...personal responsibility is a trap.

You can't make this stuff up. These people are impossible to caricature.

I think the proper response to their points are: yes. so what? did the 70's prove capitalism to be a failed experiment? And: you know what's a huge trap? Getting the government involved to fix a problem for us.

Ooh! Ooh! Easy to beat arguments! Goody!

First, it's wrong.
Oh. Well alrighty then.
Is irresponsibility an epidemic around the world?
This is easy: YES

Second, it ignores biology. Humans are hardwired, as a survival strategy, to like foods high in sugar, fat and calories.
Uh huh, we're also hardwired to think and to make decisions and to feel guilt and remorse and all sorts of other things. That means we can conquer many of our urges with simple common sense and will-power.

Third, the argument is not helpful.
I'm sorry, we'll try to be more helpful next time. Wait a minute. Being helpful is the nanny game, not mine. Screw you!

Fourth, personal responsibility is a trap.
Really? Always? Oh my god are we in trouble.

I am so very frightened of these people and the terrible prospect that they might get their way. I mean that in all earnestness. These people terrify me.

Government taxing high fat foods wouldn't be as bad if the low fat mantra wasn't being called heavily into question by the Atkins movement. But the fact is, we don't even KNOW what makes people fat. It probably isn't the same for everyone. The science doesn't support the public policy.

BMI is ridiculous beyond belief. Here are my stats: 6 feet tall, 180 lbs, 32 inch waist, cholesterol of 140, resting pulse 68. I work out for at least an hour 6 days a week. BMI: 24.5, just on the cusp of "overweight." And here I thought I was in pretty good shape. God forbid I would eat unwisely for a week and put on 5 lbs - that would put me at the mercy of the fat Nazis at 25.1.

Radley, their position is absolutely rediculous. It's frightening to know that there are people who have the public ear who are that stupid. I smoke, I drink anything I choose, I eat anything I like, and I'll continue to do these things until I either choose to change them or until I die. I have some family members who are obese and I really wish they'd lose some weight for their health's sake, but they are grown and they make their own decisions. I'm grown and I make my own decisions as well, and I defy anybody to take that right away from me.

By the way, you wrote a good article. I wish they'd have given you more space. Thanks!

AHA! I always KNEW I had super powers beyond those of mortal men. I have resisted the evil powers of tempting fatty foods and high sugar beverages!

Witness my breath taking mutant ability to drink water! Gasp in awe as I eat a boneless, skinless chicken breast prepared on my George Forman Grill of Justice. Struggle to make sense of my uncanny power to consume helpings of broccoli, corn, peas or spinach!

Twenty years ago there would not have been this debate because twenty years ago we did not have such wide spread use of corn syrup, genetically modified foods, steroids for meats, etc. To let capitalism work it out is doing so at the cost of the many lives that it takes to find out that some types of food are killing us, and that is when government needs to step in. And to assume that it will work itself out through market incentives is ignoring the real problem of how people are able to get information to make informed decisions. Companies spend billions to make their products seem appealing using words that seem to suggest things that are not at all true. Marketing responds to people's demands not with better products but with better pitches. Look at how words like juice and organic and fresh are thrown around without regard for true meaning. Capitalism cannot work in this type of environment. Capitalism requires information and when this is not possible then the free markets must be encroached.

Whoa!!! What happened to all the anorexia/bulimia that was also "epidemic" just a few short years ago? Aren't these the same people who fought so hard against those eating disorders? Evidently they succeeded too well. Therefore, the present obesity is their fault!! (Excuse me while I call my lawyer)

Seriously - I think you may have missed the underlying objective. Its not so much regulating our lives they want as it is klmassive governmental intrusion into big business. Large corporations are once again the bad guys and need to be controled and punished. And they will do this for us poor misguided, uneducated simpletons "for the children".

Why in the Sam hell do people listen to these moonbats?

I don't know if I want to live in a society where you just let people die of preventable disease by the tens of thousands just so a few libertarians can pat themselves on the back about how smart they are to stay slim.

Either you start denying people medical care in the emergency room because they can't pay, or it just plain makes sense to do something about this problem. Otherwise, the food producers who market this stuff are externalizing those costs to the public health system, and the rest of us have to deal with the consequences.

Matt --

Key words here: public health system.

Libertarians don't believe in this.

Neither do Objectivists.

Abortion = Precious individual right that the government has no right to infringe on, let alone question.

Eating = Activity deemed so risk laden that it must be regulated by the State.

If you need me, I'll be in a strait jacket trying to reconcile this...

Charlie, Your right,
Years ago we had Fatback, Molasses, and carcinogen enriched smoked meats. Ham was 30% higher in Fat, Salt was the #1 preservative followed by Sugar, and fresh fruit was only available seasonally. No insecticide just locus induced famine, and no genetically modified food just shortages. Boy your right, now that we have all these problems government better step in and help save us from ourselves. And oh my heart cries out for those poor uninformed masses who don’t know where to find information on nutrition. If only someone would tell them that their local bookstore has shelves and shelves of information on diet, nutrition and exercise (and many will even let you sit there in the store and read them at your leisure). If only they knew that rather than buying that weekly TV guide, soap, people magazine and national enquirer they could pick up a copy of any of the available and informative health magazines. Your right Charlie If only we could go back to when people were informed and food was healthy we wouldn’t need the governments help.

When Mao was around the Chinese government used to make people in the cities come out of their houses at dawn to do calisthenics. Do they do that any more? Should we be doing that?

Ha Ha, Charlie is stupid.

Welcome to the end result of the war on drugs. Two of the justifications for drug prohibition are the societal costs of drug use and the inability of individuals to be personally responsible for what substances they put in their bodies.

Once these ideas were used to justify drug prohibition it was inevitable societal costs, lack of personal responsibility and bad statistics would be used to ban / restrict other previously acceptable behaviors. Alcohol was the first substance to be regulated on that basis and tobacco soon followed. Now the nannies are taking a run at food. Maybe this will wake people up to the dangers of replacing individual responsibility and costs with societal responsibility and costs.

Matt and Charlie's posts made while I was typing mine make my point better then I could.

Matt, you obviously didn't watch C-SPAN's coverage of last weekend's Libertarian National Convention. During the lulls (and there were many) the camera panned over an audience filled with people who, at about the same proportion as the general population, were noticeably and I dare say borderline grotesquely obese.

Everyone was gnoshing on snackies and chocalate-y vending machine goodies.

So take your inaccurate and ad hominem comments and put 'em . . . well, just cut it out.

For clarification, I am not one of those trying to say things were so much better way back when. I am saying that there are problems our current society faces that I believe should be addressed. If other people have time to filter through all the information on food safety and content, weed out the industry crap, weigh the differing opinions, figure out whose arguments are genuine and whose are biased, then by all means do it. I don't have time for that, and I would question if it is even possible. I want a government to step in and make sure that when people are selling corn syrup with 10% juice, that it says so right on the bottle. I want a government to make sure that certain pesticides are not used on my food. It may be possible to have a system whereby companies are given market incentives to behave, but the costs in terms of efficiency due to the amount of time that every citizen would have to put into obtaining information would be devistating.

Charlie,

As a fourth generation cattle rancher let me tell you the only change to beef in the past twenty years has been a huge effort to make it more lean, tasty, and easy to prepare. Most of the other basic food stuffs are the same.

Matt,

If you can't be responsible for what you eat and whether or not you get off the couch and get a little exercise what can you be responsible for?

The food producers have not been putting information out in a vacuum. There is a ton of information on healthy diet and exercise available. CSPI, PETA, Public citizen, the various PIRGS, and probably hundreds of activists groups have had a very high exposure of their ideas in the media for years.

Weight control is a simple math problem. If you take in more calories then your body uses through baseline metabolism and exercise you are going to gain weight. The fix is not more regulation, the fix is for people use the simple math in a smart, discplined manner to take care of themselves.

charlie,
It does say so right on the bottle.
The government already makes sure certain pesticides are not used on food.
I does not take a fargin genius to read the back of a food product and decide if it's healthy or not.
Geez, I'm sorry you don't have time to be smarter. I think I should be taxed and propagandized so that you can eat in blissful ignorance.

My new Mantra:
Personal responsibility is a trap.

Second, it ignores biology. Humans are hardwired, as a survival strategy, to like foods high in sugar, fat and calories.

If that's true, the War on Obesity™ is doomed to failure. Why fight it?

For Charlie, Matt and others who agree with them, a simple question: do you believe you yourself control what you eat? If not, why not?

When friends bring this kind of thing up ie the need for FDA, I ask them, why the government? Do you read Consumer Reports? Do you trust them? How about the "better house keeping" seal of approval, JC powers etc. The Market can and does provide for these things. Nutritional information was made available on food, seat belts and air bags were in cars, and Drugs were researched for their safety long before the government mandated it. The information and truth is the product Consumer Reports sells, If they were to become dishonest in their reporting the market would respond, people would have no reason to purchase their magazine or purchase their honest review and they would go out of business. It is in their own best interest to stay honest, whose best interest is the government working for when you the consumer/tax payer are forced to “buy” their product.

First sentence of Brownell & Nestle: "The food industry, like any other, must grow to stay in business". Is this true? I am sure this is what they teach the MBAs and what people expect, but why is this true? The population grows. Inflation continues. At *moderate* rates, ie 2% for inflation, not sure about pop growth, I guess 1-2% per annum. Aren't these the primary motivators for a saturated market (ie food). If you are selling food to everyone in america, why do you assume you have to sell everyone *more* food next year? I don't buy this arguement at all, and this is potentially another reason for obesity: new products must be introduced to increase the revenue stream, and usually these products are high fat/high sugar. If it wasn't necessary to create new products every year for 'business survival', wouldn't this have a slight effect on obesity? Also if they choose to introduce more healthy products, it would be better for us, nutritionally.

You can always tell a fruitcake by how often a conspiracy is alluded to. Here we have the sly implication that people are incapable of personal decision-making because they are being brainwashed by the EVIL FOOD INDUSTRY CABAL.

Not only that, but people are "hardwired" to be fat. It's our ancestors' fault! They had the temerity not to evolve like Darwin said they supposed to! They kept harboring extra calories for those nasty neanderthal winters. Now we're hopelessly, genetically fat!

Can someone tell me why, in the classroom, this "blame the victim" rhetoric magically disappears when its time for grades to be handed out? That's right, it's a double standard they can't hold. If you are nothing more than a victim of circumstances, then how can they grade you fairly just because you aren't as smart as the next guy or your parents didn't make as much money? In fact, why do THEY get to be the college professors? Why did my dad have to work outside all his life? I'm sure he would rather have had a cushy academic position. Wait, maybe he didn't earn it? Hmmm.

You can bet these same researchers, or liberals like them, preach personal responsibility and earning grades when the Fs have to be given.

Believe me, no amount of arguing socio-economic status, illness, or family issues can change an F to an A. Victims get Fs from people like Nestle and Brownell.

The food industry, like any other, must grow to stay in business.

No, it must make a profit to stay in business. When your first premise is laughably incorrect, why bother with the rest of the article?

For the entertainment value:

Fourth, personal responsibility is a trap.

Channeling Admiral Ackbar?

It doesn't surprise me that statists such as Brownell & Nestle would be ignorant as to the ways of capitalism. A business must stay profitable to remain in business. Growth is one of many factors necessary to achieve profitability, but it is not necessary to sustain it.

When they came for tobbaco, you did not fight because you didn't smoke.

When they came for "Fatty Foods" (tm), you did not fight because you were not fat.

When will you join us (smokers and overweight persons)? What will your excuse be when you have to face us in the jails or gettoes of the future?

"Concentrate all firepower on the large corporation ...."

Another great article Radley. Unfortunately, the words "personally responsibility" don't seem to mean anything anymore.

All tihs talk about food is making me hungry. i think i'll go jog down to the local pizza parlor and pick up some donuts, too. anyone want some? i'll pick some up for matt, charlie, and the others that are hardwired.

David, David, David, don't you know that working outside did not make your dad a victim? He got to exercise and be free of the hazards of the indoor air that is polluted with asbestos, mold, mildew, and other toxins that lawyers find in "sick" buildings. It is the poor downtrodden academicians who are the downtrodden of the earth. The have to work a full 9 months (not counting 3 weeks off for Christmas, 1 week off for Spring Break, and various other breaks) just so they can have a decent summer break to recover from the grueling toxin infested classroom. And then these brave individuals are selfless enough to get government grants so they can use their superior intellect to tell us what we are required to voluntarily do to live a better life.

David, I am ashamed of your attitude. Blaming Nestle and Brownell for their valiant efforts to persevere in spite of their victimhood so that they can help the worker class. If everyone had an attitude such as yours just think how much personal liberty we would all have and then who knows what would become this country.

Last time I checked, the purpose of government was not to protect citizens from personal weakness and stupidity, but to permit each to exercise personal foibles - or not - freely. How times change.

No amount of labelling or regulation can force people to read or heed labels.

Forgive me if this point was made in a previous comment.

"Second, it ignores biology. Humans are hardwired, as a survival strategy, to like foods high in sugar, fat and calories."

Well, gee, I think it's fairly uncontroversial that men are hard-wired for multiple sexual partners as part of this same survival strategy. Can I have a government program to help me overcome that?

Let's get more info on everyone's BMI #. I am:
5'7"
160
10% body fat

BMI = 25.1. I'm overweight. Quick, someone empty my fridge!!

I bet most professional and olympic athletes are either overwieght or obese.

Wil,
There are laws that address this biological wiring for sex: laws regarding multiple spouses, child support, rape, age of consent, etc.

My favourite part is this:

'The nation tolerated personal-responsibility arguments from Big Tobacco for decades, with disastrous results.'

Oh gosh yes, America has been in terminal decline these past decades, what with prosperity, health and lifespan all plummeting toward new highs. That's what personal responsibility'll do to ya.

I've never been able to get these people to reconcile what I've termed
'The Fundamental Contradiction of the Democratic Nanny State':
If we are incompetent to decide what food we will eat, drugs we will use, etc., individually, (given the knowledge that we each have of our own condition, which cannot possibly be possessed by others who do not know us) then what mystic transubstantiation occurs in the voting booth to make us collectively competent to elect legislators to (or in the case of initiative/referendum directly) enact laws to make those decisions for us?

There are two kinds of people who buy into it:

1. Those who believe they need someone to make the choices for them.
2. Those who believe they need to make choices for others.

http://www.itsatrap.com

Oops, wrong link.

http://www.itsatrap.net

Monster (if in fact that is your real name),
The problem I have with your statement is in terms of information. People cannot be expected to make good decisions for themselves if information is not available to inform those decisions. Politicians left to themselves and motivated to win will mislead and distort and lie, which is why we need laws requiring disclosure of information. Companies left to themselves and motivated to make a profit will not properly label and falsly advertise and lie, which is why we need laws to require this. People are only competent to make any decision, whether it is what we eat or how we vote, if information is readily available. The only reason we have the little information that we do now is because of regulations. Companies did not choose to put food content on their packages. Politicians did not chose to disclose financial records. The government made this happen.

Charlie -

Just what info are you unable to get? I have no problem knowing what is in a package just from reading the ingredients (although in this country, the damn French side is always facing out ....grrr... ) The inormation about food / health / diet choices is widely available. I certainly don't require anyone from the big city to tell me what's good for me and what isn't.

Charlie--

If all this information is supposed to be translated into salutary eating behavior, why has obesity been rising since nutritional labeling was required by our Ever-Loving Federal Government? Why was obesity so much lower at the turn of the 20th century when we were smoking cigarettes for their health benefit and swallowing liver pills like Certs?

Gee, Charlie, did you ever stop to THINK before assuming that people need the government to tell them that Twinkies are not the most nutritious snack? Or, more to the point, did you ever START TO THINK in the first place?

They'll take my pork chop from my cold, dead hand!

Crash - back at ya.

Keep your laws out of my kitchen!

Lumberjack- you hit the nail right on the head, mate.

Ross, I am justly chastised.

Too much personal liberty would clearly be dangerous in the hands of the uneducated masses. Painters and their brood are far too stupid to choose what they should eat.

Only them there sign-tists is smart enough tuh figger out the food peermid. Then theys even done gone and figgered out that same peermids bad fer ye. Now they thanks its Mac Donald's fault on account of they gives us dum pore peepal what we's wants tuh eat, not whats on that peermid what they rebuild ever thirty minutes. Theys got that logic what I ain't never learnt.

You ever read Von Humboldt?
-David
P.S. So there's no misunderstanding, I believe you and I favor personal liberty over big government, and I read you that way.

Actually, I really don't know why people in North America are trying to fight obesity at all. After all, haven't all scientists, everywhere, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we're about to enter a catastrophic Ice Age? As I see it, I'll need all the fat I can get! So don't come anywhere near my Mastodon burger!

To David Prince:

"You can bet these same researchers, or liberals like them, preach personal responsibility and earning grades when the F's have to be given."

Actually, David, they don't. It came out a few years ago that something like two-thirds of Stanford humanities students were getting A or A- averages. Grade inflation is a huge problem, even in the Ivies. So, no--Ivy League professors do NOT suddenly discover personal responsibility when it comes to their classroom practices.

Fresh Air: To play devil's advocate, I'd say that obvious cases like Twinkies aren't the problem - it's the borderline stuff like "lite" food and fruit drinks vs. fruit juice (and the fact that both contain soda-like amounts of sugar) for which labels are helpful.

Radley: I'm baffled by your post, for a couple of reasons.

1. Do you have any qualifications to comment on the public health care system? Last I checked at Brad deLong's site, aligning incentives efficiently at a national level is mind-boggling complex. your credential are . . .?

2. Do you have any support for your argument that obesity is NOT a public health problem? For example, do you have info on the status of juvenile diabetes? or whether there is a causal relationship between juvenile diabetes and high school diets and/or food&beverage; advertising targeted to the youth market? this would seem to be purely a factual matter -- looking at the underlying causes of mortality and high-cost treatment. some facts would be nice, especially in such a complex and fact-driven area as health care.

3. you say "We're likely to make better decisions when someone else isn't paying for the consequences." So you are promoting a national living wage under which everyone can afford health care insurance, and national regulation of the health care insurance industry whereby pricing reflects lifestyle choices? or are you arguing that people who cannot afford diabetes medication shouldn't get it? Or are you denying that growing rates of obesity have any impact on our nation's health care system?

I think you have very few choices here: either the poor should drop out of our national health net, or their wages should be subsidized to the point that their health care costs are not subsidized, or there is no relationship between obesity and health care costs. which one do you want to pick?

4. you say: "our government ought to be working to foster a personal sense of responsibility for our health and well-being" Isn't that EXACTLY what Bush wants to do with his healthy lifestyles proposal?

5. you challenge decisions to ban the presence of snacks and soda in high schools. Now, as a good libertarian you presumably reject the very notion of mandatory school. but once the state is acting in parens patriae, shouldn't it feed the kids in a healthy and responsible manner? Once you concede the premise of a confined environment, what is the appropriate libertarian response -- especially with actors not necessarily mature enough to make the correct risk/benefit analysis? And shouldn't you note that the political movement to get soda out of school comes from parents frustrated with the devil's bargains made by school boards in which soda companies' access to kids was exchanged for substantial cash contributions?

6. you appear disappointed with this nation's quasi-nationalized health care system. you're not alone. since some 43 million people either cannot afford health insurance, or believe that having health insurance is a sucker's game, you have some work cut out for you on convincing people that the appropriate course is to make health care insurance MORE expensive (which is what will happen if this country follows your prescription.) i assume, therefore, that follow-up posts will contain brilliant insights into solving the free-rider problem, without the unpleasant problem of 50-hour waits in emergency rooms and death in the streets.

7. Fact-checked? Your article seems to be virtually fact-free.

cheers

Francis

All this PR talk just to prep for some big shakedown lawsuits... Why it's almost as though liberalism were all about stealing or something.

Nah, couldn't be.

Okay, Anonymous Food Scold.

But now that we have the labels...what exactly is the problem?

Why are people still getting fat? Can they not read? Are they caught in the tractor beams of BIG FOOD?

Or could it be they just don't give a damn?

Food industries can grow while reducing the total amount of product sold. They do this by making prepared or convenience foods for the busy consumer who doesn't have much time to cook. In other words they increase the value of the product not the amount.

Francis--

Fact-checked? Ha, ha, ha...

You have fact-checked nothing. Why don't you prove why what Mr. Balko wrote is wrong, with examples that support your argument, instead of going off on spurious tangents about juvenile diabetes and national health care.

If you can possibly unclutter your mind of all that surplus self-righteousness, you will observe Mr. Balko made some very effective and valid points.

Charlie -
What on earth are YOU responsible for? "Lack of information" - in this day and age - is such a cop-out. With the emphasis on health ALL OVER THE NEWS (even local stations have a health segment) and stores - nay, CORPORATIONS - like GNC raking in enormous profits (by sharing information!), you're just begging to be coddled and nannied.

Organic foods bursting out everywhere, farmer's markets experiencing huge profits, local grocers competing - "profit" is a pretty good motivator.

What about companies that use the "organic" label? Know what they're most interested in? Profit. Can't do much good for public health and the environment if you aren't in business.

Ingredients aren't hidden on food products. Restaurants frequently describe menu items with..well...what they consist of.

You people are beyond help. "Super-Size Me" is being heralded as some sort of clarion call - what in the hell is wrong with people? If I smoked a pack of Camel Reds a day for 30 days and then determined that stairs were a little more difficult, what in the hell have I accomplished? A masterful grasp of the obvious?

What a cop-out.

Charlie:
Of course my 'real name' is not 'The Monster'. It's a nickname not unlike 'Crash' or even 'Charlie' (which I presume is a nick for 'Charles'). One of the reasons the nickname stuck is because I'm a very large person. I'm not only quite tall, but could also stand to lose a few pounds. This is not the fault of McDonalds, Keebler, Edy's, Sara Lee, or various all-you-can-eat restaruants. It is entirely my responsibility. If I would just go back to working out on a regular basis, I wouldn't even have to change my diet at all. But it's exactly this kind of decision that a legal regime can't address.

People cannot be expected to make good decisions for themselves if information is not available to inform those decisions.

Politicians left to themselves and motivated to win will mislead and distort and lie, which is why we need laws requiring disclosure of information.

Companies left to themselves and motivated to make a profit will not properly label and falsly advertise and lie, which is why we need laws to require this.

An epidemic of contagious disease is a public health issue. A poor quality water supply is a public health issue. Waste water treatment is a public health issue. Obesity and other forms of self-neglect are not public health issues. A reasonable parent is in a position to arrest obesity in a pre-teen child; a teenager exposed to any sort of reasonable parenting and school education has most likely been informed of some basic nutritional truths. Everything thereafter is choice.

There are a great many things people can do that are self-harmful, and I doubt very much that any government or people is sufficiently ambitious or prosperous to attempt to regulate all of them.

I skipped some of the middle posts, so if someone brought it up already my bad, but didn't the government try getting involved in the nutrition game before? We all saw how well the food pyramid turned out.

While it is an interesting debate on personal responsibility vs. societal costs, until scientists can actually figure out what makes people obese and causes these health problems it's irrelevant. Most people arguing for increased government regulation seem to think it will solve the problem and their opponents seem to be focusing on the personal responsibility angle. For the libertarians, since this argument failed with regards to drugs, alcohol and tobacco, why not try attacking this from the bad/non-existent science angle?

Mike--

Always happy to help advance science.

Cholesterol: 130
BP: 118/76
Resting HR: 62
Fastest half-marathon: 1:56:18
Chest: 42
Waist: 35
Height: 5'11"
Weight: 205
BMI: 28.6 (1.4 away from "obese")

I don't need to say what I think of BMI, do I?

I'm continually fascinated at how people talk about the food industry needing to make more healthy options available. Guys, go into any modern supermarket. Usually along one of the exterior walls, you will find an entire aisle or two of brightly colored things that look like plants. These are commonly known as "produce" or "fresh fruits and vegetables". Many of which can be consumed without further preparation. If your diet consists primarily of these miraculous products, I can pretty much promise you that you won't get fat.

No need to thank me.

I posted something that was meant to be a little snarky and came out a bit harsher early in the debate, so apologies to all. Especially Bronwyn, who told me to cut it out.

As for continuing the debate - I know Libertarians believe that their shouldn't be any public health system. I just wonder if they really want to pay the cost of the disease reservoirs and general loss of productivity that would come of requiring that all people pay for all of their health care before providing it, instead of the turn-no-one away system in the ER we have now.

Or do they do triage by deciding which diseases were people's fault and which weren't before they treat?

Without abolishing this system, someone eats those costs, meaning the general public through government entities or pricing by hospitals that soaks the rich/insurance companies.

It seems to me that taxing some of the worst offenders in fatty foods would take some of the burden off.

And to those who keep saying we don't know what causes obesity, just what planet are you living on? Too many calories and not enough exercise causes obesity. The genetics determine the rate of expansion. The rest is pretty unimportant details.

FDL,

You said

"1. Do you have any qualifications to comment on the public health care system? "

Apparently the fact Radley helps pay for the public health care system is not enough for him to comment on it. You believe Radley needs to have some academic credentials to comment on the stupidity of trying to make everyone but the person that is shoveling the food down their throat responsible for their actions. You should realize that life is filled with plenty of well credentialed people who would need custodial care if they had to function outside the academic world. You should also realize many of their ideas have the same trait. It is painfully obvious to anyone with real world experience that credentials do not equal competence.

FDL,

The elephant in the living room that your arguments ignore is this. Almost everything a person does has some influences on their health status. If the government has to regulate what we EAT to protect us from ourselves there is nothing they won't need to regulate to protect us from ourselves. In the end your argument means those that are either too stupid or too poorly disciplined to be responsible for their physical well being will drive the food (and a wide variety of other lifestyle choices) available to the rest of us.

FDL,

Juvenile diabetes is a complex disease and diet is just one of the factors that impact it. Exercise and genetics are two other factors, should we regulate those also? After all they impact the public health system.

Also, is imposing an extra tax on things a huge burden of regulation? Take the analogy of smoking: its one thing to ban smoking everywhere, and another to put a tax on it, at least part of which will go to subsidize the health care of people who get lung cancer who can't afford treatment.

I'm ok with the tax, just not with the banning. Anyway, I know ardent libertarians won't go for this, but there is a difference.

Francis:

Last I checked at his web site, Brad DeLong was still deluding himself that "aligning incentives effectively on a national level" was not a euphemism for "micromanaging the economy." and "mind-bogglingly complex" wasn't the same as saying "I couldn't do it then, and 10 years later, I still can't."

You seem to be championing a guaranteed income. Is that a correct inference?

Of course, it is not our responsibility. OF course not. How could it be?

We are hardwired to eat crap. And also rape and pillage. And beat our kids to death. All of these things we are hardwired to do. Some have ancestors who were slaves. So they must kill cbeat their children to death. Others just crave that fatty food. No their fault. Next time I see an attractive woman walking done the street, I will just have my way with her. I mean, I have these urges. Its not actually my responsibility to control these urges or my behavior. Please government, please please help me. Im going to go eat a King Size value meal and jackoff now. It aint my fault.

If the government can say what does & doesn't go into your body, it *totally* stands to reason that another person's organs could/should be on that list, especially given the possible more immediate & catastrophic effects.

Just puttin' that out there to stir things up (and split the vote) (and get someone to say why one is OK but not the other)...

Matt,

What makes you think that the "fat tax" or the tobacco tax actually goes to "health care"?

Is it possible that smokers and the truly obese die eariler, thereby lessening the burden on the taxpayer? Could it be that it is a grizzily, nasty net-gain?

I say, smoke, drink and eat twinkies! It is the best thing for society!

Can we just get all of the Liberal Big Government Control Freaks and Fat Nazi's to go to California, maybe for a Fat conference or something, and then put up a wall to keep them there? Simply not let them return? Maybe Arnold could straighten them out.

Hot, bakery-fresh wafts on this very subject from the oven of Mark Steyn as we peck.

I'm 6-1, 215. Walk three miles a day. I think I came out between 28 and 29 (borderline obese) last time I figured it.

More FAT PEOPLE DISCRIMINATION!!! Using the BMI, insurance companies decide whether you are insurable for life insurance. Some companies will not insure OBESE (IAW BMI) and have no idea whether you are carrying extra weight but are healthy Some "obese" people can run circles around most of the "correct weight to height people". On the other hand, if you have an eating disorder that keeps you thin, this seems never to be a problem.

The military loses a lot of really good people because of someone setting obesity into the evaluations. I would bet that every one of the soldiers involved in the Iraq prison abuse, was evaluted as PHYSICALLY FIT. They weren't mentally fit. The problem was is that they were not what the Army wants. The Army can't get or retain intelligent moral people because some of them do have a weight problem. And how are they handled? I remember how they did it when I was in. The member had to figure out how to exercise. Problem? You can't do that if you are doing some kinds of operations. Figure out a diet. Problem? Most of the time, you have to pay for that special food because most mess areas don't carry it or you can't get it when you are on a mission. What we need is the HEALTH INSURANCE to pay for diet and exercise programs. Health insurance companies never seem to want to pay for PREVENTION.

What we also need is to tell the truth about the food industry and their loading Americans with sugar, "high fructose corn syrup", and carbohydrates. And we need is to regulate the diet plan, diet books, health foods, and PRECRIPTION DIET AIDS (a doctor one precribed Effexor for my weight reduction once..this is a drug for DEPRESSION) We need the truth about vitamins, and exercise equipment that don't really work and Americans have been waisting money on these for years.
IMHO, I believe that as long as there are deep pockets of money involved, Americans will be kept from the truth.

It ain't all about food guys. It's another move by the Socialists that want us to believe we're too stupid to run our own lives. Eventually they'll run everything!

To those who believe that a government-led anti-obesity crusade is a good thing, I pose this question... What powers do you thing that government shouldn't have? And what is your philisophical foundation that is able to separate government control of what we eat vs. government control of anything else?

sorry "...powers do you think..."

I am a physician at a Veterans Administration Medical Center and an Associate Professor of Pathology at a medical school, so I feel qualified to comment on the medical and public health aspects of this debate.

First, I, too, am appalled at the idea of government regulating the food industry beyond ensuring that it is disease- and toxin-free. We already have taxes on "unhealthy" foods in numerous states, and that has not hurt sales of candy, soda, or chips.

Second, obesity is a public health problem in that it affects a significant portion of the population. However, a problem's commonality alone does not justifiy governmental action. Ignorance of science and economics is even more widespread than obesity. Should our government forcibly educate adults in scientific literacy and economic principles?

Third, government involvement invariably distorts the problem and increases the costs of dealing with it. Does anyone believe that our federal government can create and implement an effective program to eliminate obesity? It would spend tens of billions of dollars to no effect. Talk to some staff members at a VA Medical Center to see how unwisely government health care dollars are spent.

Fourth, I believe that the movement to eliminate personal responsibility is the most dangerous problem facing mankind. Adults should not need surrogate parents in the form of bureaucrats, politicians, dictators, or religious leaders. Many adults will not act like responsible citizens if we give them the crutch of a nanny state. And, no, that doesn't mean that ERs and doctors turn away persons who cannot afford treatment. It does mean that those who get treatment and have no insurance or savings owe a debt.

Fifth, forget BMI as an indicator of obesity. It is only a screening tool, just like height and weight tables. Intelligent health professionals will not classify someone with an athletic physique as overweight because of a high BMI.

Sixth, the current USDA food pyramid is a great example of the fallacy that governmental involvement is the best way to solve societal problems. The pyramid's heavy emphasis on carbohydrates contributes to the obesity problem. The largest contributor to the rising prevalence of obesity in the US is the shunning of fats for carbohydrates. Fats cause more satiety and lead to reduced food intake. Diets high in carbohydrates result in big surges of insulin which tells adipose cells to take in sugars and convert them to storage fats. The subsequent rapid decline in blood sugars leads to increased appetite. Eating a sugary or starchy snack repeats the cycle.

Charlies' first comment about information and the exhaustive search for it reminds me of a friend who attended Harvard. She spoke about how "imperfect information" was a problem in Capitalism. Well, who then, if not the consumer would provide this information? Elites who work in government, that's who.

Socialism sucks and just look at the growing quagmire in the Republic of France.

Cultures that strive for equality in everthing tend to spread mediocrity rather than excellence. This food police "enlightenment" is just more pablum for the liberals to therapize themselves to feel-good Nirvana.

The film "Super Size Me" is adding to the low level hysteria and I think the wrong people will go to see the movie. McDonalds' eating lazy individuals typically don't take the time to see arthouse films. Cuz, you know, getting information is time consuming. Apply this "imperfect information" to news and see why the debate on any topic is run by overly emotional ill informed people who haven't a clue about the issue at hand.

Newsweek=McDonalds
ABC=Dunkin Dognuts

I'm a 155 pound, 5'11" guy who spent his teenage years eating Chef Boy r Dee Beefaroni and Potato Chips every day for lunch. When I aged a bit...got hip to soy milk, tofu and certain organic foods and even temporary stints with a vegetarian diet....I didn't stick it in peoples' faces. I ate a nice burger today at Johnny Rockets and don't need to receive a sermon about it.

What will be next? Government teach-ins on how to correctly breathe?

So where's the ad blitz for tofu? Why aren't the Bean Curd Magnates pushing their products down consumers' throats in imitation of McDonald's?

Rule #1: No amount of advertising can sell a bad product.

Tofu tastes like, well, nothing. Recipes that include it always claim that it will accept whatever flavors surround it. So why not do away with the middleman?

As for truth in labeling: When will those who advocate it include "Grown in sh*t" on "organic" produce?

I won't be holding my breath.

For what it's worth: I am 62. I weigh 240 and have a 40" waist. Fat slob, right? However, I lift weights three times a week and ride a stationary bike for an hour three times a week.

I eat about 3500 calories a day with macro nutrient breakdown 40% protein, 40% fat, and 20% carbs. I eat no oils. My BP is 120/80. Resting HR is 54.

Two years ago I bicycled from Vancouver to the Alberta border and back, 1300 miles. Yes, hauling my fat ass over the mountain passes was tough but I did it. I can leg press 900 lbs. for 5 reps. And I have lusty sex 2-3 times a week.

I used to have low testosterone but with a high saturated fat and high protein diet my T is much improved along with libido, muscularity, strength and stamina.

Whether I die tomorrow or in 20 years is of no concern to me and my wife and it should be of no concern to anyone else. I am, not just happy, but have a general sense of well-being.

People who lecture me about my diet get an earful at full volume. I used to follow the health food rules and I was thin, weak, and impotent. Food nazis can kiss my ass.

Nexus6: Although there may be "obese" individuals who are healthier than many thinner people, on the whole there is a significant statistical correlation between being being obese and having more health problems. The insurance companies know that obese people in general are likely to require more medical care, and so they charge obese people more or refuse to take them at all. It's true that insurance companies frequently skimp on prevention, though. I remember one story of a woman who had to wear a special leg brace after knee surgery, but lost a lot of weight well before the end of the period in which she needed to wear it, so the old one wouldn't fit. She called up the insurance company and explained that if she didn't get a new brace, she'd have to have surgery again, but they still refused to pay for the new brace (though they admitted that a second surgery would be covered).

madmark: Smokers and obese people do tend to die younger, but they also tend to require more medical care before they die, so it's actually a net cost to society.

As for the topic as a whole, I fully agree that people should be able to eat whatever they want so long as the information on the consequences of their eating habits is easily available to them. It should be noted, however, that certain aspects of society and the environment do create incentives and disincentives for people to eat and exercise a certain way. For instance, in Europe, people walk everywhere, but in a sprawling suburb, you really have to drive if you want to go anywhere. For many poor people, McDonald's is a block away, while the nearest place that sells fresh vegetables may be considerably less accessible.

However, the problem with the personal responsibility argument is that children are the one segment of the population that really can't be expected to take personal responsibility for themselves, and it's food ads aimed at children that many of these "nanny statists" want to restrict. After all, if an elementary school makes a deal with the Coca-cola company to install vending machines and have "Coke in Education Day" in exchange for funding (and hey, lots of schools are cutting "non-essentials" like music/art and gym/recess because of the lack of funding), is it any surprise that the students drink more soda than they would have if the vending machines and ads weren't there?

I know what people are going to say to that - parents should take responsibility for their children's eating habits. And they should, of course, but there are limits to what parents can do. If a child sees Coke ads every day at school, the ads will have an influence.

Anyway, considering that taxing something tends to decrease production and/or consumption of it, I don't think it would be a bad idea to tax heavily processed foods like chips, soda, twinkies, etc. (Note that I said "heavily processed" instead of "high in fat" - from the evidence I've seen, the problem is not so much that a Twinkie has fat as that the type of fat is particularly unhealthy and that a Twinkie basically contains nothing but fat and sugar. Avocadoes are also high in fat, but they have )

oops - hit "post" a bit too soon there.
meant to say that avocadoes contain vitamins. Really, it's the total content of a food item that counts, not just the amount of fat.

Read it and weep:

"Food prices are established not only by supply and demand but also by government policies and programs. Our research shows that strategically altering prices can potentially lead to better health. This opens up a whole new arena for government policy."
The American Society for Nutritional Sciences

P.S. To Crane: The GAO determined as early as 1983 that smokers were a net financial gain to society, due to extra taxes paid and Social Security forgone. Most die of the same things everyone dies of...just earlier.

Fresh Air: There is no problem, as far as I'm concerned. If people want to ignore the labels, that's something they personally need to correct - even though companies to play tricks with them, they should be relatively apparent to most people.

I was just taking exception to your implication (which I saw; apologies if I was wrong) that they were totally worthless and/or meaningless.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Lack of information? Give me a break. The only way you don't get the information is by being lazy. Anyone who knows how to use a dictionary can know within five minutes that "high fructose corn syrup" translates to sugar. If they don't bother, why is this my problem?

There is more information available in this day and age than you can shake a stick at, much of it free. Where else but in 21st century America do companies have whole sections of their web sites devoted to telling you why and how to stop using their products?

Lack of information, my aunt Fanny.

Remove vending machines from schools? Good idea; it will put the small grocery store owners back in business. Don't waste time dreaming it will reduce children's access to junk, though.

Re Charlie's comment about corn syrup. The reason that food in the US has so much corn syrup in it is because of previous Govt intervention. Corn syrup has more calories per measure of sweetness than does cane or beet sugar. To protect the US sugar growing industry the US has a quota system on imports, which makes sugar inside the US two to three times the world price. So soda manufacturers and other food producers are forced, by this governmentally distorted market, to use corn syrup to satisfy the human desire for sweetness. If you actually had free trade in sugar then more would be used, less corn syrup, and the caloric content of many of these junk foods would go down.
I would be very interested indeed in someone performing a small test to check this theory : kosher coke exists, as corn is not permitted during Passover. Anyone still got a bottle around? Check the calorie contents against a regular bottle. Let me know the answer at tcwATtimworstallDOTcom. Can't do it myself as I'm in Europe where all coke uses sugar not corn syrup.

1. Try to do something active at least four times a week. Walk, hike, swim, whatever.

2. It wouldn't hurt to do some pushups or lift some weights, too.

3. Try to eat mostly fresh vegetables. Some meat is fine but try to keep it lean. Try to avoid heavily processed carbohydrates and sweet drinks, and try to go easy on the oil and butter.

Anybody who cares enough to look could figure that out in five minutes online or ten in a bookstore. If you don't care enough to look, it's your problem. If you're too lazy to make it happen, it's your problem. Any regulations or taxes meant to fix your problem will restrict my freedom, but I doubt they'll cure your character flaws.

G

Following on from my comments earlier: I went and loooked it all up and I was spouting nonsense. There is no major difference between the sweetness/ calorie ratios of cane and corn syrup sugars. My bad, sorry. Please ignore the whole argument I made.

Tim

Congrats on the Time piece.

Can we go back to fake boobs and alcohol now?

I heard they are going to outlaw kitchens and refrigerators and supermarkets. We will all get punch cards and eat at government run 'food dispersal units'. It's about time. I'm getting tired of being responsible for me and my children.

I just stumbled upon something interesting:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/htdocs/prod/PTOArticle/PTO-19960501-000034.ASP

According to this article (which centers on eating things to make your brain healthy and active), carbs should take up about 65% of a person's diet.

So, follow me on this: if a person is doing Atkins, they are getting thinner, but also becoming dumber.

This doesn't contribute anything to this discussion, but I found it kind of funny. Imagine whole swarms of thin, beautiful people that are dumb as stones . . . or just visit L.A.

John
narphonax.com

When Mao was around the Chinese government used to make people in the cities come out of their houses at dawn to do calisthenics. Do they do that any more? Should we be doing that?

Using the logic of the food nannies, we should be. The logic goes, the government is responsible for your health, because, with socialized healthcare, we all pay for your actions. Therefore, the financial burden that is caused by your lack of exercise is shouldered by all of us, and therefore, we should all have a say in your exercise routine. I mean, if the government can stick its nose into your diet, then why not into your gym routine too?

Holy jesus fuck. Just when I thought the food nannies had gone as far from common fucking sense as they possibly could, they BLOW my fucking MIND, YET AGAIN!

Can anyone tell, I saw Lewis Black's new HBO special this morning during breakfast? I sat there and I read that Brownell/Nestle rant, and I thought, "damn, I would love to see Lewis Black pick that up, read it on stage, and then react to it. THAT would be some funny shit." Coincidentally, in his special, he was going on about some dude who lived to be 115. And they interviewed the guy, and he said he'd been living on bread fried in fatback for the last 25 years. And if he had gone to his doctor, the doctor would have told him to stop that shit, and start eating fruits and vegetables...and the next day, he'd be fucking DEAD.

So how the fuck can the government legislate my eating habits? God, I'd love to see his reaction to that Brownell/Nestle tripe.

As other posters have obviously pointed out, how is it that I am able to eat healthy (no, not "health food", healthy--bodybuilder's diet, lots of protein, good fats, etc.), even though I am and was constantly subjected to these eeeeeeevil McDonald's commercials? I know that eating McD's alot isn't good for you. So when I see the commercial, what, you think I say "well, I THOUGHT mcdonalds wasn't too good for me, but now that I saw that commercial, and it proclaimed that certain people are "lovin' it", then I must eat mcd's 3 meals a day....must eat it now..."? Fucking PLEASE. I am not some superhuman genius (well....), anyfuckingone with half a brain can live healthy. Oh, damn, get a $20 subscription to muscle and fitness. If you can read, then you can do it. But fuckinhell, why in god's name do you need the GOVERNMENT to FORCE your hand? If I did want to have another diet, I would like to think I could. Right now, I work out about 5-6 times/week. So, my caloric intake is high. But whenever I take a break, I lower my intake. If, for some reason, I ever stopped bodybuilding, then my diet would change drastically. So, given that, within my own lifestyle, my diet can change drastically, and given that I am only 1/250,000,000th of the population makeup of this country, how is it that these food nazi's truly believe that they can legislate one's diet? "Health" is not like speeding. There is no line in the sand. And the fact that these junk-science-peddlers don't understand that, speaks volumes.

However, I must add this:

There was an extremely odd contradiction in Lewis Black's routine. On one hand, he's talking about the bullshit bottled water boom, and how many different kinds of milk there are, and the 115-year-old dude, and how nobody really knows what it means to be healthy, since everyone is different....

...then, in the same bit, he champions the cause of socialized national healthcare, using Canada as the standard. WHAT? Lewis is usually pretty damn spot-on with his observations, but he obviously doesn't understand that in one breath, he is praising one thing, and lambasting another, yet they go hand in hand. When you have socialized healthcare, then it is naturally going to require the government telling you what to eat. So, how in god's name can Lewis talk about how great national healthcare would be, and then, in the nsame breath, talk about how stupid it is for the government to tell you what to eat? Ugh. It's that li'l bit of liberalism that eeks out of various comics and actors. The idea SOUNDS nice (hey, everyone gets healthcare! Yay!), but they don't devote enough time to actually THINK about the consequences...like, um, the aforementioned government intrusions into your diet, and, well, the fact that, in canada, you have to wait 2 or 3 weeks to see a doctor.

Yippee. Just had to share that, because the whole crowd cheered when Lewis mentioned national healthcare. I laughed through the rest of his act, because it was funny as shit...

...but when he got to that part, I stopped laughing.

"What if I came out here and said, 'I'm not really a comedian, I'm a magician! Watch me make this rabbit disappear,' and then I just rip it's head off!

[winds back]

"'Close enough, fuckers!'

[tosses imaginary rabbit head into the crowd]"

I think that sums up just about everything.

John
narphonax.com

So much to dissect, so little time ... so I'll just concentrate on this:

First, it's wrong. The prevalence of obesity increases year after year. Were people less responsible in 2002 than in 2001? Obesity is a global problem. Is irresponsibility an epidemic around the world?

First, obesity is not a global problem -- just ask the people of sub-Saharan Africa about that.

Second, does anyone else see it as ironic, in the light of human history, that obesity is now seen as a societal problem in the developed world? If I'm going to have to have a problem, this extreme of the relationship between supply-and-demand for food sure beats the other extreme, from what I have seen in our past.

Third, many of us (including myself) are overweight/obese, not because of an evil plot by corporations, but because we now have the "luxury" of avoiding manual labor from sunup to sundown to put food on the table.

It takes a lot less "sweat of my brow" today to earn my bread than it did when that price was originally set for Adam -- so it's no wonder the "fat of the land" has ended up around my waist.

Fourth, despite the assertions of Nestle and Brownwell, history has shown us that good times are fertile ground for irresponsibility, in many areas. While it is debatable that irresponsibility has increased since last year (actually, I think it decreased in some areas of human endeavor after 911), it certainly has increased in the relative ease we have enjoyed since WWII ... because we have so many ways available to dodge the consequences of irresponsible behavior (for a while ...).

You don't need a ton of information, let alone a government nanny, to eat right -- just some common sense. The difficulty comes in turning that sense into action.

Charlie, since no one tasked you on this yet, I will.

"There are laws that address this biological wiring for sex: laws regarding multiple spouses, child support, rape, age of consent, etc."

Those are activities which hurt *others*. Can you, or can you not, see that?

Sans "multiple spouses", I missed that one.

Nexus6:

'What we also need is to tell the truth about the food industry and their loading Americans with sugar, "high fructose corn syrup", and carbohydrates. And we need is to regulate the diet plan, diet books, health foods, and PRECRIPTION DIET AIDS (a doctor one precribed Effexor for my weight reduction once..this is a drug for DEPRESSION) We need the truth about vitamins, and exercise equipment that don't really work and Americans have been waisting money on these for years.
IMHO, I believe that as long as there are deep pockets of money involved, Americans will be kept from the truth.'

If Americans are being kept from the truth, how is it *you* are privy?

The answer, of course, is you are wrong. None of that information was new to me, and the medical portion makes sense as well (many people eat *because* they're depressed).

Many years ago a friend of mine applied for a job as a airline steward. He was rejected as his weight was not proprtionate to his height. He was short, 5'8" or so, and a good 210. But 210 of the strongest pounds I've ever seen. Arnold-like chest and back, could bench over 300. Charts are guides at best!

6'-2", Thrilled that I weighed in at 241 this morning. Radley, if I got down to your weight people would start asking me if I was SICK! And according to guidelines YOU are almost obese? Ridiculous.
Incidentally I LOVE Big Macs (oh, by the way, I'm a different Matt from the one above)... anyway, now that I'm trying to lose weight, I KNOW Big Mac's, and my favorite- hot wings and beer- are NOT on the menu. Is it really possible for me to both know that, AND adjust to a healthier lifestyle? Uh, yes.
What is most concerning to me is the praise Spurlock is getting for HIS mularkey. I've seen it described on Foxnews.com as "important".

I'm a physician who sees a ton of obesity-related problems. Let me be clear: The problem of obesity is EXPLODING in this country, and I think you grossly underestimate the extent of the problem. It is NOT media hysteria but real, much more serious than SARS or autism or other typical media medical hysteria. Other peoples' obesity affects you already: lower worker productivity, and the soaring cost of medicare/medicaid, which comes out of your tax dollar ALREADY.

Plus, a lot of obesity starts in childhood. Children are not capable being responsible for themselves. Anyone who says "their parents should raise them better" obviously does not have kids.

Don't get me wrong, I would never support lawsuits against McDonald's, etc., but spending a little money on educating people, and incentives to take friggin' candy vending machines out of schools would EASILY pay for itself.

By the way, the BMI indeed is grossly inaccurate for muscular men.

For what it's worth: Sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. While both types of carb have 4 cal/gram there is a special problem with fructose. Fructose is taken up preferentially by the liver. This is a built-in survival mechanism to replace liver glycogen so that when blood sugar gets low the liver can raise blood sugar levels.

But in modern times this can be a trojan horse. When the liver is topped up with glycogen surplus fructose is converted into fatty acids. So when you consume an apple, for instance, (about 60 cal.of sugar) and your liver is topped up, 30 of those 60 cal will be stored as fat. Does anyone think that the average person's liver is low on glycogen? This is the special danger in high-fructose corn syrup which is nearly all fructose.

What happens when you drink a soft drink sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup? I don't have a bottle to get the calorie breakdown but I think it's about 125 cal/8 oz. I know a lot of people who drink 32oz. and more/day. A 32 oz. drink has 500 cal. almost all of it is fructose. The person's liver is topped up before the soft drink is consumed so, voila, almost 500 cal. is added to your fat stores. (discounting the energy cost of conversion from fructose to fat)

This happens almost every day. You consume food(?) but get no energy bang for the buck plus the kick in the groin is that there is zero nutrition.

If you're still with me I want to give you the really bad news. Fat receptors cover the whole body. Some parts have more and different types of receptors than others. It will come as no surprise to men that the stomach girdle stores more fat than the shoulder girdle. So the stomach area tends to store fat first. But the rule for fat loss is: first on last off. So you exercise like hell to burn off those calories and what do you get? The cruel answer is: leaner shoulders.

Do you ever wonder why older people get a middle age spread even at the same weight and body composition? I'm 62 and you can see the veins in my shoulders yet I still carry a spare tire. Life can be cruel although, to tell you the truth, at my age I don't give a hoot.

Bottom line is: should high-fructose corn syrup be regulated or is it a matter of better consumer info? It's very hard to inform very young consumers so I'm in favor of regulation and non-subsidization. Just what that means in practice I have yet to work out.

I have a client waiting so I have to leave and go to the gym. Later this morning I want to do some simple math about the myths surrounding weight gain. Hint: obesity is not caused by gluttony. I'll post in a couple of hours. Cheers.

Those are activities which hurt *others*. Can you, or can you not, see that?

Ah, but now you open yourself up to the omnipresent logical equation of "since our healthcare is becoming more and more socialized, then the health of others affects my wallet. Therefore, I have the right to legislate the actions of others that may affect their health." This is used in the justification of seatbelt/helmet laws, smoking bans/taxes, etc. Basically, one socialist evil is used to justify another socialist evil. The answer is not to fight socialism with more socialism, but to fight it with common sense and free-market capitalism. Instead of saying "since my tax dollars pay for your healthcare, that means that I should have a say in your actions", we should be saying, "it's time to repeal medicare and break the bond between your tax dollars and my health".

But I just wanted to prepare you. When you claim that your health doesn't affect anyone else, people will throw the socialized-medicine card at you. Be wary. I engaged in a long debate last week with someone who claimed to disagree with socialized healthcare, but said that, as long as socialized healthcare is the reality, then things like seatbelt/helmet laws are justified and necessary. My response, as always, is that one act of tyranny does not justify another--and that tyranny always begets more tyranny.

Good post, Evan.

Y'know, regardless of the financial circumstances surrounding seat belts and helmets, I find it hard to believe obesity effects socialized health care costs that much anyway. Because the health care that is most socialized is health care for the elderly, so (at the risk of sounding crass) if obesity kills people off earlier, then there's significant savings to balance out the costs. Anyway, are there really people out there getting pissed off at fat people and saying, "Their bad habits are costing me money!" Seems like it's such an indirect effect at best that I find it hard to believe that's really the root cause behind this movement. Seems to me it's reallin nanny-ism combined with anger and hatred of the big corporations. In other words, the notion that socialized costs justifies this intervention strikes me as a red herring. But, sigh, you're right that people are going to bring that up whether that's their true motivation or not...

The problem of obesity is EXPLODING in this country, and I think you grossly underestimate the extent of the problem.

And what happens when the gov't subjectively changes the BMI thresholds for overweight and obese? Well, hey, guess what...a bunch of overweight people are now obese, and a bunch of normal people are now overweight...without gaining a pound.

Obesity is a problem, and, as Radley said, we should de-socialize healthcare, which then places the blame and the burden directly on those who should shoulder it: the people who are eating poorly and not exercising. Naturally, when the financial burden of poor physical lifestyles is placed on the individual, then the individual has much more incentive to eat well and exercise. For example, let's look at a spoiled kid, whose parents give him a car. Then, look at another kid whose parents didn't give him a car, so he worked night and day to buy his own. And if the first kid abuses the car, his parents will pay to fix it, whereas the second kid has to pay for his own repairs.

Tell me: who do you think is going to be more responsible and careful with his car? The second kid, of course. Now, sure, the parents of the first kid COULD enact all sorts of rules that restrict how he drives and where he drives to, etc. But no rules, no laws, no guidelines, will EVER be as effective as simply placing the financial and personal burden solely on the kid. That's why, when we grow up and have things of our own, we suddenly care about them more. When the responsibility is brought upon us, we care more than any law could ever make us care.

And that is the difference. The more we socialize healthcare, the less people are financially responsible for their own health, the less incentive people have to live healthy lifestyles---and the more government regulation you'll need to keep them in check. And that's the kicker. We are making people LESS responsible, and that is the direct affect of almost all government regulation and legislation, not to mention personal injury suits.

So, when Brownell & Nestle ask, tongue in cheek, if there is a worldwide responsibility deficit, the answer is clear: of course there is...especially in developed nations, and even more especially in socialist nations. The less people are responsible for, the less responsible they'll be. And so, if healthcare was completely privatized and unregulated, health insurance companies could begin to do things like give you a rate discount for joining a gym. They could base your premiums on your overall health, not just your past record and whether you smoke. If you're a big fatass, then YOU pay for it, not everyone else. Then, and only then, will the populus truly begin to take responsibility for its own health. But if we go the way of the micheal moore's, well, folks, you had better be ready for a hell of alot more than taxes on butter. You had better be ready for Mao-inspired mandatory calisthenics. You had better be ready for government requirements regarding gym memberships, just like having a drivers license. The more we socialize healthcare, the more freedoms we will have taken away. So, next time you hear Moore or another socialist liberal blather on about how great socialized healthcare would be, just think about the side effects that they forget to mention.

I am a lifetime member of Weight Watchers, so I am well aware of food addictions, overcoming the addictions, and then successfully maintaining a healthy weight.

There is no magic potion. I have been in and out of WW since I was 19 (I'm now over 50), but I kept trying, and it finally sunk in. I've maintained my weight loss (almost 40 lbs) for 5 years.

There is no way obesity is anyone's fault but your own. Despite the ads promoting junk food, no one is putting a gun to your head and making you eat it.

However, the expense of treating the diseases caused by obesity are breaking our health care system, so this has to be addressed.

I would like to see companies sponsor Weight Watchers (or similar) groups at the workplace. Education is the key to solving the obesity problem. It's cheap and it's effective (but only for those who want it.) For those who don't want it, they should simply have to pay more for their health insurance.

The positive things to come from this hysteria are getting the junk foods out of schools and better nutritional labeling on foods.

After that, the ball's in your court!

A modest proposal: let's round up all the fat people (and, while we're at it, all of the "large," the "heavy," and even the "big-boned," plus any other euphemisms for fat people), put them in camps and force them to run and to eat a healthy diet. It's for their own good. They can thank us later.

Seriously, I don't care much for obesity. I think fat people are with few exceptions lazy, self-indulgent slobs. In particular, I don't buy the genetic/physiological crap. If fat people ate and worked out, they wouldn't have a problem - I guarantee it. ("You're lucky, you're in such good shape," such people often say to me, generally while stuffing down their third brownie, apparently thinking that I won a lottery. Memo to fatties: luck has nothing to do with it. Accepting personal responsibility has everything to do with it.)

Having said that, I care even less for nannying. People have a right to be slobs, and for a lot of people that right is the only thing they exercise.

BTW, thank you for reminding me why I let my subscription to Time lapse after 25 years. Is it me, or has Time moved distinctly leftward in the last three or four years?

Are there really more fat people? If so,why are they fat? Are people turning into gluttons? Are high calorie fast foods the culprit?

If you are a 20 year old girl and weigh 120 and you find yourself 40 lbs. heavier at age 60 are you guilty of gluttony? You have put on a mere one pound a year. A pound has 3700 calories. There are 365 days a year. So, all you overate on average was 10 calories a day.

Suppose this same girl put on 40 lbs. by the time she was 40. She would have only overate by 20 calories per day.

Suppose this same girl put on 40 lbs. by the time she was 30. She would have only overate by 40 calories. Think about it. Eat an extra 1/2 of a medium apple per day and you will put on 40 lbs in 10 years.

If you knew someone who put on 40 lbs in 10 years you would probably think they were eating like a pig. But they are not. It shows you how small indiscretions can add up over time.

What about this near hysteria about fast foods making us all fat? I have given you the simple arithmetic. Do you really believe that supersizing at McDonald's is the problem?

The body is set up for homeostasis. Out appetite for food is supposed to match our outgo. But clearly this mechanism is slightly out of kilter. My own theory on this matter is that the body is not counting certain calories as calories. I think the culprit is fructose. What it does is covered in a previous post. Fructose going directly to the liver and surplus fructose being converted to fatty acids is, of course, not a complete theory but it does form the backbone of my theory.

Almost all of my clients fix their weight problems by giving up soft drinks and candy. Otherwise, they eat pretty much whatever they want and they find that their appetite is regulated according to energy outgo. They cannot lose weight this way but they stop the gaining. To lose weight I simply get them exercising. A pound a month is what I aim for. Calorie deprivation never works for the long haul.

So, let me repeat, I think the goverment should stop subsidizing corn and you won't find fructose so cheap and it will be less likely to be used as a sweetener. Of course, you will find industry converting back to sugar which is still a problem but far less so than fructose.

Mike on English Bay raises an excellent point - how closely balanced food consumption and energy expenditure are at steady state.

Here's another calculation showing this. Suppose you eat 3000 kcal/day. How much less would you need to eat per day to lose ten pounds in a year?

3000 kcal/d * 365 d/yr = 1,095,000 kcal/yr

10 lbs * 3700 kcal/lb = 37,000 kcal (sorry for mixing units)

37,000 kcal/1,095,000 kcal/yr = 96.6% as many calories per year.

To consume 96.6% as many calories per year, you'd have to cut back...

0.01% on your daily caloric intake, or 3/10 of a lousy calorie.

(x = 10^(log(0.966)/365), for those keeping score at home.)

And that's without doing any more exercise.

Doable? You bet.

So maybe we should have a government-subsidized math program instead.

"Supersize Me" = this generation's "Reefer Madness."

Hey, Matt the first (to distinguish for the Other Matt), no hard feelings :-)

Woo-hoo! My stats:
5'2"
120 lbs
34-26-34 (for a less-than-ideal ratio of 0.8 - ideal is 0.7)
BP 120/65
HR 85 bpm
My BMI is 21 point something. Yippee, I'm "normal"!

Go me! I'm horrifically out of shape and have sadly low muscle mass, but my BMI says I'm A-OK!

I know and most doctors know that BMI is a crock, but the media don't seem to care about that, so they feed scary stats to people who don't know any better, and those people whine to their politicians and the politicians oblige because they'd rather stay in office by catering to the masses than be decent human beings and do what's right. Fun!

If anybody has a right to comment on this, I do. I have tried everything ever invented to lose weight and I have. I have lost thousands of pounds only to put them right back on; just like somebody stretched a rubber band real tight and then let it go. I even had my stomach stapled in 1980, before they got it right.I lost 80 lbs then the staples broke and back went the weight.
I am sick and tired of self righteous skinny people telling me I ought to lose weight. I have seen so many skinny people stuff their mouth with piles of food, it makes me sick.
I would never blame this problem on anyone but myself and I can barely believe the liberal fools who are trying to make the government control what we eat. That's worse than 1984.
They just don't have enough to do.
I however have an answer for them. If they don't like the long waits in emergency rooms, why don;t they get some education, wash thier hands, and
pitch in and help. It will do their bleeding hearts good to see what it's like to really help people in need.
Like everyone else, I have a theory or two about what causes overweight.
First, the hormones they feed animals to make them grow faster, very likely affect the people that eat the meat. Children would be especially sensitive to them. These hormones build up over time, but they are so minute they are hard to find in tests.
Also all that talk about corn syrup reminded me of a lecture I heard about corn sensitivity being a component in alcoholism. Maybe that is what makes us crave things so much.
Have you ever seen a fat vegitarian? I haven't,and I worked with a lot of them. I haven't tested this theory yet. I don't really care much for meat untill I try to diet. I will try it some time though and would appreciate somebody else testing it too.
I tried some of thos fad diets when I was just 18 and weighed just 130 lbs. The Adkins diet and the Mao Clinic Diet, made me so miserable, that I rrebounded into real obesity. Those diets are dangerous and no one should
ttry them without a doctor's supervision.
As for the comments about Michael Moore. Don't take anything he says seriously. Have you seen him? He makes me look skinny. His socialistic theories are so impractical it's rediculous. Have you ever seen a socialist country that succeeded for long?
As for the rest of the comments, Evan Williams needs to wash his mouth out. It's filthy! John Howard, however needs a psychiatrist. He's nuts! As a psychiatric nurse of many years, I am qqualified to know crasy when I see it.
By the way, I must be a little nuts myself. I read every one of those comments. If I wasn't crasy before, I am now. JAB

"Fourth, personal responsibility is a trap." HOLY SMOKES! My jaw about hit the floor! We've gone from a nation of very independent people to a nation where we believe that it really DOES take a village to raise a child. How can personal responsibility be a trap? None of us are guaranteed health, happiness and prosperity..by anyone or anything. We are free to pursue those things, and in the process we may make wrong choices that keep us from attaining our goals, but our government has no place in guiding or intervening. I know it sounds like a doomsday prediction, but it will be this very thing, the acquiessence to our government regarding our everyday decisions, that will bring about the end to our great republic. It's happening already. It may not conclude for quite some time, but it's in the works. It's not inevitable, however. We can turn back the tide by fighting all the 'do-gooder' legislation that's been passed. Start by getting rid of all the laws intended to protect us from ourselves, and then make it known that we are capable of taking care of ourselves!

"The food industry, like any other, must grow to stay in business." Tell that to 'The Haven Brothers', a food joint on wheels that arrives in an alley beside Providence RI City Hall roughly 6PM-3AM every day - and has since it was drawn by a horse in 1884!

-------------

"the fact is, we don't even KNOW what makes people fat. It probably isn't the same for everyone. The science doesn't support the public policy.
Posted by: Karl Uppiano on May 31, 2004 04:05 PM"

No we do not know what makes people fat, or go on being fat, or have a hard time losing and keeping off the excess. But perhaps a clue - it may be a form of cancer:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=KIBCCNTVLXBUMCRBAE0CFEY?type=scienceNews&storyID;=5082664 Study: Molecule 'Vacuums Up' Fat from Mice
A new approach being used to fight cancer may also help fight fat, U.S. researchers said on Sunday. ... When fat mice were injected with the new "fat-zapper" every day for a month, they all slimmed down to normal weight with no visible side-effects, the researchers reported in the June [2004] issue of Nature Medicine. ... In cancer, a new class of drugs called angiogenesis inhibitors starve tumors by cutting off their blood supply.
Arap and colleagues have turned this approach against fat.
It makes sense, Arap argues -- fat cells grow and proliferate quickly just as cancer cells do. Like tumors, they build themselves a scaffold of tiny blood vessels called capillaries for sustenance.
Cancer drugs tackle different proteins involved in building blood vessels. Arap's team looked for a protein that might be found only in the blood vessels that feed fat cells.
They found one. Prohibitin is active on the surface of fat-feeding blood vessels. They also found a monoclonal antibody -- a synthetic immune system molecule -- that finds and attaches to prohibitin alone.
...they put normal mice on what they called a "cafeteria diet." "It is high in calories," Arap said in a telephone interview. The mice started out weighing just under an ounce, 20 to 25 grams, but more than doubled their weight on the diet.
Then they injected half the mice with the new fat-killing molecule. After daily injections for a month, the fat mice lost, on average, 30 percent of their body weight.
"The weight loss was also accompanied by a reversal of fatty liver and glucose intolerance," Arap said, describing two common complications of obesity. "They actually looked better."

---------------

Posted by: Charlie on May 31, 2004 04:19 PM - corn syrup is used because government interference has made it less expensive than sugar - despite sugar being heavily subsidized under another government program which keeps it more expensive than world market...

Charlie again: "Companies did not choose to put food content on their packages. Politicians did not chose to disclose financial records. The government made this happen.
Posted by: Charlie on May 31, 2004 06:52 PM"

Er, not exactly. Long before the push for "contains 0.0001 gram sodium bisulphate" on labels, ingredients were listed, in order of weight, on most. So they used to list "ham" without noting the sodium-bisulphate added by the ham. How do I know this? because I have food allergies, and have been looking at labels for fifty-odd years.

Oh yes, for the "eat your veggies" crowd, my food allergy is to - green vegetables! A single pea in a stew can cause "projectile" vomiting or worse.

John, please do not rely on Psychology Today for scientific or medical information. It is a popular junk magazine, not a peer-reviewed medical or scientific journal.

High carbohydrate diets do not make you smarter, and high fat diets do not make you dumber (but believing what you read in Psychology Today does).

Evan Williams: Thanks for the great series of posts.

Dean Howard: No thanks for your completely uninformed opinions on the root causes of obesity. When did you prove that working out will always cure obesity, and that genetics and physiology don't matter? And your math is rather flawed. To use only 96.6% as many calories per year, you have to cut back on eating by 3.4%. That's 2898 calories instead of 3000.

Mike on English Bay: You assume that our appetites are supposed to match our energy output. Why? There is substantial evidence that many people's appetites are geared towards gaining weight. They build up fat reserves during good times to better survive periods of scarcity or famine. But, our modern culture has no periods of famine. Thus, weight gain is unchecked.

Bronwyn: You are right about BMI. A person with low muscle mass and an unhealthy amount of body fat can have a normal BMI. An athlete with

Joyce Barnett: I have seen obese vegetarians. Many vegetarians eat high calorie/high fat diets. Nuts and vegetable oils are calorie-dense foods.

Your assessment of personal responsibility holds up, as long as personal action can affect change. In fact, many obese persons find themeselves impelled to eat more than they need, by a genetically-mediated compulsion, which is every bit as potent as the desire for sex, while much more acceptable in public.

The afflicted persons are Morbidly Obese, more than 100 lbs overweight, and constantly assailed by their body's importunities, to eat more food, even when their need for calories has been met.

This atavistic residue of our ancestor's starvation can be reversed, but only by surgical alteration of the GI tract, to modify the desire for food. For afflicted persons, this is the only solution.

Let's not confuse will-power with genetically mediated compulsion. This only serves to discredit the efforts of those who seek a scientific solution to a genetic problem.

The objective is therapy and healing, not political rectitude.

G. Wesley Clark, MD

Dr.T

I am unaware of a fat thin cycle among any indigenous people whether they are the !Kung of the Kalahari or the Inuit of the far north. And how could they put on any significant amount of fat anyway? Where would they get sufficient carbs to make enough insulin to deposit a lot of fat? Access to bulk carbs is a product of agriculture and while that goes back 10-12 thousand years our genes go back hundreds of thousands perhaps, even, millions of years. But if you have evidence to the contrary I am all ears. All of this, however, is minor. Homeostasis is not an important part of my main point.

My main point is that weight gain for most people is very slow but over time it amounts to a lot of weight which is especially noticable once they have hit middle age and beyond. The chemistry of weight gain is well known and simple. Why this happens is not known. It is certainly not do to gluttony. My speculation is that the current epidemic of overweight people probably coincides with the large scale production and consumption of high-fructose corn syrup.

Oops! Forgot to sign the previous post.

Dr. T says...
"[F]orget BMI as an indicator of obesity. It is only a screening tool, just like height and weight tables. Intelligent health professionals will not classify someone with an athletic physique as overweight because of a high BMI."

Yeah, but researchers and statisticians with an agenda just might. I poked around the NIH's website and apparently their obesity estimates are based on BMI and the incidence of weight-related diseases and medical conditions. There's obviously a lot of playing around with the statistics for some of these numbers; the NIH seems to think that three of four Hispanics are obese, and nearly four in five black women.

fyodor says...
"Anyway, are there really people out there getting pissed off at fat people and saying, "Their bad habits are costing me money!" Seems like it's such an indirect effect at best that I find it hard to believe that's really the root cause behind this movement."

Personally, I find the fact that these budget-conscious consciences don't seem to be similarly apoplectic when it comes to the 'social costs' of, say, risky sexual activity, medical care for border-crossers, or lawsuit abuse damning enough.

mike on english says...
"My speculation is that the current epidemic of overweight people probably coincides with the large scale production and consumption of high-fructose corn syrup."

And not, say, the reduced proportion of physically-demanding jobs, the increasing size of the middle-aged and elderly populations, abandonment of team sports in the public schools, or subsidies for excessive weight ("obesity as a disability", standardized medical and insurance costs, etc.).

Right.

Hi,

I am really fat and dirty. I smell of poo. Can you help me to help myself?
I am going to piss now, but can't be bothered to go to the shitter.

Poo off slaaaaaaaaaaaags!

However, the expense of treating the diseases caused by obesity are breaking our health care system, so this has to be addressed.

Yes, yes it does. If our healthcare system was a truly free capitalist market, then there wouldn't be a problem to begin with. People who lived poor physical lifestyles would endure higher health insurance costs, which would encourage people to live healthier lives. More than likely, insurance companies would give rate breaks for joining a gym, and would base your premiums on overall health.

Obesity is not the problem here. Socialized healthcare IS. Stealing money from my paycheck to pay for other people's medicine IS. Relieving people of the financial responsibility for their own health IS.

Yes, we must address this problem, but not in the way that the media and the food nazis would have you believe. The solution is not government-induced anti-obesity measures. The solution is to completely privatize healthcare. Get the FDA out of the pharmaceutical industry's pockets, which would allow smaller companies to produce and sell medicines, which would create real competition, which would drive down drug prices. Allow people to buy medicine without having to first pay exhorbitant amounts of money to some schmoe with a medical degree. Allow insurance companies to base their premiums on all health factors. Allow doctors to practice medicine without a huge drawn-out decades-long university experience. Nobody would FORCE you to go to that doctor, after all.

There are many ways to address the issues of obesity and other factors which raise healthcare costs...but those solutions all lie in LESS government intrusions, not more.

There are so many wrong things with the fat coddling point of view that I do not know where to begin.

The only time regular exercise does not work to reduce obesity is when it is not practiced.

Dieting, i.e. fad dieting, does not work. People regain the weight when they reach their goal. Diet changes in terms of permanent changes in eating habits do affect one's weight. They are hard to start, but they work excellent and long-term benefits.

And we are not victims of Madison Avenue. We do not have to go to McDonalds. I have never yet been dragged into one of those establishments by Ronald at gunpoint, and ordered to ingest numerous hamburgers. And my wife and I have a unique approach to dealing with those who market unhealthy stuff directly to kids. We bypass their products, and have taught our children to expect and respect the word "no" in the supermarket. If we aren't disciplined, they will not be either.

It all comes down to personal choice, not genetic predisposition, the current liberal cure-all excuse.

We have a free will for a reason. We'll lose the ability to use it if we give in to such patently silly excuses.

Probably too late for anyone to see this but I wanted to add my two cents.

First, I have been a vegetarian for almost a decade now with occasional forays into seafood and fish. I buy organic produce when possible and eat very little processed anything. I don't drink soda and have a beer very occasionally. I am 5'7" and generally stay around 210 -220 lbs. So much for the "never seen a fat vegetarian argument".

The bottom line is I love food. I love to eat. I also hate to exercise. Maybe this makes me lazy and self indulgent but it is the way I like things.

Several years ago I decided to lose some weight. Mostly I believe not because I wanted to be thin but that I am expected to be. I cut out most sweets ( I have a terrible sweet tooth) and worked out 3 -4 days a week. I lost 35 lbs and was as trim as I have ever been. The only problem is that I was miserable.

Remember the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Food makes me happy, exercise makes me unhappy. That's the way it is and I'm fine with it. So do me a favor and stay the hell out of the way of my pursuit of happiness you socialistic, maternalistic, self-important, scumbags. Even if you are sure you know what is better for me than I do.

Did I mention that I also smoke? :-)

I find both Radley and the food police's take on obesity incredibly ill-informed. You are merely perpetuating stereotypes of obesity and the discriminatory false science that obesity is due to overeating and lack of exercise, while ignoring the multiple factors that are actually responsible. In fact, when one examines the many hundreds of the soundest clinical studies there are no differences in the range of patterns, foods or amounts that fat and thin people eat or in their activity levels. You mistake the fact that some people can grow a bit more over weight than their genetic proclivity by eating to excess and sedentary lifestyles -- but that has nothing to do with obesity. And, you ignore the solid evidence that when studies are examined closely for confounding factors, overweight itself has nothing to do with health and cannot be used as a measure of one's health-enhancing lifestyle practices.

It is nothing more than bigotry and foolishness to think you can determine if someone is taking "personal responsibility" by what they look like. It's amazing any sensible person would think they can tell by a number on a chart if people smoke, eat right and exercise. Perhaps you propose to verify that by Big Brother intrusions into our homes, too?

Dr. T: Thanks for correcting my math; the numbers looked funny to me, but in my haste I didn't take the time to check them. Thanks again.

My point was that thermodynamics trumps genetics and physiology - every time. No exceptions.

Specifically, someone who is at steady state now - i.e., neither gaining nor losing weight - CAN lose weight by a surprisingly small decrease in caloric intake (or increase in activity, at constant diet). Given those premises - sub-steady state food intake, and constant level of activity - it's not possible to avoid losing weight, as a matter of thermodynamics.

One point: we talk about "personal responsbility," and I agree with it as far as it goes, but that plays into Brownell/Nestle's hands, allowing them to ask questions like "Is irresponsibility an epidemic around the world?"

Yes, of course it is, but that's not the point. It is not "irresponsible" to be overweight. There's nothing wrong with being overweight. It may be aesthetically unpleasing (it is to me, and I resemble that remark), and it may shorten one's lifespan below a theoretical maximum. So freaking what? Don't let the safety/health fascists redefine "responsibility" to mean that one has to prioritize longevity over all other goods.

A business must stay profitable to remain in business. Growth is one of many factors necessary to achieve profitability, but it is not necessary to sustain it.

Wrong. The original authors were right, as much as you'd like to have them misunderstand capitalism. If a business isn't going to grow, the present value of their future profits will eventually become zero and they will find it difficult to acquire capital. And yes, that's one of the things that they teach MBA's. (Though you don't have to be an MBA to get it.)