Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
it's not that you're entirely wrong, will--it's just that the position you're arguing is way too simple, and that this is a kinda fucked up thread for a serious discussion on this question because it departs from that loopy faux-news story about the "fat virus"...
|
I dunno. TFP is good at squeezing good conversations out of loopy articles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
when i have some time, i'll see if i can find the study on the supermarket geography in the states, particularly in urban areas---the article i posted to references it and other materials---fact is that peoples's choices are differentially constrained, that it's simply not the case that everyone has the same kind of access to a range of types of food. it simply isn't the case in the united states.
|
I'm not suggesting everyone has the same access to the same food, only that regardless of income and geography, at least in the US, you do have access to at least some healthy options. It's simply a matter of choosing these options on a regular basis.
And exercise, which every able-bodied person has access to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
the problems of supermarkets (you know, mainstream ones) and their intertwining with the industrial food system is another central issue--on that the article above is quite good. and it's good on the consequences of that. again, what folk *can* choose between is differentially constrained--there's no one-size-fits-all explanation.
|
But again I have to ask, can you demonstrate this? Can you demonstrate that there are areas that simply offer absolutely no healthy solutions for food? Even in some of the poorest places in the US, like Detroit, you can still get plenty of canned and frozen produce. Anything from spinach to peas to pears to raspberries, all rich in nutrients and low in harmful stuff like saturated fats and over processed sweeteners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
and this is a global problem. if you look at it in more global terms, the structural features emerge pretty clearly and function to situate--and to a significant extent diminsh the role of--the moral impairment arguments that seem so popular in these threads.
|
If you're talking about the unhealthy foods industrial complex, you're right, it is a global problem, but so far as solutions go, most people have the option of skipping the fried crisps and going with a carrot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
this isn't to say that there are no people whose choices are not the driver behind obesity--but it is to say that you have to think in more complex ways about obesity--and treat it as a social problem---not to fall into the all-too-easy trap of reducing it to one or another version of a matter of "will"---all that's changed from one end of the thread to this one is that the language of that argument has become a bit more polite, and so the space is now not so repellent that folk who oppose that "explanation" are not inclined to provide other information.
|
Wouldn't it make sense to tackle the main causes of obesity first and then move on to more minor causes? You yourself said that the main causes of obesity are simple, quoting the WHO:
Quote:
* a global shift in diet towards increased intake of energy-dense foods that are high in fat and sugars but low in vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients; and
* a trend towards decreased physical activity due to the increasingly sedentary nature of many forms of work, changing modes of transportation, and increasing urbanization.
|
These are the big ones. These are your main contenders for the cause of obesity, whether just in the US or even globally. Knock these out, get people eating healthier foods and moving around more, and then we can move on to the other, more complex, less central causes.