Whos Making You Fat?

By Jenna Ogle (1,473 words)

The high rates of obesity in America are greatly juxtaposed with advancements in our modern
health movement. From Michelle Obamas Lets Move campaign to the trend in health-food
supermarkets, there have been various eorts to address this epidemic. Despite these eorts,
more than one-third of American adults are considered obese.1 With these unsettling num -
bers, many are searching not only for a solution, but for someone specific to blame. Food com-
panies in particular have been the center of much controversy lately. Kelly Brownell, a psy-
chology and public health professor of Yale University, compares the dangers of the food in-
dustry with that of tobacco companies. As a culture, weve become upset by the tobacco com-
panies advertising to children, but we sit idly by while the food companies do the very same
thing. 2

This comparison is not surprising. In our capitalist, consumer-driven culture, it is all about the
business. Even more unsurprisingly, the business has been translated into our food supply. A
term known as stomach share has even been coined to describe the competition between
food company brands.3

Unfortunately, there is a reason for the disconnect between the priorities of food companies
and the needs of consumers. Packaged, processed foods play a role in overconsumption for a
variety of reasons. A phenomenon known as sensory-specific satiety explains how we are
able to excessively consume bland foods like white bread.4 Real, flavorful foods overwhelm the
brain and restrict overconsumption while mundane, processed food have no limit to which we
can indulge.

Additionally, food engineers develop products for companies with profit in mind, rarely
health. After taste test trials, products are generated for the mass-consumer market. Bob
Drane, vice president of Oscar Mayer, demonstrates the philosophy of food marketers. He tells
his students, limbic brains love sugar, fat, salt So formulate products to deliver these. Per-
haps add low-cost ingredients to boost profit margins. Then supersize to sell more . And ad-
vertise/promote to lock in heavy users.5 With our limitless supply of convenience food prod -
ucts, excess amounts of sugar, fat, and salt easily creep into our diets.

1 "Adult Obesity Facts. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 Sept. 2015. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.

2 Moss, Michael. "The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food." The New York Times Magazine, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2015, p.
36.

3 Moss, Michael. "The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food." The New York Times Magazine, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2015, p.
36.

4 Moss, Michael. "The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food." The New York Times Magazine, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2015, p.
39.

5 Moss, Michael. "The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food." The New York Times Magazine, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2015, p.
46.
Extreme, but true. When Oscar Mayer experienced a drop in sales, it found a way to rebrand
its bologna. After realizing that convenience was a main priority for busy mothers, Lunchables
was born. While formulating the product, the company had to forego a number of items (such
as real cheese) in order to extend the shelf life. They used crackers and cheese food, because
fresh components did not work due to the processed food constraints. 6

The food additives used in food products makes for a long list of nearly unrecognizable ingre-
dients. Brownell believes that there are underlying reasons to why processed food could be
making us fat, other than the sugar, fat, and salt content. People have paid attention to those,
he states, but there are a lot of things that go into food that havent really been studied very
much.7 He argues that pesticide use can disrupt the endocrine system, which is responsible
in regulating our metabolism. If metabolism is disrupted, then weight gain is a possible risk.
Despite the potential, most food additives are considered safe by the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration. Little research has been conducted to show any significant causal links between food
additives and obesity, yet it is not illogical.

Still, some argue that food processing is not the evil behind the obesity epidemic. In fact, food
processing has caused many to seek specialty health-food stores, most notably Whole Foods
and Trader Joes, for organic, wholesome options. As David Freedman of The Atlantic argues,
however, these health supermarkets should not always be considered a better alternative.
Freedman states many of the dishes glorified by the wholesome-food movement are, in any
case, as caloric and obesogenic as anything served in a Burger King.8 Like our standard junk
food fare, plenty of these alternative options are marketed as wholesome when their salt and
sugar content is nearly identical.

Not only is the quality of the products in question, but also the mainstream foodie trend is
considerably reserved for those able to aord to shop there. Health-food supermarket prices
are significantly higher than that of a general supermarket, so although they seem like positive
additions, they end up providing for the upper-class, who are less at risk for obesity. It is clear
that even these alternative supermarkets have one objective in mind: profit. If they truly had
health objectives in mind, then perhaps they would raise the minimum wage or focus on em-
ploying qualified minorities who are often overlooked.

Scarcity, overproduction, and the eects on obesity

James McWilliams of Pacific Standard Magazine states that the correlation between obesity and
low-income has to do less with the notion of the food desert and more with the fear of scarci-

6 Moss, Michael. "The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food." The New York Times Magazine, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2015, p.
40.

7 Goldberg, Carey. "Whats Making Us Fat? Researchers Put Food Additives On Suspect List." CommonHealth RSS. Trustees of
Boston University, 12 Aug. 2011. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.

8 Freedman, David H. "How Junk Food Can End Obesity." The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group, 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 15 Dec.
2015, p. 3.
ty. Despite eorts to eliminate food deserts, many low-income consumers are still choosing
processed items over fresh produce. This increases societal blame for the overweight victim,
rather than the overarching factors. Youd likely blow your limited food budget on a bag of
cookies and fried gizzards rather than a peck of apples and sweet potatoes, McWilliams ar-
gues.9 Although this is feasible, those who are well-o are equally likely to buy from familiar
brands like Kellogg or Nestl. Perhaps the psychological feeling of scarcity drives overcon-
sumption of less nutrient-dense food in addition to the value prices of processed products.

So, with processed foods as a clear contributing cause in obesity yet a necessary evil for those
with low-income, is there a perfect solution to the epidemic?

This multi-layered issue has no perfect solution. However, examining the history of caloric in-
take in America speaks volumes. According to the USDA, daily caloric intake increased by 24.5
percent between 1970 and 2000.10 That is an extra 530 calories per day. Americans consume
four times more cheese, 20 times more yogurt, and eight times more corn sweeteners, yet total
fruit consumption has gone up a mere 21 percent. Clearly, agriculture is keeping up with con-
sumers demand, but at what cost? Or could it be that consumers are eating more because of
agricultural overproduction?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture subsidizes certain crops and creates incentives that enable
firms to produce cheaper, processed food. These crops known as commodity crops include
more than a dozen nonperishable itemsmost notably, corn.11 Corn is a versatile crop used in
feeding the masses. Author Michael Pollan argues that overproduction of cheap grain, espe-
cially corn, has to do with the fact that three-fifths of Americans are overweight.12 Overpro-
duction of cheap corn is government policydone in the name of the public interest, using our
taxpayer dollars, he argues. 13 In addition to these subsidies, farmers operate as individuals,
and when prices fall, they expand production (another result in the increase of American corn
harvest since the 1970s).

The food system is a complicated web that involves many parties. The answer to whos mak-
ing you fat is not a simple one. There is an assumption that obesity is an individual problem,
when in reality, government policy and large companies set the standard for how we eat. To
combat this problem, there are a few options. As McWilliams argues, caloric reduction is the
most obvious method. From an environmental standpoint, caloric reduction would lessen the
impact from more resource intensive, processed food. If individuals reduced their calories to

9 McWilliams, James. "Why Are So Many Low-Income People So Overweight?" Pacific Standard. The Miller-McCune Center for
Research, Media and Public Policy, 4 Aug. 2014. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.

10 "Profiling Food Consumption in America." Agriculture Fact Book. USDA, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2015.

11 "Agriculture and Health Policies in Conflict: How Subsidies Tax Our Health: Government Support for Unhealthful Foods." The
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. The Physicians Committee, 13 Apr. 2011. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.

12 Pollan, Michael. "We Are What We Eat." Ecoliteracy.org. Center for Ecoliteracy, 29 June 2009. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.

13 Pollan, Michael. "We Are What We Eat." Ecoliteracy.org. Center for Ecoliteracy, 29 June 2009. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.
2,000 per day, the carbon footprint would drop by 11 percent.14 Less consumption would equate
to less demand for animal products, and therefore reduce animal suering as well.

But is individual caloric reduction really feasible? In a capitalist society that values conve-
nience, could we really abandon all processed food? In short, probably not. In solving this na-
tional crisis, we should look to those who hold the power. The Farm Bill, for instance, could
use amendments that allowed farmers to stay in business without having to overproduce. An-
other option would be to find alternatives to subsidizing cheap grains like corn. Corn sneaks
into so many of our products, from fattening cattle for beef to breaking it down and reassem-
bling it for food additives. As Pollan notes, the idea of supersizing food was a marketing
scheme, and one that we could have done without.15

Outside of the food system, government, public health activists, and individuals have their own
responsibility. If minimum wage was increased and employment expanded, the poor would be
less financially constrained and able to aord the basic necessity that is food. Public health ac-
tivists could influence a social movement to eliminate the stigma of obesity, blaming the food
industry and policymakers for creating our obesogenic environment. Once educated, con-
sumers can begin to view their personal food choices as methods of improving our economy,
environment, and society. Until food companies start caring less about stomach share and
more about health care, everyone else will have to do their part in resolving this ironic issue of
scarcity and surplus.

14 McWilliams, James. "The Exponential Benefits of Eating Less." Pacific Standard. The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media
and Public Policy, 26 Nov. 2014. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.

15 Pollan, Michael. "We Are What We Eat." Ecoliteracy.org. Center for Ecoliteracy, 29 June 2009. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.