Get This Man Some Pants
Jacob Sullum at Reason has an article discussing the burgeoning anti-obesity movement and its similarities to the anti-smoking movement. Being a member of both of these “movements”, I always value Mr. Sullum’s critique of the arguments involved. This is the heart of his case,
In addition to the confusing state of disability law, cases like this one highlight the ambivalence of the burgeoning anti-obesity movement, which views fat people with a combination of pity and impatience that recalls the anti-tobacco movement’s attitude toward smokers. On the one hand, fat people are victims, seduced by sinister corporations like McDonald’s into eating more than they should. From this perspective, the chain’s shabby treatment of Connor added insult to injury, rejecting him for practicing the gluttony on which the company depends.On the other hand, fat people are leeches, costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year in health care subsidies. They are raiding our wallets as well as the pantry. That charge, which is based on calculations that do not take into account long-term savings on health care and Social Security, may turn out to be just as specious in the case of obesity as it is in the case of smoking. But even if it does, it will no doubt remain a conspicuous theme in arguments for a government-led war on obesity.
The problem is, the ambivalence that Jacob sees doesn’t exist. It’s not a dichotomy of victims vs. leeches. It’s the principle that people are human (how novel!). They are influenced by an environment created by a variety of entities (corporate America among them) and those influences lead to consequences (costs on the healthcare system).
Exposing the influence of advertising and corporate profits on the eating habits of Americans is one way of attempting to reduce the epidemic of obesity in this country. There is a huge difference between INFORMED decision making and UNINFORMED decision making. I have no problem with allowing people to make choices, but they need to be getting all the information when the make those decisions. If people were presented with the caloric and fat content of everything on the menu in the same way they are presented with the price, we would see people making different decisions. The “value” meals would be seen for the “value” they bring to your waistline, not just your pocket book. The more healthy dishes would be seen for the bargain they really are, not for the extra dollar that comes out of your wallet.
The arguments surrounding cost are presented merely as a means of getting the general public to recognize that there is a problem. I am not an advocate for a “junk food tax” or a “weight tax”. However, something needs to be done to wake-up America. We are too sedentary and we eat too much food! People need to be informed and the FDA should do their job to be certain consumers are informed.
Sphere: Related Content
August 6th, 2003 at 9:53 am
Kristopher, I think there is a difference in the smoking and obesity movement, and it centers around your notion of informed decision making. The health effects of smoking may be invisible for years, but obesity is not an invisible effect.
Simply put, every obese person is an informed consumer, because their expanding body size informs them that the way they are living leads to increased weight gain. No one gains 100lbs over night. When you have to buy larger pants every 4 months, you are being informed of your weight gain. This is not the hidden lung destruction smoking can cause.
Your reasoning also denies the obese person’s responsability. Saying “influences lead to consequences” is wrong. All the non-obese people in the world exposed to the same advertisements and other influences disprove that notion. Actions lead to consequences. Don’t tax my snacks beacuse someone else is negligent in their body upkeep.
August 6th, 2003 at 10:00 am
Being informed of the consequences is not the same as being informed of the causes. Keep reading, I said I’m against the idea of a tax. Influences CAN lead to consequences if something else isn’t there to counter-act the influences. Influences can work in many different directions.
August 6th, 2003 at 10:16 am
You’re right, but when you are experiencing the effects and you choose to make no change, that’s willful ignorance of the causes and acceptance of the consequences.
You’re against the idea of the tax, but it still sounds like you want to spend some money somehow doing something for people. If you are proposing something that “needs” to be done, how are you going to pay for it? Millions of tax dollars telling people that eaiting too much and not exercising is bad?
August 6th, 2003 at 10:54 am
No, I’m talking about regulations. Not a tax. Which may be worse in some people’s minds. But what was the real cost of putting nutrition facts on food?
I want the FDA to mandate basic nutrition information be displayed in the same vein as price in restaurants. That would be my first step.
August 6th, 2003 at 11:46 am
“I want the FDA to mandate basic nutrition information be displayed in the same vein as price in restaurants.”
ALL restaurants? That might be feasible, if cumbersome and expensive, in standardized restaurants such as McD’s, but what about restaurants that don’t serve the exact same thing all the time? If they’re exempt, where do you draw the line?
Regulations like the ones you propose dumb us all down rather than make us smarter. People who eat at McD’s aren’t as stupid (or, excuse me, “uninformed”) as you think they are, they just prefer that greasy salty good stuff to worrying about their weight. And that’s their right.
August 6th, 2003 at 12:27 pm
It’s not as simple as you make it out to be either. People don’t just simply prefer the “greasy salty good stuff”. Many are not even making a conscious decision anymore. That’s what I want to re-awaken. If people are making that conscious, informed decision, but I would like to see it made more difficult to ignore.
Many people eat what is convenient and cheap (if you don’t take into account the opportunity cost). There are all kinds of ways to draw the line and almost all chain restaurants have already spent the money to have their menu items analyzed. You raise a valid point about smaller menu-changing restaurants, but most still have only 20-30 dishes that they simply rotate. The cost of having those dishes analyzed would simply become a cost of doing business, as it is for producers of food items that already have this requirement.
August 6th, 2003 at 12:56 pm
Personally, I’d like to see the nutritional info displayed although, as fyodor notes, it would be difficult for the non-massed produced food of “real” restaurants. OTOH, I can’t believe there are honestly that many people who don’t realize that eating a diet consisting of nothing but Big Macs, pizza, KFC, and beer is fattening.
Thin people see the same commercials, have the same lack of menu information, etc. We just take responsibility for our actions. When I start gaining weight, I increase my exercise level and start paying more attention to my food intake.
August 6th, 2003 at 1:09 pm
Fyodor is right. Regulations like that would be a greater burden on resturaunts that don’t serve homognized meals. The last thing I want at a nice resturaunt is the chef measuring the sauce or meat for fat or calorie content over quality and taste.
Kristopher, the irresponsible smokers, fat people and whatever “vice” ridden people you want to “cure” are not your children. Sometimes you have to stop holding their hands as they walk, or waddle, through life.
August 6th, 2003 at 1:26 pm
It’s not about vice, everyone has their vices. We’re talking about health issues that are putting a drain on the system and costing us billions of dollars. Again, that’s “health issues” not people that are costing us money. The health issues can be eliminated, the people will still be with us.
We “hold people’s hands” every day. I wouldn’t want everyone to figure out what a safe speed to drive his/her car is. People can’t seem to put their seat belts on without a law telling them they have to, or pay a hefty fine. Some people would lie, cheat and steal every day of the week without laws saying you shouldn’t do that or you’ll go to jail. People left completely on their own is a pretty dangerous thing when you think about it.
It’s not holding people’s hands, it’s government doing it’s job.
August 6th, 2003 at 10:47 pm
May I make a comment that skinny is not necessarily healthy and fat not necessarily unhealthy.
Eating is not the only reason a person is a certain weight. There are issues of metobalism difference, aging and more to the heart of this problem, a lack of any government participation in promoting exercise.
When I was a kid, gym was required. There was a President’s Council on fitness and my schoolmates and I were TESTED EVERY year.
Putting on food labels is necessary for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is to help those with allergies and such police what they are ingesting.
But the biggest sin our government made was abandoning the teaching of good exercise habits.
Take it from me, I eat less now and watch all the labels and I STILL have gained weight for various reasons that have nothing to do with my being a leech or a slob.
Wait until you have walked in the shoes of those who try in vain to be what they were when they were 20 and thier hormones and genetics are against them.
Different from smoking or drinking, which is a consious decision to do something you need not do, EVERYONE has to eat SOMETHING. It’s not so easily taken care of and intolerance for those who struggle with this “affliction” is not going to help the situation any.
I can’t even think what it would be like to have to live in a world of “Stepford Models.”
October 26th, 2003 at 1:49 pm
I agree with Joyner. Those of us in my generation have been eating McDonalds since we started eating solid foods, now we are prone to high-fat high carbohydrate additction. Does “From Craddle to Grave” sound familiar? There does need to be government intervention. It is necessary to be informed so that we can make good decisions any moron knows that eating fast food all the time plays a role in weight gain, at least for those who are metobolically challenged, however any one who is not a moron does not know exactly how much fat, carbs, and nutrients they are consuming in one McDonalds “value” meal.