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 can’t believe researchers are still arguing about whether obesity is due to genetics or environment when it is so obvious that both are involved. The latest study compared identical with non-identical twins and concludes that genetics explains an astounding 77% of the difference in obesity. That percentage is enormous in biological terms and reason enough for skepticism. The accompanying editorial gives additional reasons. My take on this: of course genetics matters, but 25 years ago kids didn’t used to be so fat and rates of childhood diabetes (type 2) used to be much lower. Genetics cannot have changed much in the last 25 years. If the percentage attributable to genetics really is this high, it means that 77% of the population is susceptible to becoming obese if the environmental conditions so predispose, which they most certainly do these days. Your take?
As suggested by the story in today’s New York Times, we can expect to hear much fuss about a new study showing that obese people and smokers cost less to treat. Of course they do. They die sooner. Healthy people are expensive say some Dutch economists in this new study. Economists have an interesting way of looking at such things; all they care about is money. But what about quality of life? Shouldn’t that count as economic value?
So many people have sent me news about the proposed legislation in Mississippi to ban overweight people from eating in restaurants that I must say something about it. I thought it was a joke, but no such luck. The bill truly exists. Nobody expects it to get anywhere but I still think it’s bad public policy. For one thing, I still remember lunch counter sit-ins during the civil rights movement, plenty of them in Mississippi. For another, this won’t fix the environment to make it easier people to eat more healthfully. Here are some alternative suggestions: How about requiring restaurants to give a price break for smaller portions or making smaller portions and healthy kids’ meals the default?
