If being fat the governments business and of course more on Georgia.
Last Tuesday I attended a live debate "Is Obesity the Government's Business" that featured Paul Campos and John Strossel as against the motion and for the motion was Dr. David Satcher and Pamela Peeke.
You can watch it here, so I don't have to summarize. (And see if you can spot me in the audience) I will talk about different points the debate bought up.
Dr. Satcher bought up the issue that sometimes government is good for you and sometimes it's not. He used lead poisoning prevention as an example. Here lies the problem. First off, there are still issues with lead poisoning in paint, and the fight to get lead out of paint was based in grassroots political action. The business of obesity is A) corporate driven and B) worth around $60 billion. If the government were to help fill the industry's coffers, I'm sure their shareholders won't mind. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they encouraged it. I covered this in a November post that the at least eight of the National Institute of Health Obesity board's 18 members have ties to the dieting industry. Kind of like letting the paint industry set up the government lead prevention program.
Another was a point that Dr. Satcher and Dr. "I want to be Dr. Oz" Peeke. Dr. Peeke especially kept pushing the idea that they aren't for making people thin but making them healthy, even though a quick Google search of Dr. Peeke returned nothing except articles on weight loss. Dr. Satcher mentioned a group of men who had improved their health outcomes and diabetes by changing their habits but did not have significant weight loss. They kept going back and forth. That fat was bad but we aren't trying to make fat people thin.
The idea is this, I don't think the government has any role in fixing "obesity" because the government's stated intenton is to make fat people thin. Now, if the government wants to create safe parks, ensure that all schools have gym classes and that cafeteria food is healthy and edible, (As a standard I don't think school cafeteria food is healthy or edible) I'm fine with that , but not on the idea of thin=health. Plenty of fat people change their habits that result in little or no weight loss (myself included). But there isn't a lot of money in that. How much would Dr. Peeke sell if she didn't have a weight loss compenent.
My questions--which I didn't get to ask but Paul addressed near the end--is this: if, say, we increase physical activity and create healthy edible lunches the kids eat, but kids don't get thinner as a result ("obesity" rates haven't dropped but they haven't risen), is it still a success?
Meanwhile, in Georgia, the wonderful Ragen Chastain has not only hit the second monetary goal of 15K but unlocked the 5k donation from More of Me to Love. That means over 1000 people donated to this project. I hope Atlanta enjoys the positive billboards.
This project has been covered by the Ms. Magazine, Adios Barbie and hey look, BBC News have covered this wonderful campaign.
CHOA meanwhile still defends it.
The time for "warm and fuzzies", he says, was over. So instead, his hospital created an aggressive campaign, based in part off a previously successful anti-methamphetamine campaign. (BBC News article)
Yes, because fat children, meth-heads, what's the difference?
