Really the government doesn't know enough about nutritional science. Neither do the scientists it seems. Nor can we trust the companies. Not sure who to trust.
Ordering water when you're out (in America) is often viewed as being cheap. I just prefer water, and not bottled water (it's bad for the environment). Even many waiters may treat you worse for ordering water (since they are paid by meal cost / commission).
Our social norms suck.
Part of the problem is that it becomes a standard part of many meals.
It's not like the obese don't know they're obese and unhealthy; the problem is that it's really hard to fix, there's way too much misinformation out there, and for most people most weight loss approaches don't work. There is still a lot of fundamental research to be done to understand obese metabolisms and how to manipulate them so the body doesn't fight back against weight loss.
I can decide if I want to drive to McDonald's or to the grocery store to buy some vegetables or other healthy ingredients to prepare a more balanced meal. The first is obviously easier and kinda more convenient but if you look at what it does to your health then maybe not so convenient at all.
What I'm trying to say is that for example I used to love Coke and even drank some for breakfast. I'm not the typical coffee addicted developer but I pumped myself with energy drinks instead. After my brother forced me to get my sugar levels throughly checked this year I saw that I was close to be diagnosed with diabetes and figured that there is no other way than to change my diet.
Presumably for the same reason you drank too much sugary drinks, there was an immediate reward and you didn't comprehend the long term effects i.e. it wasn't an informed decision. I doubt that the doctor was very surprised with the outcome.
The latest episode of americas test kitchen radio touches on this topic and while I don't agree with everything they do have some good points.
Reminds me of this story: http://time.com/3051380/dubai-gold-children-weight-loss/
> "Your Child in Gold" program will award two grams of gold for every kilogram (2.2 pounds) a child manages to shed over two months.
Unfortunately your idea of disparaging the "clinically overweight" is based on arbitrary BMI cutoffs that are poorly chosen. Recent studies have shown that overall health outcomes (ie, not just heart-disease numbers) are actually better for "overweight" people than those of "normal" weight. And BMI does not scale with height correctly, so it imposes a much stricter standard of what's "healthy" on someone who's 6'3" as opposed to someone who's 5'3". The ratings for what's "normal" also do not take into account age or sex, much less things like frame size.
BMI was devised because height and weight are numbers that have been collected in medical records and studies for decades, whereas the other factors are far less likely to have been recorded at all. So while BMI is often used as a tool for doing large-scale historical research or research across large population groups, that's simply because BMI is a number we can easily figure out, and not because it's actually a good indicator of an individual's health.
Would be nice, for those who are overweight as well as those who suffer from the externalities of those who are overweight, for Governments to treat overeating/junk food like it does smoking and drinking - an addiction that should be discouraged through education and disincentives (tax etc.). Some do but it's obviously not effective.
Then there's the popular cultural angle. We disparage magazines, fashion Houses and websites that present clinically underweight models as the standard, the same should be applied for the clinically overweight.