【推荐1】Radio stations, TV stations, and online video and livestreaming platforms are forbidden to make, broadcast or spread programs that feature overeating, according to a new work plan issued by the National Development and Reform Commission, together with three other departments.

That's a positive move. It is easy to see from even a glimpse at any of the "big stomach" videos or livestreams, in which the hosts may eat a dozen hamburgers for lunch, for example, that their eating obviously exceeds a normal appetite. According to reports, such "big stomach" eaters can attract large audiences and more followers for commercial advertisements.

A good appetite can be healthy. Yet to promote such distorted eating is dangerous, not only to those doing the eating on the shows but also any who may be tempted to emulate or compete with them, it can cause eating disorders such as bulimia and can prove fatal.

In August 2020, a "big stomach" surnamed Wang in Shenyang city, Northeast China's Liaoning province died when preparing for his job, before which his weight rose from 100 kilos to 140 kilos. In the same month, a 3-year-old girl called "Peppa" was found to weigh 35 kilos, far exceeding the normal weight, which aroused nationwide worries about her health.

Those appearing in such videos or livestreamings are usually hired by companies with whole teams to finish the job, and even then they often throw up during ad breaks so they continue their performance. And as well as by encouraging people to eat so much it may harm their health, by creating the impression that it is ok to eat to excess, such "big stomach" shows may lead to people wasting food.

Of course, that does not mean food videos or livestreamings should be curbed. A good food program can teach people how to cook delicious dishes or showcase local specialties from around the country. It could also spread the millenniums-long traditional food culture of China, which has made a deep impression on the whole world and got many followers.

【推荐3】Australia's biggest soft drink makers, including Coca-Cola and Pepsi, promised on Monday to cut industry-wide sugar use by a fifth over seven years to prevent obesity in a country where nearly a third of the population is dangerously fat.

Australia has the fifth-highest rate of obesity in the developed world, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,a health condition that can exacerbate(使恶化)problems from diabetes to heart disease.

Beverage(饮料)producers in Australia have already seen some consumers switch away from sugary drinks because of health concerns and they have promised the reduction as authorities press for a sugar tax similar to one introduced in Britain in April.

“We think this is a step in the right direction, ”said Geoff Parker, chief executive officer of the Australian Beverages Council (ABC) , the main body representing non-alcoholic drink makers, an industry which generates A $5 billion ($3.7 billion) in annual revenue.“We're certainly encouraging other sectors of the food supply, and indeed other categories to join with us to reduce sugar across the portfolio to help handle what is a really a complex problem and that is obesity. ”

Companies will aim for a 10 percent reduction in total sugar per 100 milliliters in their drinks by 2020 and a 20 percent reduction by 2025, achieved via a combination of recipe modification and increasing sales of low-sugar beverages, the Beverages Council said.

The World Health Organization (WHO) said last year drinking fewer sweet drinks was the best way to prevent excessive weight and prevent chronic diseases such as diabetes, although fat and salt in processed foods were also to blame.

It has pressed for governments to tax sugar.

In Australia, where according to WHO statistics two-thirds of adults are overweight and nearly a third are obese or grossly overweight,the Australian Medical Association has pressed for a sugar tax but it has been resisted by the country's two major political parties. “We don't want to see the price of groceries go up.”Health Minister Greg Hunt told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on Monday.

【推荐1】Justice is something we all desire, and the hope is that our legal system can be fair. In the past, people often saw injustices taking place that went unpunished. Some of these people got fed up, took matters into their own hands, and became vigilantes (治安员). They played the role of judges, jury and executioners (执行者). Today, the same thing is happening on a much larger scale, and it is known as Internet vigilantism.

Internet vigilantism works by first identifying a person who has committed a crime or done something that is considered uncivil.

Our modern age that is filled with digital cameras has made injustice easy to record, and the Internet has made it easy to distribute the evidence instantly. This method has been successful in many cases for tracking down people who have committed crimes. It also has been very helpful in keeping those with power in check. Keeping power in check is the upside of distributing evidence only if justice is reached through proper channels.

However, there are two sides to Internet vigilantism. When Internet citizens gang up on people for minor crimes or small faults, those who are the focus of the gangs can have their lives ruined. The vigilantes gather information on the Internet and use it to publicly shame the person. The accused person thus loses all his or her rights to privacy and everything about him or her is brought out into the open. Internet vigilantism violates basic human rights to privacy and can cause serious damage to people or their reputations.

Another problem is that it also has a negative effect on the friends and family members of the person being shamed. Innocent people with the same name as the accused can also get caught in the cross fire. Worst of all, the person being targeted rarely gets a chance to defend himself or herself.

We need to ask ourselves how far we will go to punish someone and how much privacy they deserve. When it comes to Internet vigilantism, remember that it is very easy to post an opinion or video anonymously (匿名地) online and give a one-sided or partial account of the truth. Like so many other aspects of life, we must resist passing judgment before fully understanding a situation.

【推荐3】Those supposedly “free” trials for various products and services can be attractive, but the trouble comes when all those free things end up costing you money.

Nearly 6 in 10 Americans who signed up for a free product trial were later charged against their will, according to a website named Bankrate. Users who forget to cancel before the trial period ends may find themselves charged a fee of $10 or $15 and included in what’s known as a ”negative option” plan, in which goods or services are sent unless a customer tells the seller not to send them. Other users may find themselves billed for the price of shipping.

And then there's the fine print . For Morgan Taylor, a marketer based in Scottsdale, Arizona, failing to carefully examine a website’s offer that let him download 10 songs for free ended up costing him money. The catch: Although he says he canceled before the trial period ended, Taylor was charged $9.90 because the terms said that the songs were free only with a one-month subscription(订购) and billed if the subscription was canceled.

“I tried to question the charge, but it was useless,"Taylor said.“I hadn't read the fine print.

The likelihood that a person will end up paying for a free trial after it ends actually increases with income and education level, Bankrate found. About two-thirds, or 65%，of people making $80,000 or more a year were charged after a free trial. Meanwhile, just over half of people making $40,000 or less found themselves forking over dollars.

Rossman gave a few suggestions to help customers avoid getting cheated. He said,“Before making up your mind, you'd better research the company, check the terms and conditions carefully and pay attention to the cancellation windows.”