More on Obesity: Is the Government to Blame?

Marc Ambinder, who has done a great deal of research on the subject, takes issue with what I have written about obesity.  Since he wrote carefully, I think it deserves a careful response.

McArdle approaches obesity as if it were a Foucauldian construct: a category invented by the government to justify an exercise of power. The government has no business intervening on the level of individual choice and it shouldn't get into the business of behavioral suasion because it always fails. She's right to note that information about health risks associated with overconsuming fat and sugar and salt are saturated throughout society, even supersaturated. Everyone knows how bad this stuff can be. For her, that's the end of the argument. Government can help to provide information about how to make better choices, but it cannot and should not try to persuade people to make better choices. Indeed, the push for people to make better choices produces the stigma that makes the bad thing bad in the first place.

That's not quite right.  Obesity exists.  For very heavy people, it's a serious health threat. It is to some extent arbitray, and indeed is invented by the government, which is true of many classifications.  GDP is also arbitrary and invented by the government, but it is no less useful a concept because of that.

I don't really care if the government tries to persuade people to make better choices.  But in general, government efforts to persuade people have failed. Government efforts at transparency are useful--it was the surgeon general's report on smoking and cancer that started the downward trend in cigarette consumption (and, natch, some of the upward trend in our waistlines).  Government coercion has also proven somewhat effective--cigarette taxation and anti-smoking laws have, as far as I can tell, helped cut into smoking quite a bit.  But the middle ground, where they just try to persuade us to change our ways, has given us genius moments like this:

. . . which have not made any noticeable dent in the behavior they were trying to change.  Now, if there were great misapprehension out there about the downsides of being overweight, the government might make a difference . . . though dieting is tougher than quitting smoking for most people.  But I don't think there are a lot of people in America who are under the illusion that being overweight is in any way desireable.

Of stigmatizing fat, Mark says:

This assumes that the stigma itself is misplaced. It isn't. Fat stigma is bad and harmful, and it ought to be reduced. But reducing fat stigma doesn't reduce the incidence of obesity; it actually seems to increase it in certain populations. What produces fat stigma is not a government or culture that hectors people to lose weight and exercise and then excoriates them when they can't; it's a government that expects individuals to lose weight on their own (which is next to impossible) while making policy that keeps people fat. The discrepancy between expectations and reality is cruel, especially for children.

I'm not sure what this means.  The stigma against fat people dates back into at least the early nineteenth century among the upper classes, and the late nineteenth among poorer people--writing diet books was a popular and lucrative pasttime in the 19th century (it is to that nascent movement that we owe many of the cereal companies of today).  Fat children have been brutally teased for decades.  I don't see this as primarily a result of government policy.

It's undoubtedly true that US government policy contributes:  lack of P/E in school, ag subsidies, etc., as Marc points out:

Labeling obesity a "problem" isn't a behavioral intervention: it's a social structure intervention. And here's where the individual model really breaks down, even for those who don't blame obese people, per se, for their obesity. Obesity is highly correlated with socioeconomic status. And it is a most acute problem among young minorities: African American women, Mexican-American boys, and Native American children have much higher rates of obesity than white children do. Poor kids tend to be more obese than wealthier or middle class children. The reason for these disparities are both obvious and counterintuitive: in general, people tend to eat what they can, which means that they buy the food they have access to. Wealthier people and people living in suburbs have access. Geographic location often correlates with lifestyle; history and social norms tend to be different, too, among ethnic groups. 

McArdle is right that it it's not fair for government to lecture people about weight loss and exercise, but she's right for the wrong reason: policy choices -- ag subsidies, zoning laws, education and budget priorities -- create a flow that, absent any intervention, are sweeping many young kids, particularly poorer kids of color, into obesity. Government's role isn't to scold; it's to make better policy choices. She's wrong about the interventions, too: some, like a physical education project in Somerville, Mass., seem to be working. Taking fast food vending machines out of schools and weighing children at least once a year has arrested the obesity growth rate in Arkansas.  Nationally, the obesity growth rate also seems to be be slowing.

I don't see how I'm "right for the wrong reason".  If lecturing people doesn't work, would it be nice or fair to do it even if the government hadn't contributed to the problem?  But I confess, I am more skeptical than Marc that this can all be laid at the government's door.  If US government policy is making people overweight, why is obesity rising all over the world?  It is worse here than most places, but if obesity is correlated with income, we would expect the problem to be worst in the richest country in the world. 

As for interventions:  lots of interventions work over short periods of time.  The problem is twofold:  1) they usually don't scale--educational projects with top notch researchers working with motivated families often run aground when they're rolled out into the real world and 2) the effects often go away as soon as the program ends.  Moreover, that last sentence seems to contradict everything else Marc is saying, since I'm aware of no significant changes in government policy that should be having any effect on the national obesity rate.

Presented by

Megan McArdle is a columnist at Bloomberg View and a former senior editor at The Atlantic. Her new book is The Up Side of Down.

Saving the Bees

Honeybees contribute more than $15 billion to the U.S. economy. A short documentary considers how desperate beekeepers are trying to keep their hives alive.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

blog comments powered by Disqus


How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well.


Before Tinder, a Tree

Looking for your soulmate? Write a letter to the "Bridegroom's Oak" in Germany.


The Health Benefits of Going Outside

People spend too much time indoors. One solution: ecotherapy.


Where High Tech Meets the 1950s

Why did Green Bank, West Virginia, ban wireless signals? For science.


Yes, Quidditch Is Real

How J.K. Rowling's magical sport spread from Hogwarts to college campuses


Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

More in Business

Just In