One of every First Lady’s jobs is to promote societal causes that are as noncontroversial as possible while still boosting their spouse’s image. Michelle Obama probably thought she was following that trend when she started the anti-obesity campaign “Let’s Move”- nobody wants their kid getting fat, right? However, it’s attracted its fair share of criticism, with such Republican luminaries as Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rush Limbaugh complaining that it will ban those All-American desserts and bake sale staples like brownies and cookies for kids. Granted, they’re not the most impartial judges one can find, but they do raise an important question: should the government be involved in our kids’ eating choices?

There is no question that obesity has become a serious epidemic in America. The national obesity rate has risen from the single digit percentages in 1985 to almost 1/3^rd of Americans in 2009. This leads to a plethora of health problems in America- increased risk of heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, diabetes, and premature death among others. Nobody thinks that this is a good thing for the economy going forward. However, the main disagreement lies in its solution: should families be counted on to lose weight themselves, or should the government step in and restrict their food choices to ensure that the obesity epidemic doesn’t get out of hand?

The argument against government intervention is easier to understand intuitively: who wants the grubby paws of yet more regulation to take control of another aspect of their life? In addition, most parents intensely dislike others telling them how to raise their kids. After all, they are the parents, so they should know what’s best for their children. Plus, as the parents, they should bear the responsibility of raising the child and the consequences of raising them poorly. Right?

However, treating obesity as an individual matter has its flaws- we all bear the cost of higher rates of obesity (and I don’t just mean the increase in food prices from their demand). Since obese people are more likely to have a variety of health problems, they are more likely to require hospital visits. As obese people are disproportionately low-income, they tend to be uninsured or have inadequate insurance coverage. If their problem is serious enough to merit a trip to the ER and they don’t have the money to pay for it (ER is required to treat everyone that shows up at their doors), guess who foots the bill? Taxpayers. If one third of the U.S. is obese, that adds up to a lot of money. Obesity, unlike what most people think, is not just a personal problem anymore- its skyrocketing rates have consequences for everyone’s wallet.

With that being said, we should also guard against overly heavy regulation against eating. For example, the San Francisco legislature has recently passed a bill banning Happy Meals in McDonald’s restaurants. While reducing obesity is important, this move smacks of nanny style governing. By banning people from buying items “for their own good”, the government discourages its citizens from making decisions and choices for their own lives. In a country built on individual innovation and creativity, having a “the government will take care of me” mentality is inconsistent with our own beliefs, and takes away a key strength of the American people- self-determination.

What the government should do instead is take a page out of the anti-smoking campaign. That was very effective because it presented the facts about the dangers of smoking, but allows people to make their own decisions about smoking and quitting. Essentially, it’s to inform citizens of the hidden costs of smoking, both in health and finances. The same should be done for obesity: kids should learn how obesity affects their lives and make a decision- their own decision- with the additional, useful information added to them. In addition, more kids and parents should be given guidelines and tips on eating healthy and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. This way, it encourages the desired behavior in them (losing weight) without resorting to bans and regulations. The government would be empowering consumers to make their own decisions, not taking away their options.

Anytime the government wants to encourage a certain type of behavior, outright bans are not the way to go: witness the Prohibition era of the 1920s. Instead, it should provide two primary functions. First, they should provide and make readily accessible the relevant information that people need to choose the encouraged behavior. Many more parents would be frightened by child obesity if they knew just how deeply it affects their daily life, so the information acts as a persuasion device. In addition, they should provide more information and guidelines on how to achieve those encouraged behaviors. That allows people to proactively adjust themselves rather than bristle at “even more regulations.” Government should be used as a tool to make its citizens stronger, not as a form of subjugation. Therefore, it should encourage the right decisions be made, not ban without explanation the wrong ones.


(Photo: Tobyotter)