[thr0wawayf00]

This is the exact same kind of moralistic thinking that created the opioid crisis. 40% of adults in the US are obese. Not overweight, obese.[0] Not to mention, that study was conducted before the pandemic, it would be interesting to see where the figures are now. At what percentage of aggregate obesity would you consider the issue to no longer be about self-control? And what makes you think we aren't going to hit that figure in the future?

Products are being developed to intentionally surpass our ability to self-regulate, whether they be food, medication, etc. People get paid really good money to sit in labs and figure out how to make their product more addictive, and we're just expected to just be able to say "no" because free will?

0: https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/...

[pocketarc]

I think that’s just a political question with no “right” answer. Some people will believe the government should intervene and control some of these foods, and some people will believe it shouldn’t, that people should be free to make their own choices.

There’s very good arguments to be made on either side, and neither side is the “right” side, it just depends on what your values are.

Personally, I like being strict with my own diet and fitness, but being free to take a break and pig out on whatever junk food I feel like. A world without Coke and McDonald’s would be sad to me, even if it is ultimately healthier for the population in general.

[hombre_fatal]

Well, the other conversation to have that doesn’t just cash out into personal consumer choice is who a society lets line their coffers with the vices of others.

I find it harder to argue for why you should be able to enrich yourself at the expense of others while singing “But personal choice!” to wash your hands of it all.

[kipchak]

I think the problem is the conflict between the two isn't symmetrical. Those who are trying to convince you to eat Coke and McDonalds aren't playing fair or accurately portraying what they're selling. and will promote research that indicates that lack of exercise[1] or fat[2], and will specifically advertise to children.

Comparing it to tobacco or alcohol for example, I don't think it's wrong to let people chose to consume them, but I don't think it's a bad idea to restrict them being sold to young people or restrict their ability to advertise. Imagine for example a cigarette ad for children. The tactics used are fairly similar.[3]

[1]https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-coca-cola-disguised-its...

[2]https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...

[3]https://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/soft-drink-companies-copy-toba...

[iwouldargueatoz]

I would like to point out that the deep marketing/priming is what drives you to the product to begin with. The ability to self-regulate our minds and inherently our decision processes is closer to the root of the issue. That requires a fundamental shift in our education which doesn't see any incentives on the horizon to reform itself as long as low attention mindless caffeine/sugar driven zombies are needed to buy all the stuff we are presented with. We already have a deep seated bias towards comfort in our mental architecture. It's quite easy to piggy back on that for marketers to condition our minds. For someone to constantly be aware of this before making a decision is a bit of a stretch especially in our GO culture. The incentives are simply not there yet, the churn of getting fat and losing weight is too profitable to go away. Just like oil derivatives and other friction profiting cycle products.

[lubesGordi]

Right, it was moralistic thinking that created the opioid crisis.