Obesity Discussion Forums

[Obesity Discussion]

Will Taxes, Regulations, Lawsuits and Advertising Bans Prevent Obesity?

By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has now officially morphed from a scientific publication into an advocacy organ for big government. An article and editorial in the current NEJM call for what amounts to a government takeover of the food industry in the name of reducing obesity, especially childhood obesity. But there is even more to this agenda than meets the eye.

Americans—both adults and kids—are too fat and, as a result, our health is in jeopardy. The problem is quite real and quite serious—there is little controversy about that.

But what should we do about it? Is this a personal matter of individual responsibility and choice? Or is it a problem of such national significance that government intervention and even coercive actions can be justified?

Two very distinct philosophies about effective solutions to the obesity problem are now emerging. On one hand there those of us who view obesity as a personal health issue, one to be addressed by individual patients (or their parents) and their physicians. These influences may also be supplemented by increased public health education on how to define caloric needs, as well as on keeping the number of calories ingested in balance with expenditures in the form of exercise.

On the other hand there are those who believe that obesity in America has reached a crisis level that necessitates a full spectrum of government interventions to protect people from their own actions--namely over-consumption of calories. Scientist-lawyers associated with the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Harvard School of Public Health starkly outline this approach to obesity in the current NEJM. Their commentary calls on government agencies and attorneys to play a more aggressive role in combating obesity by, among other things, slapping taxes on so-called junk foods and banning or restricting food advertising

I have a number of concerns about this proposed government assault on obesity—and so should you:

First, in determining which foods to tax and which ads to regulate, how would officials distinguish between "junk" and "healthy" foods? Would all foods high in sugar be labeled “junk�? If so, would that include fruit juices? Would all foods high in fat be labeled "junk", and if so would that include avocados, butter and cheddar cheese? Or would a food be considered "junk" if it were low in nutrient density, for example a can of soda or beer? If the beverage were fortified—say with vitamin C and calcium—would it shed its "junk" label and thus be free from tax and regulation?

The problem with viewing food in a simplistic dichotomy—bad versus good—is that eating is more than a biological experience. Eating is a pleasure of life. There is no sound scientific reason to justify the claim that everything we eat must be bursting with nutrients. In an otherwise well-balanced diet, there is room for moderate intake of soda, cupcakes, potato chips—and even that ultimate form of adult junk food, alcohol.

Second, placing a punitive tax on certain foods will do nothing to curb obesity. It will only serve to raise a family's weekly grocery bill, an impact that will hit poor families the hardest as they spend a relatively higher proportion of their income on food. It will not teach them which foods might be better for them, only those that are cheaper. Those who advocate for a tax to discourage the consumption of certain "bad" foods argue in vague terms about how this revenue can be used to educate people about healthy eating. But surely there are other ways of beefing up educational efforts about calories, exercise and striking a daily balance. Further, our history with such allegedly designated taxes (like those on cigarettes) teaches us that all such taxes are ultimately hi-jacked for general government revenues.

Third, the Harvard authors give short shrift to the role of individual responsibility in making dietary decisions and the importance of parental guidance in shaping the diets of children. They characterize consumers as gullible and vulnerable to the manipulative actions of the food industry—and perceive a need for government to intervene as our protector. This "consumer as victim" mentality flies in the face of the reality that we voluntarily purchase the foods we want—not because we are brainwashed by advertisements. Adult consumers are not puppets that are manipulated at will by advertising, and parents must help their children distinguish between ads and educational information. They will be seeing all kinds of advertising throughout their lives, and will have to make such distinctions continually.

Fourth, the authors and other advocates of the use of laws, regulations and taxes to restrict food advertising and discourage the purchase of "bad" foods overlook one very obvious recommendation: physicians and scientists should be encouraging the food industry to use the science of food technology to reduce the caloric content of food—while maintaining quality and taste. For example, techniques of biotechnology now allow the modification of potatoes to raise starch content to a level that reduces the amount of fat absorbed during deep-frying. Given the nation's passion for French fries, this application of biotechnology could shave substantial calories off a fast-food meal—much more than a "bad food" tax would. Similarly, use of fat substitutes (like the unfairly maligned olestra) would increase the number of available reduced fat, lower calorie foods.

Government intervention in the form of mandated vaccinations, water chlorination and similar measures have been very successful in reducing the burden of infectious disease. That is a proper role of government—in the interest of public health. But when it comes to obesity the matter is not amenable to such mandates. Providing accurate, unbiased information about the importance of a healthful lifestyle, including moderate dietary choices and appropriate activity levels, can be a useful government activity—without draconian taxes or restrictions on food availability. Before we turn over the responsibility of weight management to Uncle Sam, M.D., we should scientifically evaluate proposed solutions to learn if they are likely to work and consider the unintended consequences of interventions that raise prices and curb freedom of choice.

Article

[Peter1948]

I am appalled as I see what is going on.
People are expecting governments to provide a solution, yet they are rarely holding the government accountable for being part of the problem.
Government subsidies to industries that provide ingredients for processed foods
Education systems that teach theories on health which often tend to be more the cause rather than the solution to obesity.
Governments protecting people from the financial consequences of choosing to be obese. Most people may disagree with me on this. An example of the way I see it is when I got my BMI up to 30.7, my blood pressure became very high. I see so many people choosing to be obese. Many take prescription drugs to regulate their blood pressure, often hugely subsidized by government pharmaceutical benefits schemes.
I think we, as people who are taking our own responsibility for ourselves and also supporting each other on this forum website are making much more of a difference than the government would by passing more laws and implementing more controls
Unscrupulous people tend to find ways around the laws, and the remainder of us lose more of our freedom as we get caught up in the red tape and unintended restrictions that these laws tend to create.
The weight loss industry is probably also a cause of obesity. They mainly provide products and services that do not help reduce body fat. They mislead us with their advertising.
It is said that "in business you must provide people what they want. To provide them with what they need is a recipe for bankruptcy."
I am guilty of not taking care of my financial wellbeing. And I absolutely refuse to promote the worthless weight loss products that people want. I am that stubborn!
I acknowledge all who so generously speak and write the truth about reducing obesity and reveal the lies that others tell us for their own financial gain.

[Erin]

While I don't think that adding a "junk food tax" will make much difference in how people spend their money on food, I do believe making an effort to lower the prices of food and vegetables would. I have a buch of friends who live on their own and eat like crap just because it's cheaper. It is truly expensive to eat healthy 100% of the time.

I believe regulating food advertisements is a step in the right direction. There are far too many commercials on tv for the newest meal deal at McDonalds or Burger King, the newest chocolate bar, etc. Studies have been done to show that these advertisements do increase sales dramatically, which in turn causes people to go out and buy these fattening foods more often.

However, if the government TRULY wants to make a difference in the growing obesity rate, they need to make a difference in the schools. Most overweight adults have already given up on themselves, but children are still young and impressionable. If schools taught mandatory nutrition courses (worth while courses, not just the teaching of the food groups) and offered fruit in vending machines instead of chips and candy, they would be much more likely to grow into healthy, active adults.

[William Wallace]

Originally Posted by Erin

While I don't think that adding a "junk food tax" will make much difference in how people spend their money on food, I do believe making an effort to lower the prices of food and vegetables would. I have a buch of friends who live on their own and eat like crap just because it's cheaper. It is truly expensive to eat healthy 100% of the time.

Why wouldn't it work? People have been changing their driving habits with the increased price of gas. If healthy food was the same price as cheap food you do not think that would help a smidge?

Originally Posted by Erin

I believe regulating food advertisements is a step in the right direction. There are far too many commercials on tv for the newest meal deal at McDonalds or Burger King, the newest chocolate bar, etc. Studies have been done to show that these advertisements do increase sales dramatically, which in turn causes people to go out and buy these fattening foods more often.

Obesity is dangerous just in a different way than say smoking, and smoking is so regulated on how it's advertised. Not fair is it?

Originally Posted by Erin

However, if the government TRULY wants to make a difference in the growing obesity rate, they need to make a difference in the schools. Most overweight adults have already given up on themselves, but children are still young and impressionable. If schools taught mandatory nutrition courses (worth while courses, not just the teaching of the food groups) and offered fruit in vending machines instead of chips and candy, they would be much more likely to grow into healthy, active adults.

The programs there now are a joke, so disorganized and the states get unequal funding. They have such a long way to go. I still think it's hard to get these young kids to see the big picture though. I think healthy eating should start in the home first and foremost, and the schools should be a supplement.

[Peter1948]

Maybe it is not that there are too many commercials on tv for the newest meal deal at McDonalds or Burger King, the newest chocolate bar, etc, but rather that there are not enough advertisements for fresh delicious crisp crunchy raw vegetables, that are so handy and economical as a snack anytime or used in preparing a delicious meal and your body feels so great after eating them. Available at your friendly local greengrocer.
Greengrocers and vegetable growers sometimes have a problem of oversupply in peak season. Could that be an opportune time for promoting a healthy bargain and getting people in the habit of excitedly viewing the rows of colourful fresh produce displayed on the shelves of fruit and vegetable shops?

[Erin]

Originally Posted by William Wallace

Why wouldn't it work? People have been changing their driving habits with the increased price of gas. If healthy food was the same price as cheap food you do not think that would help a smidge?

Maybe the increase costs of gas has effected driving habits in the states, but where I live, everyone drives the exact same amount. I don't know of a single person who drives less or takes the bus more because of gas prices. Everyone still drives around in their huge trucks and SUV's or all the other gas guzzlers on the road out there. Back in 2006, when prices climbed to $1/litre, translink (our bus system) added new routes and busses because they were expecting a huge increase in the amount of people who road the bus every day. Those people never came, and they ended up cancelling a bunch of routes because of it. Prices are now $1.30/litre, yet there are just as many cars (if not more) on the road today.

Now all of this is based off of where I live in Canada. I have no idea what things are like in the states (where gas prices are still lower.) Part of this is due to everything in the lower mainland (which includes Vancouver and all the surrounding cities in Southwest BC) is so spread out and it takes forever to travel anywhere by bus.

[milfredo]

The problem is, that you can't legislate away people's vices. It didn't work with Alchohol in the 20's and it's not working with drugs today. I know we are talking about food, but for many people, junk food is the drug of choice to self medicate.

Once society moved away from being an agro based society and turned to centralized food supply, the die were cast. People eat the wrong things because of many reasons, but the underlying main cause is psychological self medicating. If that weren't true, when things go bad, people wouldn't dash to the fridge and start wolfing down ice cream, cookies or driving through McDonald's for a late night bag of comfort food.

Obesitiy is much more complex than what I have simply laid out of course, but bottomline is we are making choices. And those choices are not good for the most part or we people of weight would not be people of weight. We'd look "Normal" and be a lot healthier.

[Peter1948]

I agree that you can not legislate away people's vices. However some social attitudes can be changed. For example in Australia, many people accepted drunk driving as socially acceptable. That attitude changed with a campaign which included advertising, using the slogan that "if you drink and drive you are a bloody idiot." Now, some years later, very few people encourage their mates to drink and drive.
It seems that it is socially acceptable to have a fat belly.
Many people encourage us to do that. Some unknowingly teach us habits that tend to make us grow fat, by giving us sweets and foods loaded with sugar or corn syrup as a reward or a treat. They teach us to eat all the food that is on our plate. They get upset when we do not want to eat some special treat that they have prepared or purchased for us. They teach us by their example.
Food manufacturers can turn cheap ingredients into foods that they can profitably sell, and they invest money in advertising so their businesses can flourish. They teach us that their sugar loaded product is healthy. They omit to tell us that other alternatives are much healthier.
Many people believe that it is difficult to lose body fat and they use the scale as a measure of their progress instead of using other measures which would indicate successes. Most of the multi billion dollar diet and weight loss industry does not deliver on its promise of having us quickly, easily and healthily shed fat from our bodies.
Our environment does not support us, so we need to support ourselves and each other. We have an opportunity to be leaders and demonstrate the benefits of working towards having a healthy body.
I find the phrase "people of weight" very interesting. I have been at 92 kg for a few days now, though my waist measurement has decreased over that time and my trousers now fit me comfortably. Same weight yet not as fat.