US forces changes to obesity plan
US officials have forced the World Health Organization reconsider plans to tackle global obesity rates.
A draft document won broad backing at a WHO executive board meeting on Tuesday.
But the US delegation insisted further discussion would be needed before a final plan is approved.
The US has questioned the science underpinning the plans, which include cuts in salt, fat and sugar intake in diets across the world.
The proposals, laid out in a strategy document, are designed to cut disease by promoting healthier lifestyles.
It is estimated that 300m people world-wide are obese, and 750m are overweight.
Obesity is a risk factor for heart disease, diabetes and other life-threatening conditions.
As well as pushing the food industry to make deeper cuts in sugar and fat in food, the WHO proposals include changes to advertising and tax policy to promote healthier diets.
Speaking at Tuesday's meeting, New Zealand delegate Gillian Smith said: "We need a strategy to take us out of the comfort zone, because more of the same is clearly not an option."
Opposition
The food industry has claimed that some suggestions - particularly recommendations on sugar - are not based on hard science.
And the US administration has been accused of trying to dilute the proposals to satisfy the industry's demands.
US delegation head William Steiger drew criticism earlier this month after writing to WHO director-general Dr Lee Jong-wook to challenge the science on which the proposals are based.
Mr Steiger said the report did not place sufficient emphasis on the responsibility of the individual to eat a balanced diet.
He also objected to singling out specific types of food, such as those high in fat and sugar.
The WHO executive accepted the US proposal that allows governments more time to suggest changes to the document before it is presented to the 192-nation World Health Assembly in May for final approval.
Posted by P6 at January 21, 2004 08:39 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/72
Comments
Friedrick Hayek wrote a great book called The Road to Serfdom. In it he logically makes the argument that the desire to do good through government compulsion leads to fascism, and that the fascist regimes in Europe arose out of the realization that the rigid, slogan-encased ideology of communism was not enough, and that action had to be taken that would have practical results rather than theoretical ones, even if that meant abandoning some of the strictures of communist ideology. UN agencies governing what I eat? Fascism. Collectivists have long realized that there are things that serve as a much more potent force for inspiring people to act than class allegiance. The end goal, however, remains unchanged.
Posted by Brian at January 21, 2004 11:00 AMThat has so little to do with the topic you barely escaped the spam filter.
Posted by P6 at January 21, 2004 02:09 PMUN agencies governing what I eat? Fascism.
No, Brian, the UN is not proposing to govern what you eat. Although a century ago Congress passed the Pure Food & Drug Act. (Actually I lied; it was 98 years ago, not 100.) That wild-eyed commie, the Lenin-bibing Theodore Roosevelt, was so horrifed by Upton Sinclair's The Jungle (describing the meat packing industry in, shall we say, remarkable detail) that he temporarily turned into a vegetarian!
Fascism means something different, Brian. Fascism refers to a state where the state is effectively at war with the society it governs. Everyone is essentially a potential combatant against the machinery, and there is no valid legal machinery (because no one's loyalty is trusted, hence legal professionals cannot be allowed to apply the law based on objective considerations of the crime).
See, Brian, by abusing words like "fascism" you are performing a sort of linguistic vandalism by ruining a useful word for common usage. People who say we are living under a fascist state, or that Bush is a Nazi, do the same thing. The language of dissent becomes mushy. That, Brian, and not the UN urging member states to urge the population to eat less sugar, is the more insidious threat to your freedom.
Posted by James R MacLean at January 21, 2004 07:37 PMHayek's diatribe, The Road to Serfdom, incidently, is based on Benthamite ethics of utilitarianism. That's why Ayn Rand literally hated him. Unfortunately for Hayek's argument, he assumed away the existence of public goods for which efficient markets cannot exist.
Posted by James R MacLean at January 21, 2004 10:23 PMI think it's a little silly to regulate the worldwide food industry into making us healthier. Can't we just make better food choices? Don't we mostly have this problem in first world countries with free market economies?
Is it even feasible to put on some sort of healthy lifestyle educational campaign? Because being healthier really does incorporate every aspect of your lifestyle, which varies radically within countries and across countries. And there's more to it than just eating better and exercising more. I'm thinking mostly about transportation options here. Some people have no choice but to get around by car, and some (relatively, a very few) people can get around fine by walking or biking along with using public transpo.
Having worked in R&D at a food company, I can tell you that whatever rules our government or any other governing body comes up with, they will do their darndest to get around it, because it's most important to "give the people what they want."
Also, it seems that there's got to be a better measure of "health" than weight.
Posted by Erica at January 22, 2004 11:54 AMThat is the object of the program: education, not regulation. The USDA devised the food pyramid, and RDA's for various nutrients, etc., and Brian here believes that sort of widely publicized nutritional info is "fascism." Of course OECD nutritional habits, with America in the lead, are so horrible it would really be logical to tell people everywhere the same simple message: avoid empty calories, avoid sugar, eat more vegetables and fruit, etc.
EVERYBODY in nutrition knows this. No one is proposing french-fry prohibition! No one is proposing a Chocolate-chip-cookie Enforcement Agency!
Ouuuuuuu, my head....
Posted by James R MacLean at January 22, 2004 09:09 PMI could go for a Chocolate Chip Cookie Distribution Agency...
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at January 23, 2004 08:29 PMPerhaps the well-spoken James R. MacLean possesses a greater aptitude for clever prose than he does for reading comprehension. Nowhere did I say that WHO guidelines on diet and junk food were prima facie fascism. What I said was that it represents yet another instance of using the power of government to induce people to act in accordance with a social engineering plan. It may not be a binding regulation now, but it could easily lead to that. And my point in bringing up Hayek was to explain how a socialist system- or one that is inspired by the will to do good- could easily lead to fascism, not the fascism of the screeching hyperbolic type, but real, textbook-definition fascism, just as real, textbook fascism arose out of the failed socialism of Germany and Italy.
And whether or not Ayn Rand agreed with him or not has absolutely no bearing on this matter. If you were trying to sway me with that point, it failed: I am not a Randroid.
And no, he did not assume away public goods. In fact, as a "Benthamite utilitarian," he recognized that there were instances where government was needed. I finished reading it a week ago. When did you read it?
Posted by Brian at January 23, 2004 08:34 PM(Recognizing no one has lost their temper yet, one still feels the application of the subtle stimulus of mentioning the possibility would be both appropriate and sufficient.)
Posted by P6 at January 24, 2004 12:26 AMUN agencies governing what I eat? Fascism
What part of this did I fail to compehend, Brian?
Posted by James R MacLean at January 25, 2004 05:44 PM