So it seems that James Fallows and Marc Ambinder and I all agree that the increase in obesity in the American population is environmental, though they seem to think I disagree, despite my having made this point several times, and have thus spent a fair amount of time disproving a point no one has made. The very point of the height example offered in my first post was to note how environment interacts with genes.
It still remains to figure what the environmental change in America is that has caused this: whether the government is largely responsible, and regardless of that, whether the government can stop it.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't think the government is all that plausible as the primary source of the problem. Obesity is rising everywhere, even in poor countries. It seems to be rising fastest in the anglosphere, but then, most countries outside the anglosphere rely on self-reporting data, which produces lower estimates. Eyeballing it, people in other countries are a lot thinner. But there are also a lot more fat people in Europe than there used to be.
But leaving culpability aside, what can the government reasonably do to make us healthier? We could change our road building and build denser. But of course, as I pointed out elsewhere, while being rural is correlated with being fatter, it's also correlated with being healthier (though that advantage may be eroding). It's impossible to tease out the countervailing effects, so which should we do? Build up dense areas in which people will be thinner, but maybe sicker from the stress hormones of living in a noisier, more crowded area? This might be liking taking up smoking to lose weight.
We can eliminate agricultural subsidies. Great: high fructose corn syrup won't be so cheap! But total corn subsidies in the US are about $10 billion, or about $33 per American. Even poor households spend many multiples of that per capita for food. You're talking about a difference of less than a dollar a week per person in the food budget. Meanwhile, what else happens when we dismantle our ag subsidies? The price of sugar, which is kept high by that same farm policy, falls by about 30-40%. Perhaps you wanted to get rid of the corn subsidies while keeping the sugar price supports? But the politically impossible job of slashing corn subsidies (we've been trying since the Reagan administration) will become even more unlikely if you don't also cut the cost of sugar to keep corn syrup competitive.
We could ban television advertising, a favorite of many public health types, and Marc. But there's something interesting about that. When I wrote this article, seven years ago (yikes!), everyone was very much up in arms about the problem of food advertising on television, particularly to children. So I went looking for all the studies showing that advertising made people eat more junk food. I couldn't find any. Suspecting my google-fu was terrible, I enlisted the support of others. No luck. Ultimately, I called Eric Schlosser, whose book, Fast Food Nation, had argued against fast food companies largely on the grounds that their advertising campaigns turned children into helpless addicts. At the end of the interview, I asked him for the studies he'd relied on. He sounded confused. He didn't have any studies indicating that fast food advertising spending made people eat more of the stuff. But, he argued, it stands to reason that if they advertise, it works.
Well, oddly, I have a little less faith in corporate America than a left-wing journalist. Companies, even entire industries, do all sorts of idiotic things for surprisingly long times . . . investment banking and autos tend to spring immediately to mind right now. And I still haven't found any evidence that advertising actually makes people consume more fast food. It may make them eat more during the commercial, but there's no evidence that it even ups their overall food intake, much less sends them out to McDonalds. Most of the studies of advertising I found show that it does a much better job at creating new product awareness or brand switching than creating new demand.
I mean, there's no evidence it doesn't make people eat more, and I don't think I'd get particularly worried if we banned food advertising on television, though I'm sure the networks would, since I"m not sure they'd be viable without it. But the belief that this will help revolutionize America's eating habits is not very well supported.
We could change what's happening in schools: take vending machines out, make cafeteria meals healthier, and so forth. Fine, but the kids are in school for six hours out of 24. What's happening the rest of the time? Child obesity increases most during summer vacation.
Marc goes into a lengthy paragraph about social capital and obesity:
- Reeingineer America's urban infrastructure to discourage car transit
- Eliminate all agricultural subsidies
- Ban television advertising
- Change the schools
- Massive intervention into low income families
- Solve the crime problem
When Marc says, essentially, "We're doing things that make us fatter, so can't we undo them?" he makes it sound like these are small changes. But the political opposition these actions would face is absolute enormous. Americans were not blindly seduced into an auto-based lifestyle by the paver's union; they voted for lots of roads because they like their cars. Every president since Reagan has wanted to eliminate farm subsidies, and every president since Reagan has thoroughly, utterly, entirely failed. Similarly, the food and entertainment industries are not going to stand idly by while you do away with 10% of advertising revenue. "Fix the schools" and "fix crime" are two agendas that society is currently aggressively pursuing, with limited success. And I'm skeptical that you're going to find something north of $30 billion a year for the kind of early-child interventions that really seem to make a difference.