by Ashley Johnson
America has been invaded. We have been compromised from within. A deadly enemy has slipped its way into our society by gaining the trust of millions. It has deceived many by presenting itself as the most economically sound option. Today, the enemy has pervaded our nation so deeply that it is accepted and even embraced in many sections of our society. In fact, we have modified our culture to accommodate and even encourage the proliferation of this deadly enemy. It has done exactly that. Currently, this threat to our country wipes out about 300,000 Americans a year (Critser, 146). It has taken a drastic social and economic toll on our society but it is time to fight back and fight smart. Many factors have contributed and still contribute to the U.S. obesity epidemic, but one cultural practice in particular has found its way into our society that seems to dominate as the most effective driving force towards a death-by-fat fate for most Americans: super-sizing.
The urgency of addressing the issue of this "obesity epidemic" in America is undeniable. State governments have already begun the fight, legislating towards prevention and better treatment for this disease and the countless problems it causes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). As much as they have done though, they are fighting a losing battle without the aid of the federal government. The scene is a grim one: If we do not take effective action to turn the nation around, this generation of children will be the first in two centuries to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents (Belluck, 1). The difference is, this time parents will bury their children in extra-large coffins. It is a horrible thought, but this is the reality we are facing: America is dying a slow, disgusting death. As Greg Critser, author of Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World reports, more than 60 percent of Americans are now overweight, 20 percent of whom are obese (4). The days of the young and healthy youth are fast disappearing as one in every four Americans under the age of 19 is overweight or obese. That is terrifying.
As a result, we spend more than $117 billion healthcare dollars on treating obesity every year (Greenblatt). "Between 1988 and 1994 the number of days of lost work due to obesity increased by 50 percent—to 39 million days, worth $3.9 billion" (Critser, 147). How did so many of us get to this point? As James O. Hill, physiologist at the University of Colorado’s Health Sciences Center asserts, obesity "is a normal response to the American environment" (qtd. in Critser, 3). A deeper understanding of the "American environment" that drove our nation to take this dangerous turn will lead to the discovery of the best way to address it. Buckminster Fuller beautifully articulated the best approach to effect change when he said that to change something, one must not fight the existing reality, but rather build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. In other words, it is not the fixed ideas favoring obesity that we must fight directly, but the causes promoting those ideas. We must foster an environment where attitudes that "bigger is better" would not be able to survive.
To put it in a few words, Americans are getting much less physical exercise than they used to (Critser, 86). At the same time, the fast-food culture has become a major part of the modern American lifestyle. Rather than a rare treat, it has become a frequent habit (Critser, 33). Even worse, consumers are taking in more fast food at every sitting than ever; portion sizes have been redefined so that profit margins could also be redefined—to spell larger profits (Critser, 20-27). This is the main problem and the best place to start in the war on obesity: the "Supersize Me" culture. According to a thorough and revealing study by Drs. Lisa Young and Marion Nestle of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, food portions outside the home from dining establishments to frozen dinners by diet companies like Lean Cuisine, are increasingly exceeding the standard portion sizes established by the USDA and the FDA (Nestle and Young). At a time when jobs are becoming more sedentary and adolescents are spending more time with electronic amusements rather than being active, as they are meant to at this age, consuming larger portions is the worst direction to let our country go. As food prepared outside the home becomes a bigger part of the American lifestyle, Americans get accustomed to large portions and take this practice home. Children are born into a society where everything is bigger. Who will show them the right way to go? The forces that try—some schools, health organizations, healthcare providers—are too few and insufficient.
In a horrifying twist, the research revealed that food companies are now using the idea of bigger portions as selling points, like the Double Gulp and Del Taco’s Macho Burrito. The reason that such harmful attitudes can dominate the American culture is because there is no level playing field. Restaurants spend $10 billion a year telling Americans that eating out should become a part of their daily lifestyle and not an occasional treat. Consider Taco Bell’s promotion of the "fourth meal", which encourages literally a never-ending cycle of eating. In contrast, the National Cancer Institute barely manages to put $2 million a year toward spreading the life-saving message of 5 fruits and grains (or vegetables) a day (Greenblatt). This clearly illustrates the urgency of the federal government stepping up to the plate in this noble crusade.
While the situation is disheartening, it is possible to turn things around. The ongoing controversy over individual responsibility versus corporate responsibility has created a sharp divide, but it is best put aside in favor of creative solutions. The best approach to tackling this cultural practice that is handicapping the American people in the battle against obesity is a two-part plan. The first part is an educational campaign using all the marketing avenues and strategies that restaurants and food companies have used so effectively including television, school campuses and brand recognition. The aim of an educational campaign is both to level the playing field and to pave the way for the action that is to follow. By extended exposure to the idea of a sort of "return to normalcy" (of portion sizes), the doctrine of "more is better" would have a viable contender. This national educational campaign would focus on key sections of the population: those most prone to obesity and those most open to change, namely young people. The second part of the plan would involve legislative action, because no amount of education will effect change in people if the environment is not favorable to doing so. Ideally, an effective educational campaign will have done its job and the proposed measures will find more receptive constituents than it otherwise would have.
It is important to remember that in launching a health campaign on this aspect of obesity, unreceptive ears will be found. A healthy lifestyle is not appealing or desirable to everyone, especially if it requires the sacrifice of that extra cheese or of upgrading to the larger soda. Catering to this special demographic requires a well thought-out approach. Just as fast food corporations pour resources into research and development, picking apart the minds of consumers to find out what they respond to, the government can support similar research through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to inspire media campaigns. For example, as Alan Greenblatt reports, research by the National Restaurant Association shows that 68 percent of Americans are tired of hearing about what foods are good and bad for them. This means that an effective campaign will not take on the role of "food police", but promote an "overall healthy lifestyle [which includes] balance and moderation in food choices" (Kim).
Promoting a healthy lifestyle means creating an environment conducive to good health. Legislators can also expect to face opposition from restaurants and food companies. This can be effectively dealt with by making it clear that a new model is in progress, where super-sizing will be out of fashion. Progressive, health-oriented companies that are willing to work together for positive change will have a place in this new model.
Whatever the apprehensions may be of upsetting constituents by introducing restrictive legislation, remember that history is on our side. Consider the fight against tobacco companies in the past, when smoking was so glamorized and so much a part of the culture that restricting it seemed both undesirable and impossible. Just as the public did with tobacco, when taxpayers decide that they can no longer continue paying as a nation for the exorbitant costs of this gluttonous and sedentary lifestyle, it will be up to legislators to answer what aggressive action the federal government has already taken to tackle this national issue.
Fast food companies already know one secret that has enabled them to keep their customers coming back: satiety is not satiety. As fast food executive John Martin and "young marketing genius" Elliot Bloom discovered in their attempt to save the dying Taco Bell business, "the mere presence of more for less induce[s] people to eat more" (Critser, 26). We eat when we are sad, tired, bored or happy and America’s food companies have a meal-sized snack for every occasion (Ursell). By educating the public on the deadly dangers behind a super-sized order of French fries and by making healthier options more appealing and more available, our leaders in government can transform the culture created by near sighted fast food executives.
The victims who most commonly fall prey to this disease are the poor and the working poor (Critser, 109) and disproportionately Hispanics. Food choices by such families are often price driven—the highest value means more for less and no thought is given to the nutritional content of those portions. While critics advocate individual responsibility, it is unfair for corporations to target the poor where they are most vulnerable: getting the most value for their limited income. That is why access to information like that on mypyramid.gov needs to be made more accessible, and why health fairs, education at health clinics and the like need to be funded by the government.
Children are also especially vulnerable, because of the little exposure they receive to health education in school and to the occasional television commercial to be active and eat healthy; it is no match for their daily encounters with unhealthy temptations. One needs only to turn on Saturday morning kids’ shows to see how young and impressionable minds are indoctrinated on "the benefits of grease, salt and ever increasing amounts of sugar" (114). Fortunately, these impressionable minds can also be indoctrinated with messages of good health. Regarding a study conducted on children in Finland where healthy dietary habits were started early and advice was directed at the children, Dr. Sarah Blumenschein, a pediatric cardiologist, had reason for hope: "The earlier you intervene, the more likely you are going to be successful". In fact, if young children and adolescents can be trained to recognize and favor certain brands, they can also be trained to favor healthy choices (Stengle). Schools that rely on "pouring contracts" with companies like Coca-Cola – "monetary perks" for "contractual promises"-- need to be introduced to better sources of funds (Critser, 48). Just as downing Pepsi and Pizza Hut at lunch has become cool, adolescents respond most effectively to dictated trends. By teaming up with certain television networks, messages fostering awareness and a receptive attitude to change can be directed through the channels and shows most watched by young people. An operation like this desperately needs the chance to be put into action; it can be given that chance only by the federal government.
The most important message to get across to the American people is that more is not always better. The secret to losing weight comes down to one core concept: a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. We eat for energy to function. When we consume more than we expend, we gain weight.
The drive towards better nutrition and health is not dead in America. Its presence is strongly evident everywhere: in magazines, in commercials and even in some cities. This shows that Americans are trying; state governments are trying (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Congress can show the nation that its representatives are supportive by taking effective action. First, customers need to make informed decisions; the vague idea that a dish has "a lot" of calories is insufficient. Therefore, all dining establishments must be required to display portions per serving and the approximate caloric value of every item on their menus. The portion size referred to will be based on the standards issued by the USDA and FDA. While restaurants like TGI Friday’s have taken steps to offer customers the "Right Portion" at the "Right Price", this legislative measure will declare to the nation that its government embraces such progressive action wholeheartedly. In addition, servers at sit-down restaurants must be required to mention take-home containers at the beginning of the meal so as to discourage consuming such large portions at one sitting.
Next, advertisements for high-calorie foods should be accompanied by "Please enjoy responsibly" or a similar message, just as advertisements for alcohol do. After all, irresponsible eating is one of the top killers in America (Schlosser, 241).
Again, creative solutions that take the interest of all concerned parties into account are most likely to be effective. While actions like that of TGI Friday’s should be strongly encouraged, three phrases that articulate a similar idea that has shown great promise in the snack food industry: "In Small Packages, Fewer Calories and More Profit". The snack food industry has a special place in the hearts of Americans because we love to snack. Food companies have discovered that smaller can be better; in the past three years, sales of the 100-calorie pack snacks like Chips Ahoy, Doritos and Goldfish have "passed the $200 million-a-year mark". The remarkable success of this smaller portion size suggests hope for a campaign against super-sizing. Michael Simon, vice president of Pepperidge Farm, points out the simple appeal of these "pint-sized packages": they make it easier to eat less without the pain of calorie counting. 100-calorie packs capitalize on another key consumer principle: convenience. Consumers are willing to pay for it and food companies are willing to supply it (Peters, 1). Specifically, all individually packed snacks from candy bars to cookies to chips should follow this pattern. This trend is important for Congress to note; the federal government must jump on the chance to actively promote this idea because it works.
Bulk packages of snacks must also come under legislation. Most consumers overestimate a serving size, even when the information is available on the back of the package (Critser, 162). Therefore, the serving size, servings per container and caloric value should be displayed on the front of the package with a special icon. This is where the government can work to promote brand recognition; positive attitudes can be fostered toward companies that comply with federal standards by promoting a universal icon created by the federal government.
It may seem unnecessary to some for the federal government to impose such restrictions, since it appears that trends toward normal portions have already begun. However, this is a misinterpretation of events. The problem of obesity is growing too quickly to let nature take its course and hope that a few small actions by a few entities will provide the needed force to fight obesity. Congress must pour the fuel of federal initiative on these efforts to ignite the fire of the fight on fat.
Shiriki Kumanyika is an associate dean for health promotion and disease prevention at the University of Pennsylvania medical school. She has hope for the future, though she does not say so lightly: "I think with the amount of energy that''s being put into it now, it''s possible we might be able to… keep it from jumping another 10 percent points by 2010 [but] if people think [creating awareness] and that exercise and self-restraint are going to do it alone, we’ll have an even bigger increase in obesity over the next 10 years" (Greenblatt).
Purging our culture of the super-sizing custom is a gargantuan task; overindulgence is a hard habit to break. Addressing the issue of larger portions is pivotal in this "battle against the bulge", because even if physical activity was promoted and healthier food was made more accessible, the practice of eating out—whether at a fast food establishment or a fancy restaurant—is not going to die out anytime soon. Taking that into account, consider also that the sedentary American will begin exercising at the minimal level possible, as Critser has discussed at length in chapter four of his book, Fat Land. A thirty minute walk, no matter how brisk, is not going to burn off 1,000 calories of sugar and fat. Only when Americans embrace self-control rather than self-indulgence will we give ourselves a fighting chance. It is important that the federal government take the lead in creating an atmosphere that encourages smarter choices. We, the American people must let Congress know that we understand both the severity of the problem and the smartest ways to solve it. We must show that we are willing to work together to make things happen. The only reason for the obesity crisis to get a strong hold in our country would be a lack of cooperation. As citizens of this great society, each of us can get Congress moving by contacting our representatives about this issue. With technology advancing the way it is, there are more creative and exciting ways than ever to get our voices heard. If every individual who reads this does one thing to encourage his or her representative in Congress to take action, the results will be enormous.
Congress must act now on behalf of the American people. These measures will work because they are based on what has already been effective. The strategy of education followed by legislative action is a powerful one because it picks up on marketing strategies used by food corporations to create this super-sizing culture in the first place. It is critical to our success to create a level playing field. Children, especially those in lower-income areas are most at risk but they are also reachable. Government programs that target children will be well worth the cost. Once the anti-super-sizing sentiment has found itself a firm foothold in our society, legislative action by Congress to foster the kind of atmosphere promoted by such a campaign is only logical and will be welcomed by the American public.
Our trusted representatives must feel the urgency, Congress must stand up to the enemy and America must take the effort to change. If not, the tiny flame of progress being kindled by a marked few will be snuffed out by that invading enemy and we will be smothered by its heavy darkness, pun intended.
Post new comment