Report Suggests How to Beat Obesity Epidemic

WASHINGTON - Dec. 31, 2013 - PRLog -- By undercutting those to which so many pundits and health organizations give lip service, it suggests how this very costly health problem can best be fought, says the man who has been called "the Ralph Nader of Junk Food," "The Man Who Is Taking Fat to Court," the “Man Big Tobacco and Now Fast Food Love to Hate," the lawyer "Who's Leading the Battle Against Big Fat," and "a Major Crusader Against Big Tobacco and Now Among Those Targeting the Food Industry."

The obesity epidemic wasn't caused by genetic factors because, as the report in the Washington Post noted, "between 1980 and 2000, the number of Americans who are obese has doubled — too quickly for genetic factors to be responsible," notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

Thus, a brief glance at the percentage of adult Americans who are obese makes it clear that some external event - not a change in our genes - was responsible: 1960 = 13%; 1980 = 15%; 1994 = 23%; 2000 = 31%; 2008 = 34%; 2010 = 36%. Indeed, a very careful economic study shows that the fast food companies alone are responsible for more than 65% of the rise in American obesity.

The argument that people must be encouraged to exert more willpower was also debunked by the report, since “research on restrained eating has proven that in most circumstances dieting is not a feasible strategy.” Thus simply encouraging either more "personal responsibility,” and/or dieting to lose weight, is not a successful strategy for reducing the enormous economic burden obesity imposes on society.

Increasing access to fresh fruits and vegetables is also not the answer, the report makes clear, because fewer than 5% of Americans live in so-called "food desserts" where such foods are not available.

Encouraging people to become more physically active also will also do little to remedy the problem, as the report makes very clear: "But according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there was no significant decrease in physical activity levels as obesity rates climbed in the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, although a drop in work-related physical activity may account for up to 100 fewer calories burned, leisure physical activity appears to have increased, and Americans keep tipping the scales.”

Finally, educational programs - in the form of more public health messages, campaigns to raise public consciousness, providing more information, etc. - also are unlikely to help much: "According to a physicians’ health study, 44% of male doctors are overweight. A study by the University of Maryland School of Nursing found that 55% of nurses surveyed were overweight or obese. If people who provide health care cannot control their weight, why would nutrition education alone make a difference for others?"

What are likely to be more effective, and which may already be having a significant impact, are governmental interventions which can be adopted and tested at virtually no cost to taxpayers.

Studies suggest that mandating calorie disclosures by fast food and other major chain restaurants is having an impact - just as requiring the disclosure of nutritional information on processed foods purchased in super markets has an impact - on food purchases. Indeed, this might be one reason why the rate of adult obesity has declined slightly, from 36% in 2010 to 35% in 2012.

Fortunately, beginning in 2014, about 5 million vending machines will also have to begin providing calorie counts. “Thus, consumers will not longer be able to deceive themselves that many of the foods sold through vending machines are not that bad for you and, as with fast foods, will have to confront the stark reality of their daily calorie intake.” Moreover, says Banzhaf, it’s only fair to provide consumers who might wish to reduce their weight with relevant information about how to do it, and to help them choose from among the many snacks which are offered those least likely to put on additional weight.

In addition to helping people already concerned about their consumption of calories to determine which foods are least likely to contribute to obesity, and to constantly remind others about how many calories they are consuming, government-required labeling can also provide a powerful incentive for companies to modify their products. Just as the FDA’s rule requiring the disclosure of trans fat content in many manufactured products prodded many major food companies to switch to healthier oils to reduce potentially damaging disclosures, requiring vending machines to list calories in the products offered may well lead many snack food makers to modify their formulas to avoid having to disclose high calorie counts.

An additional no-cost-to-taxpayers step the government could take to fight back against the epidemic of obesity would be to require appropriate health warnings similar to those which are mandated regarding cigarettes and other products which present significant risks. Although warning that children should not visit McDonald’s more than once a week - as McDonald’s itself once warned parents in a national magazine - may appear too strong to many people, a warning that eating fast food frequently can contribute to obesity and to the many diseases it causes would probably, particularly over time, have an impact.

There are many other simple inexpensive steps which governments could take which would be more effective in fighting obesity than educational programs encouraging people to exerts more willpower, or to do more walking, are likely to have, says Banzhaf. Since sugary soft drinks are the major source of totally unnecessary calories, and are a major contributor to the rise in obesity, states or even individual cities could limit the maximum size for sugary soft drinks in venues like fast food restaurants and movie theaters (e.g., a single serving can be no more than16 oz.); mandate per-oz. pricing of sugary soft drinks in venues like fast food restaurants and movie theaters (i.e., a 32 oz. serving must cost at least twice as much as a 16 oz. serving); cease exempting sugary soft drinks from the ordinary sales tax, etc.

“Today we know how to fight back effectively against the toxic environment for obesity created by food companies, soft drink makers, fast food outlets, etc. and it isn’t through educational campaigns. The only question is whether we have the political will to do something effective,” says Banzhaf.

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/ @profbanzhaf