The war on fat

[fresco]

There is a grotesque element to all this, set alongside reports of famine and food shortages in Africa and elsewhere, but affluent countries around the world seem to be moving in lock step to attack what they perceive to be the causes of obesity.

One common theme--an assault on fast food. There are now proposals in the US, the UK and New Zealand for various "fat taxes" to be levied against the likes of McDonalds and Burger King. In each of these jurisdictions there is also considerable disagreement about the wisdom of such punitive and coercive measures, and not just from the fast food lobby.

On the face of it, encouraging a more healthy diet seems sensible, but the tactics do smack of political opportunism and an unwholesome appetite for government meddling.

That aside, is there any evidence to suggest that governments in democratic societies can, through legislation, encourage people to eat more sensibly? Or is this just more unhealthy food faddism?

[MatthewB]

fresco,

Do you think that the desire to reduce obesity by aiming at fast food might be missing the root causes?

I wonder, and it is wondering at this point, about the effects of our removal from food production. Many people cannot purchase nor afford fresh & local food. (Somewhat related, I believe, is decline of farming as an occupation. My grandparents (both sides) & my parents all farmed. Little to no farming by any of their offspring.)

Thoughts?

[fresco]

MatthewB,

You raise some interesting points. Never getting your hands dirty (ie, not farming or growing anything, or, for that matter, never buying anything from a farmer's market) is probably not a good idea. Quite aside from any pleasure you might derive from growing your own and the enhanced prospect of eating stuff that tastes good, super-sanitation has now been linked to a tremendous increase in allergies throughout the developed world, because people don't develop the immunities that come from contact with soil.

On the other hand, in countries where people tend to cluster in large cities, even gardening is becoming a luxury, like cooking itself, that only a small group of hobbyists can enjoy.

The estrangement from the countryside is so complete that not far from where I live, in the middle of a large city, there is a model farm, where city kids can have the exotic experience of seeing real cows, pigs and chickens. For many, sadly, it will be their only contact with the live version of KFC, Quarter Pounders and McRibs.

My own roots, though, are too close to the farm (both parents came from farm families) for me to ever get too teary-eyed about rural roads not taken.

I do notice that some schools have set aside part of their yards for gardens where kids can actually grow a few things. A nice gesture.

[macrosan]

There are now proposals in the US, the UK and New Zealand for various "fat taxes" to be levied against the likes of McDonalds and Burger King

There are ? In the UK I mean ? None that I've read about

On the substantial issue ...

... is there any evidence to suggest that governments in democratic societies can, through legislation, encourage people to eat more sensibly? Or is this just more unhealthy food faddism?

... I think it's proper for a democratic government to encourage what it views as "preferable" behavior by its citizens through information and education. It is also then important that the government opens channels of debate on these issues.

What is improper is for a government to do this through coercion (generally via taxation) or through legislation.

Obesity carries very similar social costs to smoking. Obesity kills and harms people, and the non-obese bear the financial burden of providing disproportionate public health services to the obese. So society certainly has an interest in persuading people to avoid the condition. But as with smoking, the only realistic long-term solution is through positive education.

Imposing taxation (whether literally or through pricing policy) is an invalid response in a democratic society. Taxing the providers of junk food, even if that were ever proven to be a substantial cause of obesity which so far has not been proven, is simply a way of increasing prices so that the obese will become even more disadvantaged than they are now. It is not any type of solution to the problem, it's just a quick and easy way for politicians to show they're doing something

[MatthewB]

fresco,

First, I'm not trying to hijack your thread.

Second, I'm playing with a hypothesis. I've no particular argument that I'm willing to defend.

So . . .

I'm not suggesting a "Luddite" approach of "let's all return to farming." (I saw it, I did it. And I ran at 18.)

However, I wonder about the effects of the reduction of farmers. For instance, it's generally agreed that there were profound consequences due to the shift from "the country to the city" in the 18th & 19th centuries (we're talking Europe here) via the Industrial Revolution. Given the shift--over the last 70 years or so--from "the farmer to the knowledge worker" (very loose concept, I know, play along please), I wonder about the effects on our eating.

Thoughts?

Edit: macrosan said . . .

It is not any type of solution to the problem, it's just a quick and easy way for politicians to show they're doing something

Agreed. That's why I'm going in the direction that I am.

Edited June 26, 2003 by MatthewB (log)

[fresco]

macrosan,

Here's one link about MDs in the UK pushing for a fat tax:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/arch...R20030611b.html

[fresco]

MatthewB,

Please feel free to hijack--or at least sidetrack--this or any other thread.

Some other observations: earlier this year I spent a month in Portugal. Despite staying in a region (the Algarve) that is chockablock with tourist development, I awoke every morning to the sound of not one, but three or four roosters crowing.

The food was a revelation. Carrots, for instance, which have been so badly traduced and messed with over here, brought back childhood memories of what carrots used to taste like. So too with other humble foodstuffs--potatoes, chickens, cauliflower. I doubt that we ate much the whole time that had been grown more than 10 miles from where we stayed, which has a hell of a lot to do with the goodness of the produce.

It's easy to blame the tastelessness of much of our food here in Canada on the vastness of the country (big shipping distances) and our cold winters, which force us to import stuff for many months of the year.

But it wasn't too many years ago that one could go to Kensington Market here in Toronto, point to a live chicken and say, "Kill me that one." When you got it home, it tasted like chicken. The animal rights and sanitation geeks put a stop to that.

In Portugal, I was heartened to see, people still go to their local market (there's one every few miles) point to a live chicken, and drag it home with them.

One more thing: the Portuguese love their food and wine, but the fat and unfit we saw were invariably tourists.

Edited June 26, 2003 by fresco (log)

[MatthewB]

Given your experiences with in-season & local food, I wonder if these type of experiences are sometimes catalysts for changing the way (& what) one eats?

Last spring, I joined a CSA. Having a weekly delivery from CSA impacted me in two ways: (1) I cooked a bunch of stuff in a variety of ways that I wouldn't otherwise, and (2) I appreciated the food very differently than I did the same items picked up at the grocery.

Is it possible that a major factor in this issue might be between the poles of "fresh, local, & in season" and "large agri-business"? Simplistic? Perhaps, but you have to start somewhere.

(Note: I would never claim that following this route could solve obesity. Exercise, moderate intake, etc. are critical factors.)

Edited June 26, 2003 by MatthewB (log)

[fresco]

Tempting as it is, I don't think "big agri-business" should be unfairly targeted. I would say that, if you include chain supermarkets, national brand manufacturers, livestock producers and fast food purveyors under this rubric, pretty close to 100 per cent of the people in Canada and the US rely to some extent (some no doubt pretty close to 100 per cent) on "big agri-business" for their nutritional requirements.

Not all of them, obviously, are obese. And it would be vastly unfair, in my view, to say that people who are obese got that way because they are forced to buy from huge corporations.

That makes about as much sense as blaming car makers for obesity because they deprive people of the opportunity to walk.

[MatthewB]

I'd agree with you, fresco. (Again, I'm thinking aloud here.)

I'll reframe it this way . . .

The *experience* of eating local fresh food is very different from eating food that is handled more, processed more, & travels more. How might this play into what people eat & how much they eat?

Eating a just picked strawberry is very different from eating a strawberry that was picked weeks ago & shipped hundreds or thousands of miles.

Eating beef via "eating a whole cow" is very different from eating only strips because one always can pick up a strip at the supermarket.

Perhaps I should shut up.

[fresco]

It has been noted (and accurately, I think) on other threads that there is tremendous consumer resistance to paying a premium for better tasting food.

If there was a better buck to be made by applying artisanal growing and food preparation methods on a mass scale, I suspect "big agri-business" would be doing so. (Enter Goliath, with sling).

[Fat Guy]

With the exception of extremely unusual glandular problems and the like, there is only one cause of obesity: the consumption of more calories than the body can offset through physical activity. That explanation breaks down simply into the consumption side and the activity side. Obesity arises from an imbalance between the two. That's the "direct" cause. Just want to put that out there as an aid to analysis before we go on.

To address some of Fresco's points:

There is a grotesque element to all this, set alongside reports of famine and food shortages in Africa and elsewhere, but affluent countries around the world seem to be moving in lock step to attack what they perceive to be the causes of obesity.

The contrast between rich and poor is somewhat misleading when it comes to obesity, because within a given society, poor people are more likely to be obese than rich ones (in the US, for example, according to the Surgeon General, poor women are 50% more likely to be obese than those of higher socioeconomic status). I'm not sure if the super-wealthy have been studied as a group, but casual observation indicates that there aren't all that many obese millionaires. Obesity is a major problem in poor nations as well. Famine, of course, will prevent obesity, but short of that the poor are more likely to be obese.

One common theme--an assault on fast food.

Fast-food companies are a convenient target, but what do people really think would happen, hypothetically, if every fast-food restaurant in the world got shut down immediately? Would people really lose weight, or would they simply move to alternate supplies (e.g., the supermarket?). Most likely the latter, especially when you look at the rural poor, who are really really obese yet live in areas too poor even to support a McDonald's franchise. And what if all "junk food" disappeared? It wouldn't really matter because junk food is just food -- unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that junk food manufacturers are putting chemically addictive substances in their food, the whole theory falls apart because all the fatty, caloric, carbohydrate-rich components are readily available anyway. The analogy to cigarettes, often drawn, is untenable: banning or regulating certain types of food is like banning or regulating a single brand of cigarettes -- it would be totally insignificant because all the other brands are still available. Moreover, people have to eat -- they do not have to smoke. So while making cigarettes more expensive or otherwise restricting access to them can indeed decrease smoking, you cannot accomplish the same thing with food because people will simply migrate to other food. Even if you tripled the price of all food across the board, you would likely increase obesity because people would switch to cheaper foods and cheaper foods tend to be more fattening. There are no conceivably effective supply-based solutions short of extreme totalitarian rationing.

On the face of it, encouraging a more healthy diet seems sensible

But only on the face of it. In reality, encouraging a more healthy diet presupposes an understanding of what diet is healthy. What we have learned in the past 50 years is that government is incompetent when it comes to making that determination, as are the professional medical organizations that advise policy-makers. Little doubt remains that the carbohydrate-rich "food pyramid" designed by the experts and pushed by the policy-makers during the second half of the 20th Century contributed to the rise in obesity. To suggest public education when the educators don't know what they're talking about is absurd.

is there any evidence to suggest that governments in democratic societies can, through legislation, encourage people to eat more sensibly

There is no evidence to suggest that regulation of the food supply can accomplish this goal (short of measures so draconian they wouldn't even be considered acceptable in North Korea). There are some legislative schemes that would no doubt work, but there doesn't seem to be support for them. For example, denying rights, income, employment, etc., to obese people -- in effect making obesity a crime and encouraging discrimination against fat people -- would no doubt reduce obesity.

[Fat Guy]

The *experience* of eating local fresh food is very different from eating food that is handled more, processed more, & travels more.  How might this play into what people eat & how much they eat?

Do you know of any information that indicates less obesity among farmers than among the general population? Less obesity among rural people than among urban dwellers? I don't know the answer. I have my doubts, but I'm sure it has been researched and broken down along many demographic lines -- so perhaps a little Googling can short-circuit the speculation.

[fresco]

Fat Guy,

Agree with you entirely about the malign effects of the "food pyramid" etc. Like so many well-intentioned initiatives (remember the groundswell of good feeling about "slum clearance" and the ensuing massive public housing projects that now make the slums they replaced seem benign) the end results are impossible to predict.

[marie-louise]

I think it is portion control, not the food itself. The fast food hamburgers/ orders of fries of my youth were much smaller than today's versions. Restaurants today serve appetizers larger than entrees of twenty years ago. Our local burritos are enough for two or three people, etc. etc. After a while, your body expects Thanksgiving every day.

Last spring, I joined a CSA.  Having a weekly delivery from CSA impacted me in two ways: (1) I cooked a bunch of stuff in a variety of ways that I wouldn't otherwise, and (2) I appreciated the food very differently than I did the same items picked up at the grocery.

I've belonged to one for years (Full Belly.) Aren't they the best? I am forever spoiled.

[MatthewB]

The *experience* of eating local fresh food is very different from eating food that is handled more, processed more, & travels more.  How might this play into what people eat & how much they eat?

Do you know of any information that indicates less obesity among farmers than among the general population? Less obesity among rural people than among urban dwellers? I don't know the answer. I have my doubts, but I'm sure it has been researched and broken down along many demographic lines -- so perhaps a little Googling can short-circuit the speculation.

Here's one discussion. (That's a Google PDF to HTML conversion. The original PDF is here.)

My wild hypothesis would probably be hard to prove. I'm thinking about the issue by comparing, say, the socio-economic environment of 1945 (with a larger percentage of farmers in the US) to today.

The 1945 environment would be complicated as "farmers" would have much higher activity rates than professionals. Etc. etc. etc.

I'm probably in left field.

Edited June 26, 2003 by MatthewB (log)

[fresco]

MatthewB,

Depends which farmers you are talking about. The farmers who plough with mules (actually saw some of them in Portugal) are burning calories. The farmers who ride around in air conditioned combines with on-board computers are storing fat.

[Fat Guy]

Obesity carries very similar social costs to smoking. Obesity kills and harms people, and the non-obese bear the financial burden of providing disproportionate public health services to the obese.

Dr. Reubin Andres, an obesity researcher at the National Institute on Aging, sighed. "As the sage of Baltimore, H. L. Mencken said, `For every complex question there is a simple answer. And it's wrong.' "

What We Don't Know About Obesity, from the New York Times.

[MatthewB]

MatthewB,

Depends which farmers you are talking about. The farmers who plough with mules (actually saw some of them in Portugal) are burning calories. The farmers who ride around in air conditioned combines with on-board computers are storing fat.

Surely.

But I'm speculating about *structural* changes that have occurred over the last 70 years or more.

[fresco]

Like smokers, think there is an argument to be made that the obese actually are less of a charge to the public purse than their fitter peers if they die off early.

Edited June 26, 2003 by fresco (log)

[Fat Guy]

Like smokers, think there is an argument to be made that the obese actually are less of a charge to the public purse than their fitter peers if they die off early.

It's possible to frame epidemiological data in such a way as to justify lots of ridiculous policies; indeed that's mostly what government does. (Note I am agreeing with you.)

Sleep less, live longer

[nerissa]

To address some of Fresco's points:

There is a grotesque element to all this, set alongside reports of famine and food shortages in Africa and elsewhere, but affluent countries around the world seem to be moving in lock step to attack what they perceive to be the causes of obesity.

The contrast between rich and poor is somewhat misleading when it comes to obesity, because within a given society, poor people are more likely to be obese than rich ones (in the US, for example, according to the Surgeon General, poor women are 50% more likely to be obese than those of higher socioeconomic status). I'm not sure if the super-wealthy have been studied as a group, but casual observation indicates that there aren't all that many obese millionaires. Obesity is a major problem in poor nations as well. Famine, of course, will prevent obesity, but short of that the poor are more likely to be obese.

Yes, the poor are more likely to be obese, especially if they live in isolated neighborhoods... I don't live too far from the straight up ghetto (South Side of Chicago). Plenty of liquor stores and fast food franchises. 3 day old baked goods store. Greengrocer? Forget about it. A couple of people have taken it upon themselves because of the lack of access to fresh fruits/veggies and the high risk of diabetes/stroke etc and have started garden plots. My local cafe and coop buy from them.

But I thought fresco was making a point about rich countries v. poor nations. The US is one of the the wealthiest nations in the world. Visitorsn(friends/relatives) from other nations are constantly amazed by the bounty of material choice here. I am not saying that America's good fortune is entirely responsible for our obesity problem by any stretch.

[fresco]

MatthewB,

Over the past 70 years, life expectancy has increased considerably in North America, as has, I would venture, the overall health of the population.

It could be that obesity is being attacked because it is unfashionable. As Fat Guy has noted, there is a strong correlation between poverty and obesity, but it is not yet fashionable, in all save the most rabid neoconservative circles, to attack the poor.

Edited June 26, 2003 by fresco (log)

[Fat Guy]

But I thought fresco was making a point about rich countries v. poor nations.

And that point is incorrect.

Ten to 12 nations in the developing world have levels of overweight and obesity exceeding those of the US, noted Dr. Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. And in many low- to middle-income countries, he added, people are getting fat at an accelerating rate.

http://www.clarian.org/content/reuters/022..._21022002.jhtml

[MatthewB]

MatthewB,

Over the past 70 years, life expectancy has increased considerably in North America, as has, I would venture, the overall health of the population.

It could be that obesity is being attacked because it is unfashionable. As Fat Guy has noted, there is a strong correlation between poverty and obesity,  but it is not yet fashionable, in all save the most rabid neoconservative circles, to attack the poor.

fresco,

I'm not following you here.

I'm not talking about life expectancy.

I'm speculating about the *structural* shifts concerning less & less fresh local food *and* less & less family farms, etc.

This shift would follow from the "country to city" shift. And it might help to explain the correlation between poverty & obesity.