Obesity National Security Threat?

[SassyLady]

This has been topic of discussion within military for years....




By MIKE ALLEN | 12/13/10 8:52 AM EST

First lady Michelle Obama plans to warn in remarks Monday that the nation is seeing “a groundswell of support” for curbing childhood obesity, and she is unveiling new ammunition from current and retired military leaders.

“Military leaders … tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight,” the first lady says in the prepared remarks, “childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well.

More:


“And from military leaders who tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight, childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well. These folks come at this issue from all different angles. But they’ve come together to support this bill because they know that it’s the right thing to do for our kids. And they know that in the long run, it won’t just save money, it will save lives.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46303.html#ixzz184EXEKzL[/QUOTE]

[logroller]

I agree on the problem this legislation is intended to correct, but I must question what mechanisms are implemented. Mandate, after all, is only as effective as its implementation. This reminds me of the Say no to drugs campaign; which I, having grown up during the eighties, see as a failure. It makes for good news; but the desired impact, being necesarily limited by republican checks of power, seems unobtainable without grassroots policies being developed simultaneously.

Federal money can subsidize all the apples and oranges they want, but so long as vending fat and processed sugars reap windfall profits, the promoting of healthier standards will pale in influence. This influence is rampant in America and has spread to the world stage; Cocacola and mcdonalds are internationally recognized and spending federal funds won't make a difference when corporate monies continue to undermine such attempts. This is obviously double-talk, and the likely result is more government waste. If we want to see real change, we'll need implement mechanisms which reduce spending, both individual and collective, on unhealthy diets. I would purpose an end-user tax or reducing benefits for individuals who've demonstrated obesity; not rewarding such habits with more benefits.

[Nukeman]

Here's a thought. Most obese children come from LOW income houses that are on assistance. Why don't we make it where the assistance does NOT cover any processed foods or candy, soda pop, ice cream, sugary cerel, etc... etc...

The gov't keeps trying to tell EVERYONE what to do when they already have a mechanism in place to start with the greatest number of obese kids.... Why not just regulate what can be bought with assistance money??????

[Noir]

Here's a thought. Most obese children come from LOW income houses that are on assistance. Why don't we make it where the assistance does NOT cover any processed foods or candy, soda pop, ice cream, sugary cerel, etc... etc...

The gov't keeps trying to tell EVERYONE what to do when they already have a mechanism in place to start with the greatest number of obese kids.... Why not just regulate what can be bought with assistance money??????

My thoughts exactly, those on volentary benefits should have little to no choice in their lifestyle IMO.

Edit- Must spread rep, ergo thanks instead.

[Nukeman]

My thoughts exactly, those on volentary benefits should have little to no choice in their lifestyle IMO.

unfortunately we will hear how they are "entitled" to that candy bar or can of soda!!!!!!

[Noir]

unfortunately we will hear how they are "entitled" to that candy bar or can of soda!!!!!!

Indeed, which is why I just have to content myself with telling fatty that if he choses to eat fatty foods they will forever be a fatty.

[Nukeman]

On a side note why does Michelle Obama go after obesity and not smoking?? After all her Husband is a smoker and should be a role model shouldn't he... Can he pick a more disgusting habit to have????

[MtnBiker]

Federal money can subsidize all the apples and oranges they want, but so long as vending fat and processed sugars reap windfall profits, the promoting of healthier standards will pale in influence. This influence is rampant in America and has spread to the world stage; Cocacola and mcdonalds are internationally recognized and spending federal funds won't make a difference when corporate monies continue to undermine such attempts. This is obviously double-talk, and the likely result is more government waste. If we want to see real change, we'll need implement mechanisms which reduce spending, both individual and collective, on unhealthy diets. I would purpose an end-user tax or reducing benefits for individuals who've demonstrated obesity; not rewarding such habits with more benefits.

How does selling a product through a vending constitute windfall profits?

Demonstrate obesity?? great, now we can have a weight scale tax.

[SassyLady]

On a side note why does Michelle Obama go after obesity and not smoking?? After all her Husband is a smoker and should be a role model shouldn't he... Can he pick a more disgusting habit to have????

I was wondering the same thing?

[logroller]

How does selling a product through a vending constitute windfall profits?

Demonstrate obesity?? great, now we can have a weight scale tax.

I used vending in a context referring to the marketing approach used; a technique akin to peddling; sorry for the confusion.

Obesity is measurable -- google it, or talk to a doctor; whichever source you find more credible. Diets rich in saturated fats and processed sugars have been directly linked to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, lost wages and premature death. Many of the products high in fats and processed sugars are already taxed by states and municipalities through sales, so long as they aren't considered groceries or unmodified by service. I would propose adding special taxes to specific items which exceed some arbitrary density of fat/sugar per gross calorie. I'm not saying this will fix everything, but its hard to deny that foods which are denser in the sense I have described, tend to be a cheaper alternative to the same caloric intake of less dense, typically healthier, foods. A tax, therefore, would allocate the quantity produced respecting the external cost of increased obesity, not just that of the market which fails to consider such social costs. Policy considerations aside, that is an economic solution. Respecting policy, it would place the burden of the cost upon those who contribute to the problem, as opposed to an increase in general tax where many are expected to absorb the cost, regardless of contribution to the problem.

To those who mentioned limiting the types of food available to those on gov't assistance---I COULDN'T AGREE MORE!

[Jeff]

On a side note why does Michelle Obama go after obesity and not smoking?? After all her Husband is a smoker and should be a role model shouldn't he... Can he pick a more disgusting habit to have????

Agree 100% Nuke

maybe she is trying to get diet ideas to help get rid of that caboose that follows her around

Seriously Obama wants to Tax Tax Tax the cigarettes and says he is doing so to stop people from smoking, being a rock star and all I think he would do much better by showing the young ppl how he quits