Obesity: A Hefty Increase in a Growing Epidemic

American culture has started a new worldwide phenomena. Although seemingly the most obese nation, the United States’ advantage is drastically shrinking due to the steady increase in worldwide obesity. Since other countries are following in America's footsteps, the trend needs to be reversed, whether on an national level or a state-by-state basis.

The ever-increasing disease of obesity is a widely accepted issue on a global scale; however, despite its worldwide recognition, there are merely minute steps being taken to prevent or reverse its effects. Yes, small improvements and acknowledgments regarding this issue have been put into practice, but specifically in the United States, none have seen enough significant success rates for there to be a decrease in the obesity trend on a global or national scale. In fact, the problem seems to be progressing in its severity.

Although this issue has only come to the public’s attention rather recently, this is not a problem that suddenly appeared without warning. Rather, the dramatic increase in obesity has been a steadily expanding trend dating back to the 1980's. Between 1980 and 2000 alone, the obesity rate in America doubled among adults, eventually resulting in nearly one third of the country’s population to be considered not just overweight, but severely obese, as illustrated in the corresponding chart. Although fast, this expanding issue of expanding waistlines was not one to occur overnight. Prevention of this disease also needs to be addressed early in life; concerning childhood obesity, it was discovered that the risk of a fat child becoming a fat adult is doubled at age 2-3 but over 20-fold after age 9. As a result, most preventative plans focus primarily on the younger population, specifically in schools. Regardless, this trend is one that has significantly impacted the entire country. Thus, due to its epidemic nature, action needs to be taken quickly and effectively to ensure that this trend does not continue.

Debate over how changes should be implemented are common, however, and often controversial. Many people are opposed to the federal government implementing programs to intervene on a national scale, arguing that they would be ineffective for addressing each individual state. On the other hand, those who are in opposition to giving the state governments control over implementing changes fear it could potentially lead to lower quality programs and inequality between the different states. Still others support taking individual responsibility for making changes rather than relying on the government, whether national or state-level, to implement programs.

Despite the amount of controversy regarding the different forms of implementation, several different kinds have experienced a wide variety of success. The implementation of the National School Lunch Program, a federally originated program targeting the prevention of childhood obesity in the United States, found that there has been greater participation in consuming the healthier school lunch options in Connecticut schools. Although the researchers had been afraid that just the opposite would happen since fewer unhealthy options were available for the kids, this was not the case over time. With the availability of additional healthy options at school, which were made possible by the federally-generated funds, students were able to alter their eating habits to adhere to a healthier lifestyle, thus taking steps in preventing childhood obesity. Notably, this does not control what the child may eat outside of school, and can only go so far in being an effective method. However, this goes to show that federal oversight of obesity prevention programs can be extremely practical and helpful in preventing the effects of obesity by implementing simple yet monumental changes within schools. Arguably, these programs can also be seen as overbearing. Some possible suggested propositions specifically targeting childhood obesity include monitoring the food the children have access to in schools to the extent that they would remove any sort of personal choice from them, thereby forcing them to eat healthy. Removal of unhealthy drinks and food products from vending machines and cafeterias altogether would fall under this category. Although this could potentially have very positive benefits to the health of the children, it could have multiple negative repercussions and numerous sources of complaints from both parents and students, and is therefore not a flawless idea.

Focusing on implementing programs on more of an individual or state level could also reap possible benefits. Allen Cheadle, director of the Center for Community Health and Evaluation at the Group Health Research Institute, focused on the success rates of community-level programs versus national programs in terms of decreasing and preventing obesity. Similar to the success of the National School Lunch Program, in his article, it was found that community-level initiatives, specifically targeting schools and community organizations, appear to be a successful means of preventing, or at least decreasing, obesity. Compared to the implementation of federal programs, this particular case seemed to work more effectively for this community. However, long-term success rates are yet to be determined because of the recency of the implementation of the community-level programs, so the results cannot be stated without at least some level of uncertainty. 

In an article from U.S. News & World Report, Michael Marlow also argued in favor of shifting to unique individually-based solutions rather than relying on government-implemented programs on either the state or federal level. These more generalized programs, he argued, “are subject to intense lobbying by well-heeled interest groups, which can lead to results that are counterproductive to the problems they are trying to solve.” For example, Congress, under extreme pressure from the agricultural business lobby, successfully declared pizza a vegetable, thereby blocking the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s attempts to remove it from school lunches to replace with healthier alternatives. Such rulings are directly counterproductive in resolving the issue of obesity; thus, higher success rates would be seen if individuals focused on their own personal health through gym memberships and healthier diets rather than waiting for the government to pass stricter laws to ban unhealthy foods. Those in opposition to the individualized approach argue that the vast majority of the population lack the necessary information and knowledge for making healthier choices within their everyday lives. As a result, they argue that the government should intervene at some level to provide additional guidance to help those who may need it.   

Even though all of these different programs have seen forms of success, none have yet succeeded in achieving the ultimate goal of reversing the growing problem of obesity. Therefore, the necessary steps that need to be implemented do not possess just one of these particular stances; rather, it is a combination that elicits the best qualities from each type of program. The World Health Organization recognizes this fact as well, stating that “curbing the global obesity epidemic requires a population-based multisectoral, multi-disciplinary, and culturally relevant approach,” meaning that a more individualized plan must be made, but with the best interests of the overall population kept in mind. Obviously, this would require a compromise between federal and state programs, along with increased knowledge about the importance of health on a personal level. State programs would be able to provide more individualized approaches for addressing each state’s specific cause of obesity, whether it is as a result of a large poverty rate, a lack of nutritional foods in school lunches, or an overwhelmingly sedentary lifestyle. California, for example, issued the California Obesity Prevention Plan that outlines specific causes that have factored into the unique obesity trend within their boundaries. The details behind this program provide a clear outline for targeting the issue at its source, helping to narrow the focus of the proposed solutions and increasing the likelihood of their success.

However, this is not an issue that can be faced without cooperation between the states as well. Rather than leaving each state to fend for itself, federal programs would provide the oversight and funding necessary to help ensure the success of the proposed solutions, as well as setting national goals for decreasing obesity rates. This oversight would encourage the individual states to emphasize the necessity for positive results within their boundaries in order to uphold their reputation as well as help to keep them on track and accountable. Setting some national standards that each state can strive to achieve would also increase the overall unity of the nation since the emphasis is on the country’s success as a whole. When combined, the aspects of each type of solution, therefore, allow for the prevention plan with the highest success rate to be formulated and promptly enacted. With the implementation of such programs and guidelines, American obesity, along with the global trend, will begin the transition from ever-expanding to shrinking in size.