Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Obesity more dangerous than terrorism: experts Oxford Health Alliance Summit via AFP, PhysOrg.com

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.physorg.com/news123136899.html

    Obesity more dangerous than terrorism: experts World governments focus too much on fighting terrorism while obesity and other "lifestyle diseases" are killing millions more people, an international conference heard Monday.

    Overcoming deadly factors such as poor diet, smoking and a lack of exercise should take top priority in the fight against a growing epidemic of preventable chronic disease, legal and health experts said.

    Global terrorism was a real threat but posed far less risk than obesity, diabetes and smoking-related illnesses, prominent US professor of health law Lawrence Gostin said at the Oxford Health Alliance Summit here.

    "Ever since September 11, we've been lurching from one crisis to the next, which has really frightened the public," Gostin told AFP later.

    "While we've been focusing so much attention on that, we've had this silent epidemic of obesity that's killing millions of people around the world, and we're devoting very little attention to it and a negligible amount of money."

    The fifth annual conference of the Oxford Health Alliance -- co-founded by Oxford University -- has brought together world experts from academia, government, business, law, economics and urban planning to promote change.

    An estimated 388 million people will die from chronic disease worldwide over the next 10 years, according to World Health Organisation figures quoted by the alliance.

    "There's a political paralysis in dealing with the issue," said Gostin, an adviser to the US government and a professor at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins universities.

    He noted that prevention of obesity and its effects had hardly rated a mention in the current campaign for the US presidency.

    "Yet the human costs are frightening when we consider that obesity could shorten the average lifespan of an entire generation, resulting in the first reversal in life expectancy since data collecting began in 1900," he said.

    Like terrorism, some passing health threats get major government attention and media coverage, while heart and lung disease, diabetes and cancer account for 60 percent of the world's deaths, the meeting was told.

    "It is true that new and re-emerging health threats such as SARS, avian flu, HIV/AIDS, terrorism, bioterrorism and climate change are dramatic and emotive," said Stig Pramming, the Oxford group's executive director.

    "However, it is preventable chronic disease that will send health systems and economies to the wall."

    The conference is due to end Wednesday with a "Sydney Resolution" calling on governments and big business among others to take action to avert millions of premature deaths due to chronic disease.

    "The way we live now is making us sick, it's making our planet sick and it's not sustainable," said Asia-Pacific co-director Ruth Colagiuri.

    The Sydney resolution focuses on four key areas, including the need to make towns and cities healthier places in which to live by urban design which promotes walking and cycling and reduces carbon emissions from motor vehicles.

    Insufficient physical exercise is a risk factor in many chronic diseases and is estimated to cause 1.9 million deaths worldwide each year, said Tony Capon, professor of health studies at Australia's Macquarie University.

    "We need to build the physical activity back into our lives and it's not simply about bike paths, it's about developing an urban habitat that enables people to live healthy lives: ensuring that people can meet most of their daily needs within walking and cycling distance of where they live," he said.

    The resolution also calls for a reduction in sugar, fat and salt content in food, making fresh food affordable and available and increasing global efforts to stop people smoking.


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    These experts can go do unnatural things to each other. Lifestyle choices are exactly that, choices. Crazy muslim blowing himself up in a mall and taking your wife and children with him, not a choice.

    The job of our government is to provide for the common defense, not to protect people from eliminating themselves from the gene pool. I think Mr Gostin should be sent on an extended sabbatical to Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, Lebanon and Pakistan to review the situation there and to learn about the difference between choice and getting your $h#t blown up by fanatics because you you ran to the store for a twinkie with a woman who is not part of your immediate family.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Back in the '90s, Rush Limbaugh predicted the advent of food police. He based his prediction on the, then, growing anti-smoking movement.

    What this all boils down to is quite simply this. There are people who believe they know better than "the masses" how, what, why, and when we need, should, and should not do things. The seatbelt zealots, the anti-smoking nutcases, you can throw anti-gunners in there, and now the food police. Non of these things is anyone's business but the person who owns you - which just happens to be you, not the government.

    There are already moves afoot to tax restaurant food considered by these quirks to be less than 100% healthful (in their minds, of course). You watch. These are the same kinds of human crap that managed to get their nutso ideas about smoking in restaurants turned into laws that now dictate a private business can and cannot do in his business. Before you know it, the PITA types will be screaming to curtail restaurant consumption of meat. And no more butter on your baked potato, thank you. Forget those nacho cheese fries with real bacon bits and other (fatty) goodies.

    Yep, it's all about control.


    BTW.. I don't smoke.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Back in the '90s, Rush Limbaugh predicted the advent of food police. He based his prediction on the, then, growing anti-smoking movement.

    What this all boils down to is quite simply this. There are people who believe they know better than "the masses" how, what, why, and when we need, should, and should not do things. The seatbelt zealots, the anti-smoking nutcases, you can throw anti-gunners in there, and now the food police. Non of these things is anyone's business but the person who owns you - which just happens to be you, not the government.

    There are already moves afoot to tax restaurant food considered by these quirks to be less than 100% healthful (in their minds, of course). You watch. These are the same kinds of human crap that managed to get their nutso ideas about smoking in restaurants turned into laws that now dictate a private business can and cannot do in his business. Before you know it, the PITA types will be screaming to curtail restaurant consumption of meat. And no more butter on your baked potato, thank you. Forget those nacho cheese fries with real bacon bits and other (fatty) goodies.

    Yep, it's all about control.


    BTW.. I don't smoke.
    +1 for that post.

    I actually lost a very close friend of mine over this view. She felt that Big Brother has a duty and right to protect people from themselves, and after having an argument about this, things went downhill fast.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •