Fat Race

Last year's jeans won't fit? Blame the free market.

BY JOSHUA E. KEATING | NOVEMBER 2010

Along with iPods and Hollywood blockbusters, another American trend is sweeping the world: corpulence. As countries grow wealthier, they're also growing fatter. In China, the obesity rate is increasing by about 40 percent every year, and in Nigeria health officials are worried that it's reaching epidemic proportions.

Economic historian Avner Offer of Oxford University argues that it may be liberal economies themselves that are to blame. In a recent study, he and two co-authors looked at obesity rates of 11 wealthy, developed countries and found striking disparities. Some 30 percent of U.S. citizens and 29 percent of Australians are obese, while fewer than 20 percent of carb-loving French and Italians are overweight.

Why? It's not McDonald's -- though Big Macs are nearly as ubiquitous in France as in California these days. The real culprit, Offer argues, is anxiety about money and jobs. In other words, citizens with more economic stress tend to supersize their fries. This squares with new research published by the American Medical Association on "recession obesity," the tendency of waistlines to grow along with unemployment numbers. Indeed, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that about 2.4 million people became obese in the United States during the recession of 2007 to 2009, far higher than projected.

So could it be free market capitalism itself that is making us fat?

According to Offer's findings, countries with fewer labor protections and government benefits have an obesity rate 6 percentage points higher than those with more generous welfare states. He doesn't directly address whether Mediterranean diets and more walkable cities are factors in keeping Italians and French skinny, but his research implies that recent cuts in European welfare spending might do the opposite of belt-tightening.

If Offer is right, then government programs to trim fat from American diets could be missing the point entirely. Rather than encouraging children to exercise more and eat better, first lady Michelle Obama's time might be better spent advising her husband on how to create more secure jobs for their parents.

Jeff Haynes/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: ECONOMICS, HEALTH
 

Joshua E. Keating is an associate editor at Foreign Policy.

MALICEIT

10:56 PM ET

October 11, 2010

dont blame the free market...

...blame america.

 

FRANK J

3:53 AM ET

October 12, 2010

Blame the Individual

This is such a great blog post and i agree with everything but who to blame. Unless you are a child who doesn't make decisions then you should be able to decide what is right for you. BuyG-Shock Watches for cheap. The blog is really spectacular. Get ready to buyWow Cataclysm.

 

MICHELMO

7:07 AM ET

October 12, 2010

It's very sad...How can we

It's very sad...How can we change this ?

comparatif mutuelle
devis assurance auto

 

LKRIER

11:10 AM ET

October 12, 2010

cheap calories

People do tend to eat more when they're stressed, but the cause of obesity and other diet-related health problems isn't the bad economy, it's a food industry that is based around cheap, nutrient-poor calories. And that is related to the free market, in some ways. We have found ways to produce a lot of calories for little money, but not all calories are created equal. The types of food we're eating are making of unhealthy, and as the Western diet spreads, so do the health problems that accompany it. It's been pretty well researched.

We need to stop subsidizing a food industry that is killing us, and start advocating for healthy, sustainably produced food.

 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

3:25 PM ET

October 12, 2010

Problem of the free market for sure

Instead of blindly subsidizing agriculture as we do today, it would be better to find an option where healthy foods are subsidized over less healthy options. This would obviously have costs in the short term, but would help bring costs down in the long term; for instance, healthier citizens will demand less from medicare or medicaid when they are eligible for those benefits, they will be able to work more, and they will be generally more productive. Children will be less likely to get diabetes, become obese, etc, and that will have positive effects for everyone down the road.

It is interesting how these are (1) marketed to the poor and to children and (2) marketed in such a manner that the unhealthy side effects are ignored. And many are ignorant of the bad health effects. I remember last year a political advertisement where a mother complained about a soda tax, and how it would make it impossible to raise her kids; this, of course, is absurd, as buying large quantities of soda for your child is bad for your child. I'm not allowed to go buy 50 packs of cigarettes for a teenager! But people are less aware of the health effects of soda than of big macs or cigarettes, and so the ad worked.

The problem with our current political climate, however, is that any plan will be smeared by the right as some grand conspiracy by Soros or some other "villain" to "socialize" our country. China, however, shouldn't have that problem, seeing as how the government owns many of the companies and uses subsidies and state control far more liberally than our own system. Yet it is a shame that a highly authoritarian system would needed to redirect those consumer impulses.

 

RODIJO

3:26 PM ET

October 12, 2010

Not likely

That seems as a convinient but not a convincing hypothesis. In Denmark, where I reside, we have one of the most extensive welfare states in the world. A very high compensation level for both unemployment, pensions, disabilities, early retirement, social benefits of all sorts, welfare for those without jobs and insurance, money for families with children - regardless of income - free education (and a monthly transfer payment from the state to all students) and free health care - a lot of bikes and public transportations and walkable cities. And still.. the obesity levels are rising and number of GB operations in hospitals - on the states expense - are also on the rise. Denmark - a welfare state with great public spending - is getting fatter.

It does not seem plausible to roll down the role of ones own responsability for food intake - and also the role food culture plays. In France and Italy I would presume, they are brought up with af different consciousness about food and quality. Food quality and household spending on food is on average higher in France and Italy than in Denmark. The food culture is better - and when you eat higher quality food and have a culture that is respectful to the institution of a good meal - I guess you would have a tendency not to overeat because your senses get satisfyed in a different way. I other words - you eat less food but of higher value. Both in quality and in nutritional value.

Junk food makes junk people. And junk.. well, it has a tendency to accumulate into bigger piles. When you stop respecting food - and it is all about volume and bad eating habits that are tought to children, then you get the XXXL problem.

Not because you ara a comfort eater guzzling down your financial troubles with big gulps of coke and french fries.

 

AUSTRALIANREADER

9:36 PM ET

October 12, 2010

Huh?

Not sure where you got that 29% figure for Australia. According to the study, the mean was 23.58% who were obese (according to a grand total of 5 surveys, 3 of which were self-reported and one only covered females).