One Million (Preventable) Deaths Per Year
Comments
Two questions, then:
1. Do you agree with a total ban on all commercial advertising targeting children?
Although your question was directed to Snert, I have a clarifying question: How would you define "children," age-wise? Would the ban apply to 17-year olds as well as to six-year olds?
1. Yes.
2. I'd say yes, if there were some reasonable other way by which adults could protect themselves in the case of an accident. If you find your face suddenly going through your own windshield, you can't just say "No thanks" to that. I see our current seatbelt laws as a bit of a kludge (and I'm mindful that one of the strongest lobbies for mandatory seat belt laws was the insurance industry, who saw seatbelts as a great way to pay out fewer claims).
Although your question was directed to Snert, I have a clarifying question: How would you define "children," age-wise? Would the ban apply to 17-year olds as well as to six-year olds?
The Québec legislation applies to under-13 years old. There's lots more info about it in that previous thread. I think under-13 is justifiable, and that's what my question meant.
I wonder how much of that is due to the limits on advertising and how much of it is cultural. Quebec, in many ways, has a very European culture to it whereas the rest of Canada is more heavily influenced by America.
Uh... no. I have noticed nothing "European" about Québec cuisine, which in fact has been separated longer from its European origins than that of any other immigrant group in Canada. Tourtière, tarte au sucre, fèves au lard, cretons, pouding chômeur, St-Hubert fried chicken, Mae West, Schwartz's and Snowdon Deli smoke meat... oy vey. All traditional, all pretty deadly stuff. Anyway, modern Quebeckers shop and eat the same way as other Canadians (and North Americans), but the advertising ban after 30 years has obviously had an impact.
It's freedom for all of us. A corporation is free to say "Hey, buy our quadruple cheese explosion-burger" and you and I are free to say "no thanks". How is this kind of freedom not good, Rosa? Is your own freedom to say "no thanks" just not working out for you? Do you really NEED the state to address this offer of a quadruple cheese explosion-burger on your behalf? Or are you doing OK with saying No, but you'd like the state to intervene on everyone else's behalf, in case they don't also say No?
The king is free and so are the peasants. The emperor is free and so are the serfs. The guys with the big guns are free and so are the defenseless elderly. What could be better?
The Québec legislation applies to under-13 years old. There's lots more info about it in that previous thread. I think under-13 is justifiable, and that's what my question meant.
Thanks for that clarification.
In concept, I have no problem with such a ban.
From a practical perspective, I would be interested to know how Quebec has implemented the law.
If a kids' magazine is written with the intent of being read by a certain age (say seven- to ten-year olds), it would be relatively easy and appropriate to ban advertising from that magazine (even if an occasional 14-year old read it). Likewise, if a cable television program runs at 11pm, it would be reasonable to assume that the large majority of viewers would be 13+ years of age (even though some small percentage of 13 or younger kids might see it) and, thus, reasonable to permit advertisements for Twinkies on such a program.
But, in many, many other instances, the dividing line would be far from clear:
- A billboard for Twinkies, which would be seen by everyone, of any age, passing by the billboard.
- An ad for Twinkies on Hockey Night in Canada, where there would undoubtedly be a significant portion (although probably not the majority) of the viewers are in the 13-and-younger age group.
- An ad for Twinkies in the online version of The Onion, which is likely to be seen by many 13-year olds.
- A snack ad in Sports Illustrated.
- Online advertising generally presents a huge challenge for those wishing to censor food ads from the eyes of the young.
So, while not a bad idea in concept, it would seem like a nightmare to actually enforce it in any meaningful way.
The king is free and so are the peasants. The emperor is free and so are the serfs. The guys with the big guns are free and so are the defenseless elderly. What could be better?
I'm sorry, but that analogy (or metaphor, or whatever it is) doesn't even make sense in this context.
The clown in red shoes is free, and so are the adults who can ignore him.
Unless you really see yourself as somehow oppressed by a fast food restaurant, your examples are foolish.
Are you saying you need help, Rosa? Please be plain, if so. But you really seem to be saying "I can't say no to fast food without the State's help!"
The clown in red shoes is free, and so are the adults who can ignore him.
Unless you really see yourself as somehow oppressed by a fast food restaurant, your examples are foolish.
Are you saying you need help, Rosa? Please be plain, if so. But you really seem to be saying "I can't say no to fast food without the State's help!"
I do see myself oppressed by the system of which McDonald's is a part, yes. I don't know when I was last in a McDonald's. I'm making a somewhat larger point.
Uh... no. I have noticed nothing "European" about Québec cuisine, which in fact has been separated longer from its European origins than that of any other immigrant group in Canada. Tourtière, tarte au sucre, fèves au lard, cretons, pouding chômeur, St-Hubert fried chicken, Mae West, Schwartz's and Snowdon Deli smoke meat... oy vey. All traditional, all pretty deadly stuff. Anyway, modern Quebeckers shop and eat the same way as other Canadians (and North Americans), but the advertising ban after 30 years has obviously had an impact.
Just speculation on my part. Certainly, whenever I go to Montreal (where my dad is from and I have still have family), I tend to gorge myself on smoked meat and poutine but I think other parts of Quebec aren't quite the same. Still, I wonder how many MTLers are eating Schwartz's EVERY DAY. That stuff is good but will kill you fast.
I'd settle for a smaller one that relates to the discussion.
I'd settle for a smaller one that relates to the discussion.
If you can't see its relation to the discussion I don't have time right now to explain it to you. Perhaps someone else can oblige. I may have time this evening.
Briefly: how much choice do you think medieval serfs had? Take it from there.
From a practical perspective, I would be interested to know how Quebec has implemented the law.
Check these links for an introduction:
The Supreme Court decision - very interesting
Two real-life examples of enforcement
Here's a release (in French) from last July about McDonald's pleading guilty to 6 counts of violating the Act. Burger King was similarly condemned in an earlier case.
The fines are puny - but the violations themselves are the exception rather than the rule. Generally speaking, the rules are respected, and it makes a huge difference in terms of the climate IMHO.
Your questions are all good - but when you start with a social and political will, and legislation to back it, you can answer those questions.
The clown in red shoes is free, and so are the adults who can ignore him.
Unless you really see yourself as somehow oppressed by a fast food restaurant, your examples are foolish.
Are you saying you need help, Rosa? Please be plain, if so. But you really seem to be saying "I can't say no to fast food without the State's help!"
If you are saying that all are equally vulnerable to the sales pitch, it is you who are the clown, Snert.
Check these links for an introduction:
The Supreme Court decision - very interesting
Two real-life examples of enforcement
Here's a release (in French) from last July about McDonald's pleading guilty to 6 counts of violating the Act. Burger King was similarly condemned in an earlier case.
The fines are puny - but the violations themselves are the exception rather than the rule. Generally speaking, the rules are respected, and it makes a huge difference in terms of the climate IMHO.
Your questions are all good - but when you start with a social and political will, and legislation to back it, you can answer those questions.
Wow...thanks for those links!! I'm going to take a look at them.
The lazy-faire logic basically says that people should be free to buy anything private enterprise wants to conceal in food and consumer products, including carcinogens and artery clogging trans-fats. Because taxpayers can afford to foot the bills down the road. And the slobs should be free to die of poverty in any old corner of this rightwing Librarian setup. Afterall, who would care anyway? What purpose should our AWOL stooges in Ottawa serve aside from collecting taxes from economic serfs while giving private enterprising jackals a free hand? It's kinda like letting the backyard go to seed and wondering if the dog will still be there tied to the garage a few years later. Whatever and maybe not, but who cares anyway? Their thoughts on public policies are anywhere from laughable to outrageous.
If you are saying that all are equally vulnerable to the sales pitch, it is you who are the clown, Snert.
"Vulnerable to the sales pitch"?
If you're referring to adults with cognitive impairment, I'd certainly exclude them, and I think I have already. But if not, uh, how exactly is an adult "vulnerable" to a clown saying "try our McGiantBurgerJoyousMeal like me and my friend the Hamburglar!"?
The explanation is in sociology going back 100 years to Weber. Try catchup reading.
And I was afraid your enthusiastic type would miss the cognitive point. You really see a world in black and white don't you? How very simple.
Wayne Roberts at Toronto's NOW Magazine offers more excellent insights into food policy.
The skinny on what's eating us:
So what’s behind this change? I’m guessing it’s a combo of many things, among them the decline in the quality of fast food, intensified inequality and the consequent quest of the poor for cheap food, and unrestricted access to kids by advertisers.
The explanation is in sociology going back 100 years to Weber. Try catchup reading.
Gosh, I'll get right on that.
So what's behind this change? I'm guessing it's a combo of many things, among them the decline in the quality of fast food, intensified inequality and the consequent quest of the poor for cheap food, and unrestricted access to kids by advertisers.
Anyone on a quest for cheap food might want to look into rice, flour, beans, onions, potatoes, and about a hundred other foods that are all cheaper than the burger, fries and pop that seems to be the current gold standard for affordability.
Thanks Polunatic2. They really do treat people like so much cattle to be profited from. They can blame people for being fat and unhealthy and for getting cancer, but lefties see through their bullshit. Private enterprising jackals want to rule with a free hand a world of sheeple, and the only thing standing in their way is democracy.
While I strongly approve of banning advertisements aimed towards children, in the case of fast food I would like to take things a little further. All advertising for food (primarily fast food, but not exclusively) should contain certain basic information: calories per serving, an actual depiction of the serving this figure is derived from (if the serving size is 85g, but the pizza is 325g, then it should be clearly indicated how much of the pizza constitutes a serving), a nutritional breakdown (similar to the ones found on packaged food in the supermarket), what common allergens (peanuts, soy, dairy) it may have come in contact with during the production process. The information should be upfront, perhaps similar to those voice overs that we get on pharmaceutical ads coming up from the U.S. If consumers are going to make informed choices, then lets get the information up front.
I would HIGHLY recommend Roberts' book "The No-Nonsense Guide To World Food". It's short but it's packed with great analysis, strong empirical data and progressive proposals to deal with the problem.
Here's something to chew on:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/760828--a-useful-reality-check-for-canadiansThey had similar views on how to reach these goals. Both expressed a strong sense of personal responsibility. Both said hard work was more important than any other factor - socio-economic status, education, race, gender or parental income - in determining how successful they were. Both said they would rather live in a country of equal opportunity than a country where wealth was evenly distributed.
There was only one divergence: Canadians considered their government more of a help than a hindrance in their quest to get ahead. Americans felt the opposite way.
To Corak, this signalled a serious gap between what Americans want and what their government is doing. "There is an unmet need for better public policy in the U.S.," he said.
eta: I know it's not food related but it relates to Sven's OP and talking points.
Here's my take on the linked matters cited by unionist:
Supreme Court Case: The Supreme Court case didn't address the difficult "gray area" questions I posed. Instead, it addressed a more fundamental and generalized question: Is the statute constitutional? The court held that the statute is constitutional - essentially holding that the state has a compelling interest [the protection of impressionable youth] which justifies the state's impingement on any free speech rights the commercial advertisers may otherwise have).
Saputo Bakeries matter: The company "distributed material in child care centres advertising one of their muffin products called 'Igor'" - that seems like a very clear-cut violation of the law.
General Mills matter: The "Lucky Charms" website contained games intended for small children. Seems pretty clear, by that description, but to truly understand the context, one would really have to understand why the games were characterized as "games intended for small children".
McDonald's matter: This one is a bit less clear cut, as it simply says the programs which contained the advertising were composed of an audience "where children under thirteen years form a large part of the audience". What is key (but unclear) is what constitutes "a large part" of an audience? 50%? 25%? 10%?
And, unionist, you were right about the fines being puny. General Mills paid $2,000 and McD's paid $12,000. Not exactly "prohibitive"!!
Here's my general take on the law and of its likely effects - based on what I just read:
For very narrowly-targeted advertisements (in a daycare centers, on websites containing "games intended for small children," and programs where "a large part" of the audience is composed of young children), the law prohibits such advertisements. But, in reality, I suspect that the law's effect is akin to taking a large and powerful showerhead with five hundred little nozzles in it and plugging a handful of the nozzles. Advertising (including food advertising) is positively ubiquitous and is contained in an endless variety of media - most of which young kids have access to. Given that, I suspect that the law, as well-intentioned as it may be, has had a very limited effect on food choices by youth.
Yes, and that's why anti-poverty activists convinced McGuinty's government to boost spending on food allowances for poorest Ontarians from $5million in 2002 to $67 million in 2008-09, because we know that nutritious food is so cheap and so available to everyone any where, whether Northern Ontario or . It's so cheap that McBurger joints everywhere have to distribute dollar menus and coupon flyers to attract the more affluent poor and those working two and three jobs a week to make ends meet and eating junk food on the fly because there's no time.
The lazy-faire logic basically says that people should be free to buy anything private enterprise wants to conceal in food and consumer products, including carcinogens and artery clogging trans-fats.
The operative word in that sentence is, of course, "conceal". But I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing that harmful food contents should be "concealed".
In fact, quite the opposite.
I think transparency (labeling) is necessary and good. Then, let adults make their own decisions. That goes for foods, drugs, tobacco, alcohol, or anything else a person wants to put into their own body.
The mind rules. You really are on a roll, eh Sven. Ever try to put yourself in the shoes of someone in another social situation? I mean, there are categories other than "adults" and "children". A whole host of categories that you avoid like a Big Mac. Care to take a shot at it? Their influences from birth in a family of certain socio-economic status to a lifetime of varying input? Your "reasoning" is from a closeted life, obviously. Try "breakiing out."
"The law" works from equally narrow, restricted parameters, of course.
You may want to review this study (the full text is downloadable on that page) of the 1984-1992 period, i.e. soon after the legislation was enacted. The findings are striking. I'll just cite some of the concluding remarks:
First, we match families by various demographic characteristics across Quebec and Ontario, for families with kids and those without, and
find that families with kids living in Quebec spend signifi
cantly less on fast food than their Ontario counterparts. We also match families within Quebec and compare French-speaking households, who will be more affected by the ban, to similar English-speaking households, and
find they spend less on fast food. As a control, we do the same comparison between French and English speaking families with kids in Ontario, and French and English-speaking families without kids in each of the two provinces, and
find a much smaller difference in expenditure. Estimates of the magnitude of the effect range from a decrease of 11 to 22 million fast food meals per year due to the ban. This amount translates into 8.9 to 23 billion calories.
There's lots more of interest there.
If you think I'm misrepresenting the cost of food, feel free to take a trip to your local grocery store. See for yourself what a few pounds of dried beans, or a sack of potatoes, or some nice Ontario carrots really cost. I'm not suggesting that starfruit from Thailand is dirt cheap, or heirloom tomatoes, though even those can't be more expensive, nutrient for nutrient, compared to, say, poutine.
Regarding the far north, I'm aware that a lot of food is prohibitively expensive up there. I would assume, though, that Taco Bell would be too. I don't see the far north as being a battle between healthy food and fast food so much between some food and none. That said, you do know that the government does at least try to subsidize healthy food for the far north, yes?
Here's what I think maybe you know, but don't want to say: healthy foods almost universally ARE much cheaper than McZany meals that come with a toy, but the hitch is, you not only have to be willing to shop for them, you have to cook them too! You can't just walk up to a counter and say "an order of lean chicken, two boiled potatoes and some carrots, please!" You have to actually take an interest, AND make a modest effort.
Per the study cited by unionist, the law in Quebec which banned the advertisement of junk food to children (13 and under) has resulted in an annual reduction of between $43 million to $82 million in reduced annual spending on junk food in Quebec.
Wow!! At first blush, that seems like a huge reduction in spending on and consumption of junk food.
But, what's relevant isn't the absolute number ($43 million to $82 million) of the reduction. What's relevant is the percentage reduction in junk food consumption due to the law. That's where the devil is.
So, I thought I'd look at some very rough numbers to come up with a very rough (but directionally correct) estimate of just such a percentage.
McDonald's sales in Canada in 2005 were about $948 million. The Canadian population in 2008 was about 33.2 million. So, the average spent on McDonald's only in Canada was about $28.55 per person. Quebec's population is about 7.5 million. So, in rough terms, let's say the spending on McDonald's in Quebec is about $214 million per year.
Now, while McDonald's is a very large player in the junk food market, it would probably be fair to say that it represents maybe 5% of the total fast food market. I say that because look a few of the many "fast food" chains in Canada:
A&W
Arby's
Baker's Dozen Donuts
Blimpie
Burger Baron
Burger King
Captain Submarine
Chez Ashton
Chicken Delight
Cinnabon
Coffee Time
Country Style
Dairy Queen
Dic Ann's Hamburgers
Dixie Lee Fried Chicken
Donut Diner
Extreme Pita
Fast Eddies
Harvey's
Ho Lee Chow
Jimmy the Greek
Krispy Kreme
La Belle Province
Lafleur Restaurants
Lick's Homeburgers
Manchu Wok
McDonald's
Mister Donut
Mr. Sub
New York Fries
Orange Julius
The Pita Pit
Popeyes Chicken & Biscuits
Quiznos
Robin's Donuts
Subway
Taco Bell
Taco Time
Tim Hortons
Valentine
White Spot
Williams Coffee Pub
Yogen Fruz
And, that list doesn't include thousands of independent fast food locations (non-chains).
So, for the sake of discussion, if McDonald's represents 5% of all fast food sales, then it would probably be a rough - but fair - estimate to say that fast food sales in Quebec are about $4.3 billion per year.
But, junk food is certainly not limited to fast food restaurants. You have soda (Coke and Pepsi), snacks (hundreds of varieties of chips, candy bars, and cookies), sugared cold cereals (see the "Lucky Charms" matter above), bread spreads (jams, jellies, honey, etc.), and a long, long list of other junk food.
I would guess that grocery store and convenience store purchases of those latter categories of junk food positively dwarf purchases of junk food in fast food outlets. But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that fast food represents 25% of total junk food purchases.
That would mean that total junk food purchases in Quebec are about $17.2 billion per year.
Now, let's go back to that $43 million to $82 million range mentioned in the study:
That reduction in junk food consumption only represents a reduction of about 0.25% to 0.48% in total junk food consumption. Or, to put it another way, over 99.5% of junk food consumption has continued, unabated, the ban on junk food advertising to children notwithstanding.
So, my rough guess is that the Quebec advertising ban has had a very, very minor impact on junk food consumption in Quebec.
The word "miniscule" comes to mind.
From a guesstimate you produce estimaed $ figures? Your "rough guess" smacks of the "science" of climate chage denial out thataway. The word ridiculous comes to mind.
Sven - what are you talking about? Did you read the study? You certainly didn't quote it. Did you read what the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (linked above) had to say about fewer obese and overweight kids in Québec? If you're going to start with your conclusions and work backwards from there, you'll just end up... backwards.
From a guesstimate you produce estimaed $ figures? Your "rough guess" smacks of the "science" of climate chage denial out thataway. The word ridiculous comes to mind.
The only guesstimates were (1) the 5% figure and (2) the 25% figure, both of which I suspect are actually high.
But, if you think those percentages are wildly understated, then let's see your numbers.
Sven's conclusions must be the best news Macdonalds and the rest have heard in a long time. If advertising doesn't effect the buying and eating habits of the public, then they no longer have to waste money on add campaigns.
Who says government intervention in the market place is bad for business?
Sven - what are you talking about? Did you read the study? You certainly didn't quote it. Did you read what the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (linked above) had to say about fewer obese and overweight kids in Québec? If you're going to start with your conclusions and work backwards from there, you'll just end up... backwards.
I didn't start with a conclusion. I started by trying to get a sense of what $43 million to $82 million in reduced consumption of junk food in Quebec really means relative to overall spending on junk food in Quebec.
So, what, specifically, do you disagree with in my analysis? Where is the flawed logic in the analysis of relative consumption reduction?
The claims of causality (i.e., that reduced obesity was caused by this law) are very difficult to establish, given the plethora of factors that influence health. But, a reasonable test of such a claim is to see what percentage of junk food consumption $43 million to $82 million represents. If that represented a 50% reduction in junk food consumption, then a causal link between reduced obesity rates would be much more credible than if junk food consumption was reduced by a mere 0.5%.
Sven's conclusions must be the best news Macdonalds and the rest have heard in a long time. If advertising doesn't effect the buying and eating habits of the public, then they no longer have to waste money on add campaigns
You can't draw that conclusion from my analysis. In fact, I don't dispute the conclusion in the paper that junk food consumption was reduced by the advertising bans (i.e., advertising very likely does influence consumption rates). My point is that the ban is, effectively, so narrow in scope that it probably only reduced total consumption of junk food by a very small percentage.
Well, I'm not an economist, but...
And, for the Fast Food Hamburger Restaurant (FFHR):
Wow!
Wow!
The first chart is useful.
I would be very interested to see what the 55% figure is composed of. Is it composed of all other fast food chains (such as those represented by the list I gave earlier)? Or does it include all other fast food chains and all independent fast food establishments?
Unfortunately, the website doesn't describe that piece of the pie in any detail. But that would be key information to know.
Speaking of McDonald's, does anyone know (without Googling it!!) which country in the world represents McDonald's second largest market (in terms of sales) after the U.S.A.?
With respect to the 19% figure for McD's: Let's assume that the 55% figure is a comprehensive figure (i.e., it includes all other fast food establishments other than the "Big 7" -- meaning that McD's actually represent 19% of all fast food sales) and that the figures apply proportionately to Canada.
That would mean that the amount of junk food consumed in fast food establishments in Quebec would be about $1 billion per year. If we assume that fast food restaurants represent 25% of all "junk food" consumed in Quebec, that would mean total junk food consumption in Quebec is about $4 billion.
And, what does $43 million represent as a percentage of that $4 billion figure? About 1%.
China?
That's a great guess (and probably would be one of my top choices as well). Personally, I would have guessed Canada.
The answer???
Per the study cited by unionist, the law in Quebec which banned the advertisement of junk food to children (13 and under) has resulted in an annual reduction of between $43 million to $82 million in reduced annual spending on junk food in Quebec.
Wow!! At first blush, that seems like a huge reduction in spending on and consumption of junk food.
But, what's relevant isn't the absolute number ($43 million to $82 million) of the reduction. What's relevant is the percentage reduction in junk food consumption due to the law. That's where the devil is.
So, I thought I'd look at some very rough numbers to come up with a very rough (but directionally correct) estimate of just such a percentage.
McDonald's sales in Canada in 2005 were about $948 million. The Canadian population in 2008 was about 33.2 million. So, the average spent on McDonald's only in Canada was about $28.55 per person. Quebec's population is about 7.5 million. So, in rough terms, let's say the spending on McDonald's in Quebec is about $214 million per year.
Now, while McDonald's is a very large player in the junk food market, it would probably be fair to say that it represents maybe 5% of the total fast food market. I say that because look a few of the many "fast food" chains in Canada:
A&W
Arby's
Baker's Dozen Donuts
Blimpie
Burger Baron
Burger King
Captain Submarine
Chez Ashton
Chicken Delight
Cinnabon
Coffee Time
Country Style
Dairy Queen
Dic Ann's Hamburgers
Dixie Lee Fried Chicken
Donut Diner
Extreme Pita
Fast Eddies
Harvey's
Ho Lee Chow
Jimmy the Greek
Krispy Kreme
La Belle Province
Lafleur Restaurants
Lick's Homeburgers
Manchu Wok
McDonald's
Mister Donut
Mr. Sub
New York Fries
Orange Julius
The Pita Pit
Popeyes Chicken & Biscuits
Quiznos
Robin's Donuts
Subway
Taco Bell
Taco Time
Tim Hortons
Valentine
White Spot
Williams Coffee Pub
Yogen Fruz
And, that list doesn't include thousands of independent fast food locations (non-chains).
So, for the sake of discussion, if McDonald's represents 5% of all fast food sales, then it would probably be a rough - but fair - estimate to say that fast food sales in Quebec are about $4.3 billion per year.
But, junk food is certainly not limited to fast food restaurants. You have soda (Coke and Pepsi), snacks (hundreds of varieties of chips, candy bars, and cookies), sugared cold cereals (see the "Lucky Charms" matter above), bread spreads (jams, jellies, honey, etc.), and a long, long list of other junk food.
I would guess that grocery store and convenience store purchases of those latter categories of junk food positively dwarf purchases of junk food in fast food outlets. But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that fast food represents 25% of total junk food purchases.
That would mean that total junk food purchases in Quebec are about $17.2 billion per year.
Now, let's go back to that $43 million to $82 million range mentioned in the study:
That reduction in junk food consumption only represents a reduction of about 0.25% to 0.48% in total junk food consumption. Or, to put it another way, over 99.5% of junk food consumption has continued, unabated, the ban on junk food advertising to children notwithstanding.
So, my rough guess is that the Quebec advertising ban has had a very, very minor impact on junk food consumption in Quebec.
The word "miniscule" comes to mind.
Your final estimate Sven...$4.3 billion or $1 billion? The world awaits your speculative announcement.
Your final estimate Sven...$4.3 billion or $1 billion? The world awaits your speculative announcement.
Based on the 19% figure in the chart linked to by Catchfire, it would appear that $1 billion is a very good number for Quebec. If the 55% in the pie chart was only composed of other chains -- and didn't include any non-chain fast food establishments, then the 19% figure would, of course, be lower (and the $1 billion figure would, correspondingly, be higher).
But, assuming the 19% figure is the right number (and not a lower percentage), do you see any reason why the $1 billion figure is not a fair estimate?
With respect to the 19% figure for McD's: Let's assume that the 55% figure is a comprehensive figure (i.e., it includes all other fast food establishments other than the "Big 7" -- meaning that McD's actually represent 19% of all fast food sales) and that the figures apply proportionately to Canada.
That would mean that the amount of junk food consumed in fast food establishments in Quebec would be about $1 billion per year. If we assume that fast food restaurants represent 25% of all "junk food" consumed in Quebec, that would mean total junk food consumption in Quebec is about $4 billion.
And, what does $43 million represent as a percentage of that $4 billion figure? About 1%.
But not France, mon dieu, say it isn't so! There must be a "European breakfast" served there, baguette, croissant, with coffee.
France would have been one of the last (developed) countries that I would have guessed.
And I'm sure that you are controlling for all the other varieables in your study.
And I'm sure that you are controlling for all the other varieables in your study.
I'm not claiming to have made an exhaustive "study".
But, based on what has been discussed here -- and any independent "study" you may have undertaken -- what do you think about the $1 billion estimate for fast food consumption Quebec? If you think it's way off base, why?
Dear old Sven. I could not give a fiddler's fart for figures you raise. Far, far back in this thread you ignored the idea that perhaps there is not a one to one relationship between the act of purchasing somethiing (whatever) and the relevance of that individual's willpower in that context. The intervening variables would point to that. Which you ignore, in finest bean-counting style. I'm afraid, Sven, that we inhabit different worlds, but I thank you for furthering my insight into how the U.S. mainstream have been brought to think. If you can't give it a number in your empirical study, if there is not material value, it ain't relevant. Evaluating a study from the perspective of humanity in real social settings, will ever play second fiddle. Frightening prospect, really.
remember this one?
(gimme a mo)
Dear old Sven. I could not give a fiddler's fart for figures you raise. Far, far back in this thread you ignored the idea that perhaps there is not a one to one relationship between the act of purchasing somethiing (whatever) and the worth of that individual's willpower. The intervening variables would point to that. Which you ignore, in finest bean-counting style. I'm afraid, Sven, that we inhabit different worlds, but I thank you for furthering my insight into how the U.S. mainstream have been brought to think. If you can't give it a number in your empirical study, if there is not material value, it ain't relevant. Evaluating a study from the perspective of humanity in real social settings, will ever find second fiddle.
Well, two thoughts:
If someone claims that a ban on the advertising of junk food to young children causes a reduction in the consumption of junk food, how can one process or evaluate that claim without the use of numbers? Hint: You can't.
Also, I never said that there is a "one to one" relationship between "the act of purchasing somethiing (whatever) and the worth of that individual's willpower". I question the near-exclusive focus on systemic solutions to most every problem by many progressives. If personal responsibility is ignored, or sneeringly discounted, most problems will remain firmly embedded no matter what systemic solutions may be dreamed up. And, like I said above, that will suit many just fine -- because their jobs rely on convincing society that they systemic solutions are the only solutions (and if personal responsibility does, in fact, play a role, well, they might be out of a job).
The mind rules. You really are on a roll, eh Sven. Ever try to put yourself in the shoes of someone in another social situation? I mean, there are categories other than "adults" and "children". A whole host of categories that you avoid like a Big Mac. Care to take a shot at it? Their influences from birth in a family of certain socio-economic status to a lifetime of varying input? Your "reasoning" is from a closeted life, obviously. Try "breakiing out."
"The law" works from equally narrow, restricted parameters, of course.
Don't go away. I'll be back with another perspective that you are able to ignore with insular aplomb (notice I did not say with the sensitivity of a bag of hammers) ? : )
Okay. Let's try it this way. I am not going to fall into the trap of playing the numbers game. It's not relevant. From the start,I have argued that some folks are more vulnerable than others to the mind game of advertising. That means exploring the many ways in which those people are "made" vulnerable. That comes from knowledge of how people function in social groups in society. Find their vulnerability and they are sold.
You, for instance, are a remarkable example of people vulnerable to conspicuous consumption. You are unable to concieve of peple who do not function in a similar way. Materialism has long ago replaced the ancient Greek virtues coming out of the aesthetic lifestyle...you know, a couple of millenia before the consumer society.
Many of the most coruplent people in your society are folks who are least likely to give alternative lifestyles a thought. The leanest people in any society tend to be those with the fattest wallets. That is another social categorization. Then there's the ethnic differentiation. Obesity varies across ethnic lines.
ANd of course there is "level of education" to consider in a meritocracy (skewed as that concept is by inherited health, racial and sexual prejudice, etc.).
You would reduce this rich world to simple divisions of will power, a singularly gauche worldview, but clearly identifiable as Libertarian, as I said last summer. That's why I submit we inhabit different worlds, Sven. And you clearly aren't ready to take up a work of sociological theory, let alone methodology. But one has to try to break through.
I question the near-exclusive focus on systemic solutions to most every problem by many progressives. If personal responsibility is ignored, or sneeringly discounted, most problems will remain firmly embedded no matter what systemic solutions may be dreamed up.
Not surprising then that you ignored my post about how they go together. Seems personal responsibility and systemic solutions are working better for Canadians. Americans want systemic help too, they just haven't realized it yet.
We seem to have a confusion here. If Uncle Abe weighs 340 lbs, then he has a problem and he needs to do something about it. He needs to take charge of his life and, yes, make better choices.
If on the other hand we have a million preventable deaths caused by obesity, we all have a problem: I presume that's why the issue was raised here. If it were a million private problems, there would be little point in discussing it. So the question then becomes, what can we all do to alleviate this problem that affects us all? And making vague exhortations to buck up and show some will power just doesn't work. Shouting, "Manitoba! Drop and give me twenty! Come on, Wisconsin, get those knees up!" might work off some hostility to the fatties, but it's a ruinous substitute for public policy.
And that's what we're really talking about here. No-one doubts that each individual has some responsibility for their health. But when words like "epidemic" are used about obesity, we are talking about public health. If you download public-policy decisions to the individual, the results are predictable. The Land of Good Choices and Home of Personal Responsibility has, with the exception of a few Micronesian islands, the fattest population on earth. And it's not getting better. Appeals to will-power don't work. Because they're not an individualist contrast to collectivist solutions. They're just a remarkably feeble and discredited form of public policy. (See: Just Say No, Not Before Marriage,etc.) We need a public strategy to make us leaner, and bellowing, "You are all worthless sinners! Repent! Repent!" satisfies a certain strain of purse-lipped American Puritanism, but does nothing constructive.
My kids would rather get a dose of the clap than eat under golden arches but Sven's original post was that the collective has no rights. It's all individual responsibility. Tell that to Percy Schmeiser, or the people of Bhopal, or the continuous lies of the nuclear industry. A large wall of lawyers vs. some hungry/hopeless kid in my slum.
We seem to have a confusion here. If Uncle Abe weighs 340 lbs, then he has a problem and he needs to do something about it. He needs to take charge of his life and, yes, make better choices.
If on the other hand we have a million preventable deaths caused by obesity, we all have a problem: I presume that's why the issue was raised here. If it were a million private problems, there would be little point in discussing it. So the question then becomes, what can we all do to alleviate this problem that affects us all? And making vague exhortations to buck up and show some will power just doesn't work. Shouting, "Manitoba! Drop and give me twenty! Come on, Wisconsin, get those knees up!" might work off some hostility to the fatties, but it's a ruinous substitute for public policy.
And that's what we're really talking about here. No-one doubts that each individual has some responsibility for their health. But when words like "epidemic" are used about obesity, we are talking about public health. If you download public-policy decisions to the individual, the results are predictable. The Land of Good Choices and Home of Personal Responsibility has, with the exception of a few Micronesian islands, the fattest population on earth. And it's not getting better. Appeals to will-power don't work. Because they're not an individualist contrast to collectivist solutions. They're just a remarkably feeble and discredited form of public policy. (See: Just Say No, Not Before Marriage,etc.) We need a public strategy to make us leaner, and bellowing, "You are all worthless sinners! Repent! Repent!" satisfies a certain strain of purse-lipped American Puritanism, but does nothing constructive.
Damn! Nice post.
The mind rules. You really are on a roll, eh Sven. Ever try to put yourself in the shoes of someone in another social situation? I mean, there are categories other than "adults" and "children". A whole host of categories that you avoid like a Big Mac. Care to take a shot at it? Their influences from birth in a family of certain socio-economic status to a lifetime of varying input? Your "reasoning" is from a closeted life, obviously. Try "breakiing out."
"The law" works from equally narrow, restricted parameters, of course.
Don't go away. I'll be back with another perspective that you are able to ignore with insular aplomb (notice I did not say with the sensitivity of a bag of hammers) ? : )
GV, are you a (paid) writer? That's wonderful stuff. "Insular Aplomb" would be an excellent name for a showjumper.
brilliant!
Sven - classic. Behind you 100%. Well, in the spirit of individualism, maybe 99 lol.
Be proud, Sven. You've got an honest-to-goodness dittohead pinniped barking and clapping his flippers for you.
Be proud, Sven. You've got an honest-to-goodness dittohead pinniped barking and clapping his flippers for you.
that's ironic, moron.
Oh, and, as an Irish person, I find your moniker highly offensive and racist.
The Rock's Irish descendants will see it as only a venal matter.
LTJ you are engaging in personal attacka and being unneccesarily offensive. Cut it out.
Once knew someone who owned a big gelding (17 hands) with a white face and stockings - went by the name of Parson. They both viewed the world with singular aplomb, G.Muffin. It's easier from way up there (the psychological explanation for sale of big vehicles everywhere). :)
Sven,
I think the individualism you promote would have been very sensible in the 18th century, when the state of philosophical knowledge was as it was. The simple fact is that a lot of these individualist theories have been comprehensively discredited by reasoned arguments and detailed research. They simply don't hold. I don't buy into the environmental determinism of a few on this thread but they very much have a point and they're closer to reality than you are. I'll address some of your points.
This for example is a completely false dichotomy. The example that immediately comes to mind is the 1960s USian civil rights act, which a lot of charlatan libertarians like to argue forced a behavioral system on innocent business owners by government fiat. It was nothing like that... it was the business owners forcing their backwards way of mind onto African Americans for hundreds of years. The nominal change that there was was not brought in "by government", but actually by the collective individual actions of millions of people who were actively fighting the system and bringing tremendous pressure on the Johnson administration.
Blaming video games is a nice populist theory but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There simply are better schools, better learning environments and better teachers and these make a tremendous difference. There's an excellent article in this month's The Atlantic which investigates 20 years of data that Teach for America has collected on the rrecent graduates it sends to inner city schools. They try and select for better teachers, and now they find that 44% of their teachers succeed in raising their students test scores by over 1.5 grade levels. If teachers didn't matter as you imply then that wouldn't be the case.
In all schools, there's a distribution of the amount of time kids spend on video games, as there is between schools as well. It's not the games. It's everything. Teachers, schools, home environment, etc.
************
************
If anything, going after simple explanations like "video games" is not jut false, it's lazy. You're being frightened away from the underlying complexity of reality, because you don't want to think that hard and you might not like the answers.
LTJ you are engaging in personal attacka and being unneccesarily offensive. Cut it out.
Yeah, sorry - I'd already dropped it.
I started it, and I shouldn't have. We're allowed to engage in stupid mealy-mouthed remarks meant to insult almost everyone here, but we're not allowed to engage in directly insulting any 'babbler' making those remarks.
I get it, and I apologize. I'm just getting sick of these 'contributors' choking the intelligence out of this forum.
To pick up the subject of Saving Lives with Self-Control from this thread, which was (thankfully!!) promptly "closed for length" only milliseconds after posters exceeded the much-dreaded 100-post threshold...
Some people believe that there is a "collectivist" solution to, well...pretty much everything, whether it's obesity, low self-esteem, or a whole host of other ills.
So, I was pleasantly surprised to read this post near the end of the now-closed prior thread:
If you can blame "society" for whatever ails you, it makes it easier to wait for society to come to your rescue, rather than having to do anything yourself or to take resposibility for your own actions.
I used to hang around with a guy who did a lot of organisational work - some of it as a volunteer- in the local health district, and was instrumental in the creation of many of the clinics we have around town today. Incidentally, this guy was an old CCF medicare warrior from the 50s, and hardly a free-enterpriser.
Out of nowhere one day he said to me, "Instead of waiting for the government to do things for them, people have to get involved and do things themselves."
Obviously, a lot of problems require a combination of individual effort and initiative with social change. But, I think too often many people look exclusively for "collectivist" solutions and ignore the essential role that individual effort and initiative plays in solving most problems.
By ignoring, or even actively discounting, the critical role that individual effort and initiative plays in solving most problems, those who want those problems solved significantly reduce the probability that those problems will, in fact, be solved. If a problem is repeatedly characterized as "someone else's fault" - those suffering from the problem come to believe they are, in fact, completely helpless to control or even influence their own lives.
You're not doing well in school? Well, it's the school's fault - or the government's fault for not providing enough funding for your school - or it's the greedy taxpayers' fault. It's rarely a particular teacher's fault, it couldn't possibly be the student's parents' fault, and it's never the student's fault (cuz that would be blaming the "victim", of course!!).
You weight 300 pounds (and, as a result have terrible problems with diabetes, breathing, and your heart)? Well, that's the fault of greedy corporations who produce the processed food which lines your grocery store shelves - or the McD's that you drive two miles to every morning for breakfast - or the local city's fault because there isn't a public park right across the street from your home - or it's because you have to work two jobs and don't have any time to exercise (even though you watch 20+ hours of TV every week). But, it's never because (1) you simply don't exercise and (2) you eat whatever and however much you want (because, again, that would be blaming the "victim").
The list of it's-someone-else's-fault problems is virtually endless.
Why does this remind me of AA??
I was happy to see Sven's previous public display of masturbation shut down. I'm not surprised to see him start all over again.
"Instead of waiting for the government to do things for them, people have to get involved and do things themselves."
...of course, in order for people to do something for themselves, they have to have access to options. Thus the need for social activists such as the medicare champion quoted here.
My friend's point was that he and others got up off their butts and did something about the problem. They made the options possible by their actions. I know this sounds as if it's taken right out of Horatio Alger, but keep in mind that they did this for the common good. They were collectivists.
Some people believe that there is a "collectivist" solution to, well...pretty much everything, whether it's obesity, low self-esteem, or a whole host of other ills.
I think you're inaccurate in calling this a "collectivist" attitude. It's no more than refusing to take personal responsibility for one's behaviour.
Yes, the individualist in this case cannot see the collectivist for the crowd...:D
So what about Canadian studies that show rates of cancer and heart disease aren't lowered significantly by low fat diets? The Canadian cancer society says that the next generation of Canadians will get cancer at a rate of nearly one in two. One in two! Do we blame genetics? At what point do we start looking sideways at our corrupt stooges and their corporate friends who want to pollute our air and water and get away with it?
Well, if you have access to foods grown with that in mind (and can afford those foods, of course), you won't be one of those losers, don'cha know?
Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War
by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Aha! Epstein says America's corporate stooges in government have been corrupted by private industry, too. I think I'll get off my butt next election and help out the NDP in these here parts.
Again, I think that George Victor pretty much pwned this thread way back when it was first opened, post 5 of the last thread:
What buoyant confidence! What dread power!
Thanks for heeding my call, Catchfire - and thanks to George Victor yet again for putting paid to the discredited notion that individuals, and not social systems, are responsible for the ills visited upon humanity and nature.
Ahem. Great minds, etc.
Ha! I missed that! My hat is off.
I'm tempted to close this thread, but I've recently been accused of being a little trigger happy with the "close thread" button.
Thoughts?
Well, it seems like some people are getting their exercise from it, although I kind of seeing it as baiting--all in good fun, of course. I also think that Sven harbours a perverse hope that skdadl will import her "Socialism and Civil Liberties" debate into this thread, since he doesn't seem to want to play with the rest of us.
I will point out, however, that nowhere in the last thread did anyone claim that individuals' health-poor choices were "society's fault," despite the repeated use of quotation marks (and bolding and italics and underlining) by Sven to sustain the fantasy. I don't have a big problem with baiting threads like this, but I do have a problem with commu-phobic canards trotted out with nary a care for historical accuracy or mutual respect.
Well, it seems like some people are getting their exercise from it, although I kind of seeing it as baiting--all in good fun, of course. I also think that Sven harbours a perverse hope that skdadl will import her "Socialism and Civil Liberties" debate into this thread, since he doesn't seem to want to play with the rest of us.
Hey, I like my exchanges with you (or just reading what you write in threads where I am not actively participating). You're bright, well-read, and thoughtful.
I will point out, however, that nowhere in the last thread did anyone claim that individuals' health-poor choices were "society's fault,"...
Taken literally, you are, of course, correct. I guess I was using that as shorthand for the POV that generally absolves individuals from any meaningful responsibility for their own behaviors and choices. If it's corporations who are producing fat- and sugar-filled processed foods, then it's "society's fault" for allowing that to happen, not the fault of the individual who chooses to eat copious quantities of such food. In other words, the "it's-society's-fault" POV is a POV that assumes most problems are inherently systemic and that those problems can only be solved by society-wide solutions, solutions that invariably emanate from and are controlled by government.
I guess I was using that as shorthand for the POV that generally absolves individuals from any meaningful responsibility for their own behaviors and choices.
How does that POV correlate with the collectivist POV? I suspect there is no correlation.
I guess I was using that as shorthand for the POV that generally absolves individuals from any meaningful responsibility for their own behaviors and choices.
How does that POV correlate with the collectivist POV? I suspect there is no correlation.
Before I answer that, I guess I should ask you what "collectivist" means.
And then I'll tie it into diminished capacity, British Columbia's Mental Health Act, and the film "Minority Report" starring Tom Cruise, that brilliant spokesman for Scientology and humanitarian and all around fine human bean.
And then someone will accuse me of going "off topic."
Why She Died: The Goodbye 3.14
I guess I was using that as shorthand for the POV that generally absolves individuals from any meaningful responsibility for their own behaviors and choices.
How does that POV correlate with the collectivist POV? I suspect there is no correlation.
Before I answer that, I guess I should ask you what "collectivist" means.
Looking at the above exchange, G.Muffin, you might get several variations on that. Google it up.
I think that most people understand that if you're cold, you should maybe put a sweater on, and if your feet hurt, maybe you want to loosen your shoelaces. I expect that at a (pun not intended) gut level, we all understand that if people made different choices with regard to what they eat, those people would likely be healthier in the long run.
Where you're going to run into pushback suggesting such a bold and revolutionary idea is that to a significant degree PEOPLE WON'T FIX THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. You could cut the price of a bag of carrots in half, and people will still troop to McDonald's. You could subsidize potatoes and brown rice, and people will still order a meat-lover's pizza with dipping sauce. You could open a natural, vegan, organic whole-foods restaurant beside every Burger King, with prices below cost, and people would still hit that Burger King.
So, clearly, these people need to be saved from themselves, preferably by rugged individuals who've done mighty battle with their own "brainwashing" and are now free of the yoke of fast food. People who just plain know what's best.
I agree with you, by the way. If you have a few hours to catch up on Lost, you have a half hour to go for a walk. Exhaust that option first before we start asking the State to parent us.
What about banning trans fats, Snert?
And while the focus is still on food, I have observed that the taste of food is one of the last remaining cognitive sensations to disappear from those whose brains are slowly destroyed by some of the two dozen varieties of dementia. And I'm sure that with their access to the latest science, the corporate purveyors of food know that... as did the tobacco manufactuers.
But the freedom-lovin' libertarian will resist such recognition of our corporal vulnerabilities to the end. Probably comes from a "we're made in God's image" beginning, and something to do with Satan. Amazing how Voltaire spent his entire life putting paid to such nonsense and it persists a couple of centuries later. (Roger Pearson's Voltaire Almighty: a life in pursuit of freedom is a wonderful account of his battles. And, yes, Voltaire understood "freedom" to be defined only in social context, if not quite so much as Rousseau.
Or to ban junk food advertising aimed at children, like Quebec has done? There's nothing like plying them with trans-fats, high salt and high caloric diets when they're not long out of the crib and developing life long eating patterns. Tobacco ads were bad enough.
Or to ban junk food advertising aimed at children, like Quebec has done?
Québec banned all advertising aimed at children 30 years ago - and after 10 years of court challenges by big business, the ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1989.
Much discussion about that on babble and more info here.
Yes, Fidel, such advertising should be banned, but certainly not confined to "junk food". Children should not be brainwashed by advertisers. Although I guess some of our free enterprise babblers would mount the barricades in favour of children's rights here...
The ban in Québec is still there, and it gets enforced when complaints are laid.
I find that a bit iffy. I would prefer labelling of them, and letting buyers decide (same with high fructose corn syrup) but I expect that, as I suggested, many people wouldn't care, and would go ahead and buy such products anyway.
At the same time, if we can really, genuinely demonstrate that they cause harm the way, say, melamine in milk does then they might cross the line from "not as healthy" to "actively and acutely harmful" in which case banning them would be reasonable. I, personally, just find it really hard to believe that the Crisco my grandmother used in her pie crusts is some kind of toxin.
Recognition? I certainly recognize that we like the taste of food. For sure. I wonder, though, by "recognize" do you maybe mean "recognize and then take decisive action against all who sell food"? If you really feel strongly, I suppose I could support a motion to bar people with dementia from fast-food restaurants, if you think it would help.
Also, you're darn right about me lovin' freedom! How do you feel about freedom, George? Is it burdening you?
So, clearly, these people need to be saved from themselves, preferably by rugged individuals who've done mighty battle with their own "brainwashing" and are now free of the yoke of fast food. People who just plain know what's best.
That's your opinion, Snert, but in the real world. when society acts in various ways to discourage bad lifestyles, it works. Too many examples to bother writing them down. But how about this:
According to 2004 StatsCan data, the prevalence of obese and overweight children in Quebec is lower than in the rest of Canada. Children in Quebec also eat more fruits and vegetables and less fast food than children in provinces where industry essentially polices itself when it comes to advertising to children.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Oddly enough, Snert worries about the State "parenting" us but he doesn't seem at all worried about what the corporations are doing to us (something much worse than parenting!) Even more oddly, he regards this exploitation/destruction as "freedom"! Well, certainly it is freedom for the corporations!
I find that a bit iffy. I would prefer labelling of them, and letting buyers decide (same with high fructose corn syrup) but I expect that, as I suggested, many people wouldn't care, and would go ahead and buy such products anyway.
I care. I like public health care and think we should keep costs for taxpayers as low as possible. If people want to eat recreationally, let them do it without the long-term artery cloggers and carcinogens. They'll never miss them in a taste test.
Why bother with state-imposed communistic prevention, when a cure is readily available?
Obese teens offered surgery option
The question of whether a problem is caused by bad individual choices or by systemic flaws is not something that is limited to the issue of obesity.
With respect to obesity and countless other problems, many consider any focus on individual choice as being anathema to being "progressive". The "Puritan work ethic" and the concepts of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" and "personal responsibility" grate on the ears of many like nails on a chalkboard.
To them, individuals suffer principally, if not exclusively, because of systemic problems (e.g., the free market, the profit motive, greedy taxpayers, "the rich," private property rights, a variety of "-isms," etc.) which can only be solved by systemic solutions, which are engineered, promulgated, and enforced by government bureaucrats.
I think a very significant (but not necessarily the primary) driver of much of that approach is by people who personally benefit from the existence of systemic solutions: Government employees as well as people employed by non-profits who support governmental solutions, because if there must be big, systemic solutions, then there must also be a massive number of people employed to create and put those solutions into effect (the federal government alone in the U.S., for example, employs about two million non-military bureaucrats). And, even before that, there are people employed to advocate for the adoption of new systemic solutions.
So, if there was any admission that "personal choice" was part of the solution to any particular problem, then that would threaten the jobs of those who rely on problems being addressed solely by systemic solutions.
But, as significant as that may be, I think that repeatedly denying the importance the role "personal choice" plays in many social ills makes solving those problems almost impossible. If obese people, for example, are convinced by the advocates of systemic solutions that personal choice is not that important or that their problem simply cannot be resolved without a systemic solution, then many of those people will take no responsibility, and take no personal action, to help themselves - when such personal effort is, in fact, critical to solving their problem. Instead, it becomes: "Woe is helpless me - because it's someone else's fault."
And, like I said, this is not limited to the issue of obesity.
You got fired from your job? Well, it must have been "management's" fault or because you're not in a union shop - it could never be the fact that you're always late, continuously producing sub-standard work, and always trying to get others to pick up your share of the work.
You're failing in school? Huh. It must be that the school's fault. The fact that you spend hours every day playing video games instead of cracking open your books couldn't possibly be the cause of your failure. Instead, the school needs more money - that is "the solution"!!!
In reality, many problems require a combination of systemic solutions and personal initiative. If a society has poor roads and a virtually non-existent transportation infrastructure, even Herculean personal efforts will not result in a competitive economy. If laws don't prohibit hiring and firing for discriminatory reasons, both society and the individuals effected by those discriminatory actions will suffer.
So, if people are genuinely interested in solving problems, then they must admit the critical role that individual choice plays in causing those problems.
If people want to eat recreationally, let them do it without the long-term artery cloggers and carcinogens. They'll never miss them in a taste test.
I suppose you better ban alcohol, drugs, and tobacco while you're at it, too, no?
That's great, but they're kids. We're stepping in because they're children. I think children, by definition, need to be protected by adults. Adults shoudn't require the same, unless they're cognitively child-like or some similar.
It's freedom for all of us. A corporation is free to say "Hey, buy our quadruple cheese explosion-burger" and you and I are free to say "no thanks". How is this kind of freedom not good, Rosa? Is your own freedom to say "no thanks" just not working out for you? Do you really NEED the state to address this offer of a quadruple cheese explosion-burger on your behalf? Or are you doing OK with saying No, but you'd like the state to intervene on everyone else's behalf, in case they don't also say No?
That's great, but they're kids. We're stepping in because they're children. I think children, by definition, need to be protected by adults. Adults shoudn't require the same, unless they're cognitively child-like or some similar.
Two questions, then:
1. Do you agree with a total ban on all commercial advertising targeting children?
2. Should adults be allowed to drive automobiles not fitted with seat belts and airbags?
[According to 2004 StatsCan data, the prevalence of obese and overweight children in Quebec is lower than in the rest of Canada. Children in Quebec also eat more fruits and vegetables and less fast food than children in provinces where industry essentially polices itself when it comes to advertising to children.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
I wonder how much of that is due to the limits on advertising and how much of it is cultural. Quebec, in many ways, has a very European culture to it whereas the rest of Canada is more heavily influenced by America. Obviously, European diet and exercise habits are fat better than those in America and the population over there tends to be much healthier.