Michael Tennant wrote a blog on infowars.com about how globalists are feeding off the obesity crisis. Very interesting and overall a great blog, and I absolutely agree with him on most parts: yes, more awareness is needed, health should be promoted, and it is indeed it’s ridiculous that unhealthy processed foods are cheaper than healthy fresh vegetables and fruits.
I am wondering, though, if his suggestions regarding the aspect “Putting Government on a Diet” are really worthwhile. Why should the government “[get out of] making dietary recommendations“? Say what? He argues that “if governments no longer issued dietary guidelines, people would be forced to seek out nutrition information from a variety of sources whose biases are known instead of treating the state’s lobbyist-influenced word on the subject as gospel. This would create more informed consumers who would be less likely to accept claims that, e.g., anything labeled “fat-free” is automatically better for them than an equivalent product containing butter.” Really. More informed consumers? His argument is based on the assumption that the consumers are eager for nutritional information, and that if they do not get it from the government, they will go and search themselves. I do not believe that is going to happen with the ones that are most suffering from obesity. If they had been concerned with their diet, they would have never been eating all the food containing high amounts of fat and sugar in the first place. These people need help, from the government. I also doubt the beneficial effect of his last proposed change to “[g]et the government out of healthcare, too.” His argument that “[a]s long as healthcare costs are socialized, individuals have much less incentive to take care of their own bodies than they would if they had to pay for their own medical treatment. By the same token, when the government is heavily involved in healthcare, it has a strong incentive to take control of individuals’ lives so as to minimize its own costs — one of the main reasons for the push for command-and-control solutions to the obesity problem.” I agree with him to some extent – it would indeed give people a financial reason to pay more attention to their health. But I doubt if they would consider the option of eating healthier. I do not believe those habits can be changed, because they are not capable of seeing the long-term benefits. Perhaps I am more focusing my mind on the effects of such changes when being implemented in emerging countries instead of America, as, as far as I know, there is no well-organized social health care system in Mexico and even with the lack of this social welfare (as Tennant proposes for America) Mexico has (one of) the leading prevalence(s) of obesity. And of course, not to mention the other impacts of such intervention on health in America? What about the costs of other health-related problems that an individual is unable to afford without a social system?
I might be slowly wandering off topic now though, so enough about this. Hope I’ve managed to give you slightly more insight into my thoughts about this aspect.