
As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food - Mz
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/world/asia/junk-food-ban-vanuatu.html?_r=0
======
finid
_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.

~~~
pjc50
And people wonder why there's an anti-globalisation backlash.

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

[https://chomsky.info/secrets03/](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](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](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.

~~~
pjc50
> liberals become pro-globalization all of the sudden. They went from
> organizing large anti-globalization riots

If you take everyone to the left of Reagan and put them all under one label of
"liberal", then confusion understandably results. In particular, conflating
Millian "liberals" with Marxist "socialists" with whoever happens to be
running a street demo is a bad idea. The riots were specifically the work of
the "black bloc", a small group of left-anarchists.

The general complaints of the (non-violent) protestors were to do with exactly
this kind of thing - the use of a transnational process to override local
environmental / labour law improvements for the profit of multinational
companies.

The _liberal_ (not socialist!) argument for free movement of people is partly
the libertarian "why are you using force against a natural freedom" argument,
and partly a pragmatic one that if capital now has free movement labour should
as well.

A situation where capital can freely move to the most favourable jurisdiction
but labour cannot is politically unsustainable.

(Yes, I left all this out of the original one-sentence snark.)

~~~
rdtsc
> The riots were specifically the work of the "black bloc", a small group of
> left-anarchists.

The riots was hyperbole, there were not the only ones advocating for anti-
globalization. So was Bernie Sanders, Chomsky and many others. There were not
tear gassed for it regularly but the ideology was there.

> A situation where capital can freely move to the most favourable
> jurisdiction but labour cannot is politically unsustainable.

The point was it was traditionally the Koch brothers and the like who
advocated "globalization" not anyone calling themselves "the left". So it
seems there was a reversal on the topic which I think is interesting.

You mention libertarianism, but that was usually closer aligned to
conservatism than "leftism" so to speak.

> In particular, conflating Millian "liberals" with Marxist "socialists" with
> whoever happens to be running a street demo is a bad idea.

Yes that is the issue. I think both are referred to as "the left". And at some
point it is worth pointing out the difference and seeing that from a
traditional point there isn't much left left in "the left" (pun intended),
which I think is interesting and was trying to find a more detailed analysis
of it.

It seems to me there was split around the late 90s where the divisions are
more like between "faux-liberalism + corporatism" (this includes Democrats
like the Clintons and Obama), "faux-conservatism + corporatism" (Bushes),
"conservatist populism" (Trump and company), "traditional left" (Sanders,
Chomsky).

The "faux" bit is because the liberalism vs conservatism is a veneer used to
attract whatever is deemed popular at the time. Latest Clinton campaign and
Obama used identity politics and immigration to sell corporatism. Bush (junior
mostly) used religion to sell "conservatism".

Also it is rather interesting that Trump capitalized on a traditional leftist
position of anti-globalization (anti-NAFTA, pulling out of TPP, talk about
workers etc). He probably saw a void there with Democrats abandoning that
ideology and moved in opportunistically to capitalize on it.

------
Zak
_“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.

~~~
finid
_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.

~~~
Zak
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.

~~~
vosper
In countries that provide publicly-funded healthcare you are arguably directly
effecting other people's lives by the cost of the medical treatments you'll
end up needing if you are obese - these treatments will be funded out of the
taxpayer's pocket, when that money could be going to better schooling,
infrastructure, or some other use.

~~~
forrestthewoods
By that definition there is literally nothing the government can't, and
arguably shouldn't, regulate. That won't end badly I'm sure!

~~~
khedoros1
That seems like the logical conclusion. Where's the dividing line between what
the government should and shouldn't regulate, if they judge it to be in the
best interests of the people (and the government's will being theoretically
derived from the collective will of the governed)?

~~~
forrestthewoods
The government's will being theoretically derived from the collective will of
the governed should not be used as a blanket appeal to authority. The people
probably do not like all of their private communication being spied on by the
NSA. That we've not yet elected officials and given them the power to stop
such spying doesn't mean it's acceptable.

Moving on, the people should by default be free to make decisions that are not
in their best interests. Just because you can't control yourself from eating
candy doesn't mean my Right to Candy should be taken away as well.

Taking away liberty must be very, very carefully considered. What is the harm
being prevented? What price is being paid to remove it? Seatbelts are a low
cost to implement, a low cost to wear, and offer a high return of value in
lives and health saved.

Banning imported food at tourist established is a much less obvious win. If I
can't indulge in a sugary treat on vacation then when can I? That sounds like
something the local agriculture industry is lobbying for more than anything.
Who benefits the most from this change? Follow the money and I bet (heh)
you'll find the big winners aren't the obese population.

~~~
vosper
> Taking away liberty must be very, very carefully considered

I agree, and it's possible that this move has been very carefully considered.
The obesity levels are catastrophic, and the trend has been clear for years
(maybe decades), so it's quite possible that this move has been considered for
some time before finally being implemented. There's no reason not to give the
benefit of the doubt here.

I'd also add that any move to take away liberty needs to be reviewed at some
point. Otherwise the tendency is for more and more regulation. Then typically
the only way things get changed is by major lobbying efforts, which can takes
years or decades, or when a negative effect on society has become such a
problem that it's no longer possible to ignore it. In the meantime, a lot of
people have had their lives impacted.

> Banning imported food at tourist established is a much less obvious win

Yeah, though maybe that part is related to the "effort to promote local
agriculture" that's also mentioned in the article. It still seems like
something that would have little actual impact - it's hard to believe that
tourists are coming and only eating junk food, and not any food that's locally
grown. No-one goes on holiday and eats only Pringles.

Or maybe it's about perceived fairness - staff at tourist resorts have access
to foods that the rest of the population can't buy, so they remove that access
to put everyone on the same level.

------
navs
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.

~~~
throwaway399
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.

------
bluedino
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](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s86DJ1pVF0U)

~~~
atomical
Do you own a cooler within a cooler?

------
pkaye
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
They have the money to subsidize local food.

------
grondilu
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
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
That Sugar Film talks about the effect on Aborigines

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tmNHs7gIc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tmNHs7gIc)

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

------
niftich
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](http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v48/n9/full/ng.3620.html)
[2]
[https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10...](https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1744-8603-2-10)
[3]
[http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/VUT/profile.htm](http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/VUT/profile.htm)

~~~
prostoalex
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.

~~~
niftich
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.

~~~
prostoalex
Singapore, Korea, Japan and Thailand are as comfortable and air-conditioned as
any, have access to similar motorcycles, cars, television sets and computers
as others, and yet enjoy some of the _lowest_ obesity rates in the world.

There are developed countries (with relaxed lifestyles) at the top of the
obesity ratings, there are developed countries (with relaxed lifestyles) at
the bottom of the obesity ratings, lifestyle change does not seem to correlate
very heavily.

------
Noos
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.

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

~~~
mc32
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.

