The state and country must do more to address today’s most significant public-health problem: obesity. When researchers know that, if current trends continue, more than half of all adults in Maine will be obese by 2030, policymakers and health professionals cannot stand still. Lowering the obesity rate will take many specific steps — and time. Nothing about it will be easy, not just because a person’s weight is affected by many different factors, but because it will require a new way of thinking and a reworking of how the food industry operates.

Increasing sedentary lifestyles and greater access to fatty, sugary foods, which often cost less per calorie than fruits and vegetables, have led to the obesity epidemic. A lack of incentives for both consumers and the medical profession to address the health threat have contributed to the problem. Studies of molecular genetics have helped the country understand eaters’ short- and long-term motivations and could help researchers develop drugs to fight obesity.

But the biggest changes will not come from a medicine for ending obesity. To effectively reverse the obesity rate, policies must address the principal causes.

One main cause of obesity has its roots in the overproduction of food. With the U.S. food supply generating about twice the number of calories the average adult needs each day, food companies compete for a greater share of the market through advertising, more “appealing” products and larger portion sizes, according to Marion Nestle, a professor of food studies and public health at New York University. The food companies prosper when people eat more.

The government can make it easier for people to make healthy choices and help structure the market to be more health-based. It can subsidize commodity crops less and fruit and vegetables more. It can require that foods bought and distributed in federal programs are healthy. It can work with schools to serve nutritious meals and snacks, as the National Prevention Council Action Plan proposes. It can place more restrictions on food marketing to children.

Employers can be proactive by implementing wellness programs — not just to help people become healthier but to reduce costs. Johnson & Johnson discovered that its wellness program saved the company $250 million on health care costs over 10 years. And schools have great power to instill good habits. Child obesity rates in Philadelphia dropped 5 percent over four years after the Philadelphia School Department eliminated sodas and sugary drinks from vending machines, developed snack standards, offered free breakfasts to all students, stopped using fryers and switched from 2 percent milk to 1 percent.

Of course weight is affected by many things, including genes. And there is evidence that it’s biologically difficult to drop pounds and keep them off because the body continues to fight against losing weight even after dieting has stopped — often causing hardworking, well-intentioned people who have lost weight to regain it. Discussion about reducing the obesity rate should never involve blame. Losing weight is difficult, and successfully doing so requires a change in lifestyle — not a quick fix. Everyone knows that weight loss requires eating less and exercising more; but actually doing it is a real challenge.

Policies should focus on prevention and create structures that encourage healthy behaviors. The recent analysis from Trust for America’s Health and and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that states could dramatically reduce health care costs and prevent obesity-related diseases if residents reduced their average body mass index by just 5 percent by 2030. For a six-foot-tall person weighing 200 pounds, that represents about 10 pounds. It is possible to reduce obesity rates. But the longer states wait, the harder it will become.

Join the Conversation

24 Comments

  1. This editorial is spot on.  Obesity-related illnesses are going to cost Maine taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars over time.  We need to do whatever we can locally to make ourselves a more health-conscious place.  Infrastructure improvements to improve walkability, educational outreach, farmers market and food co-ops – everything needs to be on the table. 

    And as much as I believe in individual choice and personal responsibility, we need to figure out how to incentivize (if not coerce) people into healthier lifestyles.  If a person is not incentived on their own to be healthy for the sake of being healthy it cshould not then be the taxpayers responsibility to pick up the tab for a lifetime of poor choices. 

  2. So sick of those who know what’s best for us… because
    they say so.  Enough.  The media know their intended audience, that
    would be the knee jerk-appeal-to-the-sheep-&-simple-minded.  Heluva job dumbing people down.  You wanna talk costs to us Mr. Councilor?
    Where does it end? No, your young still developing mind doesn’t have an answer
    to that. You have no idea what individual freedom means & that is what the
    country once stood for & should still stand for. I don’t wanna hear about
    for “the good of the many,” especially when I hear the term
    “cost.” What’s the cost of lost freedoms? Nah, guarantee that those
    of you who believe this jive don’t understand freedom to begin w/. Leave me alone.

    1. What freedoms are you losing when we seek to fight obesity? Is that like all the freedoms you lost when we sought to discourage smoking? 

      Grow up. 

      1. Woofing Dear, we’ve already established the grown up in our
        relationship.  Please stop following me
        around looking for my attention & go play w/your ground burrowing rodent insignificant
        other, Go-fer4zero.  Thanks!

    2. What about the cost of my family’s financial freedom of having to pay for your healthcare because you made poor decisions your entire life?  I’m with you on the value of personal liberty but, good government guides people towards making smart decisions. It does not make decisions for people, but it guides them in the right direction.  Guiding people to be healthier is the right direction for all kinds of reasons, not least of which is that it protects the financial liberty of every American who does not want to pay for other people’s lifetimes of bad decisions (and oh yeah, it’s good for society when people are healthy – financials aside.)  

      1. OK, the ” for the collective good” argument?  Aside from ignoring the very fundamental principles that make (have made anyway) this country the greatest in the world, first is
        the value of individual liberty & personal freedom, you are arguing that there is a “financial cost to you & your family” for decisions someone else makes.  (The “financial cost on behalf of someone else” thing is fraught w/fallacy. Nice concise talking point, but logical & factual analysis ties into a larger discussion that won’t be accomplished here in this format.)  

        As I mentioned previously (& actually did not respond directly to you) where does it end?  Where do you draw the line?  Which behaviors, lifestyles, habits, choices, etc ad nauseam are deemed to be worthy of government intervention?  Once you have the answer to that question(s) you’ll possibly realize that there is no finite line, no line that can’t be crossed & no way to step back from the precipice of total government control & intrusion upon the sanctity of the individual.  Security & liberty are a zero sum game.  You can’t give to one w/out taking from the other. 

        P.S.  Hey! Speaking of “financial responsibility” Congrats on (finally) becoming a Bangor taxpayer, it gives you more credibility when making decisions on behalf of those you represent…

      2. You can lead a horse to water…Good luck with that.  Let’s do a little reality check here.

        Given that incredibly bad food choices (often along the lines of eating the box it came in would be healthier than its contents) are incredibly cheap,  the average minimum wage earner is going to chowing down whatever’s cheapest.

        They’ll also qualify for MaineCare or simply go to the ER when they’re sick and then be unable to pay the bill, so essentially, we’re going to continue to play this little “but it’s for the good of the people!” game and continue to pay through the nose like we always have.

        Personally, I’d like to pay a few cents more for my goods and foods if it means the company’s employees are offered a decent in to affordable health insurance and can AFFORD decent food.

      3.  Grow a pair counselor. 

        I don’t want you “paying” for my care.  If you had the strength of your convictions, you would advocate that those of us who “choose” (as in freedom of choice) to eat what you consider unhealthy would be tossed out of the great American Health Care mandate and allowed to die.

        I love government thugs who push us on to a health care plan, and then say because they now insure our health they can tell us how to live.

        Take your “charity” and stick it!

    3. And you’re an expert?  And judge of the persona of the writer?  Wow, such omniscience (Not).  Freedoms?  You know how we mock New Hampshire, Live Free AND Die.  You have the freedom to ignore good advice (you haven’t shown that it’s bad), just don’t expect us to support you when you fail.

  3. A good step might be adding a cooking class to school curriculums. Some might not come from homes or families where meals are prepared in a healthy way or from scratch — the knowledge about nutrition and food preparation could go a long way in the fight against obesity. 

    1. Good advice.  To show my bias, both of my kids were at a Jr. High where Home Ec was a rotating quarterly class.  Also, my niece is a career-long Home Ec teacher in the Midwest.

  4. Studies show that dieting,
    even that considered “naturalistic”, among young people lead to weight cycling
    [Naturalistic weight reduction efforts predicted weight gain and onset of
    obesity in adolescent girls; http://ebn.bmj.com/content/3/3/88.full%5D

     

    There is an evidence-based
    compassionate alternative to conventional dieting: Health At Every Size®.
    Please consider this alternative prior to making a decision that may result in
    weight cycling.

     

    For more information on
    Health At Every Size, you can find a general explanation on Wikipedia
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_at_Every_Size) or find in-depth
    research-based information in the book Health At Every Size – The Surprising
    Truth About Your Weight by Dr. Linda Bacon (http://www.lindabacon.org/HAESbook/).

    1. All true, in some cases, but some are genetically prone to gain too much weight.  Also, as hinted in the article, the kind of fat laid down matters.  As I recall, brown fat is resitant to dietary loss and promotes regain.  How the weight is distributed, body build, bone density, etc. are important.  True, not all “overwieght” people are unhealthy.

  5. While I agree that obesity is a problem, look at it from another perspective, We are experiencing “problems” that societies in the past fantasized about. 

    Instead of famine with thousands starving to death, our biggest problem with food is trying to avoid it. We have a high incidence of heart disease because people are living long enough to develop it instead of dying of overwork and preventable diseases such as smallpox, and other ancient plagues. 

    Our ancestors would have given anything to live with our “problems”. The only thing that will solve an epidemic of gluttony is some self discipline.

    1. And therein lies the problem.  We’ve been too used to starvation and malnutrition for millennia.  We have to collectively change our lifestyle.

  6. They believe that many humans are heavy due to their genetic makeup. Throughout history during times of famine those who where heavier lived longer when food was scarce and pasted that gene along. Maybe we’re bulking up in general currently because that gene is telling us we’re heading for leaner times? The way things are going that could be the case. But in general eating right and less input equals less weight gain.       

    1. It is not that simple anymore—look at current research on obesity. The calories in/calories out theory has imploded.

  7. Wellness programs are great, but I just cringe that the best evidence for them is “the bottom line” rather than simple common sense. I wish more employers were as concerned with long-term employee satisfaction as they are with the bottom line.

  8. Michelle Obama stuck her nose into school lunches with a one size calorie count fits all. YouTube has some excellent videos of student reactions to the downsized lunches. Since when does a 6’3″ high school football player rate the same amount of calories as the 110 pound bookworm? The government should stop the intrusion in our lives. Every time the government gets involved, the problem gets worse and worse. Nanny state no more is my motto. 

    Mayor Bloomberg stuck the people of NYC with a ridiculous law regarding the size of sugary drinks. Give me a break, Mayor—you overstepped your boundaries. The only result will be people spending more money to buy an extra drink. People would put a lot of ice in the big drinks and would carry them around all day for pennies above the cost of the ones HIS EXCELLENCY will allow. How does the size of anyone’s soft drink affect me?

    And, that means all liberals—get out of my life—stop pontificating—don’t worry if your neighbor weighs more than you do—worry about yourself and the problems that anorexia/bulimia/eating disorders create. Not all people were built the same physically, mentally, emotionally; stop judging others. The whole bs about what others eat affecting your financial security and it costing those who judge others is nonsense; if that is your belief, you require a course in real economics. While I am at this, get the government out of my health care!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *