Why Americans keep getting fatter

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Why Americans Keep Getting Fatter
By Scott Kahan, The Baltimore Sun
Posted on June 21, 2007, Printed on June 22, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/53792/

A long-running contradiction in U.S. farm policy is fattening the waistlines of Americans and the profits of agribusiness at the same time. For the 30 years that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been issuing dietary guidelines, there has been a stark inconsistency between the federal government's advice and its food funding.

True, the USDA has been doing more, over time, to promote health through dietary guidelines, food pyramids and other nutrition programs. And yet more than $20 billion yearly -- more than one-fifth its budget -- is sunk into a farm bill that supports many of the foods its recommendations warn against. At the same time, the department virtually ignores incentives to produce, promote and consume some of the healthiest foods: fruits and vegetables.

This contradiction may play a role in today's obesity epidemic and is in part driven by a counterintuitive farm policy, highlighted by the farm bill, which is up for renewal this year in Congress. This legislation began during the Depression to protect farmers against environmental disasters and plummeting crop prices but has evolved into a massive program of handouts, largely benefiting agribusinesses. Worse, it promotes vast overproduction of crops that are the building blocks of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor, processed junk foods. It has become a "food bill."

For a half-century, the farm bill served farmers and the public well by regulating supply and stabilizing food prices. In 1973, it was overhauled to significantly increase crop production. According to the USDA Economic Research Service, the U.S. food supply has since ballooned by 500 calories per person per day, and per capita food consumption has increased by more than 200 calories per day -- the equivalent of more than 20 pounds of fat per year.

This mammoth oversupply would be less egregious if it were spread equally among the food groups. Instead, most funding supports just a few crops, and those lay the foundation of the standard American diet: high in sugars and empty-calorie, refined grains; high in fats; low in whole grains and fiber; and low in fruits and vegetables.

Take corn, the most highly subsidized crop, which received $9.4 billion in 2005 -- nearly as much as all other crops combined. Corn production has more than doubled since the 1970s, and all this artificially cheapened corn is unloaded on the public, largely in the form of tasty but empty-calorie junk foods. Refined corn is the chief source of carbohydrates and calories in most processed foods, particularly snack foods. High-fructose corn syrup is the most widely used caloric sweetener in the United States. And corn meal is widely used as cheap animal feed to fatten factory-raised livestock.

Another example is soybeans, the fourth-most-subsidized crop. Although soy protein is a healthful meat substitute, soybeans are more commonly used in junk foods. Soybean oil accounts for 75 percent of the fat in processed foods and is commonly hydrogenated to create trans fats, which improve shelf life but are known to cause cardiovascular disease.

In contrast, healthful foods are grossly underfunded. USDA guidelines advise that fruits and vegetables make up at least one-third of daily intake, but just 5 percent of its food funding supports the fruit and vegetable industries. There is virtually no funding for public education and advertising encouraging fruit and vegetable consumption. At its peak, the "Five-a-day" campaign budget was just $3 million annually -- compared with the $11 billion spent yearly in the United States for fast food and junk food advertising. McDonald's spent $500 million just promoting its "We Love To See You Smile" campaign.

This is one reason Americans don't eat fruits and vegetables. Although some surveys suggest we eat about four servings daily, this number is greatly exaggerated because French fries and potato chips are counted the same as spinach, carrots or broccoli. In fact, 25 percent of vegetables consumed in the United States are fried potatoes, making the daily consumption of healthful fruits and vegetables closer to two servings -- and possibly lower in children and inner-city populations.

Farm policy is an ideal avenue to address the obesity epidemic at its roots.

As Congress considers this year's farm bill, it should rework the legislation so it meets the needs of today's food consumers, not agribusiness. The new farm bill should significantly shift funding to improve the availability, affordability and promotion of fruits, vegetables and other healthful foods.

In particular, it should include targeted investments to fruit and vegetable growers to increase the availability of fresh produce, support for the new "Fruits & Veggies -- More Matters" initiative, expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program to all 50 states to promote the eating of fruits and vegetables in schools, creation of incentives for fresh fruit and vegetable purchases in the Food Stamp program, and support for organic farming.

These steps could signal that our government is ready to lead the fight against obesity and diet-related chronic disease by nurturing the health-conscious lifestyle it advocates by its dietary guidelines.

Scott Kahan is a physician and postdoctoral fellow at the Johns Hopkins University. He has published 13 books on medicine and nutrition. His e-mail is scott.kahan@iebn.org. Roni Neff, research director for the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, contributed to this article.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/53792/

[Surlethe]

It's tempting to try to put the blame elsewhere, but the fact is that we Americans are more than capable of eating healthily and exercising in the current food climate. The government should stop being negligent and encouraging overproduction of unhealthy foods, but the chief responsibility lies with the people themselves to shape up.

[Darth Wong]

There's some interesting information in that article, although the general thrust of government agriculture policies being designed to benefit business at the expense of public health (and using public money, to add insult to injury) is nothing new.

[Darth Wong]

It's tempting to try to put the blame elsewhere, but the fact is that we Americans are more than capable of eating healthily and exercising in the current food climate. The government should stop being negligent and encouraging overproduction of unhealthy foods, but the chief responsibility lies with the people themselves to shape up.

That's like saying that people can stop smoking. Yes they can, but if the government were actively subsidizing cigarettes, you'd consider that an outrage and an unbelievably irresponsible, arguably criminally negligent use of public money.

[K. A. Pital]

The government should stop being negligent and encouraging overproduction of unhealthy foods, but the chief responsibility lies with the people themselves to shape up.

The government is a public office designed to help the population, not fuck it up in a "solve this shit yourself" style. Especially when it comes to public health - that's one of the things the government is well-equipped to do with it's material, information and organizational resources.

[Surlethe]

It's tempting to try to put the blame elsewhere, but the fact is that we Americans are more than capable of eating healthily and exercising in the current food climate. The government should stop being negligent and encouraging overproduction of unhealthy foods, but the chief responsibility lies with the people themselves to shape up.

That's like saying that people can stop smoking. Yes they can, but if the government were actively subsidizing cigarettes, you'd consider that an outrage and an unbelievably irresponsible, arguably criminally negligent use of public money.

Yes? My point would be the same in either case: the chief responsibility for quitting smoking lies with the people who are smoking, just as they shouldn't take the fact that the government subsidizes smoking as an opportunity to blame the government for their addiction. I don't disagree that in both cases, it's disgustingly negligent abuse of money.

The government is a public office designed to help the population, not fuck it up in a "solve this shit yourself" style. Especially when it comes to public health - that's one of the things the government is well-equipped to do with it's material, information and organizational resources.

Damn straight. I'm not saying the government's the good guy here, I'm saying that even though the government seems like it's doing its best to fuck up Americans' health, it's still possible for them to be healthy.

[Stormbringer]

The government obviously needs to act in the best interests of the governed, not of special interests. And it's about time they do, in much the same way they've been forced to take a much harder stance against tobacco, alcohol, and other harmful vices. That should be a given.

But I think ultimately Americans have to be held accountable for their own behavior and the consequences of it. It's not like the vast majority of Americans don't know that eating badly, not exercising, and becoming obese is unhealthy. That's been drilled into our heads for years now. But we're not.

[Darth Wong]

The government obviously needs to act in the best interests of the governed, not of special interests. And it's about time they do, in much the same way they've been forced to take a much harder stance against tobacco, alcohol, and other harmful vices. That should be a given.

But I think ultimately Americans have to be held accountable for their own behavior and the consequences of it. It's not like the vast majority of Americans don't know that eating badly, not exercising, and becoming obese is unhealthy. That's been drilled into our heads for years now. But we're not.

They're already held accountable in the sense that they must bear the consequences of that behaviour.

[Punkus]

That's like saying that people can stop smoking. Yes they can, but if the government were actively subsidizing cigarettes, you'd consider that an outrage and an unbelievably irresponsible, arguably criminally negligent use of public money.

Well, as far as I know food does not have the grossly addictive qualities that nicotine does. It is true that the brain becomes adapted to certain types of food, but it'd be a stretch to compare it to nicotine as an equivalent example.

The government is a public office designed to help the population, not fuck it up in a "solve this shit yourself" style. Especially when it comes to public health - that's one of the things the government is well-equipped to do with it's material, information and organizational resources.

I agree. Unfortunately, ruling any group of people is not about the people, but about the power centers that form within the group. So it has always been, and so it shall always be.

They're already held accountable in the sense that they must bear the consequences of that behaviour.

Let's all pray it remains accountable! As of late I am beginning to wonder how much the people can actually do to see that their government acts in their best interest.

[Darth Wong]

That's like saying that people can stop smoking. Yes they can, but if the government were actively subsidizing cigarettes, you'd consider that an outrage and an unbelievably irresponsible, arguably criminally negligent use of public money.

\
Well, as far as I know food does not have the grossly addictive qualities that nicotine does. It is true that the brain becomes adapted to certain types of food, but it'd be a stretch to compare it to nicotine as an equivalent example.

Since the logic of my argument was not predicated upon the addictiveness of the products in question, this rebuttal is irrelevant.

[McC]

They're already held accountable in the sense that they must bear the consequences of that behaviour.

Those consequences being...what? Airlines catering to them by providing wider seats? Sorry, but I don't really see fat Americans bearing the consequences for being so. I see them demanding the system adapt to support their ever-expanding waistlines.

[Darth Wong]

They're already held accountable in the sense that they must bear the consequences of that behaviour.

Those consequences being...what?

Getting fat, dying young, etc. Duh.

[McC]

Getting fat, dying young, etc. Duh.

Oh, those. Fair enough. Though I still would contend that they aren't really made to "live with" these consequences. They get fat, and then demand to be catered to. They die young, and blame it on someone else. They never really accept the consequences for their own actions.

[Darth Wong]

Getting fat, dying young, etc. Duh.

Oh, those. Fair enough. Though I still would contend that they aren't really made to "live with" these consequences. They get fat, and then demand to be catered to. They die young, and blame it on someone else. They never really accept the consequences for their own actions.

The fact that many of them whine about it does not mean they are not forced to live with the effects. Rejecting the obesity that comes as a result of overeating does not magically eliminate the increased girth, decreased mobility, increased risk of heart failure and diabetes, etc.

[McC]

The fact that many of them whine about it does not mean they are not forced to live with the effects. Rejecting the obesity that comes as a result of overeating does not magically eliminate the increased girth, decreased mobility, increased risk of heart failure and diabetes, etc.

True, and I don't particularly disagree.

I'm more referring to the fact that these things do not function as deterrents. Seems to me that "living with the consequences" becomes irrelevant if it doesn't function as a deterrent to not do something in the first place. Obviously, that's a poor generalization -- for some people, it clearly does provide a deterrent. But it seems that for the majority, it does little to nothing.

[Darth Wong]

I'm more referring to the fact that these things do not function as deterrents. Seems to me that "living with the consequences" becomes irrelevant if it doesn't function as a deterrent to not do something in the first place. Obviously, that's a poor generalization -- for some people, it clearly does provide a deterrent. But it seems that for the majority, it does little to nothing.

If it is not an effect deterrent, then they are avoiding responsibility? That's a silly argument. By that logic, since prison obviously didn't deter 2 million people in the US from committing crimes, then they are avoiding responsibility for their crimes by getting locked up.

[McC]

If it is not an effect deterrent, then they are avoiding responsibility? That's a silly argument.

I agree, and it's also not the one I'm suggesting.

Your prison example is an interesting one to apply the actual argument to, though, which was "seems to me that 'living with the consequences' becomes irrelevant if it doesn't function as a deterrent to not do something in the first place."

Criminals commit crimes despite the consequence of possibly going to prison. It may stop them from committing additional crimes later, but it was an insufficient deterrent to prevent them from committing the initial crime.

People eat shitty despite the consequences of possibly dying from heart attack, and any other number of less-severe consequences. Actually suffering those consequences may stop them from eating shitty later, but it was an insufficient deterrent to prevent them from eating shitty and getting fat to begin with.

Is that clearer?

[Darth Wong]

Is that clearer?

It's clear that you're trying to change the subject. You said "I don't really see fat Americans bearing the consequences for being so", and you said nothing about how you were actually talking about the effectiveness of these consequences as a deterrent. If you want to talk about deterrent, that's fine by me, but don't try to retroactively fix your earlier argument by pretending that this is what you were talking about all along.

[McC]

I don't really see them bearing the consequences, though, because those consequences aren't stopping them. I don't know how you can accuse me of changing the subject when they seem to me to be linked ideas.

Go back to your prison analogy again: a repeat offender is obviously not getting stopped by being sent to prison, so he's rather obviously not "bearing the consequences" in any practical sense. Is he in jail? Yes. Is he stuck there 'til his sentence ends? Yes. But is it going to stop him from continuing? No. So the fact that he's temporarily setback is entirely irrelevant.

Are there consequences to obesity? Yes, obviously. Do they have to live with them? Yes, obviously. But the fact that they live with them and continue to do so, or even get worse, means that those consequences are viewed as "acceptable" (whether or not they are happy about them). In that case, it persists. As such, your original comment about "they have to live with the consequences" is, as I said, factually true. But in a pragmatic sense, it's meaningless, because it doesn't inhibit the occurrence.

If you want it in a soundbyte: I think that a non-deterrent consequence to an undesirable action is irrelevant.

[Darth Wong]

I don't really see them bearing the consequences, though, because those consequences aren't stopping them. I don't know how you can accuse me of changing the subject when they seem to me to be linked ideas.

Perhaps you are either mentally retarded or English is not your first language, but "ignoring the consequences" and "not suffering the consequences" are two completely different propositions.

[McC]

"ignoring the consequences" and "not suffering the consequences" are two completely different propositions.

Ignoring the consequences: "I jumped off a roof and broke my arm, but I'm going to do it again."
Not suffering the consequences: "I jumped off a roof and didn't break my arm, and I'm going to do it again."

The only difference in the two scenarios is a broken arm. Maybe that's a big difference from your POV. As far as I'm concerned, there are still two idiots jumping off of roofs.

[Punkus]

Since the logic of my argument was not predicated upon the addictiveness of the products in question, this rebuttal is irrelevant.

Then if the point had nothing to do with the addictiveness of cigarettes, what was it based upon?

My understanding is that some here were arguing the government should do more to help curb most people's natural tendency to fail in limiting themselves with respect to habits of eating unhealthy food. In light of that idea, it was suggested that people need outside assistance in order to mitigate these unhealthy practices, and thus my assuming your argument was predicated on addiction was perfectly understandable, even if it was not your intended meaning.

If your statement was based upon the idea that cigarettes are simply, like the typically unhealthy diet many Americans partake of, also bad for one's health, then therein lies a new problem. Again I would stress that cigarettes are far more detrimental to one's physical well-being than food - though it is true one would have to define a scope for the amounts of each we are referring to. I would agree that a person who smokes two cigarettes per day might actually be better off than a 200 pound 12-year-old who consumes some of the worst types of junk food.

So, if the idea of subsidizing an unhealthy product or lifestyle, such as cigarettes or junk food in this case, are "an outrage and an unbelievably irresponsible, arguably criminally negligent use of public money." not for the reasons I have assumed, then what do you mean?

And I do hope you are above accusing me of mental retardation or ineptitude in the english language.

They never really accept the consequences for their own actions.

I don't think the idea can be very definitively argued against that US culture teaches people to place responsibility more upon others and less upon oneself. We are a very self-centered society after all.

If it is not an effect deterrent, then they are avoiding responsibility? That's a silly argument.

I agree, and it's also not the one I'm suggesting.

"ignoring the consequences" and "not suffering the consequences" are two completely different propositions.

If you want to get overly specific about it, then yes, but I see where he is coming from: if you are going to gauge a present mindset(or a future behavior) by the effectiveness of consequences, then the end result is the same for the person who does not suffer any consequences and the person who suffers a consequence but who for some reason is not affected by them.

those consequences are viewed as "acceptable" (whether or not they are happy about them).

I would argue that you probably should further define happiness here. We all partake of events from time to time in which we are not completely happy or unhappy regarding them. I would say in this case what you mean to say is that whatever side-effects of the unhealthiness these people suffer, those negative aspects are nullified by other factors, ranging from peer and societal pressure, to the simple positive feelings gained by eating junk food.


Anyway, if there are any glaring flaws in what I've said here, please feel free to pick them apart.
I would appreciate not being called a retard, however.

[Surlethe]

I don't think the idea can be very definitively argued against that US culture teaches people to place responsibility more upon others and less upon oneself. We are a very self-centered society after all.

How does selfishness preclude not accepting responsibility for one's actions?

[Turin]

My understanding is that some here were arguing the government should do more to help curb most people's natural tendency to fail in limiting themselves with respect to habits of eating unhealthy food. <snip>
So, if the idea of subsidizing an unhealthy product or lifestyle, such as cigarettes or junk food in this case, are "an outrage and an unbelievably irresponsible, arguably criminally negligent use of public money." not for the reasons I have assumed, then what do you mean?

I've snipped these all together because I want to raise another point which isn't being addressed. DW has pointed out that individuals who engage in unhealthy lifestyles are forced to suffer the consequences of their decisions (a lower quality of life and shorter lifespan). I think that there's a possible argument, although I wouldn't make it, that this individual has control over their own body and the government should stay out of it.

Rather than attacking from this angle, I would instead argue that the real problem is that individuals who don't engage in unhealthy lifestyles are forced to suffer the extended consequences of those individuals who do. If Joe Blow eats cheesesteaks and drinks two liters of sugary cola every day and smokes like a chimney, and he blows up to 400lbs and his heart starts to swell under the strain, people like me (who eat healthy, don't smoke, and exercise) end up paying for it in terms of my health insurance premiums, my taxes for social services, and the additional cost of a plane ride because they've had to widen the seats to accommodate this fat bastard.

It's the same shit with those idiot "smoker's rights" people. My city is going through the early pangs of a smoker's ban in bars/restaurants and the smokers are going fucking nuts. I've had half a dozen otherwise intelligent people argue that "it's their body." You're never going to win that argument unless you come at it with "no, it's the harm you're doing to me!"

[CC]

Rather than attacking from this angle, I would instead argue that the real problem is that individuals who don't engage in unhealthy lifestyles are forced to suffer the extended consequences of those individuals who do. If Joe Blow eats cheesesteaks and drinks two liters of sugary cola every day and smokes like a chimney, and he blows up to 400lbs and his heart starts to swell under the strain, people like me (who eat healthy, don't smoke, and exercise) end up paying for it in terms of my health insurance premiums, my taxes for social services, and the additional cost of a plane ride because they've had to widen the seats to accommodate this fat bastard.

Don't forget that when those people inevitably end up in the hospital, they put a lot of other people (paramedics, nurses, nursing assistants, transporters, techs, etc.) at serious risk of back injury.

One contributing factor may be that, according to a doc I overheard in the ER, the price of food is such that it is cheaper to eat out everyday than make it from scratch.