I recently read two articles on the increase in obesity in the United States from an economic analysis perspective. Since my educational background is mostly in food science and human nutrition, the papers offered new perspectives for me to consider.

• Technological advances in agriculture allowed for mass production of affordable food. Without this technology, population-obesity would not be possible.
• The increase in body mass index over time appears to be linked to the decrease in the strenuousness of physical activity in the workplace. In an agricultural or industrial society, workers are paid to be physically active. In a post-industrialized society, people pay for an opportunity to be physically active (gym fees, golf club memberships, aerobic classes, etc.).
• In recent decades, more household time goes to the labor force. Labor force participation of married women was 62% in 1998 compared to 41% in 1970. Time is often the scarce resource for families and individuals. This has stimulated a demand for convenient fast foods. Fast foods are then made more palatable by increases in caloric density (fats and sugars are added).
• There is strong evidence that the steady increase in fast-food restaurants parallels the increase in obesity rates in populations. A literal interpretation of this observation may blame the fast-food restaurant industry for obesity. The authors offer a different interpretation that suggests fast-food restaurants emerged in response to a demand for convenient, palatable, low-cost food.
• The aggressive non-smoking campaign may have produced unwanted consequences. Smokers have higher metabolic rates than non-smokers and consume fewer calories. People who quit smoking usually gain weight. The decrease in smoking may be one piece of the obesity puzzle. This interesting observation should cause us to challenge our belief that all increases in weight gain result from negative lifestyle changes such as less physical activity and over-consumption of food.
• The idea that obesity impairs health and longevity has been widely disseminated since the 1960's. Numerous educational programs have promoted better diet and more exercise to reduce obesity. Any yet, obesity rates continue to rise. Lack of information does not appear to be the problem. Everyone knows how to lose weight (you eat less, exercise more, or do both). The problem is not one of information/knowledge but of preferences/incentives and changes in technology.
  • Example 1: I prefer my higher-paying sedentary job to a more physically demanding one that pays less.
  • Example 2: The message of eat less/exercise more is somehow lost in an environment that offers more and more food to eat and new ways each year to be less physically active.
  • Example 3: I know I should be more physically active, but I like going home where I push a button to open the garage door, push a button to lock the car, push a button to turn on the TV, and push a button on a microwave to heat my dinner.

Sources:
"An economic analysis of adult obesity: Results from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System," Chou, Grossman and Saffer, - paper presented at the Third International Economics Association Conference, York, England, July 2001.

"The long-run growth in obesity as a function of technological change," Philipson, Posner, working paper 7423, National Bureau of Economic Research, November 1999, http://www.nber.org/papers/w7423.

Compiled by Betty Holmes, MS, RD

Return to Thought Bullets--main page.
Return to home page.