Advertising and Child/Teen Obesity--Posner's Comment

I agree with everything Becker says, but will add a few points. Not only would banning television advertising of fattening foods on programs oriented to children and teenagers not reduce obesity, but it might increase it. To the extent that, as Becker suggests, such advertising has a much greater effect on brand shares than on aggregate demand for the products, the advertisers as a whole might be better off if forbidden to advertise. With higher profits, and an important form of nonprice competition eliminated, advertisers might compete more on price, resulting in lower prices to consumers and therefore greater competition. A more effective measure to reduce youthful obesity might be to ban the sale or service of soft drinks and other high-calorie foods in schools, or even to tax such foods heavily. Of course such measures are from an economic standpoint justifiable only if the growth in obesity represents a market failure (and even then, only if the costs of the measures are lower than the benefits in correcting such a failure)."Obesity" is a loaded term; it is the name we give to being too fat. It is possible that being fatter than doctors think healthy is optimal, just as it is possible that eating a diet that deviates from what doctors would prescribe for someone who aspires to live to be a hundred is optimal. People trade off health costs for benefits in other currencies; food high in calories tends to be both delicious and cheap. The health effects of overweight are highly publicized. In addition, in our society fat people are generally considered much less attractive than thin people, and there is a considerable premium in the job market for attractive people, partly because coworkers and supervisors obtain utility from associating with attractive people, partly because being attractive enhances self-confidence, self-esteem, and social skills. In addition, thin people should have a significant advantage in competing for jobs involving trust, since thinness signifies self-control and in turn a low discount rate, which should make a worker more concerned with his reputation and therefore more trustworthy, although a countervailing factor is that employers may distrust the commitment to work of employees who look as if they spend most of their day in the gym! Given all the negatives of overweight, it is difficult to believe that obese people have underestimated the costs of being overweight. But the huge diet industry, and the growing resort of the obese to dangerous abdominal surgery (gastric-bypass or bariatric surgery--"stomach stapling") are contrary evidence. It is much easier to avoid gaining weight than to lose weight, and while some people have an unfortunate biology that creates irresistible cravings for excessive amounts of fat, the obesity problem seems much more widespread. If the cause were biological, the well-documented increase in obesity over the last several decades would be inexplicable. A factor that the economist Tomas Philipson and I have emphasized is the increasingly sedentary character of activity in both work and the home, as a result of the shift from manufacturing to services and the growth of labor-saving devices in both the workplace and the home. In the old days the average individual, male or female, was in effect "paid" to expend calories, the payment taking the form of pecuniary income for strenuous work in the workplace or nonpecuniary income from household work. Today one has to pay to expend calories by joining a gym or otherwise taking time from work or leisure to exercise. As Becker points out, the trend has affected children and teenagers because of the growing substitution of sedentary leisure activities for athletics. Strikingly, because of concerns over liability, many schools no longer make physical education mandatory. Still another factor may be that as more and more people become overweight, the stigma of obesity diminishes. When I was a kid, fat kids were rare, and were teased. The more fat kids there are, the more “normative” their appearance becomes. In addition, if parents are fat, the credibility of their lecturing their children on the importance of remaining thin is undermined, "Do as I say, not as I do," is not a very effective means of persuasion. Political correctness may even be a factor. Jokes at the expense of fat people used to be a staple of comedy (remember Abbott and Costello?). No more. Political correctness has reduced the use of ridicule to enforce social norms. All this said, the case for public intervention to reduce obesity is uncertain. The main costs of obesity, in increased illness and disability, are borne by the obese themselves, which greatly weakens the economic case for intervention. True, the obese are able to shift some of their medical and disability costs to others through the Medicaid, Medicare, and social security disability programs, which are subsidized health and disability programs that do not limit benefits to the obese even though the obese experience increased illness and disability as a consequence of their obesity. Yet the benefits of preventive health can be exaggerated. It increases the percentage of the elderly in the population, and the elderly are very heavy demanders of expensive--and subsidized--health care and pensions.

Comments

[Richard Mason]

Posner: Political correctness may even be a factor. Jokes at the expense of fat people used to be a staple of comedy (remember Abbott and Costello?). No more. Political correctness has reduced the use of ridicule to enforce social norms.

When Bill Maher hosted Politically Correct on ABC, one of his favorite recurring themes was to make jokes about fat people and to complain that mocking fat people was no longer socially acceptable. It did not seem to occur to him that returning to this argument night after night on a nationally broadcast humor/talk show was self-refuting.

Abbott and Costello were before my time, but I wonder if Judge Posner is familiar with the movies of Chris Farley.

[jeff]

I agree with Posner's points. Obesity among the populace is rampant, and while studies may disagree on the cause, I think that the major cause of obesity is the lifestyle we have chosen to live. America lives at a terrifically fast pace compared to the rest of the world. Instead of kids playing by themselves, we have super scheduled them into activities where they are entertained. We are so busy, that fast food becomes a convenience because our kids can eat it quickly between activities in the car.

Our lifestyle will have to change before the epidemic of obesity changes direction.

[birdwin98]

Increasing obesity in the US is certainly one factor, among many, that has contributed to the rising cost of healthcare. How is this increased cost borne, however?

The portfolio effect of health insurance coverage at large employers insulates individuals from from price signals associated with the personal health risks and choices that individuals may make (a healthy person pays the same monthly premium as a an unhealthy person).

If group health insurance were more efficiently priced, and individuals paid premiums that truly reflected their unique risk of coverage... then I believe behaviors and attitudes towards obesity would begin to change. I know that if my healthcare premiums would significantly reduce if I lost weight, then I would probably try harder to lose weight. Conversely, if I knew that my healthcare premiums could significantly increase if I were to gain weight, I would try my best to avoid doing so. My level of effort, naturally, would be impacted by the amount of the potential premium increase or decrease.

I do realize that such pricing could be politically problematic, particularly when other genetic risk factors or disease come into play...and pricing could appear unfair or inhumane. Without more efficient pricing, however, healthy people will continue to subsidize unhealthy people.

[John O.]

Note to Lucia Malla:

The judge wrote: "If the cause were biological, the well-documented increase in obesity over the last several decades would be inexplicable."

The "biology" he was referring to wasn't human weight gain in general--it was referring to the argument that obesity is genetic; that is to say, some people are more genetically disposed to obesity than others.

If this were true then there wouldn't be any rise in obesity, unless our genetics had changed substantially over the last several decades.

[Avi]

Yet another arena in which people senselessly distinguish overeating from smoking.

Few Quick Questions:

Why don't we allow Joe Camel to pander to kids as blatantly as he used to?

Why don't we have cigarettes machines in schools?

Why do we openly speak disparagingly of smokers, but wait till we get home to mock fat people?

Why is so acceptable to show contempt for the smell of a smoker, but rude to gag at the profile of a fat person?

In short, why do we make the allowances for the fat which we deem unnecessary protections of the smoker?

As you might have guessed, I believe what's good for the geese...

[Lucia]

John, I think there are two concepts here:

1) Obesity is a caused by genetic predisposition to some people, so some obese people are expected in the population due to this natural variability. In this sense, I agree with you.

2) Overall obesity in the population is a consequence of an overburnt normal, standard system - our body - facing new challenges (sedentary behaviour, for instance), independent in some ways of personal genetic status but dependent of evolutionary trends.

Evolutionary trends fulfill the biological aspect as well, and that's what I pinpointed in my first comment. Biology is not only genetics, and that's what I tried to illustrate by commenting here. But I agree with you: at that particular sentence, judge Posner was just pointing the "improbability" of biology being the only one to blame for the obesity epidemy.

The world changed for Homo sapiens; we have comfortable technology that makes us sedentary, and overall, obesity can't be blamed only because of some genetic predisposition anymore. For some, yes, but not in the rates we see nowadays.

I don't know if I got your comment straight, John, but that's what I understood. Please let me know if I cleared or confused you more... :-)

[Fred]

Thank you, Avi, for pointing out the dangers of destroying freedom, even when it seems like such a good idea. It was easy enough to demonize the cigarette companies and take away their basic rights, and now that we've done that, there will always be many more Avi's who point to other areas where we still have freedom and say "hey, why don't we take away the freedom over there--we've done it before, let's do it again."

[Paul Campos]

This entire thread assumes that the definition of "obesity" as a pathological life-threatening condition is a well-established scientific fact, and that the USA faces some sort of health crisis because of the increased body mass of its populace. These assumptions are, to put it mildly, problematic.

For recent in-depths reviews of the issue see my THE OBESITY MYTH and Eric Oliver's FAT POLITICS. For a brief summary of the epidemiological evidence, go here: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/dyi254?ijkey=5Z19Zq421PiNgMw&keytype=ref

[Eric Gates]

Professor Posner's final paragraph troubles me:

"The main costs of obesity, in increased illness and disability, are borne by the obese themselves, which greatly weakens the economic case for intervention. True, the obese are able to shift some of their medical and disability costs to others through the Medicaid, Medicare, and social security disability programs, which are subsidized health and disability programs that do not limit benefits to the obese even though the obese experience increased illness and disability as a consequence of their obesity. Yet the benefits of preventive health can be exaggerated."

Is he laying out a case of facts here, or trying to persuade us? I suspect mainly the latter. Why else would someone as obviously capable as he ignore the private health care system-- a pool nearly as collective as the federal government itself--and leave unstated the costs of manageable, yet nearly lifelong diseases, such as type II diabetes, elevated blood pressure, and high cholesterol, the main outcomes for people who are obese from an early age. I am no Posner, but the health care math surely doesn't make sense here.

Obese children who for example contract lifelong type II diabetes in their teens or twenties and live into their 60's or even 70's will surely cost more than elderly people, whose maladies last for far fewer years. Diabetics will pay more doctor visits, take more medications, require more surgeries, for perhaps 40 to 50 years. Then they too will get old and have other normal maladies not related to their diabetes alone. Drug companies will see to it that diabetics live a long time, taking at least one pill, and probably more, each day to prevent the death that would await them were they not to take their pill(s). All of this will be paid for by a weakening private health insurance system as well as the government programs professor Posner mentioned.

Can the government eradicate type II diabetes and thus save money. I'd say the odds here are better than winning the war on terror.

[Paul Ferree]

A significant difference between smoking and obesity is the negative externality of second-hand smoke, to which obesity has no counterpart. Obesity is a health risk to the obese person only, whereas smoking is a health risk to all the surrounding people who may or may not choose to smoke for themselves. This somewhat negates Avi's point; the reason it is ok to regulate smoking (and to socially demonize the activity) is to protect non-smokers from the harmful decisions of others. However, obese people pose no direct health threat to fit people.

To summarize: regulation of smoking is justified because it produces externalities, but regulation of obesity could not be justified on the same grounds.

[MT]

Prof. B, you don't think replacing junk food TV ads with healthy-diet public service messages would have statistically significant effect? Are you saying nothing on TV affects how much TV we watch? You're jumping from skepticism to an insinuation of positive claims that are more dubious than the authors'.

[george]

Well said. I totally agree with you. The point you are making here does make sense.

[candace]

I think tv is quite an important factor in this issue.

[Avi]

Paul makes a good point: smoking is a bad decision which affects us all. I have no doubt this is what's at play in the regulations which started in California and quickly took hold in Boston and New York.

What interests me more, however, is the paternalism inherent in the anti-smoking rhetoric. Tobacco companies are evil because they manufacture poison. Smokers are idiots because they poison themselves for very limited ends. We restrict tobacco advertising and tax it as heavily as we do under the guise of this paternalism, and also undoubtedly because it is just so damn profitable.

We can't tax McDonalds. It only works because it's so cheap. But what if we limited their advertising overhead the way Posner suggests? Could we keep the difference, like we do in the tobacco industry? McDonalds makes poison. There foods makes people fat. Fatness is as unhealthy as smoking.

This is my point. There is a distinction in the way we think about these things from a moral perspective that cannot be sustained, and is irrespective of the second-hand effects of smoking.

[ben]

Avi

I agree. The rationale for restricting tobacco because it is a poison is flawed because many things we consume is a poison, in the sense that they reduce life expectancy. Were the "poison rule" adopted consistently, we would ban many contact sports and outdoor activities, the majority of foods in a supermarket, and possibly even motor vehicles. It is not a matter of degree: provided people are informed then consuming especially strong "poisons" will only occur if the private payoff is large enough.

Anti-obesity advocates do not understand that each of us is constantly trading off quality and longevity of life. We make this trade-off in deciding whether to snack on chocolate or lettuce, or to ride motorbikes or in cars, and we make those decisions according to our preferences. Clearly, living long and being very healthy is not an objective shared by all, so having that objective imposed must be unhelpful. Unless externalities are especially severe in obesity, and they do not appear to be, welfare can only be harmed by government intervention.

Rejecting the "poison" standard in favor of an externalities test doesn't mean anything goes: when there are significant negative externalities associated with the use of a strong "poison", as there probably is with narcotics abuse, for example, then government intervention can still be justified on economic grounds.

[nate]

the link below takes you to the chicagoist blog.

there are many hidden costs to obesity.

http://simurl.com/bb-pp-mm

Think about this cost: buying new seats, installing the new seats, potentially less ongoing throughput and revenue, time spent by mgt looking to buy new seats, opportunity cost - mgt could have been doing other things, any other switching costs, etc.

[ben]

Nate

The cost you cite is irrelevant to policy setting unless there is an externality. I doubt there is one for bus seating because buses compete against other transport and users pay a fare to ride. Businesses constantly make adjustments to suit customers' preferences, and there is no reason to point to seat width as especially costly.

[nate]

You are right about business making adjustments. Businesses employ "price discrimination." Computers and technology enable a business to do all kinds of things unavailable a long time ago.

http://eyetrack.morris.com/story_pages/5_a/03.shtml

http://www.cswd.org/airseats.html

So if the buses were like a "business", in the sense that I think you use the word "business", the buses may charge overweight people more money to ride the bus. Maybe Posner can give us more legal background on this. Would it be legal to charge overweight people more to ride the bus? Otherwise, slim and disciplined people that use public transportation are subsidizing larger people.

"I doubt there is one for bus seating because buses compete against other transport and users pay a fare to ride"

Is it possible that buses may have a quasi-monopoly on transportation for certain segments and areas of the population?

[nate]

one more:

It may be important to redefine mores a little bit. I am not sure why "thin" is desirable. People should be comfortable, confident and have positive self-esteem regardless of weight. People should look for the beauty within.

Also, on being heavy: it seems to me like there are at least two types of overweight people. One type is a glutton: a person with no discipline who, given a lower cost of fat, will inevitably become overweight. The other type is a person who has some sort of genetic predisposition to being overweight. It is really hard to distinguish between these two types, and I am not God and do not want to commit Type I and Type II errors. As a fortunate "skinny" person (at least historically), I am okay subsidizing the cost of seating on public transportation, and even an airplane, due to the fact that some people are overweight for reasons beyond their control.

It should be noted that SW Airlines is consistently profitable. SW Airlines charged overweight people more to fly on airplanes.

[Anonymous]

مركز تحميل

[Anonymous]

thanks for your post.perhaps you will like abercrombie

[Anonymous]

thanks
بنت الزلفي

[Anonymous]

Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
شات صوتي

[Anonymous]

Good afternoon. Bacchus hath drowned more men than Neptune.
I am from Papua and now teach English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "It is the mission of the lapd to safeguard the lives and property of the the los angeles police academy is truly reflective of the city historic, yet."

Regards :D Symon.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

ÿØÿ±ÿØÿ¥ÿ©