The United States is considered one of the richest and most advanced countries in the world. At the same time, this country is also home to the most obese people in the world. According to the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), obesity in adults has increased by 60% within the past twenty years and obesity in children has tripled in the past thirty years. A staggering 33% of American adults are obese and obesity-related deaths have climbed to more than 300,000 a year, second only to tobacco-related deaths.No wonder that there is widespread concern over the prevalence of obesity. In addition to a reduced Health Realated Quality of Life (HRQoL), obesity also respresents a burden on public budgets for healthcare. In 2008, treatment of obese patients was estiamated to be more than $ 147 billion, accounting for 9.1% of all medical specing in that year.[1] The First Lady and the Surgeon General are trying to rally Americans to fight against the "epidemic" of obesity. Perhaps they will inspire many to follow their leadership by example. Otherwise, the role of the federal government in curbing obesity is questionable, write economists Michael Marlow and Alden Shiers of California Polytechnic State University. The government's tools are taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, bans on soft drinks in schools, regulations forcing restaurants to post calorie counts, and government-funded motivational programs. In an article in the fall issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Marlow and Shiers argue that these methods are ineffective or even counterproductive. Empirical studies do not clearly demonstrate that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) cause obesity. Consumption of SSBs doubled between 1960 and 1980, a period when obesity rates were stable, and has been declining recently. Taxes are more likely to affect the behavior of casual consumers, who are more price sensitive, than of heavy consumers. States with strong restrictive policies on soft drinks in schools have no better obesity statistics than those with no such policies. Calorie labeling laws do not cause consumers to order lower-calorie meals. A recent study on the effects of soda taxes on consumption and obesity showed that taxing soda lowered BMI in adults. The results are, howver, marginal at best. In this study, a one-percentage-point oncrease in tax rate led to a decrese of only 0,003 BMI points.[2] Furthermore, while posting calorie labels may influence fast-food choices, researchers in a recent study with 1,156 adults in low-income, minority communities in New York examining the effects of labeling in fast-food restaurants in the wake of the City's labeling mandate, could not detect a change in calorie consumption affter the introduction of the law.[3] The idea of funneling "sin tax" revenues into government programs to discourage unhealthy behavior has been tried with tobacco taxes. Roughly 10% of tobacco tax revenue actually flows into smoking-control programs, which are not very effective, while the rest is used for unrelated government programs. In their conclusion, Marlow and Shiers predit that government intervention will make obesity worse as it crowds out market-based solutions that effectively tie weight loss to personal responsibility, higher wages, and lower insurance premiums. For more information: The Diabetes Challenge Reference: [1] Finkelstein EA, Trogdon JG, Cohen JW, Dietz W. Annual medical spending attributable to obesity: payer-and service-specific estimates. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Sep-Oct;28(5):w822-31. Epub 2009 Jul 27. [2] Fletcher JM, Frisvold D, Tefft N. Can Soft Drink Taxes Reduce Population Weight? Contemp Econ Policy. 2010 Jan;28(1):23-35. [3] Elbel B, Kersh R, Brescoll VL, Dixon LB. Calorie labeling and food choices: a first look at the effects on low-income people in New York City. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Nov-Dec;28(6):w1110-21. Epub 2009 Oct 6.
...read more