Obesity as a Health Condition - Essay Example

Word Count: 1558 Introduction Obesity is a health condition which causes fat to excessively accumulate in the adipose tissues impacting detrimental effects on overall body health. One of the most detrimental effects caused by the obesity is reduction in life expectancy. People are regarded as obese when their BMI (Body Mass Index) is at least 30 kg/m2 (Wolin & Petrelli 2009). As seen with most obese people, obesity increases the susceptibility of the body to succumb diseases such as heart failure, stroke, and certain types of cancers, osteoarthritis, and type-2 diabetes. Obesity is commonly associated with excessive intake of food energy, genetic susceptibility, endocrine disorders, and more importantly lack of enough physical activity. Therefore, the extensive concern over the prevailing incidences of obesity has prompted to proposals to combat obesity. This paper focuses on the government action and its effort to curb the ever rising levels of obesity, in United States of America and UK. Government regulates the obesity through introduction of taxes on food that are believed to cause obesity. It is in order to suggest that the prices of foods that cause obesity are cheaper compared to foods that are much healthier (Recitas 2013). Most of the people cannot afford to buy less healthy food and they end up consuming junk foods. Due to this situation, some of the people have proposed to increase the price of less risky foods through unrealistic taxes. These taxes are no difference with those imposed on cigarettes, alcohol, and lottery tickets. However, tobacco taxes have been supposed to have a slight impact than normally thought. Therefore, government should regulate the rate at which people buy the junk foods through increasing tax to high risky foods while reducing tax of the low risk food. High risk foods imply that these foods pose negative effects to people and increase the overall body weight disproportionally to their height. The low risk foods refer to those foods that are healthy for our bodies (Wolin & Petrelli 2009). Until government intervenes, the growing trend of obese people persists even in the future. In regard to food and government involvement, some people argue that the government should do away with soda taxes and think beyond the box (Institute of Medicine et al 2009). They continue suggesting that for the government to deal with the real predicament of public obesity, it should begin from the source – the less expensive food sold in the market and its effort in eluting their effects on public. In cases where the government is supplying food such as milk, cheese, beef, and port to food assistance times – including in schools, it should not distribute nutritious foods. These nutritious foods are associated with the development of obesity with consequential diseases in children and students at early age. However, there is very little evidence that proof that higher soda taxes and endless school stringent restrictions can mitigate obesity effects. For example, in California’s county supervisors forbidden all restaurants from offering free promotional food rich in high calorie and high-salt meals, in spite of the lack of enough evidence that such a regulation would be effective in curbing obesity. The interventions by the county government could not affect the economic gain in relation to weight gain. The results from other studies concluded that the progress made in storage technology of food have considerably reduced the time of meal preparation. This technology has led to more consumption of food and beverages (Vandamme 2010). Additionally, when government intervene to decline the consumption of soda, substitute product may thrive, and people end up consuming more junk food or consuming excess sugar from the home-made beverages such as tea. This scenario may create ambiguity in determining the causes of weight gain. Intervention may accumulate more effective and efficient market-based policies than those imposed by the government in an attempt to reduce obesity in the country. In order to determine effective policies, policies under exercise should compel individuals to bear costs and garner advantage of choice they decide to take. It has been known that individuals with obesity spend highly in medical expenses more than they earn (Vandamme 2010). Government may play an important role in reducing the levels of the obesity through public educational programs. For example, research that was conducted in United States on nutrition labeling that examined the effects of nutrition labeling and obesity change expected to obtain credible information on improvement made through mandatory nutrition labeling (Boisrobert 2010). The result showed that the policy of mandatory labeling did not have significance difference on people who were using the labels. The study showed that most of the public do not pay attention to the labels on food containers. Therefore is confidence in asserting that education initiatives are a good way of creating awareness in a bid to reduce the prevailing obesity or excessive in the population. Although, the government is not the best providers of nutrition education, the government needs to perfect its public nutrition programs (Lussier 2012). Government plays an important role in controlling obesity in children through mandatory physical education in public schools (Chepyator-Thomson & Hsu 2013). One of the causes of the obesity is lack of enough physical exercises. Therefore, the notion of physical education has gained much attention. Undertaking high levels of exercises has been correlated to the fewer chances of becoming overweight or obese. The reverse effect is true for the lack of body exercises. The government needs to exercise policies in schools so that physical education is mandatory for all children. In support of such an idea, one of research stated that the addition of half an hour in physical education in the first grade relatively reduces the body mass indexes especially among heavier girls (Institute of Medicine (U.S.) et al 2009). Additionally, the current innovations on treatment of diseases related to obesity have made many people become less concerned about the effects of body weight gain. Therefore, unfavorable effects of the intervention by the government are given less weight in this argument. Government intervention is perceived as replacing personal responsibility with government responsibility for weight control. It is unfortunate that replacing personal for government responsibility can no work in practice. The additional soda taxes adversely affect the behavior of the untailored drinkers. This action of government depicts mismatch between the consequences and intentions. The government interventions are focused at reducing the alcohol and cigarette consumption associated with casual smokers and drunkards as they have less interest in smoking and drinking. This group of people has the highest sensitivity to price fluctuations of these products. Therefore, the government involvement in the reduction of these behaviors that leads to consumption of cigarette and soda, although there is little evidence that link consumption soda can mitigate the effects of the obesity (Goldstein 2005). However, it is ridiculous to regard specific beverage or food as the main cause of obesity when other remarkable sources depicts that obesity is as a result of genetics, food choice, hormones, and lack of exercise. It is not reasonable enough for an individual to remove a beverage such as soda from the diet while consuming ten thousand calories a day and finally expending thousand calories a day. Such an individual may gain weight excessively day by day (Korthals 2011). Fortunately, government is always getting into the line of market-based resolutions. From a recent study in UK, shows that workers with obesity who benefit from the health insurance via their employer may receive lower salaries than their counterparts who are non-obese, as their salaries are reduced by the extra medical expense associated with weight reduction. For example, in the US federal health legislation is not willing to classify obesity the same class as tobacco. This scenario makes it more difficult for insurance companies to reprimand obesity through higher insurance first-rates or lower wages. Additionally, legislation fails to eliminate clauses that initially made insurer refute or overcharge insurance cover to the obese. This situation reduces market-based penalty for people with obesity. Astonishingly, it is believed that blacks have at a higher risk than whites and in females than in males. This situation makes government be unwilling to allow market-based resolutions that reprimand blacks and women for obesity more than in whites and men. Such a situation brings gender or race discrimination (Ács, Lyles & Stanton 2007). Conclusion Obesity is a serious concern in the modern world. It is widespread known that the obesity is caused by eating habits and unhealthy lifestyle. However, scientists also believe that the obesity can be caused by genetic condition, hormones, among other factors of science interest. In respect to attempting to reduce obesity, government steps in to assist in reducing obesity. Government intervenes by developing policies that lead to a reduction in consumption of foods and beverages that are associated to weight gain. Government also develops policies that make physical education in school mandatory. However, it is believed that government policies are not effective in reducing obesity levels since there are other methods associated with weight gain. Obesity is also caused by genetic condition of the victims. Employers are providing insurance health care for its workers. Additionally, due to innovation of pills that reduce diseases emanating from obesity, the victims of obesity do not care about their weight gain. Conclusively, government and employers are reducing personal responsibility for the victims of obesity for their own health concern. References Ács, Z. J., Lyles, A., & Stanton, K. R. (2007). Obesity, business and public policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Boisrobert, C. (2010). Ensuring global food safety: Exploring global harmonization. London: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. Chepyator-Thomson, J. R., & Hsu, S.-H. (2013). Global perspectives on physical education and after-school sport programs. Lanham: University Press of America. Goldstein, D. J. (2005). The management of eating disorders and obesity. Totowa, N.J: Humana Press. Institute of Medicine (U.S.)., Parker, L., Burns, A. C., & Sanchez, E. (2009). Local government actions to prevent childhood obesity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Korthals, M. (2011). Genomics, obesity and the struggle over responsibilities. Dordrecht: Springer. Lussier, R. N. (2012). Management fundamentals: Concepts, applications, skill development. Mason, Ohio: South-Western. Recitas, L.-G. (2013). The plan: Eliminate the surprising "healthy" foods that are making you fat-- and lose weight fast. Vandamme, . (2010). Whose weight is it anyway? Essays on ethics and eating. Leuven: Acco. Wolin, K. Y., & Petrelli, J. M. (2009). Obesity. Santa Barbara, Calif: Greenwood Press. Read More