To think 'big food' industry is to blame for the obesity epidemic, not individuals?

[aintnothinbutagstring]

When I read on MN, and when I talk to people IRL, there's an underlying attitude to obesity that it is all down to willpower, or lack of, and individual choice over whether to be fat or thin. If we all tried a little harder and were disciplined, everyone could be their ideal weight.

I recently got on to reading some books on processed food, they are not new concepts, the ideas have been around a while. Lots of scientists and MDs from the US, where the obesity epidemic is a little further down the road than in the UK, have written about the addictive nature of processed food, books such as 'Wheat Belly', 'The Dorito Effect', Robert Lustig has done many talks on it. In the UK, Joanna Blythman has wrote quite a bit on the UK food industry.

Some have linked processed food to activating dopamine receptors in the brain so it works like other addictions. Yet cannot escape it once we walk into a supermarket, most of what is for sale there is very highly processed food. It's all sugar, salt, wheat, the bad fats (processed oils like rapeseed, not natural fats which are healthy). Flavours created by amazing scientists so you'd rather eat the flavour chemicals than the actual food.

Yet we are telling obese people, some of whom may be using food addiction to deal with past trauma, lifestyle stress etc, 'it is your choice, what you eat, you need to try harder, have more self respect, more willpower'.

I see obese people now as 'you are a victim of 'big food', the companies (only a handful of global billion pound companies) that produce and cleverly advertise and use supermarkets to sell this highly refined, highly addictive processed food'. If they were educated and told it's not their fault, they might decide they don't want to play the 'big food' game anymore.

ClaryFray

‘I think blaming the companies is the easy option. Yes it's convenient but we all have a choice.’

I don’t agree it’s an easy option. I actually think it’s easier for society to blame individuals because then we as a society don’t need to do anything about it “cause they are just lazy with no willpower so let them rot” attitude. Although this will bite back in the end with massive costs to healthcare amongst other things.

If it's so easy to change big companies, why hasn't achieved it already?

Junk food has and always will be cheaper for people to eat than healthy foods or food you have to cook and prepare yourself.

It's down to individual needs. We spend a fortune food shopping and still go back in once if not twice a week buying more fresh fruit or veg to make sure we are all eating as healthy as can be. I'm no saint though when it comes to food but I do try and make the right choices for myself and my family.

We need to stop nannying adults in society and make people far more responsible for their own choices

How are people not already responsible for their own choices? As you pointed out, nobody is forcing them to eat junk food. Neither is the 'nanny state* preventing them from eating themselves into an early grave. So how are they not responsible? Fighting against your own human nature (especially if you already have a difficult life or past traumas) is really really difficult. Reducing the huge power and influence of massive corporations to prey on people's normal human fallibility is not nanny state-ism imo.

@lljkk although I agree changing big companies isn’t easy and we need to address multiple factors (research out there suggests instead of focusing solely on making junk food more expensive, we need to also make healthier foods more convenient and affordable, and to educate people about them) the point is we need to try and not take the easy route of blaming individuals- this will have bad consequences for all of us - increased tax, overwhelmed healthcare and countries productivity. Public Health, and policy have a big role to play.

wafflyversatile posted:

"Defenbaker how do you think that culture of snacking and grazing came about? Just from nowhere? Or because parents now, just from nowhere, have different brains from parents of the past?"

@wafflyversatile I'm not sure how that change came about, but I think it's been a gradual change influenced by many factors. I've noticed that there has been a huge sea change in the overall attitude towards children, over the past 30 years or so. A lot of parents seem to be less strict and more indulgent with their children, so perhaps that's a factor. The constant barage of adverts for fast food and snacks certainly doesn't help. It must be very hard for parents who are trying to keep their children on a healthy diet, with temptations all around, and other children constantly snacking everywhere.

You can change big companies by lobbying them and moving your money elsewhere.
They only sell what people buy.

So many people on this thread are claiming that it's all down to choice and personal responsibility. The thing that confuses me then, is how are human beings so radically different to a generation ago? As a pp said, humans don't evolve that quickly.

People in affluent London boroughs are, statistically, slimmer than people living in deprived UK towns. Did Londoners just "choose" to be slim? Do they have greater willpower, are they morally superior? Or could there be other factors at play? If so, how could we replicate the same scenario everywhere?

@unoeufisunoeuf1 Many people living in affluent parts of London are well educated, high earners, who had better life chances from the start - hence they might be happier and more satisfied in life, and therefore be less inclined to comfort eat. Or, maybe they are working in such highly pressurised environments they burn off a lot of nervous energy? Also, I know many young professionals who go to the gym, as they are very ambitious and image conscious.

Yes @unoeufisunoeuf1

The people on this thread saying that it’s just personal choice can’t adequately explain (so far) the difference in obesity levels in countries and generations. They can’t point to any research proving that it’s simply personal choice (and dismiss research to the contrary) and most importantly they don’t offer any solutions to help the problem. Ironically some posters criticise blame culture while themselves blaming overweight individuals. Simplistic thinking at it’s worst. It’s seems fat people are one of the last groups of people it’s ok to blame and shame.

The thing about bringing snacks to the playground when picking kids up; is that a common thing now? Is that instead of a snack when they get home or as well as?

I ask because I dont have DC and I really dont remember that happening when I was a kid in the 90s. So wondering if snack culture has increased.

People used to eat dinner a lot earlier in the UK. We had family dinner by 5.30pm, latest. So no need for a snack. If we weren't eating until much later we would have. I seem to recall the French have late dinners and 'goûter' in the mid afternoon. Actually posh folk would have had afternoon tea to tide them over until high tea. So perhaps the quality and nutrition of what's eaten is a bigger deal than a post-school snack?

Surely that's like blaming OW for men cheating on wives. It's available and attractive, so they cant be expected to control themselves. What happened to personal responsibility?

If alcohol/drugs/sex were the only reason for addictions, then every person who took them would be an addict. Some people use restraint and make a decision to employ moderation. Obviously some people are genetically more predisposed, but I don't believe you can put the entire issue on the free availability of the product.

A lot of people on MN do blame the OW though. How they are fuming with her etc whilst trying to patch it up with their darling prick.

""Defenbaker how do you think that culture of snacking and grazing came about? Just from nowhere? Or because parents now, just from nowhere, have different brains from parents of the past?""

If you look at adverts for chocolate bars you can see the role of advertising. It used to be taboo to eat between meals so adverts started by showing that the snack wasn't too big to spoil your appetite e.g. 'a finger of fudge is just enough' and the snacks gradually got bigger. The programme I linked to earlier mentioned the double chocolate bars, ostensibly to be shared with someone else or half kept for the next day, but most people just eat the whole thing themselves.

'Maltesers, the chocolate you can eat between meals without ruining your appetite.' Anyone remember that?

But if we are all helpless victims to “Big Food” how come do many are able to not eat MXDs, Maltesers etc just fine?

Or even eat them, just occasionally, and be fine?

Is telling obese people that their weight is outside their control as they are powerless victims helpful?

I don’t think it’s true (;everyone being a victim) or helpful

These sort of threads are just a mountain of excuses for people to not even try

Fine. Their choice. People are free to eat what they choose and be as big as they like. But it still is a choice.

"I don’t think it’s true"

You don't think we live in an obesogenic culture? You don't think the general diet has changed in the last decades?

Yes, of course, some people are more affected by it than others, but that doesn't take away the influence of the environment.

If you think it's all about the individual, you have to explain varying rates of overweight in different countries.

‘ But if we are all helpless victims to “Big Food” how come do many are able to not eat MXDs, Maltesers etc just fine?’

We’re not ALL helpless victims that’s the whole point, some people (because actually everyone is different believe it or not) are more influenced by environment, some live in an environment with more fast food, some people get more addicted to it, some are less educated on what is healthy, different upbringing, different genetic factors, socio-economic status - a lot of poorer towns in the U.K. have higher obesity levels- why do you think that is? If we address the complex factors behind obesity we can start to put things in place to help people. How is just blaming people helping them? It’s just fuelling it’s further.

"But if we are all helpless victims to “Big Food” how come do many are able to not eat MXDs, Maltesers etc just fine?

Or even eat them, just occasionally, and be fine?"

I can have a drink, and then stop easily, even with a lot of social pressure that normalises drinking as "what you do when you're out with friends".

Does this mean that alcoholics are just people who don't even try, and that I just have better self control?
Or does it mean that I simply dont have the physical tendency towards alcoholism or any of the issues that tend to lead to an increased chance of it?

I've smoked a few cigarettes and am not a smoker, I've had a few drinks and am not an alcoholic, I'm not a better more worthy person than alcoholics or smokers, and thin people aren't better than fat people.

This thread is such a good example of why nobody can agree what the problem is.

There are multiple factors and will power is one of them and environment and social factors are another.

It was interesting on another thread about "Weird things from your childhood" how food culture has changed in the last 30 years or so.
When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s - food was quite dull, it was quite expensive, you hardly ever ate out or bought food ready made from shops. Most people didn't have loads of snacks in the house. People took packed lunches or ate hot dinners in work canteens. You didn't eat between meals or spoil your dinner because that waste of food would have really mattered.

Now food is both cheaper (artificially perhaps) and much better choice of it. I mean packed sandwiches, meal deals, Starbucks (including muffins), really nice ready meals. Even if processed it's affordable and pretty palatable. The level of temptation, cultural expectation to eat and snack all the time, and the convenience of it is massively increased.

If there had been a national plan to fatten us all up, they would have done very well at it. Make food cheap, tempting and promote opportunities to eat everywhere.

Possibly but alot of us have very sedentary lifestyles as well which doesn't help

Yes, add that in too. We are basically just heading to be those people on the space ship in Wall-E.

I would agree that what is more notable is how many people are not overweight considering the odds are stacked against us.

Many of us certainly have an unhealthy relationship with food. And once you have a weight issue it's hard to escape. Dieting usually leads to short term results and more weight put on in time. Food is used to comfort or as reward etc. And unlike alcohol or drugs you can't go cold turkey.

People make their own choices