Regulating obesity

Yesterday’s Guardian (13th July) had an opinion piece by George Monbiot about deregulation. Not surprisingly, in the G, he’s against it, and describes doing anything without having government regulation as playing football without a referee. And he argues that the rich (corporations) will “foul” the poor (consumers). Red card. A nice “world cup” reference, but I’m not sure I agree with the analogy, nor about the balance of power between corporations and their customers.

It was a bit of an “and another thing” article: things thrown in on top of each other. I feel unqualified to comment on farming, property development or banking rules, all of which got a mention. He says the coalition is opposed to speed cameras, and if that’s true, then I’d strongly agree with him that it’s a bad thing; but I’m not sure what it has to do with regulation of the private sector. But the part that caught my attention was his paragraphs on food and obesity, a topic on which I am passionate.

He accuses the Health Secretary of seeking “to shift responsibility for improving diets and preventing obesity from the state to society”. I’m not sure I knew it ever belonged to the state. And says that “he [the health secretary] blamed the problem on low self-esteem and deplored what he called ‘a witch-hunt against saturated fats, salt and sugars’”.

Note: there is no scientific evidence whatsoever, not even any faint possibility or likelihood, that obesity is caused by saturated fat or salt, and the evidence against sugar is thin. Pretty much any expert you consult will agree that the causes of obesity are (a) not enough exercise and (b) the amount of food eaten – not the composition of that food. Carbohydrates are a problem, but sugar is not especially worse than other carbs. I am surprised, but very pleased, to hear that the health secretary’s views on obesity are so close to my own.

“From now on, he announced, communities will be left to find their own solutions. The companies which make their money from selling junk food and alcohol will be put in charge of ensuring that people consume less of them. I hope you have spotted the problem.” Yes, I think I have – first you say the health secretary is making individuals responsible for their health, and then suddenly you switch to saying he’s putting companies in charge of it. Make your mind up.

Monbiot goes on to quote a study that appears to weaken his own position. It says that “weight gain is the inevitable – and largely involuntary – consequence of exposure to a modern lifestyle”. Which means, a sedentary one with food always available. How is he going to fix that by regulation?

But the really interesting point is “The same study points out that obesity rates are much higher among the poor than the rich”. Food costs money. An obese person could in theory save money by eating smaller portions of their accustomed foods, and lose weight. There is no such thing as “weight-loss food” – so it is not more expensive to eat a weight loss diet. (However, there is something close to a healthy weight-loss diet: a vegetarian diet – which is actually a lot cheaper). And the unemployed are more likely to have the time available to walk for an hour or two every day. So why are they more likely to be obese?

Tell me if you think I’m crazy, but in my opinion, the obvious explanation as to why the poor are more likely to be overweight is that their lives are unhappy. Food is one of the few pleasures and pastimes available. Does anyone think that’s an absurd suggestion? Strangely, having criticised the health secretary for saying that obesity is related to low self esteem, Monbiot is approvingly quoting the above study that seems to me to support the same idea.

That’s right. It’s not someone’s fault. People are obese because our lifestyle no longer involves much exercise, eating has become a cheap pastime, and because we’re unhappy. No villain. But Monbiot can’t have that; he needs a villain. That’s how you sell papers. He wants to say that it’s all because we’re being offered food that’s “fattening”, by “corporations”, and this should be regulated. He has to believe that we’re being made to eat the way we do by bad guys. Not by our genes and our emotions. Science (including the report he quotes) says the opposite.

Just supposing that obesity was caused by fattening food high in fat, or high in sugar, which it isn’t, how would you prevent that by regulation? Ban the sale of confectionery? Laws against cake? Doughnut prohibition? Are we to close down the local fish and chip shop that sells everything deep fried in batter, or the local Indian that sells everything cooked in ghee? Will the supermarket not be allowed to sell crisps, cheese, white bread, sausages? Can anyone paint me a picture of how this regulation would work? It’s insane.

Then he hits us with this: “Eventually (think of BSE, the railways, tobacco advertising) the government will be forced to re-regulate, but not before large numbers of people have been hurt".

Well, I am thinking of BSE. It is indeed tragic that there were no regulations against a practice that nobody, at the time, knew was dangerous. I don’t think the number of people harmed was large, not compared to obesity, but it would be better if it hadn’t happened. So yes, BSE is a good example – of how regulation could not help.

Please email me if you really think obesity could be reduced by anything the state can in regulating large food industry corporations. Anything at all.