It's when you promote the ideology that focus on the false construct of 'obesity' somehow makes sense, rather than it being a toxic pathology inducing cul-de-sac that circles round and round leading nowhere, acting purely as distraction from real knowledge and better ways.
Barely reading a phoned-in farticle containing the usual, how fat everyone is definitely going to be in a few years hence, because there is not a cat in hells chance that "obesity research" will be interrupting that, in the ever fat phobic guardian.
I was stopped in my hazy tracks by this,
“Like climate change, we know the answers to the obesity crisis. We know that tough policies will need to be implemented, and we know that such policies are challenged by powerful commercial interests. But we have no choice if we hope to meet those 2025 targets.”That's was Tim Lobstein The World Obesity Federation's Director of Policy (lols). Just before that he's quoted as saying,
“Preventing obesity means tough government action to limit the promotion of junk food, especially to children, to ensure healthier food is offered at work, in schools and institutions, and to encourage physical activity through better urban design and transport systems.We of course do not know how to alter metabolic function so it reverses weight and "maintains" that state itself. Cos we can't impose that through the anorexia method.
The article includes the entirely predictable fact that weight is also increasing in developing countries too (the clock is ticking on praising black and brown people for their extremely moral hunger). It's a side effect of progress.
Certainly in Western model countries, a lot of these conditions existed and were undermined or jettisoned during the crusade. Indeed, often using the crusade's folklore of individuals design and make their bodies, to do this. This now looks bad even among the most shameless 'obesity' wallahs.
The "policies" he speaks of have been and gone. They used to be just the way life was. Now he wants to bring them back, despite people chosing to get rid of them/bring them in on the grounds of cost. Either saving money or making it to fill in the cracks of funding cuts.
Now that too many people have washed-up on the rocky shores of a dieting career to sustain that delusion....for a while, it's assumed by slim people that all fat people want is for blame to be directed at someone else, instead of us.
Don't be fooled, that can't happen as long as calorie restriction induced weight loss (CRIWL) is the only way and that is what a lot of this is really all about. Blaming "Big Food" can make little dent in the culture of blaming fat people.
As long as we're expected to starve, we'll be to blame. What would happen if they said, "It's not your 'fault' you're fat" or that "We've deliberately not bothered with any better means to lower weight. But starve anyway."
Whaddya say, self hating fatz, would you be so up for that?
Industrial food has benefited hugely from the 'obesity' crusade and its calories in/out insistence. Not simply due to its money-for-nothing slimming industry that was not only held up and legitimized by the medics/"obesity science" axis, it was saved from going under by the same too.
It's also profited from entering seemingly every nook and cranny of the public environment on the back of weight = "personal responsibility." Bullying and profit motive. Why should fat phobes ever deny themselves?
Blaming industrial food for "causing obesity" is an attempt at window dressing for susceptible fat people. They're actually trying to get us to blame the food industry for doing our bodies to us!!!! The notion that this incredible entity called the human body, one that grows from a speck to yourself or myself, following its own innate pathways is not one to be deemed blameworthy, doesn't compute.
Another pathetic attempt to prop up the legitimacy of CRIWL which can be seen in itself as the supreme avoidance of learning how to tweak metabolic function. Something that's being studiously [geddit] avoided.
The reference to climate change cannot be taken as read or even seriously. 'Obesity' wallahs are always desperate to legitimize their credo, despite saturation acceptance and an eye watering level of hegemony. I swear dictators would not expect this level of adherence.
But it is quite a take down of climate change to raise it in such comparison. The so called "tough action" flies in the face of a lot that is in the economic model. It was obvious which suspects would struggle with the required collective action required to put cals in/out to the fore. Though that wouldn't have stopped fatness it could have at least slowed its course.
Nor would it empowered individuals to regulate their own bodies. Something usually absent from this.
This is not motivated by an anti-capitalist desire to remake society-that's looking at it the wrong way round. Calories in/out makes this "anti-capitalist" head on collision inevitable. Targeting eating must be about curbing those who produce, make and sell food. Whether indirectly through potential customers or directly by government regulation.
It's the same source (ideology). It's not either government regulation, or "personal responsibility". It's find the right way to do it, or don't. What we have now is the latter and what is being proposed is more of that.
Either you suppress aspects of the food business, or you put people out of business. You may say that healthy eating can make lots of money. So what explains industrial food's reluctance? It has bought up and destroyed numerous wholesome products in order to get more milk out of its cashcows.
It is extraordinary that people have been sold a personal problem that's solution requires the co-operation of people whose rampant hostility has been stoked up almost beyond their ready control. One that involves perfecting society along your own lines.
The question is, is this at all the case for proposed policies to fight climate change?
Are we being sold an activist utopia at the expense of the most practical workable, accessible ways that could be discovered?
I hope not.