In "Junk Food Jihad" William Saletan asks if we'll have a war on fat. At slate.com he writes, "The one thing you're not allowed to do in a culture war is win it, so we searched the mortality data for the next big menace." It's true that public health professionals may never win, but I think it is admirable when they take on industries like the tobacco industry and not some kind of arbitrary thrill. That industry peddled addiction, death and sickness using images of youth and vitality to manipulate the minds of consumers. They should keep battling industries like these to at least tell the truth about their products. They should do it more. Corporations don't have a right to lie to us. They don't even have a right to admit to the truth quietly while running advertising campaigns that undermine the influence of truth on behavior. When government is doing its job, they regulate fraudulent misrepresentations. To Saletan doing their job makes public health officials into jihadists.
Excuse me that little rant on Saletan's reinforcement of anti-regulatory corporatism. It's an overt bias. I have more to say on the general topic.
I certainly do support regulation of french fries. They should be made to tell the truth about their products. There should be labelling standards and foods should be labelled wholesome and unwholesome according to scientific standards. The public health professionals should set those standards without being strong-armed by industry. Moreover, those standards should have consequences that prevent fraudulent misrepresentation of unwholesome products in marketting.
Even then, some of us will still get fat eating wholesome food.
Ever since I got this job sitting at computer for 9 hours a day, which somehow leaves me more tired than the various labor intensive jobs I've held through the years (e.g., mover, warehouse work, setting up party tents), I have gained weight. I eat about the same if not better. Maybe we should consider a "right to recess"? It would be great if everyone in the office met outside for a game of kickball after lunch.
Seriously. My friends with labor jobs are all slim and fit, no matter their McD's consumption. Meanwhile, those of us with office jobs are getting fat despite salads and low-fat dressing. And, what's more, my body hurts. My joints ache at the end of the day and I'm terribly stiff for being under 30 years old.
A recent piece on behavioral economics explains why at the end of the day I more often than not don't excersize. I engage in an irrational "discounting of the future."
Laibson can sketch a formal model that describes this dynamic. Consider a project like starting an exercise program, which entails, say, an immediate cost of six units of value, but will produce a delayed benefit of eight units. That's a net gain of two units, "but it ignores the human tendency to devalue the future," Laibson says. If future events have perhaps half the value of present ones, then the eight units become only four, and starting an exercise program today means a net loss of two units (six minus four). So we don't want to start exercising today. On the other hand, starting tomorrow devalues both the cost and the benefit by half (to three and four units, respectively), resulting in a net gain of one unit from exercising. Hence, everyone is enthusiastic about going to the gym tomorrow.
People intuit this about themselves when they confess that it is their own weak will that is the problem. Of course, when the choice is taken out of this, when our lives are built around healthy activities, the problem disappears. Getting on a treadmill is a specific decision that needs to be made each evening. When excersize and either labor or leisure are integrated activities, when our production or our play are healthy, then there would be no problem caused by discounting of the future.
But our economic system has moved the physical aspects of production further and further away from many consumers. Meanwhile, entertainment markets make leisure a product to be consumed while seated and often solitary. That product now competes with excersize. When your food comes from your garden, there's no competition between eating and excersizing because they are intertwined. When your leisure is sport or play there's no competition between leisure and excersize.
I'm not trying to get all Marxist here. I tend to think that the commodification of things is inexorable, in any case. It's not always necessarily bad either. For instance, the answer to global warming may be in commodifying the atmosphere's carbon carrying capacity, for example. Commodification is an increase and individuation of choices and consequences. So commodifying the atmosphere isolates and evaluates the ecological consequences of certain economic activities. That would be a good thing.
I just think that we need to begin to confront paradoxes of choice (besides discounting the future, here is another paradox) brought about by our imperfect psychologies. So, now that I'm at the end and realize that I've rambled a bit from where I started, I guess this post is more about diagnosis than prescription and prognosis. Obesity is a symptom of the commodification of everything. I guess I'd begin to suggest that the answer for individuals trying to lose weight is not likely to be more commodification (ie, fad diets and gimmicky excersize equipment). Rather, we need to try to take up activities that integrate excersize into production and play (ie, plant a garden or take up a sport).
Maybe I'll start frisbee golfing or bike riding again. . . tomorrow.
Crossposted
I'm a Dkos environmentalist.