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.