Why the government should help stop us from getting fat

According to the New York Times, nearly two-thirds of all Americans are overweight. Obesity, the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, increased nearly 40% in the United States from 1998 to 2006.  Recent studies suggest that Americans' increased weight cost the economy nearly $150 billion dollars a year in health expenditures. Canada has not fared much better. In 2004, nearly 7 million Canadian adults were listed as overweight, and an additional 4.5 million, obese. For the first time in nearly two hundred years, scientists estimate that because of weight related disease and illness, the current generation of American children will have a shorter life expectancy than their parents.

As President Obama pushes substantial healthcare reforms through Congress, many wonder about how active a role the government should play in trying to curb the obesity epidemic. Considering the toll weight issues have on taxpayers, how much should public policy attempt to affect the public's eating habits?

Governments of course have made similar interventions in the past with a high rate of success. These interventions have occurred most notably in regards to smoking. Scotland, England, Denmark, Portugal, France, and Uruguay have all recently imposed wide-ranging smoking bans. Studies have shown smoking bans to be an effective tool to improve public health. In Colorado for instance, just 18 months after enacting a smoking ban, heart attacks dropped nearly 30%; in Montana, almost 40%.  In terms of public cost, when New York instituted a comprehensive smoking ban the city estimated that nearly 4000 hospital admissions due to heart attack were prevented. The estimated savings to the city? Well over $50 million dollars.

In Ireland, six months after a comprehensive smoking ban was introduced, cigarette sales fell 16%; in the United Kingdom, sales fell 11%. Even cigarette maker Phillip Morris found that cigarette bans reduce cigarette consumption by 15%, and improved the rate at which people have been able to quit by nearly 85%.

While some libertarians argue that food is a matter of individual choice, the truth is that governments have played a significant role in creating the problem to begin with. For years, the sugar, meat, and high fructose corn syrup industries were all heavily subsidized. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) a sugar substitute found in almost every processed food product sold has often been pointed to as one of the leading contributors to the current obesity epidemic. HFCS' low cost encourages over-consumption, and HFCS is several times richer in certain harmful compounds, which drastically elevates the chance of weight-gain, and type-two diabetes. On average, the American consumed over 70 pounds of HFCS every year.

Another argument against government intervention in the war against fat is that unlike smoking, which can harm innocent bystanders through second hand smoke, over-eating and poor nutrition is a self-inflicted wound. But legislation has already ventured into the realm of protecting individuals from themselves with great success. Seat belt legislation around the world for example, has greatly reduced the number of causalities from road accidents; in the US, studies estimate over 10 000 lives saved every year. 

Rising obesity rates motivated Los Angeles Councilwoman Jan Perry to recently proposed a ban on new fast-food restaurants in southern L.A. Studies for years have suggested that obesity and other weight related illnesses are connected to poor food availability, especially in poorer areas. Mississippi, Alabama, and West Virginia, the three fattest states in the US, are also amongst the poorest. Poor areas tend to have fewer grocery stores, forcing most shopping to be done in small convenience type-stores where the aisles are more likely to be packed with junk food than fresh fruit and vegetables.

In order to curb the effect marketing of fast food had on its populace, especially to children, the UK sought to impose limitations on fast food advertising. The rule, which states that any food or drink which is high in fat, salt, or sugar cannot be broadcast on programs aimed at 4 to 9 year-olds, was put into place nearly two years ago, with scientists eagerly awaiting to find out if such measures have had an effect.  But thus far moves to keep junk food out of schools have been a losing battle. Over 75% of high schools and nearly just as many elementary schools have contracts with soda/pop companies, allowing schools to have vending machines in their halls.



When New York City legislated that all restaurants must ban the use of trans-fat, many resisted. Initially, the change was voluntary, but next to no restaurants made the change. Since the ban became mandatory, the amount of fat in the average New York City meal has dropped dramatically. The average serving of French Fries for example, now has fifty percent less saturated fat. More amazingly, consumers did not even notice, with most studies showing the consumers thought the food tasted as good, or better. Trans fats, which have been used in fast food for years because of its cheapness and availability can increase the risk of heart attack by as much as 23%, on as little as an increase of 2% intake. And yet, until the ban was put in place, restaurants felt no motivation to make the change.

Clearly, it was time for the government to step in.

Some still feel that the government has over-stepped its bounds, infringing on individual civil liberties by making people's dietary choices for them. Dr. Lynn Silver, the assistant commissioner of the Bureau of Chronic Disease and Prevention Control found that criticism ridiculous. It's not a matter of choice she argues, after all;

... you really wouldn't ask a parent to choose a paint with lead or without.