Like Smoking, Like Obesity?

[Dee]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00550.html

Could strategies from the country's decades-long campaign against smoking serve as a blueprint for anti-obesity initiatives?
This Story

Certainly, there are parallels between tobacco and food. Both are deeply entwined in popular culture and customs. Both have powerful interests behind them, industry forces with significant resources and political connections to fight government regulation.
But solving the obesity epidemic will require a much more comprehensive approach because all age groups are affected. Its complexities are "more daunting" than those of tobacco, said James Marks, a senior vice president at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which has committed $500 million over five years to fight childhood obesity.
The most fundamental difference: People can live without tobacco but not without food. So food companies cannot be vilified as cigarette makers were; in fact, Marks and others say, they have to be part of the answer. Certain sectors of the industry, which differs markedly from the tobacco industry in the diversity of products and producers, have agreed to improve nutritional standards.
Several years ago, the nonprofit Public Health Institute gathered leaders of past advocacy campaigns to tap their experience in the obesity fight. According to the project's report, although the highest levels of government might offer opportunities for the most sweeping change, they are often the most difficult places to win support because activists cannot match the industry's lobbying dollars and influence. Crucial anti-smoking legislation was passed by city councils and county boards, and those victories helped create momentum that spread nationally.
"The tobacco industry was able to exert considerable influence in Congress and at the state level, but it had real trouble fighting all these local efforts," said Kelly Brownell, a Yale University psychology professor and co-founder of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.
To date, the greatest regulation of snacks and drinks sold in school vending machines has occurred in individual systems and states; federal proposals have been stymied. New York City led the way in banning artificial trans fats in restaurants; an increasing number of local jurisdictions, including Montgomery County, have followed suit.
Yet the prevalence of smoking could not have been cut by more than half without federal action. It started with then-Surgeon General Luther Terry's 1964 landmark report on the hazards of lighting up. Within five years, Congress agreed to require warning labels on cigarette boxes and to ban cigarette ads from television and radio.
"With smoking, it took more than 30 years" to transform the public landscape, said Lori Dorfman, director of the Public Health Institute's Berkeley Media Studies Group. "With obesity, we don't want to wait another 30 years."

[gilster]

"With smoking, it took more than 30 years" to transform the public landscape, said Lori Dorfman, director of the Public Health Institute's Berkeley Media Studies Group. "With obesity, we don't want to wait another 30 years."

Get ready for "There is no safe level of being fat"

[Ariel]

I think we're already there... remember those articles about how even slender people can be fat on the inside?

Good grief.

[WinstonSmith]

Could strategies from the country's decades-long campaign against smoking serve as a blueprint for anti-obesity initiatives?

I love the way they write that as if it never occurred to anyone before.

You know, I've written before that the people who think this way aren't dumb; that belief and intelligence were two different things, running on parrallel tracks.

Maybe I was wrong.

Anyone know how to build a spaceship? No? Oh, well.

[gary k]

THE NEW WAVE


You folks in Wisc. do have some serious problems!!

The anti-smoker's dream come true, a health care system that will deny services if you do not or can not quit smoking!!!!
Gary K.
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/200 ... state.html

A vision for a healthy state

Do you ever wonder what kind of policy advice the leaders in your state get? The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, which says it’s a free market think tank that advises government leaders on key policy issues and conducts regular opinion polls, produces a daily newsfeed that managers in Wisconsin read each morning.

Today, state administrators received in their inboxes recommendations for a “healthy Wisconsin.”

It’s a vision for the state-run healthcare program, providing universal healthcare coverage for all, modeled after the Wisconsin Works* welfare reform. It was written by political scientist, David Dodenhoff, Ph.D.:

What Healthy Wisconsin Should Cost (And Almost Certainly Won't)


...‘What, exactly, do you bring to the table?’ I have the same question when it comes to Healthy Wisconsin. The state intends to provide universal health care coverage—secure, affordable, high-quality coverage. It sounds like the health care equivalent of the dream girl. Naturally, it’s got me wondering: what, exactly, are Wisconsinites bringing to the table?



Fear not; I have an idea...There was a fundamental idea of reciprocity here: we’ll help you, but only if you’re willing to help yourself... Consider this scenario. You’re at an appointment with your Healthy Wisconsin doctor. She gives you a routine physical and finds that your weight is a potential health issue. So, she sets a body mass index (BMI) value that she’d like you to achieve within six months. She also gives you an exercise and nutrition regimen to help you reach your goal.

But here’s the catch: if you don’t get within 10 percent of your doctor-recommended BMI in the allotted time, your coverage under Healthy Wisconsin is suspended.

You can apply for reinstatement, but only once you’ve achieved your target BMI value. Until then, you’re on your own.


Again, you see the logic of reciprocity: we’ll help you, but only if you’re willing to help yourself.


He is proposing that the state prescribe compulsory preventive health regimens on what you eat and on your lifestyle, regardless of their efficacy, through state doctors. Ideally, healthcare would be denied until you comply.

You can already see it coming: As taxes go higher and higher to fund healthcare for everyone, resentment and blame will build among taxpayers and will be directed at those perceived to be bringing on their health problems themselves or to be costing the rest of citizens.

Only fit, young and healthy people will be socially desirable.

[Dee]

They are treading a little more lightly on the fat. but not by much. as always they will see how many people back them. If enough then they will move in for the kill.

[gary k]

The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute

This report was a bit sarcastic, the Institute is against such a plan.
Gary K.