pull down to refresh
27 sats \ 8 replies \ @Aardvark OP 17h \ parent \ on: How can we combat the obesity epidemic? AskSN
The 10x cost would come from tax in all likelihood. I imagine that would prevent people from eating as much, bit it would still be direct government intervention.
It would likely be effective, but you'd have to be willing to allow intervention to the free market.
I think it's all downstream from opening these manufacturers to liability. I don't want the government intervention, but it's coming whether I want it or not.
reply
How do you hold a company liable for selling a product that people willingly buy? Most people know the difference between what is and isn't healthy, at least to some degree.
reply
The issue is that people are sold things like food and medicine that contain known toxins, without the manufacturers disclosing the known harms of the ingredients they're using.
That was the tobacco industry's downfall. They knew they were selling poison to people and they weren't disclosing that.
If they disclosed things like "this shot contains known neurotoxins" or "this cereal contains known carcinogens", they would sell fewer units, but not be liable for those damages.
reply
Unfortunately, it all goes right back to the government creating the problem in the first place. When the FDA approves it, it gives companies a pass.
To your point, we could certainly hold companies more accountable in the future. Hopefully this administration takes a long look at all of the governing bodies that essentially remove liability in the first place.
reply
I think this administration will take the more draconian measures of just banning various food additives. That's definitely RFK Jr.'s inclination.
reply
I'm not a big fan of that either. I think RFK is a little misguided on how he views certain things. Almost none of the products in food today are much of a problem in moderation.