Research Paper- Obesity in America

America: The World’s Fat Friend 

By Gwen Schultz

The obesity trend that is widespread in America is a simple problem that is proving very challenging to solve. It is purely a matter of an energy imbalance. We demand and consume way more energy than we expend. The excess energy that does not get used manifests itself on the growing waistlines of the country and the obscene amount of carbon dioxide emissions we produce.  Personally, I have always thought of weight as an part of hygiene. You wouldn’t go without brushing your teeth or washing your hair, so why would you go without exercising and eating your fruits and vegetables? These days, it is no longer a matter of “preference” or “body type.” The obesity trend is affecting more than the individual and is having an impact on our society and our environment. If 60% of the population of American can have a healthy lifestyle, the rest of the population should be capable of doing so as well. Obesity can be looked at as more than just a disease or a disability: it is a stress on our healthcare system, an impediment on our environmental movement, and an indicator of the idle and wasteful aspect of our culture.

The trend of obesity is happening worldwide—an estimated 15% of the world’s population is overweight—but it is worst in the United States. Recent data shows that at least 64% of the population is overweight, with about 30% being clinically obese. Seeing as only about 15% are below the poverty line, not being able to afford good food is not an excuse. The problem here is the idea of overconsumption. As we Americans live and are comfortable in our “land of plenty,” more often than not we are not even aware of the amount of resources that it takes to sustain our comfortable lifestyles. For example, Americans eat three times as much meat as the global average. Due to the fact that typical Americans buy all their food at a store and don’t grow or raise it themselves—as about one billion people in the world do—we are detached from our food source and do not value our food highly. Plus, with our culture the way it is, people are becoming either too lazy or too busy to eat well and exercise. Our continuous advancement of society and technology in the past couple of centuries is great for our economy, but ended up giving us a “bigger” image.

This aspect of our health is also hurting us economically. The amount of money that goes into healthcare that is a direct result of obesity is enormous. Being overweight stresses all systems of the body, but in the long run it also leads to major diseases. Overweight people are more likely to develop Type II diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, and degenerative joint disease, to name a few. The annual estimated cost of treating obesity is $168 billion per year, an amount that makes up 16.5% of the country’s total medical care costs. Each case puts us back about an estimated $3500. With numbers such as these, you would think that it would be more urgent that people shed a few pounds—it would save some serious money for the United States.

Numerous studies have been done to show that the obesity trend in America and other’s populations is actually harming the natural environment. Just as second-hand smoke is dangerous to bystanders, carbon emissions produced as an indirect result of our obesity is harming us. Our overdependence on cars and our obsession with processed foods produces enormous amounts of excess carbon dioxide that gets released into the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming. The consumption that leads to our obesity releases up to one billion extra tons per year in carbon emissions. A slimmer nation would consume less food, produce fewer greenhouse gases, and be generally healthier. An added advantage of having a population with a healthy weight is that it would take less energy to transport people. Some nations are already catching on. Japan, for example, does not have a problem with obesity, but still one Japanese airline—All Nippon Airways—requires that people use the restroom before they board the plane so that the plane weighs less. It may seem silly, but in fact it has saved the company millions of dollars in addition to saving 4.2 tons of carbon dioxide per month. The transportation issue becomes a vicious cycle: because of our dependence on cars we become a more sedentary population, which in turn only leads to even more dependence on cars.

In current times, keeping fit may become part of an ethical code. Staying in a normal weight range and reducing our consumption will relieve stress on the American economy and help the environment. Discrimination would not be the right way to go about it, but some social pressure would but a good influence. 

One of the ways in which industry has pressured companies into reducing carbon emissions is by using the “cap and trade” method. In this system, each company is given a limit to how much carbon emissions it can produce. While some companies might not be able to decrease their production, other companies will be able to get under the limit. Then, when they have emission rights “left over,” they can be sold to companies that were not able to meet the standard. This system works well because it not only rewards those companies that become environmentally-friendly, but also it taxes those that cannot get themselves together. The reason I bring this up is because the same sort of process has been suggested to encourage individuals or families to reduce their environmental impact. As opposed to putting a tax on certain foods or certain cars, this method would encourage people to a well-balanced environmentally-friendly lifestyle all around. Because it makes people pay, it would serve as an extra, urgent incentive for people to lose weight. Plus, it would make healthy choices much easier to make. Maybe these kinds of measures are what will take to get the message across.

There are several positive effects to this proposed system. One would expect that people would be more careful of their non-renewable energy use as it would finally appear more valuable to them. Non-consumption might become a more attractive trend. Personal energy expenditure—that is, exercise-based transportation—would increase dramatically. If we limit energy-consumptive entertainment (TV, video games), children will be encouraged to be more active. Processed foods, which produce a lot of carbon emissions, will have an increased cost as opposed to non-processed foods, fruits, and vegetables. Of course, all this is easier said than done. A major attitude change is in store for the world if this kind of progress is ever going to happen. And, as it puts the commercial industry and the economy in trouble, it is unlikely that these things will happen anytime soon.

One way in which we can tell that things are going wrong is the childhood obesity epidemic. In the United States, a shocking 20% of children ages 6-11 are overweight. If people are still talking about how genetics can play a major role in determining body size, let this be evidence that the cultural environment of the country is having a negative impact on kids. The trend directly correlates with the type of communities that today’s kids are growing up in. For example, the neighborhoods that we build in suburban areas are so set apart that physical activity is discouraged and automobile use is promoted. Neighborhoods, such as mine in Wallingford, Conn., are built without sidewalks. Buildings are designed with the intention that most people will use the elevators instead of the stairs. Commercially, junk foods are heavily advertised (especially to children), and low-cost energy-dense food is available at almost any recreational venue. In addition, sedentary activities, due to our economic environment, are promoted: automobiles for personal use, home entertainment systems, and video games. From this situation, the economy is boosted but our health suffers. The government is still subsidizing cars, roads, and urban sprawl, which only makes the situation harder to correct.

In the case of childhood obesity, however, it is hard to put all the blame on the “environment” because some of it definitely belongs on the parents. Again, people are too busy or too lazy to encourage their kids to lead an active lifestyle. It is much easier to entertain a kid with video games than to go outside and play sports—and probably cheaper, too. The sedentary activities involving electronics and staring at a screen (which probably gives young kids ADD anyways) are the biggest enemies to making American children slimmer and healthier. One idea that caught my attention in my research was a new city ordinance in San Francisco that banned McDonald’s restaurants from putting toys in their happy meals, the most attractive thing on the menu for kids. The ordinance says that the restaurants must eliminate the toys or make the happy meals healthier—either by adding a fruit/ vegetable option or by lowering the fat, sodium, and sugar content. In the end, I think this is an interesting idea but one that is not going to solve the childhood obesity issue. More responsibility needs to be placed on the parents, who should be making healthy decisions for their children on a daily basis. Also helpful is Michelle Obama’s campaign against obesity; giving the issue a higher profile is a big part of solving it.

Poverty is another main issue facing America’s obesity epidemic. This part of the issue shows that it is not only a medical problem, but also a socioeconomic problem. The highest rates of obesity are found in population groups with the highest poverty rates and the least education. Not surprisingly, the unhealthiest diets—those composed mainly of refined grains, added fake sugars, and trans fats—are much more affordable than diets consisting mainly of lean meats, unprocessed grains, and produce. One can forget completely about all-natural and organic diets that are so expensive they seem to only be available to the extremely well-off. A shift to diets consisting of more locally produced food would help the problem in several ways; fresher food is healthier, has not been modified or machine-made, and the carbon footprint would be reduced. Government subsidization or any other means of providing low-income families with cheap yet healthy food would be a major step. This would cut the obesity levels from people who have no choice but to eat unhealthy diets.

The solution to the obesity issue will come when we realize that the disease does not only affect overweight people, but also our society in general. If a different perspective is taken throughout the country (and the world), the rest of the problem will be solved easily and naturally. Exercised-based transportation will play a key role in reversing the trends, and government-subsidization of non-processed foods will help reduce the poverty effect. Generally, consuming less and wasting less will also help America’s waistlines and environmental impact. It is up to Americans whether we can do this voluntarily, or if we will have to resort to a fat tax or personal-level carbon trading. However we get there, it would nice to solve the problem before America gets any fatter.