In sweeping war on obesity, Chile slays Tony the Tiger

[Cairycat]

This is from today's New York Times. I'll post the link at the bottom, since it's ungodly long.

In the last two years, Chile has enacted sweeping food laws aimed at changing the eating habits of 18 million people, hoping to prevent premature deaths from diabetes and other consequences of obesity.

Nutrition experts say the measures are the world’s most ambitious attempt to remake a country’s food culture, and could be a model for how to turn the tide on a global obesity epidemic that researchers say contributes to four million premature deaths a year.

“It’s hard to overstate how significant Chile’s actions are — or how hard it has been to get there in the face of the usual pressures,” said Stephen Simpson, director of the Charles Perkins Centre, an organization of scholars focused on nutrition and obesity science and policy. The multibillion dollar food and soda industries have exerted those pressures to successfully stave off regulation in many other countries.

Since the food law was enacted two years ago, it has forced multinational behemoths like Kellogg to remove iconic cartoon characters from sugary cereal boxes and banned the sale of candy like Kinder Surprise that use trinkets to lure young consumers. The law prohibits the sale of junk food like ice cream, chocolate and potato chips in Chilean schools and proscribes such products from being advertised during television programs or on websites aimed at young audiences.

The linchpin of the initiative is a new labeling system that requires packaged food companies to prominently display black warning logos in the shape of a stop sign on items high in sugar, salt, calories or saturated fat.

They also added an 18 percent tax on soda. One thing that has happened is than manufacturers have changed their products, so they have fewer or no warning logos. This echoes American manufacturers changing products for school lunches to fit new nutrition guidelines. I think manufacturers will step up and make less harmful products, but not without being forced. In the US, the companies use their money and influence to say that regulations are too restrictive, people should be free to make unhealthy choices, etc. etc. but I think there is good in taxing or restricting products. Eating habits are deeply ingrained and can take a long time to change, people who want that change should have some help.

And I do think there's a lot of room for debate on changing laws to change adults' eating habits. There's less room for debate when it comes to marketing unhealthy products for kids, I think. Taking the cartoon characters off cereal boxes reminds me of when R J Reynolds company had to quit using Joe Camel to advertise Camel cigarettes. I would strongly argue for restrictions on food for children, because a lot of the predilection for unhealthy food comes from patterns set in childhood.

Here's the link to the article: (it may be faster to go to the Health Section of the NYT and click on the article. Ironically, there's also an article about how the new FDA chief is trying to support both industry and public health.) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/health/obesity-chile-sugar-regulations.html?

[Blue_Adept]

1. You only need the text before the ? in the link

The rest is tracking information.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/health/obesity-chile-sugar-regulations.html

[Cairycat]

2. Thank You! n/t

[OnDoutside]

3. That's ggggggreat !