So much of it relates to consumption, and no one makes money from people eating less. People however make money from pushing gym memberships or active wear or supplements.

Everywhere from restaurants to supermarkets to chocolate bar companies to fast food all make more money if you eat more. There's no incentive to advertise eating less.

You don't see restaurants advertising smaller or even reasonable portions - it's always giant burgers or steaks or monstrous pizzas. In fact, it's a regular critique of fancy restaurants that they have tiny, considered portions. So, people instead eat until they're well-beyond sated. Day after day.

Oh? What should we do?

Stop subsidizing junk food. Stop advertising junk food to children (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food). Subsidize healthy foods. Tax sugary drinks. Do you want more?

> (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food).

Those two things are pretty much completely unrelated. It is certainly bad for children to be exposed to deliberate behavior-mabipulation efforts pushing unhealthy food choices, but that's not in any way related to whether or not it's bad for them to hear words currently viewed as naughty.

I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads. Same thing. Nobody can talk about first amendment or other concerns.

> I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads.

That's even more wrong than the more literal version: restricting unpopular words takes zero political courage and has very little difficulty (and, in fact, provides political cover for advertiser-friendly actions commercial outlets would be inclined to take on their own.)

Banning advertisement that established moneyed interests engage in, OTOH, faces actual political difficulty.

Legally it's possible. The only thing that's missing is courage.

Also stop normalising excessive portion sizes.

There's no evidence any of this actually works, and most people aren't interested in a government that tries to dictate what they should eat.

Corn is being subsidized right now. This means that the government is dictating already what to eat. At a minimum get rid of subsidies.

> There's no evidence any of this actually works,

There's plenty of evidence that taxing a product reduces demand for that product

> and most people aren't interested in a government that tries to dictate what they should eat.

That's true, but it just underscores the ancestor comment: Social acceptance can make most any evil the norm. People accept that the government should regulate what we drink and smoke, but not what we eat - this is partly due to cultural acceptance of obesity

People accept that the government should regulate what other people drink and smoke. The smoking prohibitions didn't come into effect until the number of smokers was small enough they couldn't stop them, and alcohol prohibition was always the cause of teetotalers and ex-alcoholics.

Yes. But as things are going it's going to be a long time before over weight ppl are the minority. It's also not politically correct to talk about such things.

Thanks Oprah.

Agreed. We've normalized the abnormal. Furthermore, it's not PC to mention, even in passing, that someone is hurting themselves, and in a social sense others as well.

Long to short...we want healthcare as a right, but zero responsibility related to that right (i.e., personal health). This isn't working out well.

Perhaps. But the irony of this statement is the gov's food pyramid is a direct contributor to the current obesity epidemic. It's too heavy on carbs, and too light on fats.

That's true.

Eat less.

calories in vs. calories out in around 99% of cases.