Enough to make you sick

[Gob]

Would this work? I have my doubts..

GRAPHIC adverts similar to pictures on cigarette packets could be used on junk food as a desperate measure to curb the obesity epidemic.

The stomach-churning ads would be modelled on those overseas depicting damaged organs or people drinking body fat or shovelling down sugar sachets, in the hope they would make burgers or soft drinks less tempting.

The Australian Medical Association says campaigns promoting healthy eating and exercise have failed and shock tactics are needed.

''There is no doubt that obesity is going to overtake smoking as the major killer for Australians,'' AMA federal president Dr Andrew Pesce said. ''We have been campaigning against smoking for 30 years and are starting to see smoking rates decrease. Obesity is our next target.''

The AMA's Victorian branch has led the way, calling for the $25 million advertising blitz in its submission on the next state budget.

It wants a campaign modelled on New York City health department ads, which show diners drinking body fat and downing sachets of sugar. It warned just one sugary soft drink a day over a year could make a person up to five kilograms heavier and increase the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

The AMA proposes ads that graphically show the damage excess fat does to the body, similar to anti-smoking commercials.

Weight management specialist Rick Kausman warned the plan could cause anxiety and distress for those battling obesity.

''People already feel judged and shamed and if we pour more of that on top of then it's just going to make the situation worse,'' Dr Kausman said.

''People will turn off and not listen or feel worse about themselves.''

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbei ... 19cix.html

[@meric@nwom@n]

I don't know. Before I became a nurse I was a terrible nail biter. After seeing what my hands got into, even gloved, I quit cold turkey. So I think some aversion therapy might work.

[rubato]

Aversive techniques work. I don't like them personally because of the element of manipulation involved; it shows a lack of respect for the autonomy of the average person. But I don't have a fixed idea about where that boundary ought to be.

But the all-time most effective anti-smoking ads on television in California were the ones showing the tobacco executives lying to congress; people respond to being made chumps of and change their behavior as a result.

Pete Wilson (Republican Governor) pulled the ads when his tobacco exec buddies complained that lying to the people of the United States was one thing but having it shown on TV every night was another.

yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

Possibly, this display at the gym, always makes me go 'Ick, I've got to get this of my thighs...'





The center mound is said to be 5lbs. of fat!


OTOH Some people still can go into complete denial. Renee Williams, the half ton mom, spouts all kinds of excuses in her video;

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7ajdr ... man_people

"My stomach has always been flat... "

[Lord Jim]

Here's a question...

Are there no limits to which the government can go in compelling the manufacturers and retailers of legal products to make their wares as unappealing as possible?

It's one thing to require nutritional information....

Another matter altogether to require producers to pay for discouraging people from consuming their products...

Obesity is our next target.''

And what will be the next "target"?

[@meric@nwom@n]

Hopefully stupidity.

[Big RR]

Can't argue with your point Jim; there should be limits. And FWIW, I think a lot of the aversion techniques backfire, much as the bandstand ones did in the past. Like it or not, I think a lot of people just say, "No one's going to manipulate me"; I never really smoked cigarettes (at least regularly), but I do recall that every Great American smokeout day I used to go and enjoy a cigarette with every friend and coworker (when one could smoke in offices) who smoked; I even recall telling one coworker "Quit any day except today". I'm certain I'm not alone.

[dgs49]

There is no easy solution.

We have an immense industry of food providers whose bottom line depends on people finding their food delicious and "addictive." The most unhealthy foods are probably soda, candy, and salty snacks, but they are all delicious and relatively inexpensive. There will never be any meaningful government action that would significantly harm this "industry."

Would you rather have an apple or a candy bar? A glass of water or a glass of Pepsi? Or a beer?

And most people do not have the ambition to make an exercise program a part of their lives. It takes time and effort, and it is oh so easy to make excuses. I know for a fact that I could take $500 cash around my neighborhood and buy $20 thousand worth of dusty, un-used exercise equipment.

Honestly, the best hope for a solution is through pharmaceuticals. Drugs to kill your hunger or make you food averse. Drugs to help metabolize food quicker, or to block absorption of sugars and fat.

I am heavier now than I have been in ten years, and my wife, though still a healthy weight, is heavier than ever before in her life. And we work out four times a week. We just eat too, too much. Because all this junk is really good.

But it's New Year's Resolution time, eh?

[Gob]

And what will be the next "target"?

Rap music.

Fat people wearing sports clothing.

People who use mobile phones at the supermarket..

[Big RR]

Well Gob, get to work; step 1 is to make any of those as a significant health crisis which threatens civilization as we know it.

[Gob]

Rap music is.

[loCAtek]

Unhealthy, dgs49? Or just in the amounts we consume them in today?

Sugars and salts, were once hard to come by, yet vital to the diet, and therefore were highly sought after as rare, hard won, treats. Now-a-days, we 'reward' ourselves frequently with these treats, (hard-wired to believe they're beneficial to us) to the point they take over our normal diets.

Somebody stop the evolutionary cycle, I wanna get off!

[rubato]

Education, applied with persistence and patience has cut the smoking rate in California from 26% to 13%. The most difficult addiction to get rid of.

It can easily do the same for obesity.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

And the question remains, "what's next?"

[rubato]

Reducing the rate of smoking is entirely a good thing. Reducing the rate of obesity is as well.

Although I have to say, coming from the very body-conscious Pacific Coast that I have never seen the type of really obscene obesity which is common in Portland and east of the Rocky mountains anywhere around here.

In the larger sense these are educational problems which respond well to better public education. No one wants to look like a whale, die at 47 from self-inflicted heart disease, or be physically repulsive to their life partners any more than people want to be on O2 support from COPD due to smoking.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

So do we draw the line at anti smoking smoking and obesity ads? Or will something else come along, alcoholism for starters, then move on to more obscure "afflictions" that someone takes offense to?

[loCAtek]

Well, no one is physically stopped in their behavior. They are just educated as to what it can lead to ...and then the choices are theirs.

[Big RR]

Educated, or scared? It seems that the latest anti smoking campaigns go over the top to gross out and scare people. I don't see that as education.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Scare you into learning. Sounds like the Catholic grammar school I went to.

[Big RR]

That's really true, it's scare you into accepting their beliefs/version of the story unquestioningly. When questions are raised the answer is, how stupid can you be? Don't you see it plainly?