Posts Tagged ‘obesity’

Update: What Everyone Should Know About Obesity in the Womb (or Why We are Paying For Your Midnight Cravings)

November 26th, 2009
“Oh my god– it’s crowning!” the crowd gasped.

It’s undisputed that America’s obesity epidemic costs you, me, and every US wage-earner more than our share of taxes to compensate for.  But what if I told you that we’re spending our money in the wrong place– that the epidemic itself is being perpetuated by fat, pregnant mothers giving birth to chubby little babies?  Now have I got your attention? (Admittedly, it may have been from my use of deliberately inflammatory language.)  But hear me out:

New research suggests “something in an obese woman’s womb can  program her fetus toward becoming a fat child and adult.”  But the crazy thing is, that “something” is not simply genes.   By comparing children born to mothers before and after weight-loss surgery, scientists at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in New York in collaboration with Laval Hospital in Quebec discovered that “obese women who lose weight before pregnancy may be helping the next generation keep off excess pounds– even if fat-promoting genes run in the family.”

Why would this be?  One reason might be that the surgical bypass operation can make a woman’s body less efficient at digesting and absorbing food, thus lowering levels of sugar and fat in the blood.  This in turn reduces the overall calories delivered to the fetus to those seen in normal-weight mothers.  Conversely, obese mothers are thought to influence their fetuses as well by imprinting the earliest cues for brain circuitry which will control the child’s balance between calories consumed versus those burned away.  This may last a lifetime.

Like every other uniquely American problem, when given the choice between “an ounce of prevention or a pound of cure”, we will literally and figurately choose the pound of cure every time!  But why fight the crushing obesity epidemic after it’s happened?  (According to one respected expert, obesity costs us $393 Billion in health costs and lost productivity in 2009.)  Instead, the better course would be to prevent it from even occurring in the first place by heeding the following expert advice from the article, by way of the Boys from Brazil:

1) Avoid pregnancy until you’ve lost weight.  2) If pregnant, hold down the weight gain during pregnancy, and 3) After giving birth, “get down to a healthy body weight to prepare for the next pregnancy.”  (Are you still reading this?  Back to the henhouse ladies!)

Incidentally, lest you think I’m not even-handed on this site, I was being wry when I said it’s “undisputed” that the obesity epidemic is an American economic catastrophe.  As a matter of fact, in “Obesity: An Overblown Epidemic?” (Scientific American, 2005) W. Wayt Gibbs notes that “a relatively small group of scientists and doctors, many directly funded by the weight-loss industry, have created an arbitrary and unscientific definition of overweight and obesity [ie, the Body Mass Index].  They have inflated claims and distorted statistics on the consequences of our growing weights, and they have largely ignored the complicated health realities associated with being fat.”  UCLA Sociologist Abigail C. Saguy also defends this contrarian view: “Many more medical issues pose a greater threat to more Americans [than obesity], most notably malnutrition and smoking.  Media coverage of obesity overtook reporting on hunger and malnutrition in 2002 despite the fact that the World Health Organization deemed hunger to be the leading cause of world death…Similarly, cigarette smoking continues to be the leading cause of ‘preventable death’ despite the increasing shift of focus from smoking to obesity.”

“Given the ineffectiveness of weight-loss techniques and products, the study questions the effectiveness of “pathologizing” or “medicalizing” heavier weights. Weight loss is elusive for 75 percent to 95 percent of participants of commercial weight-loss programs in one- to three-year follow-ups,” she said.  “If one assumes that weight is largely outside of personal control, then raising concern over the health risks associated with obesity has little remedial function.  Furthermore, discussions of obesity’s potential health risk can offer a thinly veiled language through which to extend judgments of responsibility, blame and morality.  Such finger pointing, in turn, may worsen the stigma and discrimination faced by fat people.” 

I think she makes an excellent point, but I still think my pumpkin picture is kinda funny.

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon

Tags: , , ,
Posted in HealthCare | Comments (4)

What Everyone Should Know About Soft Drinks (or Why We’ve Imposed a 47-Year Cuban Trade Embargo)

October 5th, 2009
Candy Corn

Candy Corn is universally despised, and yet...does anything so singularly symbolize the attraction and revulsion we feel towards the unholy conversion of corn into high fructose corn syrup into food we cannot resist?

They want to tax your soda, dear reader.  (Incidentally, depending on where in the United States you are reading this, you are upset with me for calling your favorite beverage “soda”, since you call it either “pop” if you live in the Northwest, or simply “Coke” [KO] if you live in the Southeast.)  This is a problem for you because you drink so damn much of it, but it’s great for our PopEconomy! because of the money we can raise.

Based upon the expert recommendations of the Arkansas Surgeon General and NY City Health Commissioner, in part, a proposal was released through the New England Journal of Medicine to levy a 1-cent per ounce national tax on sodas and other sweetened beverages.  Their studies demonstrated the benefits of such a tax would include revenue (obviously) while also discouraging people from consuming extra calories; they cited studies which showed that women who drank sugar-sweetened beverages were at greater risk of obesity and diabetes.

Although they’d hoped to slip this tax into the larger healthcare reform Bills floating around, that opportunity slipped through their grasp when the White House rejected a soda tax initiative mid-September.  (33 states individually levy fairly small sales taxes on soft drinks, roughly on the order of 5-cents per $1.  The national proposal above goes beyond that in the range of around 12-cents per $1).

So what are we talking in real numbers, and why am I not giving up so easily?  The authors claim such a national sales tax would reap $15 Billion in its first year, not to mention a yearly 2-pound weight loss for soda drinkers.  They envision plowing the money back into child nutrition and obesity prevention programs, which I find absolutely precious.

The historical footnote to all of this is what’s interesting: unless you’ve been living under a rock you’ve heard the reverse-engineering for what seeded our national obesity epidemic in the first place: protectionist trade policies begat the switch from cane and beet sugars to corn (embargos and tariffs + subsidies) begat the rise of high fructose corn syrup begat this.  Although it’s a remarkable story, there may be something apocryphal to it, as this article from Slate debunks the notion that HFCS (as we in the sugar trade call it) is any less natural or unhealthy than glucose or sucrose, or for that matter much less “high” than good ol’ fructose.  The one fallacy they gloss over as it pertains to our purposes is hypothesizing what would happen if there were abundant sugar available everywhere, when in fact we DO still impose a Cuban embargo and DO still subsidize US corn farmers: whether the author believes its cost is trivial to the price of the can of soda, HFCS is still cheaper on a relative basis.

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in HealthCare, Sin Tax | Comments (6)

Update: What Everyone Should Know About our National Obesity Epidemic (or The Day They Started Selling “Child Obesity is Child Abuse” Bumper Stickers)

July 23rd, 2009
In the Guinness Book of World Records for the most durable motorcycle frames.

In the Guinness Book of World Records for the most durable motorcycle frames.

While this is not an update to the Pop Economy! Ledger per se, it has come to our attention courtesy of the July 21st edition of USA Today that you can now be charged with criminal neglect and your kids taken from you and put in foster care if they get too fat.  It’s not so much that I care about the children, but I need my readers to remain un-incarcerated with free wi-fi if this blog is to thrive.

According to the article, one of the problems the State grapples with is that the health problems tied to childhood obesity don’t become chronic until adulthood, which makes it difficult to charge the parents with neglect.  They sound frustrated by this.  Since it’s pretty clear where we’re headed as a society in terms of both obesity and incarceration rates, I’m not sure why we don’t simply cut to the chase and lock-up the both the parents and their newborns as they emerge from the delivery room. (Sigh)

Fortunately, the story may have a happy ending for Jerry Gray, the 14-yr old’s mother.  Showing true American spirit and resilience, the victim is fighting for her son’s health!  She has signed an exclusive deal with a documentary film company.

Update: In an update to my update, I’ve come across a great piece of reading at Time Magazine [TWX], “Why Exercise Won’t Make You Thin,” in which it is postulated that “If you’re more physically active, you’re going to get hungry and eat more.”  Seems common-sensical when you stop and think about it, but most people reach the counterintuitive conclusion: we believe we can burn more than we consume.  Trouble is, in the real world it works out just the opposite.  “In their 18-month study…when kids start to exercise, they end up eating more– not just a little more, but an average of 100 calories more than they had just burned.”  The article is full of fun factoids like that, and it’s worth reading before we start basing public policy on wishful thinking.

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in HealthCare | Comments (1)

What Everyone Should Know About our National Obesity Epidemic (or Why Richard Simmons Should be our Surgeon General)

July 19th, 2009
If current trends continue, all dogs will look like this in the future.

If current trends continue, all dogs will look like this in the future.

You need to put down those Hersheys® Chocolate Dunkers® (really? Pizza Hut), because the Ventura County Star just reported that health problems and lost productivity linked to overweight, obesity and inactivity cost the state of California $41.2B in 2006.

“I was astounded,” said Dr. Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization designed to draw public attention to critical health issues.  He should be!  We at PopEconomy! went back to the original study to locate their projections through 2011, then extrapolated those costs from CA to the entire USA using a per-capita calcuation for 2009.  Results?  Our fat asses are costing the economy $392,966,583,157 in lost productivity and health problems this year.

The study does not subscribe to the “fat but fit” mantra, I’ll tell you that.  Read the rest of this entry »

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in HealthCare | Comments (0)

  • Corrections? Broken links? Have a billion dollar idea for Pop Economy? (Note: we don't roll out of bed for less than $50M.) Report it to Pop@PopEconomy.Com.

    Disclaimer: This site is for entertainment only. Very little entertainment. I am neither an economist, nor a statistician. I did well in math.