Girth of a nation by Krugman

[Guest guest]

p

Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:40:22 -0700

Girth of a nation by Krugman

 

 

 

 

 

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/04/opinion/04krugman.html?hp>

 

 

 

Girth of a Nation

By PAUL KRUGMAN

 

Published: July 4, 2005

 

The Center for Consumer Freedom, an advocacy group financed by

Coca-Cola, Wendy's and Tyson Foods, among others, has a Fourth of July

message for you: worrying about the rapid rise in American obesity is

unpatriotic.

 

" Far too few Americans, " declares the center's Web site, " remember that

the Founding Fathers, authors of modern liberty, greatly enjoyed their

food and drink. ... Now it seems that food liberty - just one of the

many important areas of personal choice fought for by the original

American patriots - is constantly under attack. "

 

It sounds like a parody, but don't laugh. These people are blocking

efforts to help America's children.

 

I've been looking into the issues surrounding obesity because it plays

an important role in health care costs. According to a study recently

published in the journal Health Affairs, the extra costs associated with

caring for the obese rose from 2 percent of total private insurance

spending in 1987 to 11.6 percent in 2002. The study didn't cover

Medicare and Medicaid, but it's a good bet that obesity-related expenses

are an important factor in the rising costs of taxpayer-financed

programs, too. Fat is a fiscal issue.

 

But it's also, alas, a partisan issue.

 

First, let's talk about what isn't in dispute: around 1980, Americans

started getting rapidly fatter.

 

Some pundits still dismiss American pudge as a benign " affliction of

affluence, " a sign that people can afford to eat tasty foods, drive cars

and avoid hard physical labor. But all of that was already true by 1980,

which is roughly when Americans really started losing the battle of the

bulge.

 

The great majority of us (yes, me too) are now overweight, and the

percentage of adults considered obese has doubled, to more than 30

percent. Most alarmingly, obesity, once rare among the young, has become

common among adolescents, and even among children.

 

Is that a bad thing? Well, obesity clearly increases the risks of heart

disease, diabetes, back problems and more. And the cost of treating

these weight-related diseases is an important factor in rising health

care spending.

 

So there is, understandably, a movement to do something about rising

obesity, especially among the young. Bills that would require schools to

serve healthier lunches, remove vending machines selling sweets and

soda, and so on have been introduced in a number of state legislatures.

By the way, Britain - with the second-highest obesity among advanced

countries - has introduced stringent new guidelines on school meals.

 

But even these mild steps have run into fierce opposition from

conservatives. Why?

 

In part, this is yet another red-blue cultural conflict. On average,

people living outside metropolitan areas are heavier than urban or

suburban residents, and people in the South and Midwest are heavier than

those on the coasts. So it's all too easy for worries about America's

weight to come off as cultural elitism.

 

More important, however, is the role of the food industry. The debate

over obesity, it turns out, is a lot like the debate over global

warming. In both cases, major companies protect their profits not only

by lobbying against policies they don't like, but also by financing

advocacy groups devoted to debunking research whose conclusions they

don't like.

 

The pro-obesity forces - or, if you prefer, the anti-anti-obesity forces

- make their case in part by claiming that America's weight gain does no

harm. There was much glee on the right when a new study, using data from

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, appeared to reject the

conventional view that obesity has a large negative effect on life

expectancy.

 

But as officials from the C.D.C. have pointed out, mortality isn't the

only measure of health. There's no question that obesity plays an

important role in many diseases that diminish the quality of life and,

crucially, require expensive treatment.

 

The growing availability of such treatment probably explains why the

strong relationship between obesity and mortality visible in data from

the 1970's has weakened. But the cost of treating the obese is helping

to break the back of our health care system.

 

So what can we do?

 

The first step is to recognize the industry-financed campaign against

doing anything for the cynical exercise it is. Remember, nobody is

proposing that adult Americans be prevented from eating whatever they

want. The question is whether big companies will have a free hand in

their efforts to get children into the habit of eating food that's bad

for them.

--

 

 

" As democracy is perfected, the office of president

represents, more and more closely, the inner soul

of the people. On some great and glorious day the

plain folks of the land will reach their heart's

desire at last and the White House will be adorned

by a downright moron. " --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)