salt shaker, the steaks are often greasy as though they have been cooked in oil or grease, and there is a dearth of vegetables on the menu. What vegetables that are available, such as green beans, are often cooked in fat, and have a greasy texture. With respect to the lack of vegetables, this is seen at many restaurants. Often, macaroni-and-cheese or French fries fulfill the vegetable quota.

Somewhere along the line, purveyors of fried chicken have been inculcated with the rule that one chicken breast must contain enough oil to make a layer of six napkins perfectly clear. My mother can bake chicken that would rival that of any Southern granny, with perhaps one-twentieth of the grease that you see in restaurants. She also has a trick for making pizza: cook the grease out of the pepperonis before putting them on the pizza. It is amazing how much oil can be removed that way, without sacrificing any flavor. The problem is that these methods are labors of love. They take creativity, time, and energy with which the mainstream restaurant chains cannot (or do not want to) be bothered.

So, the way I see it, I will believe that the government actually cares about the obesity issue when they step forward and encourage better eating habits, whether by improving school lunches, banning trans fats as is now done in some jurisdictions, and encouraging/requiring the use of less processed, packaged foods in favor of fresh, unadulterated products (including fruits and vegetables). And how about a subsidy to poor communities enabling them to purchase often higher-priced healthier foods. It is a deathly frightening thought to witness many children of today (especially those from inner urban areas) that do not know what to make of a tomato on the vine or a freshly picked apple, but can microwave their own pre-packaged, salt- and fat-laden lunches, only to gobble them down in time for recess...oh wait...recess was eliminated in favor of more study time!

I equate the situation with the legalized addition of whiskey to a city's drinking water, and then criticizing everyone for being drunk and lazy. It is hypocritical for the government and media to fatten children from age 5 onwards, and then criticize them as adults for being overweight.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;324742] So if someone wants to overeat, fine, but don't expect much support from me when it comes to subsidizing your habit - which is objectively bad not just for your health but also for the environment, BTW, just as most forms of overconsumption are[/QUOTE]

Oooh, don't let the Monsanto or Cargill folks hear that...everything's fine as long as we can genetically engineer corn that yields to the n-th power, overplant it on every acre between the Rockies and the Appalachians until the ground cries Uncle and we have a Dust Bowl a la the last couple of summers, feed it to pigs and cows until their stomachs (literally) burn holes through their bodies from overfeeding of foods of which they were never intended to make a sole diet, let said pigs and cows live in their own rot and filth until they are just a hair's breadth from collapsing under their own weight, slaughter and package them in hygienically-questionable processing plants, and ship them out to the unsuspecting masses.

[QUOTE](I've always thought it perfectly sensible to charge all fliers a fuel-component cost based on weight, just as the postal service does for shipping packages.)[/QUOTE]

Son-of-a-pilot here: I believe that fuel charges (whether calculated based on weight or not) would be part of one's ticket price. In fact, one would expect that the weight of baggage (checked or unchecked) might be included as well, and I am sure that it probably was, before the airlines learned how to double-dip with added baggage fees.

[QUOTE]Next thing we'll have a civil-rights movement of "equal corpulent opportunity" where the obese demand government pay for vouchers for their excess caloric consumption.[/QUOTE]

It's called "food stamps". Look at the most morbidly obese states, and then look at the states ranking high in per capita food assistance. The intersection will be nonempty, I assure you. I do have to offer the caveat that it is not cheap to buy healthy food, e.g. fruits and vegetables. A tub of lard or package of fatty, grisly ends of meat, on the other hand, come cheaply. The birth of low-off-the-hog Southern cooking (and Southerners' seeming ability to eat anything deep fried) did not historically come out of living a life of luxury.

[QUOTE]A comparison with "discrimination" against smokers might be useful. There seems to be overwhelming support for government levying "sin taxes" on booze and cigarettes - why not on sugar sodas and fast foods?[/QUOTE]

In many states (including my neighbor, West Virginia), soda is actually subject to special taxes above and beyond normal sales taxes. This is cited as a common explanation of why the sky seems to be the limit on the price of a restaurant soda (in many restaurants, soda is approaching $3, albeit with free refills, but who could ever drink $3 worth of soda?!?). I believe that it is hypocritical to tax fast food anymore than any other prepared food. The levels of salt, sugar, and fat at McDonald's are often the same as those at a "sit-down, casual" restaurant, and in fact, the latter is often a worse offender.

[QUOTE]Why should smoking be treated as a taxable vice but overeating as a "disease" involving no voluntary component? In other words, why the double standard where smokers are seen as perpetrators of their own vice but overeaters clamor to be viewed as helpless victims?[/QUOTE]

I imagine that it is the same logic (or lack thereof) that allows an alcoholic or drug addict to risk his career, his family, his freedom, and indeed, his very life by willfully and admittedly going out to "party" every week, knowingly overindulging in alcohol or drugs, only to go through rehab and be told that it's not their fault; it's a disease that they can't control and they have no responsibility for their actions. The same logic that bought folks like Michael Jackson, Amy Winehouse, and Whitney Houston a ticket on the midnight train to Slabville.

[QUOTE]For the record, I'm normal weight (in the sense of "old" normal, not new), nonsmoker (college bong parties aside)...[/QUOTE]

Now there's an interesting thought re: the bong parties. What if the obese folks banded together and decided that overeating had certain medicinal benefits a la the medical cannabis folks? Just imagine, Medicinal All-You-Can-Eat Buffets! :max:

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;325932]I equate the situation with the legalized addition of whiskey to a city's drinking water, and then criticizing everyone for being drunk and lazy. It is hypocritical for the government and media to fatten children from age 5 onwards, and then criticize them as adults for being overweight.[/QUOTE]
From what you've written it seems that there is a serious problem with the normalised status of fast food where you live, perhaps a USA-wide problem?

This does not seem to be the case in Western Europe, or at least it's on a much more moderated scale. Yes, both McDonalds and KFC are known here, but they are not the eating-out of choice for most people, even most young people. Most people shun them completely, and for others it's more likely to be an occasional indulgence. If, as you indicate, this sort of fast food is regarded as a valid alternative to a proper meal where you live, something to have on a daily basis, then I think you've nailed the main cause of the USA's obesity problem on the head.

By the way, there's an obesity problem here in Europe too. I believe, though, it's less severe here than it is in the States, and the different attitude to fast food sounds a likely reason for that.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;325932]So, the way I see it, I will believe that the government actually cares about the obesity issue when they step forward and encourage better eating habits, whether by improving school lunches, banning trans fats as is now done in some jurisdictions, and encouraging/requiring the use of less processed, packaged foods in favor of fresh, unadulterated products (including fruits and vegetables).[/QUOTE]

Another reader noted that food stamps (being provided to nearly 50 million people at present, an all-time high in both absolute and relative terms) already serve such a role. The problem - and there is a similar one with unemployment assistance - is the lack of any effective controls on how the money is spent. How would one enforce "healthy foods only" in this context? At the community level I could see replacing cash assistance with (say) vouchers good at local approved-as-healthy grocers and farmers markets, but as has also been noted, there is a high correlation with poverty, obesity and locales where such vendors are in very short supply.

But governments need to do a hell of a lot better at targeting such assistance rather than throwing money around, that's for sure. But it needs a serious nationwide effort which is implemented at the community level. That needs lots of boot on the ground. Sending checks and e-money which are themselves 'funded' by government IOUs (= no incentive to ensure the money is well-spent) is just so much easier.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;325998]Another reader noted that food stamps (being provided to nearly 50 million people at present, an all-time high in both absolute and relative terms) already serve such a role. The problem - and there is a similar one with unemployment assistance - is the lack of any effective controls on how the money is spent. How would one enforce "healthy foods only" in this context? At the community level I could see replacing cash assistance with (say) vouchers good at local approved-as-healthy grocers and farmers markets, but as has also been noted, there is a high correlation with poverty, obesity and locales where such vendors are in very short supply.

But governments need to do a hell of a lot better at targeting such assistance rather than throwing money around, that's for sure. But it needs a serious nationwide effort which is implemented at the community level. That needs lots of boot on the ground. Sending checks and e-money which are themselves 'funded' by government IOUs (= no incentive to ensure the money is well-spent) is just so much easier.[/QUOTE]

How do the states administer/enforce WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) programs? The lists of what you can or cannot buy with WIC are incredibly byzantine. I have personally handed a single mother in the checkout line twenty bucks to pay for the baby formula that the store rejected WIC on, because the freaking cans were the wrong size. I'd rather see the government expend effort on keeping people from pork rinds than baby formula.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;326019]How do the states administer/enforce WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) programs? The lists of what you can or cannot buy with WIC are incredibly byzantine. I have personally handed a single mother in the checkout line twenty bucks to pay for the baby formula that the store rejected WIC on, because the freaking cans were the wrong size. I'd rather see the government expend effort on keeping people from pork rinds than baby formula.[/QUOTE]

On the other side of the money-well-spent-strictness spectrum, EBT cards (and note the link on the NY Post page about stores which specialize in similarly gaming Food Stamp usage) are apparently quite [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-06/dole-and-watching-pole-new-normal-ebt-card-user]lax in such controls[/url].

WIC may be specially strict because of the infant-health (and thus instant PR nightmare if found to be widely abused) aspect of it.