America’s obesity problem is due to violence
by tcguestblogger on Aug. 18, 2010, under Uncategorized
Sarah Spieth
By Sarah Spieth, MPACS
This week’s Tucson Weekly features an article by Jim Hightower discussing the way in which lobbyists of major food manufacturers have successfully abated attempts on behalf of four federal agencies to push for more stringent food labeling regulation. According to Hightower, this regulation would have prevented manufacturers from labeling candy as health food and marketing it to children. In our culture, we have held the belief for a while now that the food industry shares in the responsibility in America’s surge in obesity, but violence remains overlooked.
We hear the staggering numbers all the time: more than one third of the US adult population and just under a third of children are obese, we hear the projected costs to health care, and, if not in the mirror, we see evidence of this all around us.
When the numbers reach this magnitude, it becomes clear that this is about more than the insatiability of a few individuals, but that there are systemic factors at play. The question of who else was involved in lifting the fork – or jumbo macgreasebomb – to the mouths of roughly a hundred million Americans has led to an outcry for accountability by the food industry, and with good reason. We know that a 900 calorie meal, high in sugars, saturated and Trans fats will leave a person in a nutrient deprived sugar low that will make them want to eat again shortly after because the body craves nutrients and another sugar peak. A most recent example of the way in which the fast food industry is identified as major culprit in the obesity rate is the passing of an ordinance by the Los Angeles City Council prohibiting the construction of new fast food restaurants within a 32 square mile area, home to half a million low-income individuals. But in this supply and demand relationship, the question is, if the incentive to supply fast food is so unabashed and the opportunity for profit so limitless that they must be tamed by government regulation, then what is creating the boundless demand?
As the abundance of unwise meal options on the supply side alone doesn’t justify the surge in obesity, the other major factor at play is one that is lot more uncomfortable than blaming nuggets, one that places responsibility on our collective whole: poverty.
According to Johan Galtung, a pioneer in peace building and conflict resolution, ‘structural violence’ refers to the ways in which a social structure or institution harms people by depriving them of their ability to meet their basic needs. How does this occur in the case of obesity?
Thirty years ago in this country when you were poor you were also hungry, a paradigm that has been flipped like the burger on the grill. But are we poor?
Arizona has a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, reflecting the federally set national minimum. Once this is adjusted for inflation, it is a 25% decrease from the late 1960s. In other words, a person that is holding $7.25 in their hand today has 25% less buying power than a person who held the same amount in the late 60s (Bloomberg Businessweek). The idea is that the minimum wage ensures that a person doesn’t fall below the federally set poverty threshold which draws the line in the sand between financial struggle and full-fledged poverty.
While we contemplate how we would perceivably support ourselves on $10,830 per annum, assuming a single person household, Bloomberg Businessweek comforts by highlighting that according to the last census, nationally ‘only 3% of workers age 16 and older were paid the minimum.’ While this may be true, paying an employee a single cent more per hour removes them from this arbitrary statistic, and, it is it worth asking whether this statistic has any implication on the state of poverty.
2009 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in family Poverty guideline 1 $10,830 2 14,570 3 18,310 4 22,050 5 25790
In Tucson, currently 18.4% of the population lives below the poverty threshold. Of those, nearly half earn an income of less than 50% of the poverty threshold. Arizona wide, the percentages are 14.2% and 6.6%, respectively (Citidata.com).
If we look how these poverty numbers impact lives, we look at, say, a family of four, earning just above the poverty threshold (>$22,050 per annum), facing the realities of life (rent, utility bills, phones, doctor’s appointments, childcare, car maintenance, etc.), we understand how the idea of acquiring four burgers for four dollars becomes incredibly appealing. Alternatively, at the grocery store, four dollars buys two condiments. Gym memberships, personal trainers and access to educational material about healthy living are most likely out of the question.
Clearly today, our poor, as a whole, are not thin, but potentially starving nonetheless.
Galtung would refer to this dynamic as structural violence – a scenario in which, while absent of direct violence, it is the structure of society (a minimum wage not adjusted for inflation) that prevents people from meeting their basic needs and strive for their fullest potential (healthy lifestyle). No wonder then, that we have a direct relationship between low-income neighborhoods and the demand for fast food. No wonder then, that we have a direct relationship between poverty and obesity.
If one would seriously want to address the sky rocketing obesity rates in this country, one would have to go beyond regulating suppliers and designating no-fries zones. One would have to instead examine ways in which consumers can be empowered to make other choices and this empowerment must go far beyond providing a pamphlet explaining the food pyramid. No pamphlet will make a mother choose whole wheat pasta and a salad over taking her child to a doctor. One would instead have to address the very structures that institutionalize poverty. But would ‘one’ want to do that?
So next time we see an obese person, we may want to see more than the gluttonous individual that lacks any shred of self-control. We may want to see someone who, quite possibly, was failed by our collective whole.
Sarah Spieth holds an MA in Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution and a BS in Management from the University of Arizona’s Eller College of Management and has worked with organizations in Sydney and New York City in the areas of disaster response management and community bridge building, Ms. Spieth consults on business efficiency and building sustainable solutions to conflicts.
*Institute for Research on Poverty (http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm)
August 18th, 2010 on 1:23 pm
What are “the very structures that institutionalize poverty”? Could some be the nanny state and the “entitlement” culture?
August 18th, 2010 on 6:41 pm
It is the nature of capitalism; a zero sum game, in which for every Rockefeller there must be an army of Tom Joads creating the wealth.
Your question is not really a question, but an implication that nothing is really wrong here and everybody would be fed and happy if those liberals would just get out of the way. Nonetheless, if you are really asking “should we all be entitled to an adequate quantity of healthy food”, the answer is yes, that is everyone’s right. Those that prevent this are trampling on the rights of others for their own selfish gain.
September 8th, 2010 on 9:12 am
“It is the nature of capitalism; a zero sum game…”
Try again. Socialism, a take from one to give to the other system of economics, is by definition a zero sum game where as one gains the other loses. Capitalism, on the other hand (when actually embraced) involves voluntary transactions by two parties who make the decision to trade and thus by definition both gain.
Also, Capitalism actually provides long term benefits to a society: see the recent rise in political, social, technological and economic power of India and China as they moved towards a more capitalistic society and welcomed foreign investment. I look forward to the day when we export enough jobs to Africa to get their economy going too.
September 8th, 2010 on 9:21 am
I look forward to the day when we export enough jobs to Africa…
I look forward to the day when Africa is exporting jobs to us; the empire in decline. Maybe I can get a job at Patrice Lumumba University in Tucson.
September 8th, 2010 on 9:34 am
So, thats your dream in life? You could teach ancient history. Marxism in the 20thCentury 101.
September 8th, 2010 on 10:22 am
It seems the author can do nothing but point at problems and hint at wanting solutions, rather than providing them. Does she think that an alternative to fast food exists, or does she imply that increasing minimum wages will actually do anything to help?
I wonder what the author proposes as the alternative to fast food. Perhaps she knows of a magical elixir that is cheap to produce & extremely healthy (and hey, while we’re on the topic of leftist ideology, the workers better be paid well and the manufacturing process must be environmentally friendly). Perhaps the author could try selling said elixir. Then perhaps the author will know enough about the fast food industry (and the business world in general, which she clearly has no experience in) to make claims about how exploitative it is to the workers and the consumers and how much profit actually exists in the industry.
Perhaps she thinks that increasing minimum wages will help these poor, exploited workers live their lives in a healthy way. Well, let’s look at my own business, shall we?
I get paid less per hour than the people I employ because I put about twice as many hours of work into the business for a little less than double their weekly paycheck. After providing myself a fixed salary every month that I’ve calculated based on my average return, I usually have a net balance of zero profits (and my cash balance fluctuates regularly). My supplier has regularly informed me that he cannot afford to give me any discounts. The delivery company we jointly employ is also some of the cheapest rates around and in conversations I have with him indicate he can barely keep afloat. The prices I offer are barely above variable cost for several reasons: I sell lots each day and I’d lose most of my customers if it were much more expensive. It’s safe to say that the only real reason I stay afloat is because of the giant golden ‘M’ in front of my store sign, which I must provide regular reimbursement for in exchange for their extensive advertising and well-established logo/brand. And yes, my employees regularly eat from my own store because it is affordable and convenient.
So what would happen if the minimum wage were adjusted upward by, say, $1.00? Well, I’d fire (or lay off, or freeze hiring) many of my employees outright because their labor is not worth to THE CUSTOMERS the extra cost, so that’s a whole bunch of people on government welfare and a whole lot less income tax revenue, for one. Next, I’d probably still have to hike prices a little bit (and hurt my customers spending power) since I’d need to make sure the loss in overall output doesn’t hit my paycheck that much to the point where I can’t live either. And this is all assuming that it’s still affordable for me to run my business: if it isn’t, then not only does every person who gets a paycheck from me go unemployed, but my supplier and the delivery guy gets hit, and hard.
But this can all magically be solved by government intervention, right? Because it’s totally not the government who subsidizes HFCS production so much (that very same high-sugar substance the author rails on as the cause of obesity) and makes it so cheap and allows it to hog the valuable farmland that could be used for healthier foods.
It’s interesting that the common denominator is always government intervention: people cried for the poor farmers making the corn syrup, so they get subsidies; then people cried for the poor people eating the corn syrup food, so people try imposing expensive (yes, EXPENSIVE, I’M paying for those damn signs!!) regulations on displaying health information; then companies cry and try to pay off the government, so the legislation is stalled; now people are whining about “structural violence” (‘violence inherent in the system!’), and who knows what interventions they’re going to call for next.
Everybody is crying to the government these days to solve all their problems (usually because its cheaper to pay for a PR campaign or lobby group and leverage the power of the government [i.e. threat of guns, prison, & fines] to cover the problems up than it is to actually try and solve them yourself), and I wonder where this country is going. You can’t magically pay people more than their labor is worth to the customers who buy their products & services, and if you try to force it you end up with a lot of people out of a job.
If people can’t eat healthy because their efforts aren’t worth an adequate wage (see Africa, and formerly China and India), then the solution is clearly not to impede the growth of industries that would employ them, but the opposite. Look past the short term and that ‘poor, defenseless, exploited, child minority with the sad, pleading face’ and realize that you can’t just ‘give’ these people wealth: you need productive, useful jobs (that produce useful products and services) for sustainable wealth and the only way you’ll get that is through the investment of capital by entrepreneurs who see a profit in the venture. You do not help the country by taxing these people billions of dollars to spend on some war in some other country, for one, or by taxing these people to give handouts to stupid bankers and auto retailers, for another.
You also don’t help these people by forcing me to spend hundreds of dollars on new signs at the expense of my employees and my customers. Spend your own damn money (or wait, you precluded that, since apparently giving ‘phamplets’ don’t work; no, we must force these poor, dumb idiots to do things against their will to protect them from themselves!).
-signed, Disgruntled Fast Food Store Owner
September 15th, 2010 on 5:50 am
While I appreciate the author’s sentiments that we need to move beyond the stereotype of gluttony, she still gets many things wrong. As a sociologist who researches weight stigma I would like to point out that: 1 we really don’t have a skyrocketing obesity “problem.” Almost all the exaggerated numbers, as well as the exaggerated health risks come from studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical and diet industry. Their propaganda is very effective, they have MSM at their disposal to spread the hysteria, but it is more marketing than science. And the 2/3 of Americans are overweight is laughable. Some of the most rigorous scientific studies say the best weights for health are ABOVE current standards. They were lowered to sell more diet products.
Nor is body size just about food. Genetics is a huge factor, as is stress, dieting (it makes you fatter in the long run) and environmental estrogens. Chemicals like BPA are wrecking havoc with kids immune systems, causing diabetes and weight gain, but we scapegoat lifestyle instead of looking at root causes because we are easily manipulated.
The next time you see an “obese” person, don’t think anything, simply mind your own business and worry about your own “problems.”
September 15th, 2010 on 5:53 am
OOps Meant genetics are a huge factor!
p.s As a healthy, beautiful fat woman myself, I have NEVER had a problem with my weight that wasn’t caused by other people!
September 21st, 2010 on 9:06 pm
Good evening author,
I read your blog and I would like to give a few of my own opinions about obesity. I absolutely agree that poverty and obesity have a direct relationship. At the same time there exist some cultural traditions which help overweight people gain weight.
For example, when we go to movie theatres everybody thinks it is a necessity to eat all that junk food during the movie. Lets look at what most Americans do after long working days. The majority run home to eat and lie down on their couch to watch TV. On Sundays, the traditions involve the majority of men watching football games which is okay. My main question is why they need to stuff their living room tables with all kinds of junk foods? I can give you many of these examples. I do not believe that poverty is the main cause of obesity however.
Thanks,
Natalia
October 1st, 2010 on 4:53 am
I agree with previous comments that obesity is not necessarily the number one problem but it still is one of the biggest problems in society. It is a big enough issue that society needs to do all it can in educating everyone about the causes and effects of obesity. The negative effects of obesity on people’s health have been clearly discussed. Being overweight is not popular and should be a serious concern to everyone. The many causes of obesity include lack of dieting, exercise, as well as stress and genetic factors. I believe there should be more discussion on each of these areas and an understanding how they cause and influence each other.
October 7th, 2010 on 4:58 pm
The comments about capitalism as a system and its relation to sociological topics like the rate of obesity are accurate. These comments have to be taken within the context of a true capitalistic situation. As stated previously, such a situation preseves free market reform, the free exchange of ideas between two or more people and the freedom to make informed choices. Whether such a system actually exists in our country or elsewhere is subject to debate. In relation to obesity, capitalism is alive when all the research on the causes and influences on this health condition are known and made free to the public without any biases from any groups including the Food and Drug Administration. Having this persective leads to an informed population which can make informed and clearly though out decisions.
October 14th, 2010 on 7:08 pm
The author of the blog who states that the reports on obesity are an unfounded scare is off base in minimizing the rising obesity problem in our society. On what basis is the author calling into question the 2/3 ‘s obesity percentage. I believe that just saying that the whole concern and warning regarding the rise of obesity is propoganda is a grave cop out which only pacifies those who are obese and the society that is insensitive to the importance of this issue. I do agree with the opinion that obesity comes from several factors including environmental estrogens, genetics and fatty foods. I think the lack of exercise is another great factor. Without burning calories the weight just gets piled on. Although overweight should have a positive self-esteem and hold their heads up they should be made aware of the danger to their health and all the infomation out there regarding their condition.