Fatter than ever

OK, these maps (from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, via Treehugger.com) are just astonishing. The top map shows America's state-by-state obesity rate in 1991. Not one American state had an adult obesity rate of greater than 20%. Some states had an obesity rate of less than 10%. (There are no records from three states, those shown in white.)

The bottom map shows the most recent data on adult obesity. Now, only one state has a rate of less than 20% (that's Colorado, at 19.1%). More than two-thirds of our states have an adult obesity rate of greater than 25% - and eight of them have rates above 30%. Mississippi, the fattest state in the Union, has an obesity rate of 33.8%. More than two-thirds of Mississippi adults are overweight.

What is going on here? After all, we're not talking about the days of our grandparents (or the contrast would be even greater). We're fatter - far fatter - than we were even in the 1990's - and the obesity rate back then was certainly nothing to be proud of. I don't get it. Are we really eating more junk food now than we were in the 1990's? Are we really getting even less exercise? It's hard to imagine that this is all that's going on.

After all, we've had television almost universally in America since the 1960's (almost 90% of American households had a TV in 1960). As a child, I spent my Saturdays pretty well glued to the TV, making myself half sick from staring at the screen for hour after hour. We didn't have computers back then, but we certainly had TV. (And since the obesity rate is highest among the poor, it's hard to imagine that computers are the problem.) And junk food? That's nothing particularly new, either. Has our junk food addiction really changed appreciably from the 1990's? That's hard to imagine, too.

OK, obviously I'd prefer to find a magic bullet here. I'd like to see us identify a chemical, some food additive or artificial ingredient, that's causing these soaring rates of obesity, because that would be an easy fix. As a skeptic, I know that we always want to find simple answers - and I know how very easy it is to believe what we really want to believe. We look for simple answers, when we should be looking for the truth. So I'm not going to jump to any firm conclusions about this.

But it's still hard to believe that our lifestyles have changed that much since the 1990's, don't you think? That wasn't ancient times, for Jebus' sake. Americans didn't walk everywhere, laboring in the fields, tending their crops by hand. We were Cheeto-munching couch potatoes in the 1990's, too, I assure you. Do you really think we had more discipline back then? I don't think so. So why have we become even fatter as a nation than we were then? What has changed? What is continuing to change? After all, this trend certainly hasn't stopped. (Adult obesity rates increased in 28 states over the past year.)

I'll tell you one thing: personal discipline isn't going to solve this problem. Oh, sure, if you're really disciplined and determined, you can probably solve your own personal weight problem. It won't be easy, but it can be done if you really stick with it. But it's only the rare person who's that disciplined and determined, and even then, it seldom lasts long. No, a nationwide problem like this requires deliberate government policies. There's a reason for this explosion in obesity. We need to find that reason - or those reasons - and we need to attack the problem as a society.

I don't know the solution. As I say, there probably isn't a magic bullet. However, it would greatly help if our government policies didn't actually contribute to the problem. Our government subsidizes the worst kinds of food, so that our cheapest food is also the most fattening and the least healthy. Well, farm subsidies are based on political power, not science, not even common sense. For example, we subsidize the domestic sugar industry, which not only keeps sugar cheap but also damages the economies of our neighbors in the Caribbean, some of the poorest nations on the planet. Yeah, one of the wealthiest countries on Earth keeps the poorest from competing, just to keep big corporations happy!

Republican businessmen and farmers talk a lot about the magic of the marketplace and the benefits of competition, but it's generally just talk. When it comes to their own pocketbooks, they insist on their God-given right to suck at the government teat. Yeah, government welfare is pure and beautiful when the money comes to you, isn't it? Try to change farm policy and you'll have every rural senator in the nation - from both parties - screaming bloody murder. Well, that's just because their constituents demand it. (And since the number of senators doesn't vary by population, rural states have far more political power than they should.)

Would this solve the problem? Of course not. But it would help, or at least not make the problem worse. Right now, the poorest Americans are also the fattest, and part of that is because the cheapest food is the most fattening and the least healthy. And that's the kind of food we serve in our schools, too - partly because it's cheap and partly because corporations who make money selling junk food have a lot of political power. Ketchup as a vegetable, anyone? Oh, now that's a healthy meal!

(image from Wikipedia Commons)

Personally, I doubt if most obesity-prevention programs will work, but we have to try them. And more importantly, we need to examine the results. Throw out what doesn't work, or what isn't cost effective, and concentrate on what does.

Also, I'm skeptical about PE in schools. All too often, it doesn't encourage activity people can - or will - continue as adults. (And at worst, it just encourages the passive watching of televised sports.) I'd rather see free-form recess than organized PE. And to combat obesity, I'd rather concentrate on strict nutritional standards for school lunches and vending machines. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm certainly no expert. Again, we need careful scientific investigations of everything we do. Find out what really works, not just what has the most popular (or corporate) support.

Personally, I think that encouraging gardening might help, too. For me, at least, I like to eat what I grow myself. I rarely buy vegetables in the grocery store, because they just don't sound good (not compared to all the junk food available, anyway). But if I grow it myself, I eat it and I like it. OK, this isn't going to solve the obesity epidemic, but it might help. Try it yourself, if you can.

But again, we need smarter policies at the federal level. Here's an interesting argument about attacking the problem from a supply side, rather than the demand side. I already talked about this, but it bears repeating.

Because current market incentives, imposed by the government, encourage factory production of protein and mass production of high fructose corn syrup, we have (surprise) super-cheap, mass-produced chicken, pork, beef, and sweet treats.

Changing those policies won’t be easy, because there’s a vast industry — much of it now geared to export — that has grown fat on those policies.

Companies like Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods and Archer Daniels Midland have grown fat on our current system of subsidies. So have our fast food chains. So have our food manufacturers. ...

Because we subsidize exports of grain, sugar and protein, African, Asian and South American markets can’t develop. And because we subsidize for export, we can’t either.

The answer to the obesity epidemic lies in changing our production incentives. Take the price supports off mass produced grain and feed, give them to small local truck farms and sustainable production methods. Then export expertise, which is more valuable than corn syrup anyway.

Can we do this? Yes. Will we? No, probably not. But let's keep trying. I become increasingly pessimistic the older I get, but it's cowardly to give up. And it's lazy to stop trying to make a difference. (If you don't vote, you should be ashamed of yourself! I mean it. No excuses are sufficient. Vote, damn it!)