December 17, 2005
Obesity--Posner's Reply to Comments
My ignorance of popular culture has once more been exposed by alert readers of this blog. I had never heard of Chris Farley. I have now looked him up on Google Images. I get it.
Several comments suggest that I ignored the biological basis of obesity. Let me clarify. Of course obesity is a biological phenomenon (though also a social one to the extent that in our society "obesity" carries negative connotations). I meant only that, since human biology changes only very slowly, changes in human biology can't explain the recent increases in obesity. But the biological foundations of obesity do require more emphasis than I gave them. In what evolutionary biologists call the "ancestral environment," a period ending some 20,000 years ago when our biological development reached approximately its current level, a genetic propensity to eat as much high-calorie food as possible had great survival value because the food supply was uncertain, and high-calorie food converts to fat that people can live off for a time if they have no food. When the good supply becomes assured and people become sedentary, they continue wanting to eat high-calorie foods because that is a genetic predisposition. They can avoid becoming fat by eating less than their genes tell them to, as it were, but this--fighting the genes--requires great self-discipline. It is much easier to control one's weight if one is physically active, in effect recreating the conditions of the ancestral environment in the gym or equivalent. But that is costly, especially in time.
Biology plays a further role. Differences in biology between people make it much easier for some people than for others to control their weight, sometimes without any exercise. This blurs the value of thinness as a signal of trustworthiness as a result of having a low discount rate.
Notice, as a curious historical note, that as late as the nineteenth century obesity was taken as a signal of prosperity and attractiveness, and thinness (including of women) was taken as a signal of poverty and ill health. This was because poor people tended to be undernourished and hard working, and tubeculosis and other wasting disseases were disproportionately diseases of the poor. Since food was expensive and leisure a privilege of wealth, being fat was a sign of success and valued accordingly.
I may have been precipitate in suggesting that reducing obesity would not affect aggregate medical costs. What I had in mind is that because on average a very high percentage of one's total lifetime medical costs are incurred in the last few months of life, and because the older one is, the greater on average one's medical needs, the principal financial effect of improving health in youth and middle age may be to increase the elderly population, and of course death can only be postponed, not eliminated. But I am painting with too broad a brush; careful study is required to assess the costs of lifestyle changes that might improve health.
Posted by Richard Posner at 11:59 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1061
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obesity--Posner's Reply to Comments:
� Viagra. from Viagra patent.
Viagra. Story comparison viagra. Generic viagra. Free viagra. Indian viagra. Viagra sale. Discount viagra. [Read More]
Tracked on December 9, 2007 11:22 AM
Comments
The Becker-Posner Blog, a leading economics weblog by University of Chicago Nobelists Gary Becker and Richard Posner, tackles the obesity epidemic this week. The authors had just read the new Institute of Medicine report criticizing junk food advertising for children. As one might expect from these writers, they point out that much of the economic burden of obesity is carried by the overweight persons themselves, so the writers suggest there is little grounds for a government response.
I encourage Becker and Posner to reconsider their view with an open mind. They point out that there is only a comparatively weak "externality" argument for government interest in this problem (although one could talk about how many Americans share the same risk pools, due to medical insurance). However, the market failure that motivates a sensible government response to the obesity epidemic is an information failure. Just for starters, see here for a discussion of nutrition disclosure in restaurants, and here for a discussion of government communication about diet, health, and obesity. Because the federal government actively promotes advertising campaigns to get people to eat more beef, pork, and cheese, at a cost of several hundred million dollars each year, it would be far too timid to suggest that a laissez-faire response will suffice. Policy reform is required.
[More -- see link.]
Posted by U.S. Food Policy at December 18, 2005 1:40 PM | direct link
http://www.illwillpress.com/xmas.html
The site above has expressive and strong language that may be offensive. It has audio as well (so if you watch the URL above, make sure you do so at an appropriate time).
The link is timely from a seasonal and topical perspective.
Posted by anon at December 18, 2005 11:44 PM | direct link