Obesity concepts and health implications

Obesity

The Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) argue that obesity is the result of the interplay of complex factors, and is not directly caused by the availability of unhealthy food choices. The GMA sites economic, cultural, social, and genetic factors as contributing to the modern obesity epidemic. Furthermore, the GMA acknowledges that the lack of a balanced diet combined with a lack of exercise, can lead to negative physical conditions like depression, overweight, heart disease, and diabetes. However, the GMA stops short of taking responsibility for the fact that many people do not have a balanced diet, and, instead, shifts that burden back onto individual consumers. The GMA shifts this burden by emphasizing the role of exercise in physical health, while de-emphasizing the negative impact of unhealthy food choices. In fact, the GMA's argument seems to suggest that no food is a "bad" food, when modern dietary science simply does not support such an assertion.

In fact, the GMA argues against restricting access to unhealthy foods as a means of combating the obesity epidemic. Its position is important, especially when viewed in the greater context. The issue at stake is whether to restrict student access to unhealthy food choices in the educational environment. The issue does not involve adult food choices, or even the choices that parents can make regarding their children's diets. On the contrary, the issue only addresses what children can choose to eat. The GMA supports its position by stating, correctly, that restricting student access to unhealthy foods is not the solution to the obesity epidemic, and that finding such a solution will involve community buy-in into nutrition and exercise programs. The problem with that response is that, because the obesity epidemic is complex, the criteria for introducing obesity-reduction measures is not whether the measure will solve the problem, but whether its introduction will help solve the problem. Examined under that criterion, it is clear that restricting student access to unhealthy foods can only have a positive impact on obesity rates.

Many may argue that the industry should not be forced to shoulder the responsibility of monitoring consumer diets. However, that argument ignores the psychology that goes into food marketing. Unhealthy food choices are heavily advertised, and those advertisements are frequently targeted towards children. Moreover, much of today's food marketing is inherently deceptive. Unsophisticated consumers, and most children fall into that category, may make poor food choices, but believe that they are choosing healthy food. For example, many "fruit" snacks do not contain any fruit and are mostly refined sugars and/or high fructose corn syrup, but are marketed in a manner that would lead one to believe that they contain fruit. In fact, the packages of some of these products tout their vitamin content, making them seem even more like a fruit. The crime is not that the manufacturers offer variety to consumers, so that consumers can make educated choices, but that they intentionally market unhealthy foods to consumers, knowing that the majority of consumers are not sufficiently sophisticated or educated to avoid making unhealthy food choices. If manufacturers made it clear that some foods have no positive nutritional value, it would make it easier for consumers to make responsible food choices. Furthermore, the issue is not about whether adults should have the freedom to make individual food choices, but whether today's children should continue to suffer from their parents' inability to make healthy food choices. In that manner, the issue is much like legislating the sale of alcohol; like alcohol, some food choices are relatively harmless in moderation, but have no positive health benefits. However, like alcohol, these same food choices can be deadly, if not taken in moderation. Therefore, it seems irresponsible for the GMA to fight restricting student access to these patently unhealthy food choices.