In part thanks to that advert, my entire life whenever I can pinch an inch I simply stop drinking my calories. Admittedly it is harder to eat healthy when you are time constrained and poor. But could there be anything faster and cheaper than pouring a glass of filtered tap water ? Can we advise that first before developing more PSAs about nutrition, exercise routines, etc.
But losing weight? Endless amounts of effort is already spent towards this goal, it is deeply embedded in our culture(for ex. Fat shaming).
I don't some large ad campaign would change that much.
I think being able to have healthcare discriminate based on smoking has been hugely impactful in cutting US smoking rates, I think the same should be done for being overweight.
Fat anxiety is driven by food industry propagandists (more marketers than lobbyists.) Most weight-loss companies are basically high-priced subscription food services with add-on food marketing and a hook that gets people to pay for that as a service. While they've become a big enough business too often be standalone, it's not telling that Weight Watches spent a couple decades as a subsidiary of HJ Heinz.
> I think being able to have healthcare discriminate based on smoking has been hugely impactful in cutting US smoking rates
Health insurance was never prevented from discriminating on that basis, even while smoking rates went through the roof. There's plenty of policies for which there is evidence of utility in cutting smoking rates, health insurance price discrimination isn't one of them.
The government can educate on and encourage healthy eating and fitness. The goal is not weight loss. Weight loss is just a side effect.
Don't forget that in the US they named their anti-drugs policy in schools: DARE!! lol!
That's some twisted reverse psychology stuff..
Also, it makes sense to publicly do one thing and privately do another.
DARE campaign was Reagan era, when they were importing cocaine by the plane load.
Don't bother pointing out facts or using logic. Any time someone mentions drugs on HN, the usual group of addicts-in-denial show up parroting the same tired and disproven talking points that High Times magazine has been flogging for the last 40 years.
In the US, dependent on location, a person may be living under several different governments.
Governments recognize and/or create holidays, and holidays can go on to be cultural events.
Governments organize and finance festivals and events, which can and do become culture of a place or people.
They built statues, museums, parks, libraries, theatres, etc; all with several different levels and layers of culture.
You'd need to start defining parameters of what is a government, what is a culture shift, etc.
That doesn't mean they can't, won't, and don't, shift cultures in many other ways.
DARE is a program to increase public positive image of, deference to, and political support for the arbitrary action of police. (And t it's only demonstrated effect is on attitudes toward police; it doesn't have any effect on drug use.)
How that advances the cause of marginalizing minority groups is left as an exercise for the reader.
The claim is keeping kids off drugs was probably never the real goal, and even if it was the program continued to expand to new places and be funded in existing places long after it was proven ineffective as anything but pro-police propaganda, which wasn't an accident by decision-makers.
Which reveals that even if keeping kids off drugs was once part of the motivation, it wasn't what sustained the program.