The Child Obesity Epidemic and Interventions to Facilitate Choice

Obesity has quickly become an American epidemic with rates among children as high as 25%. While most Americans believe that some form or private or public interceptive action is appropriate, there is a severe divergence in opinion as to the ‘what’ and the appropriateness and or size and shape of government intervention in this matter. The war on sugar, salt, Trans fats along with the plus-size-soda ban in New York are a matter of hot button debates among those with personal stake in the food service industry as well as those with stake in personal freedom. Proponents of prohibitive government policy and legislative obesity interventions argue that obesity has evolved into a pressing enough issue, as the result of poor individual choice or understanding, that extreme government intervention is warranted and a matter of appropriate responsibility. These proponents argue that restrictions on consumption of soda and sugar present as an excellent and appropriate policy intervention to address the growing obesity epidemic. Opponents of prohibitive measures contend that sugar and soda consumption are a matter of personal choice as availed through America’s promise to protect personal freedom, and that nutrition and health are a matter of personal and not governmental responsibility. Opponents argue that the soda and sugar bans are short sighted solutions to a much larger socio-political issue and that they are paternalistic measures that rob the individual of the personal choice that is ultimately and singularly capable of propelling sustainable transformation with regard to healthy food choice and the obesity epidemic.

This paper proposes a third side in the government-intervention-on-obesity debate, an argument that melds the existing positions as it finds root in government responsibility, industry accountability, the protection of choice and the nurturing of positive decisions regarding health and food. This position asks: what if the government restricted its intervention on childhood obesity to policy initiatives that promoted consumer knowledge, public education and subsequent healthy decisions while instead holding accountable the culprit industries for their poison product? This paper argues that, in an effort to actualize a long range and effective impact on the epidemic of childhood obesity, government intervention is necessary and extremely responsible, however, policy needs to far sighted, publically accepted and constructed in a manner that is constitutional in order to truly create sustainable change.

Before proceeding with the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of government policy intervention in the American childhood obesity epidemic, it is important that we validate the intense need for interceptive action, public or personal, and that we justify the overall concern for the nutritional health of children as it exists in its current state of crisis. According to the article Diet, Nutrition and Wellness: Obesity, child obesity rates have tripled since the 80’s with 17% of children overall falling within the obese range, and 25% of children ages 2-5 falling somewhere in the range of overweight to obese (1). The rate of obesity climbs to 40% among African American and Hispanic children (4). While obesity in children is generally a major health concern due to its role in promoting musculoskeletal and breathing ailments, it falls into the bracket of morbid concern as it threatens to leads to secondary diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some forms of cancer. Obesity in children holds emotional and psychological implications as well, lending to poor body image, bullying and depression (5).

There is a pressing need for intervention and change— child obesity is a matter of public health, the concern of public dollars and a matter of socio-economic justice. Statistics indicate that obesity disproportionally harms lower income individuals and communities of color. While this is cause for action in the vein of socio- economic justice, it is also cause for action in the realm of public health and public dollars spent. According to Diet, Nutrition and Wellness: Obesity, the obesity epidemic and its consequent secondary illness, is slated to run the public health bill an additional $550 million by 2030 through medical spending. This will be financed through tax payer dollars as much of these expenses will charge the public pots of Medicare and Medicaid (3).

According to an article by Genevra Pittman regarding a relevant study “five-year-olds who drink sugar-sweetened sodas, sports drinks or juices every day are more likely to be obese than those who have sugar-sweetened beverages less often” (Pittman). While studies indicate the prevalence of soda and sugary beverages in the obesity rate of children, highlighting the need for an intervention that eliminates or greatly reduces consumption, this essay questions the effectiveness and constitutionality of some proposed and implemented government policy initiatives that are intended for this end.

While this essay holds that government intervention in the child obesity epidemic is necessary, and more so the responsible next step, it argues the distinction between good, sustainable and empowering policy from that which is short sighted and paternalistic and disproportionally patronizing to the disenfranchised communities of the poor and minority. Accordingly, the plus-size soda ban is extremely bad and ineffective policy. For starters it is paternalistic and carries with it the sentiment that individuals, namely those of the poor and communities of color, are not capable to make their own choices with regard to health and nutrition. Additionally, it is a disembodied policy that seems to float around without context, and while it may decrease soda intake in the moment, it fails to create the sustainable change in consumers that can only occur with knowledge and understanding. This policy is ineffective as well because it polices such a minor access point for sugar consumption and it fails to address other and more intense sources of soda and sugar. In the article the National Restaurants Association protests ban on big sodas, the writer asks why, of all things, has soda has been demonized. The writer contends as well that restaurants represent a small percentage of consumer soda access and intake and holds that “this proposed amendment misplaces responsibility and creates a false sense of accomplishment” (National Restaurants Association protests ban on big sodas). In a similar article entitled Soda ban? what about personal choice? Katrina Trinko argues that the prohibitive policy and actions of, what she calls a ‘nanny state’, eliminate free choice and the potential for positive health decisions. She argues that these short sighted solutions neglect to truly fix the structural problem of a poor and uninformed American health and nutrition standing (Trinko).

While government intervention in the affairs of child obesity may take many creative shapes and forms, there is excellent interventionist policy in place that is non-prohibitive, extremely incentivizing, intentionally healing and informative to avail choice. According to Peter Aldhous in the article Food stamps could help US trim obesity epidemic, a pilot policy initiative was implemented in Hamden Massachusetts in an effort to combat the growing obesity epidemic among low-income households. Incentivizing food stamps recipients with a 30% buy back for all dollars spent on fruits and vegetables, this policy initiative found a 25% increase in fruits and vegetable consumption in the households that chose to participate in this benefit (Aldhous). While Aldhous highlights the societal touchiness around government intervention, this essay argues the thin but profound line between respectful and effective policy and that which is paternalistic and degrading. Policy such as Aldhous’s food stamps buy-back plan puts power and the potential for transformation into the hands of the consumer and in effect advocates healthy personal choices. This kind of policy is more likely than that of the big-soda ban to avail lasting change for health decisions and the obesity epidemic.

In a similar vein, another amazing government intervention in the obesity epidemic is represented in the policy mandate that requires the conspicuous posting of calorie count and fat content at fast food establishments. This government intervention promotes informed individual choice and agency over one’s health and food habits by mandating the presentation of the information necessary to make these informed choices. This policy not only supports personal choice, but it also holds industries accountable for the products that they serve which inadvertently promotes higher industry standards.

According to the article San Francisco joins sugary drinks fray with tax proposal, Scott Weiner proposed a bill to apply a 2% tax to sugary drinks in California. The revenue from this tax would be used to support health promotion in terms of education, access to food and exercise (San Francisco joins sugary drinks fray with tax proposal). This is an additional example of sound government intervention that may be capable to actualize lasting change through the promotion of personal choice and personal accountability.

While Child obesity is a rampant in American culture, government intervention is necessary and needed in the combating of this entrenched epidemic. Change of this magnitude can only effectively be accomplished through a utilization of the breadth of governmental reach alongside the cooperation of the public. Contrary to popular anti-interventionist thought, appropriate government interventions can be extremely effective at promoting empowerment, consciousness and free and informed decision making around health. It is only with structural change and the transformation of understanding and perspective that lasting change can occur. Government intervention is the most effective way to facilitate that on-the-ground transformation.

Works Cited

Aldhous, Peter. "Food Stamps Could Help US Trim Obesity Epidemic." New Scientist 219.2928 (2013): 10. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.

“Diet, Nutrition and Wellness: Obesity.” Issues & Controversies. Facts on File News Service, 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

“National Restaurant Association Protests New York City’s Ban on Big Sodas (Sidebar).” Issues & Controversies. Facts on File News Service, 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

"San Francisco joins sugary drinks fray with tax proposal." Reuters. Issues & Controversies. Facts on File News Services, 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

"Sugary drinks tied to obesity among preschoolers." Reuters. Issues & Controversies. Facts on File News Services, 5 Aug. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

Trinko, Katrina. "Soda Ban? What About Personal Choice." USA Today 11 March 2013.