Thanks to Jack for reminding me about my Eating Liberally post in answer to the question: What’s with Japan’s taking everyone’s waist measurements and making everyone who fails the test do something about it? Interesting idea. Can’t wait to see how it works out.
Or so says a new study from Europe. If anything, the study finds that physical activity in Europe has slightly increased since the early 1980s, a result that is consistent with findings of the CDC for Americans (the chart plots the percentage of people who say they never do physical activity; that percentage is declining). What this means, of course, is that people who are gaining weight must be eating more. Big surprise.
If you would like to know what the RWJ Foundation is doing to help prevent childhood obesity, here’s a quick summary of the projects it has funded over the past few years. These have helped get the word out. They also established a baseline for actions to come.
The Foundation is now accepting applications for two kinds of proposals aimed at obesity prevention in low-income communities: Evaluations of immediate changes in policies or environments (e.g., an evaluation of calorie labeling), and studies that can provide a basis for policy analysis (these are loosely defined). Ideas? Send them in!
The weekend is coming up so it’s the silly season again. With apologies to Michaelangelo and thanks to my son, Charles, for forwarding this photo of unknown origin. Anyone know where it comes from?
Since 2001, investment analysts in Great Britain have argued that food companies must take responsibility for their contribution to obesity or risk losing business over the long term. The investment analysis, from JP Morgan in the UK, says some companies (Danone, Unilever, Nestlé) are making some progress in some ways, particularly in Europe, but most say they are doing more than they really are–more show than tell. The analysts’ recommendation: food companies should do more–much more–to demonstrate their commitment to the health of their consumers.
But how can they, especially in the U.S., where Wall Street cares about only one thing: growth and more growth. I don’t see how companies can make real progress until the investment system changes. A somewhat better junk food is still a junk food, alas.
The USDA has just come out with a report looking at the relationship of Food Stamps to obesity. Because rates of obesity are higher among the poor, USDA economists wanted to see if Food Stamps, which raise the amount of money low-income people can spend on food, were associated with higher rates of obesity. They were not, at least for most people, but they were associated with obesity in younger women. I have no idea what to make of this, really. It seems self-evident that having more money – enough money – to spend on food means that people will eat more healthfully. But Food Stamps are notorious for their unreliability in meeting people’s real needs. They typically run out after three weeks, which leaves recipients scrambling to meet food needs during the fourth week of the month. Food Stamps do help to address income disparities, but not nearly enough. I’d like to see the USDA do an experiment: give women enough Food Stamps to really meet their needs and see if diets improve.
Obesity is more common in low-income areas. Why? It may seem intuitively obvious that lack of adequate income, transportation, cooking facilities, supermarkets, and opportunities for physical activity would make it difficult for people to eat healthfully and be active, but inituition is one thing and evidence is another. My NYU colleagues Jennifer Black and James Macinko now provide the evidence in a most useful review paper. Want to improve the “built environment”? This is a great starting place.
Today’s New York Times has a juicy article in the business section about the differing opinions of obesity experts about New York City’s proposal to require certain restaurants to post calorie information on menu boards. The head of one obesity society, who is a frequent consultant to the food and restaurant industry, apparently thinks calorie labeling will backfire by “inadvertently encouraging patrons to consume lower-calorie foods that subsequently lead to greater total caloric intake because of poor satiating efficiency of the smaller calorie loads.” Coincidence?
I am the 2024 Joyce Lindower Wolitzer ’76 and Steven Wolitzer Seminar speaker and will be at Cornell for events connected with it. My Wolitzer talk, “Food Politics 2024: An Agenda for Action” is at 4:45 p.m. in 700 Clark Hall, followed by a book signing. No registration necessary, just come!