Government Intervention on Obesity - Essay Example

Government Intervention on Obesity Obesity has become a serious health issue and a societal concern in the United States of America. The latest numbers show that 33% of adults and 17% of children are obese in the U.S. and as such, the country is facing an obesity epidemic. Obesity has become a major risk factor for expensive, chronic conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, which are very dangerous to the American society and costs the health care system nearly $150 billion a year. Several strategies to control obesity in the U.S have been suggested by different people, organizations and the government. However, some important questions have come up and the most important in these is should the government intervene, or is this a matter of individual rights and personal responsibility? This paper argues that the U.S. government should not intervene in the matter because it is a matter of personal responsibility and touches on individual rights. It is clear that the government is facing a major problem with obesity issues, but it cannot yet solve the problem because a more effective and successful strategy has not been found. The national center for health statistics indicated that the prevalence of obesity among adults has increased significantly from 13.4 percent in 1960 to 34.3 percent in 2008 and could increase to 42 percent in the year 2030. A further 11 percent will be severely obese, which means it will be a significant problem (Ogden and Carroll 1). This increase in the numbers of people with obesity has stirred consideration for government intervention. However, research has indicated that this will not help solve the problem. For example, the government has been providing information known already to the public that eating much and exercising too little will eliminate the obesity epidemic. However, this solution has not yielded any result because the numbers increase yearly (Marlow 76). Introducing government intervention may increase social stigma that the obese already face because it will unnecessarily increase attention to them from those considered ‘normal’ by pursuing a one-size-fits-all ideology (Sassi 3). This may affect the epidemic even more because obese people will tend to hide so that they can shield themselves from stigma. This will compound the problem because obese people will be afraid to exercise through activities such as running, engaging in different kinds of sports, walking and going to the gym among other exercises that could help them cut the extra weight (Barry, et.al 12). One popular intervention by the government requires that all restaurant chains in the country post calorie counts in their menus to ensure that citizens do not underestimate their calorie intake. A recent research done in New York City on the effect of the new law revealed that 28 percent of patrons admitted that their choices had been influenced by the law, but a change in calorie intake had not been indicated (Elbel, et.al 1110). A different study done in Seattle revealed the same information. This means that government intervention with respect to menu labeling did not help in any way with respect to the choices that people make on calorie intake. Thus, these findings indicate that government intervention is not helpful at all in the fight against obesity (Finkelstein 123). Government intervention in the issue of obesity will be interference with people’s rights, liberties and freedoms of choice. Government intervention will mean that the government will impose rules and regulations on types and amounts of foods that people take. People have different preferences and likes with respect to the types and amounts of foods they take including issues to do with their body sizes. Preventing people from making their own choices and making decisions based on preferences especially on dietary needs will be interfering with the rights, liberties and freedoms that the government should protect. The U.S government is a government of free people, in other words a democratically elected government, which is not authorized to interfere with people’s health but secure people’s liberties. Therefore, government intervention in this respect cannot work because it will be against its own mandate (Finkelstein 564). Government intervention has been touted to be one of the reasons that increase the obesity epidemic. Since 1994, the government has been subsidizing corn production highly up to the tune of $6 billion per year. This means that the government has made it less expensive than most of its alternatives. This move distorts the choices that customers make and the choices that food manufacturers make with respect to the ingredients they use. As such, companies use HFCS sugar from corn, use it to process, and sweeten other foods that increase the risk of obesity among its consumers (Marlow and Shiers 77). The government has also promoted obesity in other ways. It has supported the production of foods like corn, but has failed to promote the production of essential foods in the fight against obesity such as fruits and vegetables. This is a practice in futility on the fight against obesity. The government has also allowed food and beverage companies to reduce marketing costs from taxes and allow SNAP benefits though food stamps that have encouraged food companies to market directly to low income earners in the country. This has encouraged companies producing drinks and foods that are high in calorie intake. All the government has done is increase the marketing initiatives of food companies, increase their sales of foods that include high calorie foods and beverages and in turn increase the prevalence of obesity in the American population. This shows the effect that government has had in the fight against obesity (Kersh 297). Personal responsibility is important in the fight against obesity as it is an initiative that comes from within. When a person is self-motivated to achieve a change in behavior, he or she will most likely manage to achieve that change. Obesity is a disease that comes in because of several factors one of which is lifestyle. Lifestyle represents the foods that one takes, the beverages taken and engaging in exercises amongst other activities. Personal responsibility is key in the lifestyle changes that one must make to ensure that obesity is an issue that can be effectively controlled. Personal responsibility means making decisions to take healthy foods that are low in calorie, engaging in exercises and watching weight including reducing other things such as alcohol intake and conducting body checkups constantly (Brownell, et.al 379). The concept of personal responsibility in American approaches to diet has concentrated on the individual person. However, researches have indicated that collective responsibility is important because the harmful exposures of such diseases are shared. As much as the control of obesity needs individual responsibility, the combination of personal responsibilities from members of families, friends and work mates among other groups help solve such problems. Collective responsibility means that people help each other to search for information, eat healthy and engaged in exercises and in turn fight obesity. Indeed, there is power in combined effort. The government can choose to intervene in the fight against obesity even through mandatory labeling (Roberto 312). However, the real effect of the intervention will be determined by personal responsibility because there is no way the government can what every American puts in the mouth whenever they eat. In conclusion, the U.S. government should not intervene in the matter because it is a matter of personal responsibility and touches on individual rights. The government has already failed in its intervention strategies, some of which have even made obesity increase in the country as stated above. Fighting obesity is not the governments mandate but a personal responsibility. If the government does contrary to this, it will be violating people’s rights and liberties on choices of foods and beverages that they take. Therefore, the government should not intervene at all. Works Cited Barry, Colleen L., et al. "Obesity metaphors: how beliefs about the causes of obesity affect support for public policy." Milbank Quarterly 87.1 (2009): 7-47. Brownell, Kelly D., et al. "Personal responsibility and obesity: a constructive approach to a controversial issue." Health Affairs 29.3 (2010): 379-387. Elbel, Brian, et al. "Calorie labeling and food choices: a first look at the effects on low-income people in New York City." Health Affairs 28.6 (2009): w1110-w1121. Finkelstein, Eric A., et al. "Mandatory menu labeling in one fast-food chain in King County, Washington." American journal of preventive medicine 40.2 (2011): 122-127. Finkelstein, Eric A. Obesity and Severe Obesity Forecasts Through 2030, American Journal of Preventive Medicine Volume 42.6 (2012): 563-570. Kersh, Rogan. "The politics of obesity: a current assessment and look ahead." Milbank Quarterly 87.1 (2009): 295-316. Marlow, M., and A. Shiers. "Does government have a role in curbing obesity." J Am Phys Surg 15.3 (2010): 75-77. Ogden, Cynthia L. and Margaret D. Carroll, Prevalence of Overweight, Obesity, and Extreme Obesity among Adults: United States, Trends 1960–1962 through 2007–2008, National Center for Health Statistics, (2010): 1-6. Roberto, Christina A., et al. "Evaluating the impact of menu labeling on food choices and intake." American Journal of Public Health 100.2 (2010): 312. Sassi, Franco “Obesity and the Economics of Prevention: Fit Not Fat”, eBook, OECD Publishing ISBN 978-92-64-06376 (print) Read More