As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/world/asia/junk-food-ban-vanuatu.html?_r=0

by Mz • 9 years ago

129 135 9 years ago

Zak8• 9 years ago

“Can anyone seriously say that Vanuatu doesn’t have the right to exercise its health sovereignty in every way possible to protect its population from an epidemic of that scale?”

I would usually say exactly that. It's up to individuals to make decisions about what they do and do not eat and live with the consequences. Foods that accurately state their nutritional content and contain only ingredients that can be safely eaten in moderation should not be banned under ordinary circumstances because overconsumption is unhealthy. The rate of increase in obesity-related disease, however is astounding and arguably justifies extraordinary measures.

M_Grey2• 9 years ago

I think it has to be filed under, "The constitution is not a suicide pact." No social construct, no system of laws and rights trumps the need to be alive to enjoy them. Given the scale of the problem, they were looking at a situation with an outcome grimmer than most wars. I agree with you, this is extraordinary and requires consummate measures.

Zak8• 9 years ago

I lend a lot of weight to the libertarian non-aggression principle, but I think it's generally a mistake to think about social issues in absolute terms. I really don't like coercion, but the NAP, also shouldn't be a suicide pact.

mirimir2• 9 years ago

Well, that's how I feel about the Drug War :)

But I do wonder what the bloody hell is going on in Vanuatu! Maybe Polynesian populations have metabolic adaptations that don't work with high-sugar diets? It does seem so:[0]

Pacific people (especially Micronesian and Polynesian) have some of the highest rates of obesity and diabetes in the world that largely developed since the introduction of western culture and diet. Recent studies suggest that much of the risk relates to the excessive intake of sugar (sucrose) and carbohydrates, leading to a type of fat storage syndrome (metabolic syndrome). Here we discuss some of the environmental, genetic and epigenetic reasons why this group might be especially prone to developing obesity and diabetes compared to other ethnic groups. Indirect evidence suggests that the higher endogenous uric acid levels in the Polynesian-Micronesian population may represent a predisposing factor for the development of obesity and diabetes in the context of Western diets and lifestyles. Pacific people may be an ideal group to study the role of “thrifty genes” in the pathogenesis of the current obesity epidemic.

That's arguably a good enough reason to ban junk food imports.

0) http://www.fizz.org.nz/sites/fizz.org.nz/files/2%20Fat%20Sto...

nyxtom• 9 years ago

The headline seems a bit sensational given that the actual ban applies to government and tourist establishments. Seems reasonable that any government should be able to setup standards that have only the jurisdiction to apply to their own entities and/or functions. This doesn't prevent individuals from consuming things as they see fit.

" planning to outlaw all imported food at government functions and tourist establishments across the province’s 13 inhabited islands. "

Additionally most of these imported items inherently cost more than local foods in a lot of places anyways so it's not completely out of the norm.

anigbrowl• 9 years ago

If it's up to individuals, can they not also choose to outsource that job to a governmental agency to establish sensible defaults on their behalf? Note I'm not proposing to prevent anyone who really wants to purchase shitty food from purchasing it, but I do think the costs should reflect the externalities.

finid6• 9 years ago

It's up to individuals to make decisions about what they do and do not eat and live with the consequences.

True, but when that level of individual freedom has negative repercussions on the community, the government has to step in. Else the society will cease to be.

Imagine if our (USA) govt allowed us to buy gas (fuel, petrol) with lead in it, ignoring the long term impact of lead in the environment.

Individual freedom is not absolute. An one should not be allowed to engage in habits that harms the community in that fashion. Yes, there are things we can't avoid, but when necessary, the govt has the powers to regulate individual habits.

Unfortunately for these countries, membership in the WTO does not serve their interests in this regard.

Zak8• 9 years ago

There's a significant distinction between polluting the environment, which harms other people directly and making unhealthy decisions in one's own life, which has only indirect effects on others.

lend0006• 9 years ago

Imagine if our (USA) govt allowed us to buy gas (fuel, petrol) with lead in it, ignoring the long term impact of lead in the environment.

Lead has a quantifiable effect that directly infringes on the rights of others -- eating junk food does not. You cannot say that my choice to get fat infringes on anyone's freedoms more than you are infringing on my freedom by preventing me from eating what I choose. It's not a characteristic of a free society. Pure democracy is mob rule. We might as well ban gay marriage, too, because there are more people who don't like it and claim it infringes on their rights than there are people who want to get gay marriages (see how that can be twisted the other way?)

jordanb2• 9 years ago

Wow I just had a thought. Imagine if the WTO had been around when countries started banning the sale of Tetraethyllead.

The TEL industry fought very hard against such action first by attacking the science, then fighting in courts and political arenas. Imagine if they had access to a super-national court explicitly created as a way for large corporations to punish governments for creating laws that are bad for their business?

iopq5• 9 years ago

True, but when that level of individual freedom has negative repercussions on the community, the government has to step in

Good, then I guess the government should tell everyone to exercise too? I mean, people not exercising has negative repercussions on the community, so the government has to step in. Mandatory exercise for everyone.

I guess the same logic applies to limiting gaming/Internet time too.

smallnamespace• 9 years ago

You're conflating two different things: 1) whether a sovereign nation has health under its own jurisdiction, and 2) whether a sovereign nation should ban food, given it has the power.

Zak8• 9 years ago

I think there's a third issue, or at least two pieces to your number 2.

Whether a government should have the mechanism of banning foods that are safe to eat in moderation available to it is a different question than whether it would be good policy given that mechanism.

If the government should be in the habit of regulating nutrition, banning foods with exceptionally poor nutritional qualities is probably good policy, but is that the kind of thing governments should be regulating at all? I would argue that it usually isn't and should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances.

concinds7• 9 years ago

McDonalds is actively making people less healthy, and profiting from it. Why should they not be banned? Where's the downside to banning them?

slaveofallah932• 9 years ago

The downside is that you can't get cheap tasty meals from McDonalds.

jodrellblank2• 9 years ago

In the same way that vehicles can move thousands of times faster than humans, and metal can be thousands of times stronger than human flesh, is there any good reason to think that marketing manipulation, or market forces, can't be (or become) thousands of times stronger than human willpower?

nnd• 9 years ago

Can someone explain why the article starts with "HONG KONG"?

grzm• 9 years ago

It's a dateline[0], the locale where the author is writing the story.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline

oddeyed• 9 years ago

Usually that indicates from where the report was filed.

Jtsummers• 9 years ago

Typically it's where the author submits the story from, even when the story is about a different place.

Zak8• 9 years ago

The reporter is located there, which makes sense since it's a major city in the region under discussion.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline

dancing_shark• 9 years ago

This is the "dateline". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline

mc32• 9 years ago

Probably because Mike Ives is submitting the report from Hong Kong. I guess he could have flown in and done the reporting on-site, but probably was able to get all the information via other means and it didn't require him to go on-site.

niftich2• 9 years ago

The obesity situation on Pacific islands is a complex interaction of genetics, economics, and geography/geopolitics: a small genetic predisposition to larger frames and more efficient fat storage (described in multiple papers, like this one [1]), poor and underdeveloped economies increasingly unable to compete in a globalized world, and a shift [2] to energy-dense diets driven by affordability, convenience, and long shelf-life necessary to survive a long import journey and inexpensive storage for year-round availability.

This, coupled with a "modern" lifestyle of less and less manual labor results in an overabundance of unspent caloric intake. As the article in [2] says, which specifically talks about Micronesia but is applicable elsewhere in the Pacific:

"Micronesians are essentially selling their own natural food resources for a fraction of the true value, and then using the revenue to import nutrient-poor food (...) The FSM does not have the infrastructure to realistically compete in the global tuna market. Thus, the current structure of the Pacific tuna industry is an example of how lack of development (partly due to the U.S subsidies and U.S. dependence) has lead the FSM to continue to be dependent on foreign nations. The cash-economy stemming from the tuna industry contributes to the continued cycle of food dependence, imported-food, and poor diet, which is partly responsible for Micronesia's unhealthy, obese population."

Edit: As with regard to Vanuatu specifically, you can read a report on their food, agriculture, and fishery situation here [3], authored by FAO of the UN. To paraphrase, widespread industrial fishing by foreign nations was prevalent decades ago, but has since shifted to other Pacific states. Subsistence fishing occurs, but the cash-based economy (i.e. where you buy your food, rather than catch it) is much larger, and the presence of tourism sites has priced most locals out of domestically-caught fish, while leaving imported chicken and domestic beef affordable, as well as imported canned fish. This report doesn't mention foods typically considered junk food, but calorie-dense imports of shelf-stable food are documented elsewhere.

[1] http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v48/n9/full/ng.3620.html [2] https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10... [3] http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/VUT/profile.htm

toomanybeersies• 9 years ago

From my experience with Polynesians (and since I live in New Zealand, I've met my fair share), it's a cultural issue more than anything else. It may have started for those reasons, but it's being perpetuated by culture.

I know of Samoan families that have spent thousands of dollars on corned beef (the stuff in a tin) for weddings.

Just the last night I was having dinner with a Samoan bloke, he ate 5 packs of instant noodles, 3 croissants, and half a chicken for dinner. I've seen him also eat 2 tins of spaghetti, 2 tins of corned beef, and half a loaf of white bread for dinner. He's in New Zealand, there's no shortage of fresh food and vegetables, and there's no reason for eating that much food (as everybody else near him points out).

Now I'm not sure what made it a cultural thing to eat obscene amounts of food, but it's deeply ingrained, the majority of Polynesians in New Zealand are obese, they have a whole slew of health problems because of it.

prostoalex2• 9 years ago

There's an alternative opinion (espoused by some in medical research community and author Gary Taubes) describing the situation as simple and straigtforward - islanders developed obesity (and diabetes, and gout, and heart disease) after gaining access to sugar in various forms, including soft drinks. Remove sugar and its substitutes from the equation, and high obesity rates disappear.

Blaming "modern" lifestyle rarely makes sense in global context - it's not as if in countries with low obesity rates one has to hunt and gather their food.

niftich2• 9 years ago

Take the example of Qatar, where a "modern" lifestyle is a clear and obvious contributor to the fourth-highest obesity rate in the world. A state which in just 70 years has ascended to the country with the highest per capita income, and the fourth highest GDP per capita; it has used generous oil and natural gas revenues to massively raise the country's Human Development Index and institute a welfare state. Despite internationally-highlighted issues with among others, corporal punishment, the treatment of migrant laborers, and the mortal danger for homosexuals, most average Qatari live very, very well.

Yet in this short span of time, traditions haven't adjusted for the altered diet, air-conditioned comfort, and sudden lack of need to perform manual labor (which is now done by foreign migrant workers instead). So far in Qatar, government spending on healthcare has not been able to stem the rise in obesity, so other social health promotion programmes are being deployed.

finid6• 9 years ago

In 2011, as a condition for joining, the World Trade Organization ordered Samoa to eliminate the ban within a year.

Eliminate a policy designed for the betterment of the population! So that's one of the aims of the WTO, to promote corporate interests, even when it's bad for the general population.

pjc504• 9 years ago

And people wonder why there's an anti-globalisation backlash.

realusername• 9 years ago

Last time I've tried to argue for the French ban of unlimited soda refills, I was called a "Stalinist" so I probably won't say much on this one. I hope it will help to reduce their obesity rates.

rdtsc4• 9 years ago

Anti-globalization was always a hot topic for the left. Read Chomsky on NAFTA for example and free trade:

https://chomsky.info/secrets03/

Here is Bernie Sanders being visibly upset at raising immigration levels and instituting "open borders" policy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

I am kind of interested how the current liberals become pro-globalization all of the sudden. They went from organizing large anti-globalization riots, and getting tear gased fighting it, to "What do you mean? We love globalization!".

I want to see a more specific analysis in how the shift happened, and maybe a more detailed timeline. Certainly an interesting topic.

Here is of course Zuckerberg with his letter worrying that people are not buying the globalization shtick very well anymore:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38998884

If you squint enough to not notice the liberal veneer he puts on you might think he is one of the Koch brothers.

tomjen3• 9 years ago

WTO gets a lot of flack for that, but they exist to provide international trade and that requires removing local obstacles, and each obstacle will have some good reason behind it.

Countries are free to join the WTO, if they don't feel the package is worth it, they are free to opt out. What they can't do is get it piece-meal.

vosper4• 9 years ago

WTO gets a lot of flack for that, but they exist to provide international trade and that requires removing local obstacles, and each obstacle will have some good reason behind it.

In this case a good reason, but I can just as equally imagine that (eg) some subsidy or tariff is there primarily to protect a powerful voting bloc, or friends of whichever government put the rule in place.

xom• 9 years ago

The [WTO] said in a statement that it would allow a 300 percent import duty on turkey tail imports and a domestic prohibition on sales during the transition period to allow the country to “develop and implement a nationwide program promoting healthier diet and lifestyle choices.”

Reminds me of the planet Norstrilia in Cordwainer Smith's fiction, which exports an astronomically precious immortality drug, yet maintains its archaic culture (resembling Australian ranchers with a British cultural inheritance) with import taxes of over 20000000%.

richdougherty• 9 years ago

I'm asking because I genuinely don't know: did Samoa apply bans to unhealthy locally produced food too or just to unhealthy imported food?

finid6• 9 years ago

did Samoa apply bans to unhealthy locally produced food too or just to unhealthy imported food?

In general, countries like that don't have unhealthy, locally-produced food. And the article agrees with that assertion. We have a patent on junk food.

olalonde2• 9 years ago

Eliminate a policy designed for the betterment of the population!

Depends who you ask. Some people understand the risks of junk food but still want it (same as with alcohol and tobacco). Junk food also tends to be cheaper per calorie.

TuringNYC• 9 years ago

Where does one draw the line? Hard drugs?

gydfi3• 9 years ago

It's funny because the people most likely to trust the government with the power to ban junk food are the ones least likely to trust the government to can mind-altering drugs.

coliveira• 9 years ago

This is the whole purpose of the WTO. Last year India tried to invest on the development of solar energy and was hit by the WTO, as India cannot provide subsidies to their own companies due to the globalization rules they had to accept. Now India is trying to sue back the USA due to their own national subsidies for solar power. The expected defense of the USA: "our companies are global, yours aren't".

derefr• 9 years ago

Why not have a subsidy that applies to companies from any country willing to do X in your country, rather than only companies headquartered in your country?

pkaye• 9 years ago

Why are they considering banning junk food from tourist establishments when it is really the locals with obesity issues? Or is the junk food primary sold in tourist establishments and the locals go there?

kevin_thibedeau• 9 years ago

They have the money to subsidize local food.

bluedino• 9 years ago

Stan Efferding, a prominent bodybuilder, powerlifter, and YouTube fitness celebrity does a great talk on how first changed on the islands after they started picking up on American food trends:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s86DJ1pVF0U

atomical• 9 years ago

Do you own a cooler within a cooler?

dropit_sphere• 9 years ago

This is totally cool. I hope this works for them.

navs• 9 years ago

It doesn't help that there are little healthy options in local schools. Most schools have a single privatised canteen that offers a lunch option (typically chicken curry and rice or chicken chow mein) with the rest being soda drinks, chocolate bars or salty chips. I don't remember apples or bananas being an option unless you brought it from home. But you don't want to be the kid eating a banana when everyone around you is guzzling RC Cola (the supposedly healthier alternative to Coca Cola).

Pacific Islanders like to eat. I think it's ingrained in their culture. Before you call me out and ask for a citation, let me just say this is based on my experience as a Fiji Islander. But maybe there's no problem with eating a lot, if what you eat is healthy. So instead of reaching for the local produce, the cheaper and more attractive "Western" product wins out. Plus, it's just a tad more cheaper.

P.S. It's very easy to buy Singles or Loosies (sp?) in Fiji.

iopq5• 9 years ago

Even if you eat healthy, eating too much is bad if you get fat.

throwaway399• 9 years ago

As someone who went to NYC public school where all food options are extremely unhealthy, I can say that this has mostly to do with culture.

Eastern European immigrants stayed thin. Chinese immigrants stayed thin. Immigrants from some other countries - mostly south america in my personal experience - all gained weight quickly.

The food does make it much easier to gain weight.

grondilu• 9 years ago

Why don't they raise taxes instead? At least if it doesn't work they'd make a hell lot of money. I mean, it seems efficient for tobacco in my country (France). I don't know why it couldn't work for junk food.

true_religion• 9 years ago

In a lot of countries, it is easier to enforce a public ban than it is to collect taxes.

A high tax on imports may simply lead to imports being smuggled in, and tax stamps being forged. A total ban can be trivially enforced---see a junk food container, its illegal.

tomohawk• 9 years ago

That Sugar Film talks about the effect on Aborigines

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tmNHs7gIc

Noos2• 9 years ago

I don't know which is worse, moral busy-bodying in the name of religion, or moral busy-bodying in the name of health, or public transport, or many of the pet causes here.

As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food

Related Stories