Tuesday, February 23, 2010
The obesity challenge
Today I was watching a very interesting program on the cable channel Biography about George Lucas. A lot of it was old footage of the development of his early films like American Graffiti (1973) and Star Wars (1977). Lots of fun to watch. However, the old clips of 37 years ago showed how thin he was in his 20s, a beanpole really . . . and how heavy he is now. Not obese by Columbus standards, but certain chunky. Plump. Chubby. I wonder what the government can do about this. Michelle, the CDC, hundreds of foundations and non-profits, all sorts of government grant money are being thrown at this problem. And he's not poor. Not a minority. He's rich, got health care. Gosh. Won't that skew the stats? JAMA is reporting that the government is so impressed by what it's been able to do with taxing cigarettes (although since it's been taxing tobacco for 360 years I'm not sure it's all that successful and hurts primarily the poor), that it wants to use the same methods for fighting obesity that it has used for fighting nicotine. I guess you won't be able to eat with anyone else in the room. Second hand calories, you know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Nov. 13, 2008 -- The percentage of Americans who smoke cigarettes has fallen below 20% for the first time since at least the mid-1960s, according to a new report....
...The CDC says cigarette smoking prevalence has been dropping steadily among Americans 18 and older since it began keeping records in 1965, when 42.4% smoked. The proportion dropped below 30% for the first time in 1987, when 28.8% of Americans smoked.
"We think the proportion is dropping because of excise taxes that make cigarettes more expensive, smoke-free laws [that apply to most workplaces], and the availability of counseling and medications," McKenna says.
Would you please provide a link to support your assertion that JAMA reports a plan by "the government" to tax obesity? Thanks in advance.
Here is a recent JAMA article for your reading pleasure (please excuse the fact that it's not in any proper citation style; all the info is there if you really want to locate it):
Promoting Health Through Tobacco Taxation
Mohammed K Ali, Jeffrey P Koplan | JAMA ( Chicago ) | 2010-01-27303:4, | 357
Yes, that's the article I was reading, on top of many others (JAMA is very politically left even as it supports itself by advertising from big pharma). It's Jan. 27, 2010, and usually public libraries carry JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association, but its official title has been JAMA since 1959).
Yes, Norma, I know what JAMA is. Thanks, Deep River. I'm not a subscriber (nor willing to pay for online access) and I'm blowing town tomorrow, so no time for a trip to the library today. No abstract is available and the 150 words I can get refer only to tobacco taxation. Since you appear to have it on hand, would you mind excerpting for me the passage in which it's explicitly asserted that "the government" (I assume Norma refers to the U.S. federal government) "wants to use the same methods [taxation] for fighting obesity"? Many thanks.
p. 358: "Progress in tobacco control can be instructive in designing interventions for other public health challenges such as the current epidemic of obesity." . . . yada yada. . .waffles here about whether the public is ready for "calorie taxes". Cites some polls. . . the support for sugar taxes (beverages). Then moves on to. . ."More than 40 years of experience in tobacco control has shown that using multiple complementary health promotion policies and approaches, INCLUDING TAXATION, can be effective in improving the population's health, but doing so requires an educated public supporting and encouraging the actions of elected officials and regulators."
There are so many loaded words in this article, it's almost mind boggling.
And when Yes, etc. blows back into wherever she lives, they can get it for you on ILLOAN if they don't have a copy on the shelf.
But this certainly isn't the first time I've read this in JAMA, and I think reference #1 is a bit suspicious. It cites stats from a marajuana legalization web site.
The lead author's credentials, MBChB, an undergrad degree, mean he's from the UK. Also has a MSc, and his field is "global inequities in health." If you google him, you'll find he is an Obama fan who promotes spreading the wealth globally in his other articles.
"He," not "she," Norma. It looks as though you took some rather large liberties in your statement. Did I say "took liberties"? I meant "told lies." Nothing you quoted remotely supports the bald statement: "JAMA is reporting that the government is so impressed by what it's been able to do with taxing cigarettes...that it wants to use the same methods for fighting obesity."
You've got some PI, not employed by the U.S. government (I feel certain you would have said so in all caps had that been the case), possibly living in another country and clearly focusing on international health issues, suggesting that he thinks taxation of obesity-contributing factors is worth considering. That's it. Unless you can come up with something in that paper stating that that Da (U.S.) Guvmint (a monolithic entity to you, apparently) is actually taking action toward doing this, you're going to have to back off your clearly false statement. You may believe this is where things are leading, you may quake in your bed at night picturing the imagined future perfidies of the Obama administration, but you have seriously misrepresented the facts as they stand here and now. Should we assume that you play as fast and loose with ethics in all your posts?
Somehow, I thought you'd make that charge--that the article doesn't specifically say "the government." But, I thought, why not just let the lefty call me a liar? But it might get a little tedious to go into all the HHS and USDA funding that fritters money (our tax money) on controlling, punishing and cajolling what, where and how we eat, and indirectly attacks any food related industry as evil while simultaneously supporting the very products with tax subsidies it is attacking. Same old same old. Support the tobacco farmers, tax the product, tax the middle man, tax the consumer, set the regulations, demonize the product, payoff the lobbyists who develop the product to help the smoker quit who is using the product the government has been taxing for 300+ years. The point is, these articles appear everywhere and they will be the basis for legislation, the snippets on the nightly news, all the prep work that precedes the legislation, local, state and federal.It will be called "research," "studies," and "everyone knows." They will be used to provide the tax breaks to companies that will eventually require a certain level of BMI for employees. No, Twinkies won't become illegal. It will be done through regulation and tax incentives, just as it is with tobacco.
Post a Comment