Big Problems, Small Solutions
by Elizabeth Kaufman
Obesity is a big word, despite its relatively small letter allotment. Despite its diminutive spelling, it connotes big things: people, problems, disease, to name a few. Part of its grandeur is that it is unlike any specter on health seen in the past. It has no traditional disease beginnings, nor is it for lack of nourishment. This is an affliction of the rich, or perhaps, those who can afford not to go without.
Experts and politicians agree that it is a problem worthy of attention, research, and money. Experts are worried about the health of the populace and politicians are worried about the financial health of dealing with a bloated nation. Regardless of reasons, though the fact that the two camps agree is already half the battle. Both can also agree that there is no simple primary cause of obesity, just that lack of exercise and too many calories typically cause problems. And while genetics may play a role, it is simply too easy to say that the skyrocketing epidemic is due to the sudden genetic mutations of millions of people. Evolution simply does not operate that quickly.
But, I digress. The popular route of anti-obesity is rooted in the two big L’s of our society: litigation and legislation. Years ago, after the stunning defeat of Big Tobacco, lawyers and their followers tried (and continued, to current times) to sue Big Food. However, while it can be argued that many consumers may not have known every danger in the chemical milieu of cigarettes, it is certainly no surprise that a daily biggie-double with cheese and large soda will cause an expansion in both pants size and health problems. With the continued defeat of this movement, the trend has turned to legislation.
Recently, Sen. Jarrett Barrios of Massachusetts legislature tried to outlaw serving fluffernutter sandwiches in elementary schools more than twice a week. Other states have mandates regarding the sales of soda and overt junk food either during school hours or on school property. In the past few weeks, schools have debated the legality of students selling chocolate and other candy for a profit.
However, if economics has taught us anything, it is that one cannot simply legislate away bad eating habits and make school-aged children svelte. The fact that schools no longer endorse bad habits is certainly a step in the right direction, albeit a baby step. The end result of measures such as this is subterfuge and contraband. Where there is demand, enterprising entrepreneurs regardless of age will fill the supply.
If all the government and schools wish to accomplish is an “it’s not my fault” attitude to the situation, they have found their answer. This solution, however, will not change the long-term repercussions that affect individuals, their families, and an economy due to the current trend of expanding waistlines.
What is so perplexing about legislation via schools is that teaching is nonexistent. In fact, as legislators are taking away Coke machines, they are also axing physical education, cutting programs in sports, and making health class a joke, if mandatory at all. It is certainly easy to take the temptation away from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., but whatever happened to an informed populace? If children are not learning nutritional skills at home and the government has a vested interest (proven by their fanfare-laden legislation) in a healthy populace, why hasn’t there been any talk of teaching the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, helping children exercise, of even, radically, serving and explaining tasty, yet healthy meals and snacks? These are the solutions to the problem, but as of yet, they have not even hit the table. Why? Discuss amongst yourselves.
