not to speak for him, but people cannot, and should not be babied on the government's dollar. that's essentially making taxpayers pay for the personal choices of others. as far as obesity goes, what business does the government have in mandating dietary regimens and restricting foods? those are personal choices, and no government in the world should want to, or have to, look after every person in their respective country to see if they've been eating like a good boy. it is not only time consuming, it wastes money that could be spent bettering the status of the country in other ways. the freedom to make your own choices comes with being an adult, and as sad as it is, some adults will inevitably find ways to screw up somehow.
It is well within the interests of the government to make sure that the country is being "babied" to an extent and providing action against obesity rates. Health is a huge determining factor within the success of a country as shown by even a simple DTM model, if your country is healthy and it's inhabitants can live longer and work better hours, the GNI and tax toward the government increases. Whilst i understand that you might think that the government shouldn't be "babying" people, it really is in their best interest, especially given the fact that the UK pays money to people with health conditions and already babies people for making bad decisions in the first place.
This is why there is an increasing initiative within the media of the UK to stop the mass advertisation of junk food and unnecessary snacks, whilst the BBC article on Zoella and Archie felt as though it was reaching or grasping at straws, the crux of the matter stands; that is that people buy and want more junk food the more they are exposed to seeing it and tasting it due to how the food itself is designed to work.
I mean, the government can't protect you from yourself and your own bad choices, especially when there isn't actually any bad/objectively bad at all times ever substance there.
Also it's really not that complicated, as countries get richer they are able to eat more difficult to find/make foods which are sometimes better, and you can't transfer that sort of economy because it takes decades to build up and goes away in a minute when mismanaged.
No but the government can put regulations in place that makes sure people are cared for in better ways. I have seen increasing amounts of scoliosis campaigning for children and such, which extends to obesity campaigns and things like that as well. Having increasingly tertiary and quaternary fields of employment discourages exercise and honestly some buildings dont even give the correct amounts of sunlight which is pretty horrifying for an office block.
Back on subject. It has been suggested that the government puts regulations on where store owners and big franchises can put their sugary sweets so that people arent just tempted on the way to the till or checkout, buying more calories than necessary. Not that i think this will be too potent of a change; it's a difficult problem to solve but i dont believe that absolutely nothing can be done, even just added media attention and awareness campaigns would be a step in the right direction.
Also can i just say that you all treat this like "hurr durr these people are just making bad choices" when the reality is that alot of kids in the UK are raised on junk food and continue the lifestyle without knowing any better whatsoever due to the environment they're in, it's really disgusting to have you disregard this as some kind of "bad life choice" when some people are so far from getting the support they need in order to realize how to take care of themselves and be healthier for their own sake.
This is really ranty and probably not that good im sorry.
- Dad likes this