Information about the Aspen Ideas Festival is here. I am scheduled for a session, The American Wellness Paradox, currently scheduled from 11:00-11:50 a.m., at the East Lawn Tent. This will be a discussion with senior HHS policy advisor, Calley Means. Here’s the blurb on it: “Americans are spending more than ever on healthcare, supplements, wellness trends, and “clean eating,” yet rates of chronic disease and metabolic illness continue to climb. As skepticism fuels the rise of movements like MAHA, debates over what Americans should eat have become deeply cultural, political, and economic. Two influential voices with sharply different perspectives on nutrition and food science explore how food systems, farming practices, consumer culture, and the wellness industry collided to create one of the defining public health debates of our time.”
The Lancet’s obesity recommendations: conflicted interests?
A reader, Maria Birman, alerted me to this new report in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology from the 56-member Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity. The commission recommended shifting the definition and diagnostic criteria for obesity away from the BMI and instead defining obesity in two categories based on health status.
- Clinical obesity: signs and symptoms of organ or other dysfunctions; a disease requiring effective health care treatment
- Pre-clinical obesity: high levels of body fat but no signs of dysfunction but higher risk for chronic disease, requiring support for risk reduction.
Maria writes:
I’m astonished by the full two-page “declaration of interests” (no conflict there, of course not!). Naturally Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk are very much interested in obesity being considered a disease, and a treatable one at that. And doctors and scientists paid by these companies authored this paper which is posed to be very influential.
I took a look at the conflict-of-interest statement. It is indeed astonishing as it goes on and on for nearly two pages in four columns.
Maria saved me from having to go through the analysis. Here are her counts.
- Of the 56 authors, 47 declared conflicts of interest; only 9 did not.
- All 8 authors on the steering committee declare financial ties to drug companies.
- Novo Nordisk (Ozempic, Wegovy) is mentioned 60 times by 38 authors.
- Eli Lilly (Zepbound) is mentioned 39 times by 27 authors.
- Authors report financial ties to other pharmaceutical companies: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Eurodrug Laboratories, Sanofi., and others.
- Authors report consulting fees, fees for educational purposes, research grants, speaker fees, co-authorship of manuscripts, medical writing assistance, and personal honoraria as a consultant and speaker, among others.
- Authors report financial ties to food companies such as Nestlé, which makes the Vital Pursuit line marketed to people on Ozempic.
Comment
No question, the BMI is an imperfect measure of the health risks of obesity, although it works pretty well as a first step. Defining obesity as a disease may well help get treatment for people who need it.
I wish we had a health care system that could help people with obesity find out whether they have the clinical or pre-clinical form. In the absence of a functional health care system, we have drugs—effective and without deleterious side effects for some people, but for the great majority, highly expensive and hard to get.
This commission appears as an arm of the pharmaceutical industry. Its findings require careful scrutiny.

