But statistically, the poor suffer most from obesity in western societies. If government is entitled to create incentives against obesity it's obvious that low-income people are in the scope. In addition, they are more sensitive to monetary incentives like taxes. Whether taxes do a good job reducing obesity is an important question, but the fact that poor people are targeted is in-line with the objective. One could argue that they also profit most from better health, if obesity is successfully reduced.

From an economic perspective, I guess obesity causes direct cost for treatment of related diseases and indirect cost for a loss of labor force. The overall welfare could be increased by reducing obesity. Additionally, that would be in line with public health objectives. It remains the question which means are considered appropriate and effective to discourage obesity.

Obesity is a "wicked" problem in the technical sense. Governments have not been very successful in reducing obesity. One natural deterrent is "taxation of sugary drinks." Companies have fiercely opposed this, sometimes under the guise of equity; taxing sugar drinks will hurt poor people the most.

But statistically, the poor suffer most from obesity in western societies. If government is entitled to create incentives against obesity it's obvious that low-income people are in the scope. In addition, they are more sensitive to monetary incentives like taxes. Whether taxes do a good job reducing obesity is an important question, but the fact that poor people are targeted is in-line with the objective. One could argue that they also profit most from better health, if obesity is successfully reduced.

Of course. Obesity is a serious problem on public health, in contemporary society, with the expenses derived (tend to increasing).

Thomas Neusius For example, there has been a lot of resistance to taxes on sugary soft drinks. The argument is that it hurts the poor the most, even though the sugary soft drinks could be a major determinant of obesity. The problem is that so-called poor people may not always act in their own "self-interest". This raises difficult questions about paternalism, from a public point of view.

Dear Joseph Tham ,

whenever taxes are used to set up incentives, that is some sort of paternalism. Of course, one may object to such interventions from a strictly liberal point of view. If all consumers would rationally act in their own best-interest, that would be perfect and state authorities should refrain from any kind of interventions. However, with respect to public health, one may be skeptical, if what people do is indeed always in their best interest. As soon as addiction comes in, it is pretty obvious that the assumption of the consumer being responsible is no longer applicable.

In most European countries, public health objectives are considered to a certain extent legitimate. For alcoholic drinks, the American regulation is even stricter. For drugs, most countries have a legislation to prevent people from harm.

If we agree that the reduction of obesity is an issue for public health interventions, then we do not care that the low-income are targeted more than high-income people. That is just a indirect consequence of the correlation between social status and obesity. Low-income people are in the scope, because they more frequently suffer from obesity. So they also benefit more from a successful intervention.

OBESITY IS A CURSE, BROUGHT BY THE INDIVIDUALS BY THEMSELVES.

Can you answer the following question?

Q.1. Who do not know the extra calories of the Processed foods and Chemical drinks are the main reasons for such widespread global disease (or, mother of diseases) named obesity?

Q.2. Lack of minimum physical exercise is the second reason of obesity?

Q.3. Obesity is a strong reason of arthritis, PCOD, Infertility, Kidney failure and cancer?

All of us know the answer of the questions. But all of us pretend as we do not know the answers, as we do not want to restrict our intention (created by marketing division of related multinational companies).

Thanks.

Dear Shibabrata Pattanayak ,

what conclusions do you draw? Is it everybody's individual responsibility to take care of his health or do you favor public interventions to help people overcome their weakness? Even a mandatory nutrition score to balance out advertisement effects is a kind of nudge, a moderate one though.

My health is most important to me. I can not expect from my government to ban on use of trans fat in all processed foods, as it depends on many other factors and perhaps never be performed.

Then the only alternative is to protect myself by personal initiative.

What is the alternative?

Try to avoid processed foods that contain partially hydrogenated oils

Is it the responsibility of the government to tell the people what food they should avoid?

Govt. is nothing but apply of some decision of a{ some political parties in power ( in democratic countries).

The plastic lobby, the fast food lobby, the milk and food mafia, the ..... are perhaps very strong influence on government.

Who have the ample time to listen to science?

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG,

Obesity is increasing in many countries, especially in developed countries. This problem also applies to the growing proportion of children who eat unhealthy rich in carbohydrates, fats, salt and chemical preservatives of snacks, which they drink with luscious drinks. Paradoxically, in highly developed countries, in which citizens can afford to lead a healthy lifestyle, including healthy eating, the problem of obesity has been rising in these countries, among others, in many previous years.

On the other hand, in developed countries this problem was noticed many years ago and therefore social campaigns have been launched for years promoting a healthy lifestyle in the media, including healthy eating. Therefore, corporations producing unhealthy, greasy, over-salty or sweetened snacks and sugary drinks develop their networks of business partners in developing countries thus creating new markets for unhealthy food. In such institutions, the key issue is how governments in developing countries behave, whether they treat this issue as a problem or not.

The basic argument for the government's economic policy, within which the model of leading a healthy lifestyle should be promoted and supported is the issue of the efficiency of human capital work and expenditures borne by the state budget on health service. Zrowi, able to work citizens are a factor of higher efficiency of human capital work.

In addition, fewer diseases and illnesses are connected with the possibility of reducing expenditures borne by the state budget for health care or re-designing these outlays in such a way that a larger part of them is devoted to the development of new technologies in medicine, eg in the development of research in genetics, oncological therapies, field of bioinformatics, etc.

In addition, the issue of the increasing scale of obesity and in some countries also affects the population of drugs that are easy to get addicted to, including cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and the usually illegal drug use and legal highs.

The state should promote healthy lifestyles through advertising campaigns, promoting healthy eating, in order to reduce the scale of obesity, should promote and support the cultivation of various sports and other forms of active recreation.

In addition, the state should limit the possibility of promoting drugs and should conduct social campaigns, the aim of which is to improve road safety in order to reduce the number of road accidents. For example, in recent months, quarters more and more countries have introduced restrictive legal norms for persons who enter the road looking at a smartphone because the number of accidents caused by this practice is increasing.

Best wishes

Joseph - Concerted action is needed from governments to provide leadership to set the agenda and show the way; advocate for a multi-sector response and establish the mechanisms for all sectors to engage and enhance action; develop and implement policies (including laws and regulations) to create healthier food and activity environments. Policies, laws and regulations are often needed to drive the social changes that, eventually, will have a sustainable impact on reducing obesity. A political willingness to use policy instruments to drive change will probably be an early hallmark of successful obesity prevention.

Yes. Obesity not only increases the consumption of food, it also makes the people lazy causing them to less active in working, and unhealthy creating many chronic physical and psychological diseases. Hence, governments should involve in avoiding obesity in society for the benefit of its public.

A better way would be to encourage healthy diet and life-style. Prohibitions are less effective than incentives.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323706213_A_REVIEW_ON_MANAGEMENT_OF_OBESITY_PHARMACOLOGICAL_VERSUS_NON-PHARMACOLOGICAL_APPROACH