Fat chance


See article

Readers' comments


liberty lee

I really wish folks (like the bright folks at The Economist) would stop making the false claim that smokers impose extra "social" costs on non-smokers.

For a one-pack a day cigarette smoker, the state and federal governments collect about a thousand dollars a year in taxes to spend on social programs. In addition, the tobacco companies pay state governments about $8B per year per the terms of agreement of the tobacco settlement and this cost is naturally passed on to the consumer on top of the taxes.

But studies in various industrialized western countries with good social safety nets have shown that, overall, smokers consumer between $100,000 and $200,000 less than non-smokers in government expenditures. And when you think about it, that makes sense. Smokers, on average, die earlier, oftentimes before they even get a chance to collect Medicare or Social Security. In addition, they tend to die rather quickly rather than linger on for decades in nursing homes as they and their families suffer from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, senile dementia, or some other debilitating chronic disease.

Smoking is clearly a health hazard but encouraging the habit actually benefits non-smoking citizens by reducing the burden of expensive entitlement programs and reducing the net medical costs that must be borne by governments.

In addition to China's business interest in selling cigarettes through its government-owned enterprise, perhaps this is why China's pro-smoking policy is still being pursued.

At any rate, it is clear that cigarette taxes and tobacco settlement monies do not represent that ideal Pigovian tax that otherwise intelligent people claim.

Given the general misunderstanding about cigarette taxes, one must be skeptical of interventions in the obesity scene. Given our governments agricultural subsidy program, one must be doubly skeptical.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts


Your report seemed to me most important, but to fail to follow up on a key issue. The 'Treating obesity: Slim Pickings' section highlighted the fact that there are courses of action which are effective but which bring with them certain risks, and did not comment on the fact that 'regulators have banned more diet drugs than they have approved'. In addition, such products as are quite effective without excessively high risks (e.g. certain low dose amphetamines) tend to be disapproved of morally by doctors who seem oddly unwilling to prescribe them, and expensive (e.g. not covered by schemes which subsidize pharmaceuticals) On the face of it, given the dire consequences of being overweight and the difficulties of handling this by sheer willpower, the obvious approach might seem to be for regulators simply to give information to the public about the risks of taking various medications, and to then leave the decisions as to what to do in the hands of the individuals themselves (who would be deprived of the right to sue in the face of to any problems that might arise as a consequence of their own actions). If people live in countries in which pharmaceuticals are subsidized, the government might subsidize those which have some risks, but where the risk/benefit ratio is positive. This, on the face of it, might offer a chance of success - while in the light of what was documented in your report, everything else currently being tried seems simply futile. At the same time, it would restore responsibility to the individual for key decisions which significantly affect their lives.


we are over fed and starving at the same time. The nutritional content of our food supply has diminished as producers employ new technology to create more at lower cost. We trade taste and cost for actual value to our systems leaving our bodies to demand more empty content in search of the nutrition it needs. Too much of our food supply has been divorced from any organic nature leaving our bodies to content with content it is ill equipped to process. Legislation may attempt to deal with this problem but the only effective measure would require nutritional education and a willingness to make organic choices in our diets.


Such an epidemic in the US. So many root causes - government subsidies, role modeling, food deserts etc - but something needs to be done.

I am a libertarian by heart - but some people consistently make bad choices. Some of it starts with education - when kids cannot recognize a potato (like they did in a Jamie Oliver TED), we have problems as a society.

More thoughts at blog: http://consultantsmind.com/2012/10/13/obesity/


Simple really, eat only as much as you need! We understand this fundamental fact yet we ignore it, rationalize it, and make excuses. Because of the costs on society, social and economic disincentives are needed, perhaps similar to the tactics used to bring smoking under control. In a free society you can chose to eat your self to death, just be prepared to pay your fair share of the medical burden, same with any other health debilitating behavior. Take Care!


I agree with @ MyMindisMelting, our society controls what we should do or not. Showing us commercials of fast food restaurants just before an antacid add. Consumption is presented as an obligation. The simple solution is to get informed about what you eat. People are becoming more and more fat because media and technologies change over time. More and more video games, social media and easy accessibility to internet are released, causing people to stay at home on their couch instead of exercising or having the initiative to do some activities.


Here is the cure to metabolic syndrome:

1. Eat whole foods (vegetables, fruits, meats, nuts).
2. Do not eat processed foods (bread, pasta, sweets).
3. Exercise on occasion (walk).

There is no need to create policy (soda tax) to modify behavior. Tell people the truth so they can make their own decisions. Prevent companies from marketing their products as healthy, unless they are truly healthy. A product marketed as healthy that requires, moderate intake combined with a balanced diet and exercise, should not be considered healthy. If all you eat are whole foods, you can eat in excess and will not be required to commit yourself to an extreme exercise routine.

Once people are fully informed of the consequences of their diet habits, the obesity epidemic will eventually make a turn for the better.


First off, where I live we have taxes on candy but not cookies. It is actually misleading to think that it is the quantity when we know from science it is how much the food is cooked or processed that matters. Raw food actually requires more calories because the body has to break down the food instead of the cooking process. Eating more raw vegetables would largely solve the problem. So, why doesn't the government do what it does, and subsidize raw vegetables?


Our culture says to consume or you are a failure.
We are bombarded by photos and advertisements of delicious looking food. Eating out, which used to be occasional, is now a daily occurrence for many office workers. Additionally bad food is cheap and easy entertainment.
Then, our culture says to buy surgery and weight-loss products because you need to buy more in order to counter what you have consumed too much of.
Our culture even says to take antacids before imbibing on foods that cause stomach issues. Then shows the acid sufferer enjoying plates of greasy overindulgence. For people who suffer lactose intolerance and other sensitivities, they are encouraged to medicate themselves in order to "enjoy" foods their bodies are telling them they should not have...

CONSUME. OR you are of no worth to society.
Then feel guilt, and consume more.


I am wary of governments doing too much with food policy, because of their track record: A key reason reason why obesity has increased dramatically since 1980 is because that's when governments started telling people that dietary fat was bad. Unfortunately, the food industry responded to the government's advice by producing "low fat" food. To make low fat food satisfactory, the food industry relied on sugar and processed carbohydrates.

That's not to say that saturated fat is completely harmless. It's just that in hindsight, we can see that a high sugar/carb diet is actually far worse than a high fat diet.

Oh, and Ryvita and Orange juice? That's a perfect example of misguided advice. Separating the juice from the pulp of an orange concentrates the sugar, increases the quantity consumed, and increases its glycaemic index. The body then stores the excess calories as fat. Best eat oranges as they grew - whole.

alecmuller in reply to karlovac

Economist, why not ask what governments can _stop_ doing to encourage obesity (like subsidizing corn and by extension HFCS) instead of asking what new thing they can start doing to discourage it?


A large portion of blame goes to the governments and it's poor nutrition advice. Stop the stupid low fat suggestions and get people off the sugar and too much carbs. Note, I only say too much carbs. See Zoe to learn more. http://www.zoeharcombe.com


The report is interesting as always but might not the sports entertainment industry be just as culpable as the food industry? Take the Olympics and football world cup for example. Rather than encouraging participatory exercise this has the effect of inducing sedentary 'activity' in front of TV sets by billions around the world. So maybe governments should think about getting the likes of Sky in on the act. How to do it is another matter.


People eat because they are fidgety. Its quite simple. Nobody is eating cookies while busy working on an excel sheet, or playing the guitar. Nobody is drinking pepsi while playing tennis or pitching a presentation.
One clue might lie in how our entertainment options have changed - the most interesting thing to do is to watch tv, which involves not moving or even thinking. This causes us to get fidgety..and we eat cause we are fidgety from just sitting in one place, our brain and body is now craving something else to do and the easiest thing is to put it to work processing food. once its done processing food, it now slows down everything for a little while...
Another example is automatic transmission - have you tried eating a cheeseburger and drinking pepsi while driving a manual transmission? Driving has transformed from an active pastime to a passive one - but not fully passive, meaning, just like when we watch tv..we are forced to sit in one place and stare at the window/tv meaning the rest of our body/mind is now fidgety again.
Obese ppl will tell you how hard it is to stop eating, its absolutely hell for them. Their brain is throwing every single fit and hurdle against it, and it takes massive willpower to get over it. On the flipside, an active person will tell you how easy it is to eat healthy all the time - if anything, their brains go into attack mode when they approach a cheeseburger. Truth is, even a little bit of exercise will make a huge difference in how the brain reacts to food. And THIS is exactly what we need to be concentrating on - helping people appreciate exercise, making it more accessible, Gyms cater only to fit people as much as clubs are for rich people - nobody wants to feel out of place. Lets make gyms a happy place for everyone.
Lets put a treadmill in every house. Lets play some tennis. Lets make an active lifestyle fun again.


Why don't we act upon what we know for sure? We know that sugars and similar fast carbon hydrates are directly bad for us and should be limited. We know that we must exercise more and more regularly than we do today. Both of these things could be encouraged by political means.

Depressed in 2009

Go further, Economist. WHY are we getting so fat, especially children? List the top five reasons, with no taboos. Then take a look at how many corporations' profits are directly or indirectly impacted by those trends. Come on! Let's have some real analysis!


Everyone is trying to save the world from obesity with a one cure for all solution. Never going to happen. As it has been mentioned by a fellow reader: David8a, there are vested interests. Also eating in abundance usually has deep rooted cultural origins, particularly in the poorer countries therefore taxes or governance won't yield any tangible benefits as people won't just drop their culture for the sake of saving a few bucks in taxes.

In my opinion offering rebates for healthier options and health related products may result in a better outcome. Eg government rebates for gym memberships and personal trainers, bikes, or tax breaks for businesses that have physical activity plans/gyms/sports days for their employees. I think solutions along this line would have better outcomes, at least in the developed countries.


What kind of nonsensical drivel is this? "Sin" tax is a figure of speech, which you would be able to figure out if you actually thought about it, for like, a second. Statistical evidence clearly shows that sugar and fat are uniformly harmful. Did you read your own article? It wouldn't be a sin tax, it would be a cost tax because sugar and fat have a negative cost. Not requiring businesses to pay for their true cost on society is socialism and a market failure, but apparently right wing magazines can ignore reality when it is convenient. It is not a regressive tax because as the Economist pointed out, it would help to alleviate the burden of obesity on individuals by encouraging them to change their behavior.


Please, do an article on several possible underlying causes of the epidemic of obesity in the world. This would include such issues as the use of antibiotics to help cows gain weight, bacterial balance in the gut as seen in fat mice and skinny mice (U. of Washington in St. Louis), bacterial gut balance in normal versus obese humans, changes in the type of wheat we eat today (see "Wheat Belly"), use of high fructose corn syrup rather than cane sugar, fluoridation of water altering thyroid function, low iodine levels in food today lowering thyroid function, possible infectious, inflammatory diseases causing diabetes, high blood pressure, inflamed arteries and then obesity in that order, antibiotic resistant chronic infections which may be causing these inflammations. And then perhaps look at new emerging diseases such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, massive increases in lupus, ALS, ALZ and others. If you can do some reading and summarizing of the newer research on underlying causes of obesity you may find it isn't hamburgers and french fries. It isn't kid's computer toys either. Normal, healthy kids will not sit still for hours a day. They will get out and run and jump and hit a ball. What is wrong with the underlying health of children today? It isn't milk shakes.


The following argument against the sin tax is questionable:
"eating fatty and sugary foods is not a “sin”, even in the fiscal sense, for unlike cigarettes, fatty foods are not uniformly unhealthy."
I am not sure what is meant by "uniformly", but I assume your meaning is that fatty foods are only unhealthy for some people - that is, those who eat them to dangerous excess. But the same is true for cigarettes: they produce adverse health effects only when consumed to excess. "Uniformly unhealthy" appears to be a false distinction.
Of course, the other arguments against a sin tax on food - that it is both regressive and administratively unfeasible - are sound.


"Look at the label. If its made by an American company, don't eat it. Buy something locally produced and fresh instead." - Unfortunately that is the best advice we can give today.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

